Suchergebnisse

Private Eigenvorsorge wird als Schlüsselfaktor gesehen, um die Resilienz hochwassergefährdeter Haushalte gegen derzeitige und zukünftige Hochwässer zu erhöhen. Um mögliche Hochwasserschäden zu verringern, können private Haushalte Schutzmaßnahmen auf Gebäudeebene setzen oder als Kollektiv gemeinsam gegen Hochwasserrisiken vorsorgen.Trotz der Wirksamkeit solcher Maßnahmen ist die Eigenvorsorge unter Haushalten gering. Dies hat dazu geführt, dass sich ein neuer Forschungsstrang mit den fördernden und hemmenden Faktoren von Schutzverhalten vor Hochwasser beschäftigt. In der Literatur herrscht dennoch Unklarheit über diese Faktoren, außerdem blieben wichtige soziale Einflussgrößen unberücksichtigt. Auf der kollektiven Ebene sind Bottom-up-Initiativen ein neues Phänomen, dessen Rolle in hochwassergefährdeten Gemeinden noch kaum erforscht ist.Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Forschungslücken verfolgt diese Arbeit das Ziel, die Einflussfaktoren auf das Vorsorgeverhalten hochwassergefährdeter Haushalte zu ermitteln, und die Rolle kollektiven Handelns im Hochwasserrisikomanagement zu beleuchten. Um die individuellen und sozialen Faktoren, die Schutzverhalten bestimmen, zu identifizieren, wurden einschlägige sozial-psychologische Theorien auf Daten aus zwei Haushaltsbefragungen (n=226 und n=2.007) angewandt. Einblicke in kollektives Handeln konnten durch eine Analyse von Bottom-up-Initiativen und Experteninterviews mit ausgewählten Akteuren in der Hochwasservorsorge gewonnen werden.Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass das wahrgenommene Hochwasserrisiko Haushalte nicht dazu veranlasst, Schutzmaßnahmen zu setzen, sondern lediglich zu Rechtfertigungen für Nicht-Handeln führt. Die Einschätzung der Wirksamkeit und der Kosten von Schutzmaßnahmen wurde als die relevanteste individuelle Einflussgröße auf das Vorsorgeverhalten identifiziert. In Bezug auf die sozialen Faktoren stellte sich heraus, dass Haushalte mit engeren sozialen Verbindungen ihr eigenes Hochwasserrisiko geringer, und gleichzeitig ihre Fähigkeit, mit Hochwassergefahren umzugehen, besser einschätzen. Außerdem wurde gezeigt, dass Hochwasseropfer im Ereignisfall dank ihres Sozialkapitals umfassende soziale Unterstützung mobilisieren können. Vertrauen in soziale Akteure etwa in Regionalpolitiker, freiwillige Einsatzkräfte und Nachbarn erwies sich darüber hinaus als bedeutsame Einflussgröße auf die Eigenvorsorge. Frustration, Hochwasserkatastrophen und öffentliche Anreize können zur Gründung von Bottom-up-Initiativen führen, die eine große Bandbreite von risikomindernden Aktivitäten setzen und deren Zusammenarbeit mit lokalen Interessensgruppen unterschiedliche Formen annehmen kann.Diese Dissertation liefert einen wichtigen Beitrag für die Hochwasserrisikoforschung, indem sie die Einflussgrößen auf das Schutzverhalten hochwassergefährdeter Haushalte identifiziert und bisherige Forschungserkenntnisse durch die Berücksichtigung sozialer Einflussgrößen erweitert. In der Praxis können diese Ergebnisse der Risikokommunikation wertvolle Hinweise darauf geben, welche Faktoren angesprochen werden müssen, um Haushalte dazu zu bewegen, Vorsorgemaßnahmen zu treffen. Die Erkenntnisse über Bottom-up-Initiativen können Risikomanager außerdem dabei unterstützen, das kollektive Potenzial Betroffener als zusätzliche Möglichkeit zu nutzen, um die Resilienz gegen Hochwasser zu stärken. ; Flood preparedness of private households is considered key to enhancing resilience to present and future flood risk. Households can prepare for flooding by taking property level measures, or by engaging in collective action aimed at increasing community-wide resilience. Most households, however, are reluctant to take action, which has stimulated a new line of research on the drivers of and barriers to flood protective behaviour. Despite this increasing interest, flood preparedness is still poorly understood, and far too little attention has been paid to social determinants. At the collective level, bottom up initiatives are a recent development, although little is known about the actual role of these initiatives in flood-prone communities.In the light of these gaps, the objectives of this dissertation are to (i) understand the determinants that influence household flood preparedness and (ii) provide insights into collective action in flood risk governance. Based on two household surveys (n=226 and n=2,007), social-psychological theories were applied to identify the individual and social determinants of protective behaviour. Insights into collective action were derived by a screening of bottom up initiatives and expert interviews with selected actors in flood risk governance.Instead of leading to protective behaviour, households perceived flood risk was found to trigger justifications for inaction. Judgments about the effectiveness and costs of mitigation measures were identified as the two main individual determinants of flood preparedness. With respect to the social determinants, households with strong social ties tend to feel less threatened by flooding and have stronger beliefs in their own capacities to cope with flood risk; moreover, it was shown that social capital allows flood victims to mobilise social support during a flood. Trust in social groups, including local governments, volunteers in emergency services and neighbours, was also found to significantly impact preparedness. The formation of bottom up initiatives is driven by frustration, catastrophic floods and public incentives. Flood initiatives were found to cover a wide range of risk-reducing activities and operate in different partnership arrangements with local stakeholders.This dissertation significantly contributes to flood risk research as it pinpoints influential factors of protective behaviour and extends the scope of existing research to include social determinants. With respect to practical implications, the results can help inform risk communication strategies as to which factors need to be addressed to encourage the uptake of private flood mitigation measures; moreover, the insights into bottom up initiatives can help risk managers to leverage the collective potential of communities as an additional route to enhanced flood resilience. ; Babcicky Philipp ; Zusammenfassungen in Deutsch und Englisch ; Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Dissertation, 2018 ; OeBB ; (VLID)2791825

