Changeability of the Spatial Image of Flood Over Time

  • Jarosław DziałekEmail author
  • Wojciech Biernacki
  • Roman Konieczny
  • Łukasz Fiedeń
  • Paweł Franczak
  • Karolina Grzeszna
  • Karolina Listwan-Franczak
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)


If you can see a river out of your window then, sooner or later, you should expect to suffer the consequences of a flood. Not every flood will pose a direct threat to your house, but it will affect your life indirectly. This kind of an opinion is often heard from people living in areas that have experienced flooding. The research was based on methods useful in collecting data as close to the intuitive perception of a flood as possible, drawing on the long-established concept of the image, which, according to Boulding’s theory (1956), people build throughout their lives based on information obtained from the surrounding social and physical environment.


  1. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson D, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93(3–4):335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biernacki W, Bokwa A, Domański B, Działek J, Janas K, Padło T (2008) Mass media as a source of information about extreme natural phenomena in Southern Poland. In: Carvalho A (ed) Communicating climate change: discourses, mediations and perceptions. Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade, Universidade do Minho, BragaGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulding KE (1956) The image: knowledge in life and society. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brilly M, Polic M (2005) Public perception of flood risks, flood forecasting and mitigation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(3):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody SD, Peck BM, Highfield WE (2004) Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: a spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Anal 24(6):1561–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correia FN, Fordham M, Saraiva MDG, Bernardo F (1998) Flood hazard assessment and management: interface with the public. Water Resour Manage 12(3):202–227Google Scholar
  7. Curtis JW (2012) Integrating sketch maps with GIS to explore fear of crime in the urban environment: a review of the past and prospects for the future. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 39(4):175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curtis JW, Shiau E, Lowery B, Sloane D, Hennigan K, Curtis A (2014) The prospects and problems of integrating sketch maps with geographic information systems to understand environmental perception: a case study of mapping youth fear in Los Angeles gang neighborhoods. Environ Plan B Plan Des 41(2):251–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Didelon C, Ruffray SD, Boquet M, Lambert N (2011) A world of interstices: a fuzzy logic approach to the analysis of interpretative maps. Cartogr J 48(2):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downs R, Stea D (1973) Image and environment. Aldine Publishing Company, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Felgentreff C (2003) Post-disaster situations as “window of opportunity”? Post-flood perceptions and changes in the German Odra River region after the 1997 flood. Erde 134:163–180Google Scholar
  12. Gaillard J-C (2008) Alternative paradigms of volcanic risk perception: the case of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3):315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaillard J-C, D’Ercole R, Leone F (2001) Cartography of population vulnerability to volcanic hazards and lahars of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines): a case study in Pasig-Potrero River basin (province of Pampanga). Géomorphol Relief Process Environ 7:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazards 38:101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heitz C, Spaeter S, Auzet AV, Glatron S (2009) Local stakeholders’ perception of muddy flood risk and implications for management approaches: a case study in Alsace (France). Land Use Policy 26:443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurtado SM (2010) Modeling of operative risk using fuzzy expert systems. In: Glykas M (ed) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 247, pp 135–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnston RJ (1979) Geography and geographers: Anglo-American human geography science 1945. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Kates RW (1962) Hazard and choice perception in flood plain management. Research paper no. 78. Department of Geography, University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T, Vanneuville W, De Maeyer P (2011) An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian Coast. Risk Anal 31(7):1055–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Komac B (2009) Social memory and geographical memory of natural disasters. Acta Geogr Slov 49(1):199–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leone F, Lesales T (2009) The interest of cartography for a better perception and management of volcanic risk: from scientific to social representations: the case of Mt. Pelée volcano, Martinique (Lesser Antilles). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 186(3):186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matei S, Ball-Rokeach SJ, Qiu JL (2001) Fear and misperception of Los Angeles urban space: a spatial-statistical study of communication-shaped mental maps. Commun Res 28:429–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McEwen L, Jones O (2012) Building local/lay flood knowledges into community flood resilience planning after the July 2007 floods, Gloucestershire, UK. Hydrol Res 43:675–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 28:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Motoyoshi T (2006) Public perception of flood risk and community-based disaster preparedness. In: Ikeda S, Fukuzono T, Sato T (eds) A better integrated management of disaster risks: toward resilient society to emerging disaster risks in mega-cities. Terrapub and Nied, Tokyo, pp 121–134Google Scholar
  26. O’Neill E, Brennan M, Brereton F, Shahumyan H (2015) Exploring a spatial statistical approach to quantify flood risk perception using cognitive maps. Nat Hazards 76(3):1573–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pagneux E, Gísladóttir G, Jónsdóttir S (2011) Public perception of flood hazard and flood risk in Iceland: a case study in a watershed prone to ice-jam floods. Nat Hazards 58(1):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plapp T, Werner U (2006) Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: examples from Germany. Risk 21:101–108Google Scholar
  29. Reichel C, Fromming UU (2014) Participatory mapping of local disaster risk reduction knowledge: an example from Switzerland. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 5:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruin I, Gaillard J-C, Lutoff C (2007) How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environ Hazards 7(3):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: a comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Anal 26(4):971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone JV (2001) Risk perception mapping and the Fermi II nuclear power plant: toward an ethnography of social access to public participation in Great Lakes environmental management. Environ Sci Policy 4(4–5):205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Terpstra T (2009) Flood preparedness: thoughts, feelings and intentions of the Dutch public. University of Twente, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarosław Działek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wojciech Biernacki
    • 2
  • Roman Konieczny
    • 3
  • Łukasz Fiedeń
    • 1
  • Paweł Franczak
    • 1
  • Karolina Grzeszna
    • 4
  • Karolina Listwan-Franczak
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Faculty of Geography and GeologyJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Tourism and LeisureUniversity of Physical Education in KrakowKrakówPoland
  3. 3.Institute of Meteorology and Water ManagementNational Research InstituteKrakówPoland
  4. 4.Independent ResearcherKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations