Natural Hazards

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 641–662 | Cite as

Natural hazards knowledge and risk perception of Wujie indigenous community in Taiwan

  • Giulia Roder
  • Tjuku Ruljigaljig
  • Ching-Weei Lin
  • Paolo TarolliEmail author
Original Paper


The purpose of this work was to investigate the natural hazards knowledge and risk perception of Wujie indigenous community, located in Fazhi village in the Central Mountain Range of Taiwan. Natural hazards (e.g. floods, landslides and debris flows) are one of the most critical issues for the Taiwanese government and for the people living in mountainous areas. During the last centuries, the native people experienced economic competition and military conflicts with a series of colonial periods that have led to a progressive loss of their original cultural identity. The motivation of selecting the case study of Wujie community is because (1) it has experienced, more than others, generations of devastating colonial oppression by foreign governments; (2) several landslides and debris flows occurred during the last decades; and (3) the area was subject of land exploitation and several hydroelectric projects. Two questions appear spontaneously: How are those indigenous people nowadays living with natural hazards? Have land use change and the anthropic pressure affected their knowledge and perception of natural hazards and related risk? This research, one of the first carried out in Taiwan involving an indigenous community, can offer a unique opportunity to answer these questions. The investigation utilized a variety of participatory methods by the use of face-to-face interviews. Results revealed that residents felt a high worry about landslide and flood risks. However they felt a slight preparedness to face them. The most considerable differences were found between the personal evaluations respect to the overall community. The discrepancy in the attitude–behavioural link may derive from an unsatisfactory level of communication and information probably ground in the absence of community participation in the decision-making process. Results revealed also the complexity of residents’ perspectives about the causes of the increase of natural hazards occurrence. To this point, the community has ascribed this phenomenon to several uncontrolled human actions during colonial period that have affected the environment and their living. In addition, gender, age education and experience of natural hazards were found to be significant predictors in this study. Paying attention to the indigenous perception of a hazard and risk can increase the effectiveness of projects implemented by practitioners who might need to communicate risks in the future. It also helps governments in their possible need to order evacuations, and future researchers to conduct similar projects.


Natural hazards Taiwan Risk perception Wujie community 



The authors really wish to thank the editor and the two reviewers for the useful suggestions raised during the review stage. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of the residents of Wujie community who shared their experiences and concerns during the interview sessions. This work was partially supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the Grant MOST 103-2625-M-006-009.


