Advertisement

Beliefs about climate change in the aftermath of extreme flooding

  • Elizabeth A AlbrightEmail author
  • Deserai Crow
Article

Abstract

When faced with natural disasters, communities respond in diverse ways, with processes that reflect their cultures, needs, and the extent of damage incurred by the community. Because of their potentially recurring nature, floods offer an opportunity for communities to learn from and adapt to these experiences with the goal of increasing resiliency through reflection, modification of former policies, and adoption of new policies. A key component of a community’s ability to learn from disaster is how community members perceive the causes of extreme flood events and whether there is risk of future similar events. Perceptions of causes of flooding, including climate change, may be influenced by experiencing a flood event, along with individual preferences for various policies put in place to help a community recover. Using data collected from two rounds of public surveys (n = 903) across six Colorado communities flooded in 2013, we investigate whether there is variation across causal understanding of flooding, and whether this variation can be linked to differences in proximity of damages experienced (personal property, neighborhood, or community). By analyzing these variables, along with other variables (time since flood, political affiliation, and worldview), this study improves our understanding of the factors that drive our beliefs about potential causes of floods, focusing on climate change. The findings suggest that the extent of damage experienced at the neighborhood and community levels can have a significant effect on the perceptions of climate change held by the public. In turn, these beliefs about climate change are positively associated with perceptions of risks of future flooding.

Notes

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2461_MOESM1_ESM.docx (145 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 144 kb)

References

  1. Agyeman J, Bullard R, Evans B (2003) Just sustainabilities: development in an unequal world. Earthscan/MIT Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof KL, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D, Cedeno AY, Neuman A (2013) Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob Environ Chang 23(1):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerlof KL, Delamater PL, Boules CR, Upperman CR, Mitchell CS (2015) Vulnerable populations perceive their health as at risk from climate change. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(12):15419–15433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akerlof KL, Rowan KE, La Porte T, Batten BK, Ernst H, Sklarew DM (2016) Risky business: engaging the public on sea level rise and inundation. Environ Sci Pol 66:314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albright EA, Crow DA (2015) Learning processes, public and stakeholder engagement: analyzing responses to Colorado’s extreme flood events of 2013. Urban Clim 14:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borick C, Rabe B (2010) A reason to believe; examining the factors that determine individual views on global warming. Soc Sci Q 91(3):777–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brilly M, Polic M (2005) Public perception of flood risks, flood forecasting and mitigation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(3):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H (2008) Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ Behav 40(1):72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coumou D, Rahmstorf S (2012) A decade of weather extremes. Nat Clim Chang 2:491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demski C, Capstick SB, Pidgeon NF, Sposato R, Spence A (2017) Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Clim Chang 140:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 50(5):26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egan PJ, Mullin M (2012) Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. J Polit 74(3):796–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2013) Colorado flooding one month later: Positive signs of recovery. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2013/10/11/colorado-flooding-one-month-later-positive-signs-recovery
  16. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1982) Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. Am Stat 36(3b):240–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godschalk DR, Brody S, Burby R (2003) Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: challenges for comprehensive planning. J Environ Plan Manag 46(5):733–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goebbert K, Jenkins-Smith HC, Klockow K, Nowlin MC, Silva CL (2012) Weather, climate, and worldviews: the sources and consequences of public perceptions of changes in local weather patterns. Weather Clim Soc 4(2):132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henry AD (2000) Public perceptions of global warming. Hum Ecol Rev 7(1):25–30Google Scholar
  21. Howe PD, Boudet H, Leiserowitz A, Maibach EW (2014) Mapping the shadow of experience of extreme weather events. Clim Chang 127(2):381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) In: Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson BB (2011) Acculturation, ethnicity, and air pollution perceptions. Risk Anal 31(6):984–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Handbook of risk theory. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 725–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Leg Stud 4(3):465–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  27. Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (2009) Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge Univ PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kempton W, Boster JS, Hartley JA (1996) Environmental values in American culture. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Konisky DM, Hughes L, Kaylor CH (2015) Extreme weather events and climate change concern. Clim Chang 134(4):533–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindell MK, Hwang SN (2008) Household’s perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal 28(2):539–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marlon JR, van der Linden S, Howe PD, Leiserowitz A, Woo SL, Broad K (2018) Detecting local environmental change: the role of experience in shaping risk judgments about global warming. J Risk Res:1–15Google Scholar
  33. Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlove BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH, Roncoli C, Phillips J (2007) Communication and mental processes: experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob Environ Chang 17(1):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011a) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011b) Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Environ Chang 21(4):1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meletti DS, O’Brien PW (1992) Warnings during disaster: normalizing communicated risk. Soc Probl 39:40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Myers TA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Akerlof K, Leiserowitz AA (2013) The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nat Clim Chang 3(4):343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nohrstedt D, Weible CM (2010) The logic of policy change after crisis: proximity and subsystem interaction. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 1(2):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. nunes Correia F, Fordham M, da Graca Saraiva M, Bernardo F (1998) Flood hazard assessment and management: interface with the public. Wat Resour Mgmt 12(3):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ogunbode CA, Liu Y, Tausch N (2017) The moderating role of political affiliation in the link between flooding experience and preparedness to reduce energy use. Clim Chang (1–14)Google Scholar
  41. Olofsson A, Rashid S (2011) The white (male) effect and risk perception: can equality make a difference? Risk Anal 31(6):1016–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pew Research Center (November 2015) Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting EmissionsGoogle Scholar
  43. Royston P, White I (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): implementation in Stata. J Stat Softw 45(4):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubin D (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. John Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruin I, Gaillard JC, Lutoff C (2007) How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Env Hazards 7(3):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sabatier PA, Weible CM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process, 2nd edn. Westview, Boulder, pp 189–217Google Scholar
  47. Satterfield TA, Mertz CK, Slovic P (2004) Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal: An Int J 24(1):115–129Google Scholar
  48. Shao W (2016) Are actual weather and perceived weather the same? Understanding perceptions of local weather and their effects on risk perceptions of global warming. J Risk Res 19:722–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sisco MR, Bosetti V, Weber EU (2017) When do extreme weather events generate attention to climate change? Clim Chang 143(1–2):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon N (2011) Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat Clim Chang 1(April):46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tierney KJ (2007) From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads. Annual Rev of Soc 33:503–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tierney K, Lindell MK, Perry RW (2001) Facing the unexpected. Disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vari A, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Ferencz Z (2003) Stakeholder views on flood risk management in Hungary’s Upper Tisza Basin. Risk Anal 23(3):585–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitmarsh L (2008) Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J Risk Res 11(3):351–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zanocco C, Boudet H, Nilson R, Satein H, Whitley H, Flora J (2018) Place, proximity, and perceived harm: extreme weather events and views about climate change. Clim Chang 149(3–4):349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations