The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Dealing with flood hazard and risk requires approaches rooted in both natural and social sciences, which provided the nexus for the ongoing debate on socio-hydrology. Various combinations of non-structural and structural flood risk reduction options are available to communities. Focusing on flood risk and the information associated with it, developing risk management plans is required but often overlooks public perception of a threat. The perception of risk varies in many different ways, especially between the authorities and the affected public. It is because of this disconnection that many risk management plans concerning floods have failed in the past. This paper examines the private adaptation capacity and willingness with respect to flooding in two different catchments in Greece prone to multiple flood events during the last 20 years. Two studies (East Attica and Evros) were carried out, comprised of a survey questionnaire of 155 and 157 individuals, from a peri-urban (East Attica) and a rural (Evros) area, respectively, and they focused on those vulnerable to periodic (rural area) and flash floods (peri-urban area). Based on the comparisons drawn from these responses, and identifying key issues to be addressed when flood risk management plans are implemented, improvements are being recommended for the social dimension surrounding such implementation. As such, the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on human–environment interaction in socio-hydrology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · cited 1×
“Nevertheless, for many individuals within the study areas the recent events were still vivid within their memories, which has been described as availability heuristic (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973, 1974).”
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Towards understanding the dynamic behaviour of floodplains as human-water systems
Di Baldassarre, G., Kooy, M., Kemerink, J. S., & Brandimarte, L. (2013) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-17-3235-2013 · Cited by 300
Cited by
Flood Risk in Urban Areas: Modelling, Management and Adaptation to Climate Change. A Review
Cea, L., & Costabile, P. (2022) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology9030050 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Fuchs, S., Karagiorgos, K., Kitikidou, K., Maris, F., Paparrizos, S., & Thaler, T.
- Venue
- Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2017-06-29
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3183-3198
- ISSN
- 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
- 1607-7938
- OpenAlex
- W2732390809
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/hess-21-3183-2017
- The paper
- Fuchs, S., Karagiorgos, K., Kitikidou, K., Maris, F., Paparrizos, S., & Thaler, T. (2017). Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3183-2017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.