Cited by 1,796

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards

Wachinger, Gisela, Renn, Ortwin, Begg, Chloe, Kuhlicke, Christian·2013·Risk Analysis

Abstract

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust—or lack of trust—in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

4 more claims about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. 10.1126/science.3563507 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Renn O, 1990, Risk perception and risk management, Risk Abstracts, 7, 1
  3. WachingerG RennO.Risk perception and natural hazards. WP‐3‐Review of the EU‐Project CAPHAZ‐NET Contract No. 227073 2010. Available at:http://caphaz‐net.org/outcomes‐results/CapHaz‐Net_WP3_Risk‐Perception2.pdf Accessed November 26 2010.
  4. 10.1017/CBO9780511814679 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.07.005 · DOI
  6. 10.1108/09653560710739568 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00043.x · DOI
  8. Plapp T, 2006, Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: Examples from Germany, Risk, 21, 101
  9. Renn O, 2008, Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World
  10. 10.1080/13669870050132568 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01252.x · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2010.08.007 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.05.008 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.006 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/0471723908 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00792.x · DOI
  18. 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.243 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01571.x · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1007/s11069-008-9337-0 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s11069-008-9229-3 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01036.x · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01424.x · DOI
  24. Felgentreff C, 2003, Post‐disaster situations as “window of opportunity”? Post‐flood perceptions and changes in the German Odra river region after the 1997 flood, Die Erde, 134, 163
  25. 10.1007/s11069-005-8604-6 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Terpstra T, 2009, Flood Preparedness: Thoughts, Feelings and Intentions of the Dutch Public
  27. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01616.x · DOI
  28. Biernacki W, 2008, The Influence of Extreme Phenomena on the Natural Environment and Human Living Conditions, 207
  29. Barnes P, 2002, Approaches to community safety: Risk perception and social meaning, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 17, 15
  30. Harries T, 2011, Victim pressure, institutional inertia and climate change adaptation: The case of flood risk, Global Environmental Change, 21
  31. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.026 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1080/08941920802392187 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/s11069-012-0161-1 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1467-7717.1991.tb00456.x · DOI
  36. Mileti DS, 1993, Public response to aftershock warnings, US Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1553, 31
  37. Deeming H, 2008, Flood Risk Management: Research and Practice, 945
  38. 10.1037/0278-6133.20.2.120 · DOI
  39. Kaiser G, 2004, Geographie der Meere und Küsten, 101
  40. 10.5194/nhess-5-345-2005 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1108/09653560410521689 · DOI
  43. Espluga J, 2009, El papel de la confianza en los conflictos socio ambientales, Política y sociedad, 46, 225
  44. 10.1029/2009WR007743 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1080/13669870701552235 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s10584-011-0257-8 · DOI
  47. 10.5194/nhess-10-407-2010 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.012 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01645.x · DOI
  50. GoughJ.Perceptions of risk from natural hazards in two remote New Zealand communities. Australiasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies 2000–2002.
  51. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.011 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.013 · DOI
  53. Heijmans A, 2001, Vulnerability: A matter of perception. Benfield Grelg Hazard Research Centre. London, Disaster Management Working Paper, 4, 1
  54. 10.1375/prp.3.2.39 · DOI
  55. 10.1007/s11069-007-9136-z · DOI
  56. 10.1080/15715124.2004.9635226 · DOI
  57. WalkerGN.Risk governance and natural hazards. WP‐1‐Review of the EU‐Project CAPHAZ‐NET Contract No. 227073. Available at:http://caphaz‐net.org/outcomes‐results/CapHaz‐Net_WP1_Social‐Capacity‐Building2.pdf Accessed November 26 2012.
  58. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.09.020 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01049.x · DOI
  60. 10.1098/rstb.2002.1234 · DOI
  61. Peters HP, 1991, Risikokommunikationen, 11
  62. 10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004 · DOI
  63. 10.1017/CBO9780511819315 · DOI
  64. KajiharaH KishimotoA.Risk tradeoff analysis of substance substitution: Scope framework and metrics. Paper presented at 3rd Integ‐Risk Conference on New Technologies and Emerging Risks June 7–8 2011 Stuttgart Germany.
  65. 10.1193/1.2206791 · DOI
  66. Dow K, 2006, Public orders and personal opinions: Household strategies for hurricane risk assessment, Environmental Hazards, 2, 143
  67. 10.1111/0272-4332.00062 · DOI
  68. Frewer L, 2004, The public and effective risk communication, Toxicology Letters, 149, 291, 10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.049 · DOI
  69. KomazB CigličR GašperičP AdamičMO PavšekM PipanP ZornM.Risk education and natural hazards. WP‐6‐Review of the EU‐Project CAPHAZ‐NET Contract No. 227073. Available at:http://caphaz‐net.org/outcomes‐results/CapHaz‐Net_WP6_Risk‐Education2.pdf Accessed November 26 2012.
  70. Frewer LJ, 2007, Trust in Cooperative Risk Management, 143
  71. 10.1504/IJGENVI.2008.017256 · DOI
  72. 10.5194/hess-12-317-2008 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.020 · DOI
  74. Kates RW, 2012, Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient, PNAS, 109, 7157, 10.1073/pnas.1115521109 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 10.1080/02626660109492881 · DOI
  76. 10.1007/s11069-010-9665-8 · DOI
  77. 10.5194/nhess-6-471-2006 · DOI
  78. 10.1007/s11069-007-9189-z · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-24
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
1049-1065
ISSN
  • 0272-4332
  • 1539-6924
Cited by
1,796
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review