Investigating the public perception of green, hybrid and grey flood risk management measures in Europe

IF 2.6 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Progress in Disaster Science Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100360
Nejc Bezak , Pavel Raška , Jan Macháč , Jiří Louda , Vesna Zupanc , Lenka Slavíková
{"title":"Investigating the public perception of green, hybrid and grey flood risk management measures in Europe","authors":"Nejc Bezak ,&nbsp;Pavel Raška ,&nbsp;Jan Macháč ,&nbsp;Jiří Louda ,&nbsp;Vesna Zupanc ,&nbsp;Lenka Slavíková","doi":"10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and magnitude of floods, which are among the costliest hazards in Europe. As natural hazards have a significant impact on infrastructure and people's lives and their habitats, novel measures to cope with climate change need to be considered. Different types of measures, such as green, grey and hybrid solutions, can be used to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards. Green measures (also referred to as nature-based solutions) are currently being promoted in the European Union, but several barriers to implementing these measures exist. The question arises as to what hinders the wider implementation of green measures and therefore results in a preference for conventional grey measures in some countries. This study examines the differences in the perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptance of different types of flood risk management measures in three European countries (Slovenia, Czechia, and the Netherlands). The results show statistically significant differences in the perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptance of the studied measures. With respect to individual measures, respondents in all three countries tend to view conventional grey measures (dams and cisterns) as more effective and acceptable than green and hybrid measures. However, grey measures are perceived as difficult to implement. The results reveal that the perceived effectiveness and acceptability of the measures are related. The major drivers affecting the differences in the perceptions of different measures are the countries of the respondents and the sociodemographic variables of income and age. In contrast to other studies, experiences with past floods and private insurance are not statistically significant. Our results thus indicate that, along with individual behaviour, aggregate social drivers should be considered when implementing flood risk management measures across the EU.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52341,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Disaster Science","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100360"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000504/pdfft?md5=01d5600fbb52a08beebb22c1781cb1bb&pid=1-s2.0-S2590061724000504-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Disaster Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000504","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and magnitude of floods, which are among the costliest hazards in Europe. As natural hazards have a significant impact on infrastructure and people's lives and their habitats, novel measures to cope with climate change need to be considered. Different types of measures, such as green, grey and hybrid solutions, can be used to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards. Green measures (also referred to as nature-based solutions) are currently being promoted in the European Union, but several barriers to implementing these measures exist. The question arises as to what hinders the wider implementation of green measures and therefore results in a preference for conventional grey measures in some countries. This study examines the differences in the perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptance of different types of flood risk management measures in three European countries (Slovenia, Czechia, and the Netherlands). The results show statistically significant differences in the perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptance of the studied measures. With respect to individual measures, respondents in all three countries tend to view conventional grey measures (dams and cisterns) as more effective and acceptable than green and hybrid measures. However, grey measures are perceived as difficult to implement. The results reveal that the perceived effectiveness and acceptability of the measures are related. The major drivers affecting the differences in the perceptions of different measures are the countries of the respondents and the sociodemographic variables of income and age. In contrast to other studies, experiences with past floods and private insurance are not statistically significant. Our results thus indicate that, along with individual behaviour, aggregate social drivers should be considered when implementing flood risk management measures across the EU.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查欧洲公众对绿色、混合和灰色洪水风险管理措施的看法
气候变化预计将影响洪水的频率和规模,而洪水是欧洲损失最大的灾害之一。由于自然灾害会对基础设施、人们的生活及其栖息地产生重大影响,因此需要考虑采取新的措施来应对气候变化。不同类型的措施,如绿色、灰色和混合解决方案,可用于减轻自然灾害的影响。欧盟目前正在推广绿色措施(也称为基于自然的解决方案),但在实施这些措施时存在一些障碍。问题在于,是什么阻碍了绿色措施的广泛实施,从而导致一些国家倾向于采用传统的灰色措施。本研究探讨了三个欧洲国家(斯洛文尼亚、捷克和荷兰)对不同类型洪水风险管理措施的有效性、可行性和接受度的认知差异。研究结果表明,所研究措施的有效性、可行性和接受度在统计学上存在显著差异。就单项措施而言,所有三个国家的受访者都倾向于认为传统的灰色措施(水坝和蓄水池)比绿色措施和混合措施更有效、更容易接受。然而,灰色措施被认为难以实施。结果表明,这些措施的有效性和可接受性是相关的。影响对不同措施认知差异的主要因素是受访者的国家以及收入和年龄等社会人口变量。与其他研究不同的是,过去的洪灾经历和私人保险在统计上并不重要。因此,我们的研究结果表明,在欧盟范围内实施洪水风险管理措施时,除个人行为外,还应考虑总体社会驱动因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Progress in Disaster Science
Progress in Disaster Science Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
51
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Disaster Science is a Gold Open Access journal focusing on integrating research and policy in disaster research, and publishes original research papers and invited viewpoint articles on disaster risk reduction; response; emergency management and recovery. A key part of the Journal's Publication output will see key experts invited to assess and comment on the current trends in disaster research, as well as highlight key papers.
期刊最新文献
Climate change increased risk of forest fire, winter storm and technical failure risks related to power transmission lines – a spatial GIS risk assessment at Cologne district, Germany Elucidating ever-changing information needs for the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake using web search queries Fire risk vulnerability and safety assessment of Farmgate area using fire risk index, Dhaka City and optimization of fire hydrant placement Small-grid urban flood prediction model using Twitter data and population GPS data - an example of the 2019 Nagano city flood Improving community understanding of cascading effects of critical infrastructure service failure: An experimental interactive learning process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1