AbstractPrevious studies do not agree on the strengths and directions of the effects between risk appraisal, nonprotective, and protective responses in private flood mitigation. This may be due to the widespread use of cross‐sectional survey designs, which infer causality from theoretical considerations alone. The present longitudinal study, in contrast, builds on the logic that cause precedes effect to confirm the direction of effects.Drawing on two‐wave survey data from 554 flood‐prone households in Austria, cross‐lagged autoregressive models analyze pairwise combinations between risk perception, fear, five nonprotective responses (fatalism, denial, wishful thinking, reliance on social support, reliance on public protection), and seven specific protective responses (ranging from coordination with neighbors to structural modifications of the building). These factors show substantial temporal stability, in particular for nonprotective responses and fear. Only in very few instances can effects over time be confirmed statistically. Nonprotective responses emerge as the major drivers; foremost, denial, and reliance on public protection limit private flood mitigation.This overall null finding on causality may trace back to the 1.5 years' time span and the absence of any policy intervention or flood disaster between survey waves, and the high stability of protection motivation theory components. This finding puts into question the theoretically assumed causal relationships and the effects found in cross‐sectional studies. The high trait‐like stability requires perseverance in risk management efforts to change attitudes and capabilities. Finding nonprotective responses as key determinants in an overall picture of stability suggests that this factor merits a stronger role in future risk research.

AbstractSelf‐efficacy is one of the strongest and most consistent drivers of private flood mitigation behavior; however, the factors influencing self‐efficacy in the context of flooding remain unclear. The present study examines three potential antecedents of self‐efficacy: personal and vicarious experiences of floods or building‐related events, social norms for private flood preparedness, and personal competencies such as technical abilities and social skills. While controlling for other drivers in a protection motivation theory (PMT) framework, these antecedents are tested as precursors of self‐efficacy and intentions to improve flood resilience. Structural equation modeling is applied to conduct mediation analyses with survey data of 381 flood‐prone households in Austria. Contrary to theoretical expectations, personal and vicarious experiences do not predict self‐efficacy, presumably because rare flood events and changing hazard characteristics do not facilitate generalizable performance accomplishments. Social norms strongly and consistently influence self‐efficacy, especially for actions observable by others, and also directly influence protective responses. Personal competencies increase self‐efficacy and support protective action, particularly with regard to preventive and structural measures. The strength and direction of the antecedents of self‐efficacy as well as of other PMT determinants vary between general and specific protective responses. This study provides important insights for risk managers, suggesting that interventions involving social norms and personal competencies can be effective in stimulating self‐efficacy and, in turn, private flood mitigation. Interventions and research should clearly differentiate between general intention and the implementation of specific measures, and should address cumulative, synergistic, or tradeoff interrelations between multiple measures.