  1. Ainuddin S, Kumar Routray J, Ainuddin S (2014) People’s risk perception in earthquake prone Quetta city of Baluchistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 7:165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armaş I (2008) Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 47:397–410. doi: 10.1007/s11069-008-9229-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberi F, Davis MS, Isaia R et al (2008) Volcanic risk perception in the Vesuvius population. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:244–258. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basic F (2009) Geographic visualisation tools for communicating flood risks to the public. RMIT University of Melbourne (Australia), MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumwoll J (2008) The value of indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: a unique assessment tool for reducing community vulnerability to natural disasters. Webster University, Webster GrovesGoogle Scholar
  6. Blundell D (2000) Austronesian Taiwan: linguistics, history, ethnology, prehistory. Phoebe A, Hearst Museum of Anthropology/Shung Ye MuseumGoogle Scholar
  7. Botzen WJW, van den Bergh JCJM (2012) Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance. J Econ Behav Organ 82:151–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH, Van Den Bergh JCJM (2009) Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resour Res 45:1–15. doi: 10.1029/2009WR007743 Google Scholar
  9. Bronen R (2010) Forced migration of Alaskan indigenous communities due to climate change: creating a human rights response. In: Afifi T, Jäger J (eds) Environment, forced migration and social vulnerability. Springer, Berlin, pp 87–98. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12416-7
  10. Burton C (2015) Social vulnerability. Understanding vulnerability for increased resilience. In: Global Earthquake Model GEM Foundation.
  11. Carpenter C (2014) Southeastern Asia: Taiwan. In: WWF World wildlife.
  12. Central Weather Bureau of Taiwan (2014) Climate statistics.
  13. Chang JC, Slaymaker O (2002) Frequency and spatial distribution of landslides in a mountainous drainage basin: Western Foothills, Taiwan. Catena 46:285–307. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(01)00157-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiang B (1997) Cultural Revitalization and ethnic identity of the Austronesian peoples of Taiwan: 1980–1995. Institute of Ethnology, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung MC-C (2002) A Bunun school and village: Taiwanization and Aboriginal identity (China). University of Oregon, OregonGoogle Scholar
  16. CRED EM-DAT (2015) The OFDA/CRED—international disaster database. In: University Catholic Louvain Brussels.
  17. De Marchi B, Scolobig A, Delli Zotti G, Del Zotto M (2007) Risk construction and social vulnerability in an Italian Alpine Region. Integr Flood Risk Anal Manag Methodol 1–359.
  18. De Silva K, Jayathilaka R (2014) Gender in the context of disaster risk reduction; a case study of a flood risk reduction project in the Gampaha District in Sri Lanka. Procedia Econ Financ 18:873–881. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)01013-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Digital Museum of Taiwan Indigenous People (2008) Bunun, introduction to the ethnic group.
  20. Dow K, Cutter SL (2000) Public orders and personal opinions: Household strategies for hurricane risk assessment. Environ Hazards 2:143–155. doi: 10.1016/S1464-2867(01)00014-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eiser JR, Bostrom A, Burton I et al (2012) Risk interpretation and action: a conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 1:5–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eiser JR, Donovan A, Sparks RSJ (2015) Risk perceptions and trust following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic Volcanic Ash Crises. Risk Anal 35:332–343. doi: 10.1111/risa.12275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. FAO (2007) Right to food and indigenous peoples. In: Focus.
  24. Fromm J (2005) Risk denial and neglect: studies in risk perception. Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D. Stockholm School of Economics. Elanders Gotab, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. Gavilanes-Ruiz JC, Cuevas-Muñiz A, Varley N et al (2009) Exploring the factors that influence the perception of risk: The case of Volcán de Colima, Mexico. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 186:238–252. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.12.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagemeier-Klose M, Wagner K (2009) Evaluation of flood hazard maps in print and web mapping services as information tools in flood risk communication. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:563–574. doi: 10.5194/nhess-9-563-2009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammill A, Brown O, Crawford A (2005) Natural disasters and human security. Arbovitae (IUCN/WWF For Conserv Newsletter) 27:8–9Google Scholar
  28. Heller K, Alexander DB, Gatz M et al (2005) Social and personal factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: the role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. J Appl Soc Psychol 35:399–422. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02127.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hibbard M, Lane MB, Rasmussen K (2008) The split personality of planning: indigenous peoples and planning for land and resource management. J Plan Lit 23:136–151. doi: 10.1177/0885412208322922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho M-C, Shaw D, Lin S, Chiu Y-C (2008) How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Anal 28:635–643. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huppert HE, Sparks RSJ (2006) Extreme natural hazards: population growth, globalization and environmental change. Philos Trans R Soc A 364:1875–1888. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IWRI (2014) Taiwan’s indigenous peoples. In: Newsletter.
  33. Kamara J (2008) Indigenous knowledge in natural disaster reduction in Africa. In: Environmental Times.
  34. Kellens W, Terpstra T, De Maeyer P (2013) Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal 33:24–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus group. The importance of interaction between participants. Sociol Health Illn 16(1):103–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
  36. Kitzinger J (1999) Researching risk and the media. Heal Risk Soc 1:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Komac B, Ciglič R, Erhartič B et al (2010) Risk education and natural hazards. In: Distribution.
