the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Sep 2023
Factors of influence on flood risk perceptions related to Hurricane Dorian: an assessment of heuristics, time dynamics and accuracy of risk perceptions
Peter J. Robinson
Wouter J. W. Botzen
Toon Haer
Jantsje M. Mol
Jeff Czajkowski
Abstract. Flood damage caused by hurricanes is expected to rise globally due to climate and socio-economic change. Enhanced flood preparedness among the coastal population is required to reverse this trend. The decisions and actions taken by individuals are thought to be influenced by risk perceptions. This study investigates the determinants that shape flood risk perceptions, as well as the factors that drive flood risk misperceptions of coastal residents. We conducted a survey among 871 residents in flood-prone areas in Florida during a five-day period in which the respondents were threatened to be flooded by Hurricane Dorian. This approach allows for assessing temporal dynamics in flood risk perceptions during an evolving hurricane threat. Among 255 of the same households, a follow-up survey was conducted to examine how flood risk perceptions vary after Hurricane Dorian failed to make landfall in Florida. Our results show that the flood experience and social norms have the most consistent relationship with flood risk perceptions. Furthermore, participants indicated that their level of worry regarding the dangers of flooding decreased after the near-miss of Hurricane Dorian, compared to their feelings of worry during the hurricane event. Based on our findings, we offer recommendations for improving flood risk communication policies.
- Preprint
(1053 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(544 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Laurine A. de Wolf et al.
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-163', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Nov 2023
reply
The paper is interesting and approaches a very important topic. Notwithstanding it needs some major adjustments to be published.
Theoretical background:
C1: maybe, when describing the heuristics, it should be helpful for clarity to report the hypotheses before the background for their formulation.
Methods section:
C2: In this section an explanation of how have been collected the interviews is needed, because it is only reported the number. Maybe before they are all the residents of the study area? In this case is also necessary to report it. How have been chosen the individuals for the 255 interviews after the event?
Measures:
C3: 3.2.2 Independent variables – as in the 3.2.1 paragraph it should be better to describe the variables and to recall the supplementary material for the coding.
Statistical analysis
C4: this is the most critical section (sub-sections included). It is not easy to read and mostly unclear. I understand that the authors wanted to avoid an excessive use of technical terms, but the result is that section is not understandable per-se, without reading also the cited references. The cited references are needed in case the reader would like to deepen the subject, but the main text must convey clear information. I suggest to completely rewrite this section, to make it self-sustainable at least at a basic level.
Results
C5: It is unclear why for similar data have been used different representations: reported in the text, or in a table, or in bar chart. Maybe a deeper consideration about what type of data representation it is necessary. Furthermore, the Tables need to be graphically adjusted; for example, the first column of Table 2 needs to be enlarged in order to have the same row number in all the columns. The same problem interests other Tables, then I will not report again the same suggestion for other section. Maybe some table could be better shown in a horizontal layout, for example? When reported the difference in risk perception before and after the event it is mentioned the use of a t-test that it is not mentioned in methods.
C6: are discussed data reported in the Supplementary materials, that should be better placed in the Result main paragraph.
Discussion
C7: at the beginning of the Discussion it is reported a table that it is a result, indeed. It could be better to move such table at the end of the Results section. This shift does not prevent the Discussion to be started almost in the same manner. In the discussion are mentioned suggestion for future studies that should be better included in the conclusion.
Policy implications
C8: the section Policy implications seems a mix between a further piece of the Discussion section and a Conclusion piece. Maybe it could be useful to eliminate this sections and to use its contents to enrich both Discussion and Conclusion. Also the Conclusion of an article must be almost self-consistent, then the sentence at row 554 needs to be extended, explaining only a bit more what is System 2 and what System 1.
Supplementary materials
C9: in the caption of Table S1 should be specified the type of ranking (e.g. Likert scale)
Final Consideration:
C10: all the variables, all over the article should be written to be immediately recognizable in the main text, then it could be useful to use Capital letters for the initials, Italic for the name etc. For the other tables applies what written in C5.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-163-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-163', Chu-En Hsu, 07 Nov 2023
reply
Respected colleagues,
Thanks for your time and consideration. The authors have provided suggestions for enhancing flood risk communication policies and done a fantastic job of documenting the temporal variations in perceptions of flood risk amid a changing hurricane threat. The authors might want to look at Hsu et al.'s (2023; https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-49) analysis of wave runup and storm surges during three historical hurricanes (Matthew 2016, Dorian 2019, and Isaias 2020) along the US East Coast. Hsu et al. (2023) investigated the relationship between variations in the water level components and storm characteristics (such as wind speed and storm translation speed).
It'll be fascinating to see if the findings can also be examined and applied in the present work.
Best regards,
Chu-En HsuCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-163-CC1
Laurine A. de Wolf et al.
Laurine A. de Wolf et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 248 | 43 | 10 | 301 | 17 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 248
- PDF: 43
- XML: 10
- Total: 301
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1