Risk information need to be communicated by trusted groups, in order to promote attitude and behaviour change. We compare different levels of trust in local governments, volunteers in emergency and relief services, and neighbours, and how trust in these groups shapes citizens perceptions and actions relating to flood risks. Structural equation modelling is applied to a sample of 2007 floodprone households in Austria. A series of cognitive and behavioural responses to flood risks is regressed on trust shown to the three groups. Our findings show that citizens show great trust and attribute high competence to volunteers, which increases risk perception and reduces denial and wishful thinking. Trust in local government downplays risks, makes citizens rely on external help, and promotes fatalism and wishful thinking. Trust in neighbours increases reliance on social support and reinforces wishful thinking. These trust effects reflect the roles and risk narratives of the respective groups. To stimulate specific actions of citizens in flood risk management, the group which addresses the desired actions within its narrative should act as risk communicator. Risk communication could be introduced as a complementary activity in voluntary emergency and relief services, wherein older, retired volunteers seem particularly qualified as risk communicators. ; (VLID)5980566 ; Version of record

This book explains the origins of development and underdevelopment and offers a new vision for development, demystifying the statistics that international organizations use to measure development and introducing the alternative concept of buen vivir: the state of living well

On January 20, 1949 US President Harry S. Truman officially opened the era of development. On that day, over one half of the people of the world were defined as underdeveloped and they have stayed that way ever since. This book explains the origins of development and underdevelopment and shows how poorly we understand these two terms. It offers a new vision for development, demystifying the statistics that international organizations use to measure development and introducing the alternative concept of buen vivir: the state of living well. The authors argue that it is possible for everyone on the planet to live well, but only if we learn to live as communities rather than as individuals and to nurture our respective commons. Scholars and students of global development studies are well-aware that development is a difficult concept. This thought-provoking book offers them advice for the future of development studies and hope for the future of humankind

The recent shift to individualisation of flood risk calls for a stronger involvement of private actors. Bottomup citizen initiatives (BUIs) may bring together governmental bodies with people at risk. Drawing on a screening of existing BUIs in Europe, North America, and Australia and an indepth analysis of three study sites, this paper maps BUI activities to stages in the risk management cycle and discusses the institutional, relational and social proximity between BUIs and other stakeholders. Flood BUIs often take over roles that the authorities are not willing or able to fulfil. BUIs emerge out of frustration with current risk policies, after a catastrophic flood event, governmentinitiated engagement projects or targeted funding opportunities. BUIs can take different forms, ranging from oppositional pressure groups, selfhelp movements for disaster response and recovery, to initiatives formally installed by law. While selforganised BUIs benefit from high proximity to their home communities, formalised BUIs are deeper embedded in existing institutional structures. In order to gain a stronger voice in the risk debate, BUIs need to expand from the local level to catchment areas and exchange expertise and resources in nationwide or crossborder networks. However, BUIs may create parallel political structures that are not democratically legitimised. ; (VLID)5980572 ; Version of record

The recent shift to individualisation of flood risk calls for a stronger involvement of private actors. Bottom‐up citizen initiatives (BUIs) may bring together governmental bodies with people at risk. Drawing on a screening of existing BUIs in Europe, North America, and Australia and an in‐depth analysis of three study sites, this paper maps BUI activities to stages in the risk management cycle and discusses the institutional, relational and social proximity between BUIs and other stakeholders. Flood BUIs often take over roles that the authorities are not willing or able to fulfil. BUIs emerge out of frustration with current risk policies, after a catastrophic flood event, government‐initiated engagement projects or targeted funding opportunities. BUIs can take different forms, ranging from oppositional pressure groups, self‐help movements for disaster response and recovery, to initiatives formally installed by law. While self‐organised BUIs benefit from high proximity to their home communities, formalised BUIs are deeper embedded in existing institutional structures. In order to gain a stronger voice in the risk debate, BUIs need to expand from the local level to catchment areas and exchange expertise and resources in nationwide or cross‐border networks. However, BUIs may create parallel political structures that are not democratically legitimised.