  38. Kung Y, Chen S (2012) Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: effects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Anal 32:1535–1546. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01760.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lai JC, Tao J (2003) Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese. Risk Anal 23:669–684. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis DR (1995) Native Americans and the environment: a survey of twentieth-century. Am Indian Q 19:423–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin S, Shaw D, Ho M-C (2008) Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public? Nat Hazards 44:305–314. doi: 10.1007/s11069-007-9136-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindell MK, Hwang SN (2008) Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal 28:539–556. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01032.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindell MK, Whitney DJ (2000) Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Anal 20:13–25. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindell MK, Arlikatti S, Prater CS (2009) Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Anal 29:1072–1088. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01243.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy. J Environ Psychol 28:164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mishra S, Suar D (2005) Age, family and income influencing disaster preparedness behaviour. Psychol Stud 50:322–326Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell JFB, Lowe J, Wood RA, Vellinga M (2006) Extreme events due to human-induced climate change. Philos Trans R Soc A 364:2117–2133. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. MOEA (2008) Geological investigation and database construction for the upstream watershed.
  49. Moh Z-C, Yao DT (2005) Natural disasters in Taiwan. Geotechnical engineering for disaster mitigation and rehabilitation. In: Chu J, Yong KY (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference, Singapore. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, p 23–45. doi: 10.1142/9812701605_0005
  50. Morgan D (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. SAGE Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. NLSC (2004) National land surveying and mapping center.
  52. Olczyk ME (2004) Flood risk perception in the Red River basin, Manitoba: implications for Hazard and disaster management. University of Manitoba Winnipeg, ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  53. Oliver-Smith A (2006) Disasters and forced migration in the 21st century. In: Perspectives from the Social Sciences.
  54. Pathirage C, Seneviratne K, Amaratunga D, Haigh R (2012) Managing disaster knowledge: identification of knowledge factors and challenges. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 3:237–252. doi: 10.1108/17595901211263620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paton D, Smith L, Daly M, Johnston D (2008) Risk perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: individual and social perspectives. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Renn O (1991) Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds) Communicating risks to the public. Springer, Netherlands, pp 287–324. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5-14
  57. Salvati P, Bianchi C, Fiorucci F et al (2014) Perception of flood and landslide risk in Italy: a preliminary analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:2589–2603. doi: 10.5194/nhess-14-2589-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sattler D, Kaiser CF, Hittner JB (2000) Disaster preparedness: relationships among prior experience, personal characteristics, and distress. J Appl Soc Psychol 30:1396–1420. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02527.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Borga M (2012) The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: Findings from case studies in an Alpine Region. Nat Hazards 63:499–520. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0161-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shen M (2008) Chronicle of Renai Township. In: Renai Township Off. (In Chinese).
  61. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.205064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahnema D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 397–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Risk Anal 24:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith AL, Troped PJ, McDonough MH, DeFreese JD (2015) Youth perceptions of how neighborhood physical environment and peers affect physical activity: a focus group study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12:80. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0246-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Solberg C, Rossetto T, Joffe H (2010) The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: Re-evaluating the international literature. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:1663–1677. doi: 10.5194/nhess-10-1663-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taiwan Water Resources Agency (2013) Reservoirs and Weirs in Taiwan (in Chinese). In: Ministry of public affairs
  67. Takeuchi Y, Shaw R (2008) Traditional flood disaster reduction measures in Japan. In: Shaw R, Uy N, Baumwoll J (eds) Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: good practices and lessons learned from experiences in the Asia-Pacific Region. UNISDR Asia and Pacific, Bangkok, p 97Google Scholar
  68. Tse C (2012) Do natural disasters lead to more migration? Evidence from Indonesia. In: Social science research network publication.
  69. Tulloch J, Lupton D (2003) Risk and everyday life. SAGE Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Wachinger G, Renn O (2011) Risk perception and natural hazard. In: CapHaz-Net. DIALOGIK non-profit institute for communication and cooperative research, Stuttgart, p 111.
  71. Watson MK (2010) Indigenous routes: a framework for understanding indigenous migration. J Ethn Migr Stud 36:707–708. doi: 10.1080/13691831003669871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wheater HS (2006) Flood hazard and management: a UK perspective. Philos Trans R Soc A 364:2135–2145. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. World Bank (1998) Indigenous knowledge for development: a framework for action.
  74. Wulang (2014) Personal communication. Interview by Tjuku Ruljigaljig. Project Assistant Professor. Studies of health and leisure and cultural industries for indigenes, National Pingtung University, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  75. Xin Z (2015) The elegy of Tawian forests. In: New Nature (In Chinese).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulia Roder
    • 1
  • Tjuku Ruljigaljig
    • 2
  • Ching-Weei Lin
    • 3
  • Paolo Tarolli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of Padova, AgripolisLegnaroItaly
  2. 2.Studies of Health and Leisure and Cultural Industries for IndigenesNational Pingtung UniversityPingtung CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Earth SciencesNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainan CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations