Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Among Canadians Through Effective Risk Communication
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Amid reports of low levels of flood risk awareness and preparedness among Canadians, risk communication emerges as an important tool for encouraging public participation in flood risk management (FRM) and increasing collective flood resilience. In its most basic form, risk communication informs people of their risk and provides solutions to reduce it. Disaster studies scholars, however, assert that an individual’s decision to take protective action from hazards is mediated by an array of social, economic and cognitive factors. To this end, there are growing calls to incorporate audiences’ social and physical environment as well as insights from behavioural science into risk communication methods to increase their efficacy. \nWhether relevant Canadian stakeholders consider those factors in their flood risk communication strategies is unclear, which raises several fundamental questions about flood risk communication in Canada, such as: What are the challenges and opportunities of incorporating risk perception and risk communication theory into flood risk communication practice? Is flood risk communication by key Canadian communicators (e.g., governments, insurance companies, civil society organizations and academic groups) achieving its goals of increasing the knowledge and capacity for flood preparedness of those at risk? If so, how is this assessed? This research aims to provide a comprehensive review of Canadian municipalities’—important flood risk communicators—flood risk communication practices relative to risk communication theory. Surveys of municipal staff from 18 large, flood-prone Canadian municipalities and interviews of 21 subject matter experts concerning household-level flood risk mitigation were conducted and the results were analysed using risk communication and risk perception literature; the latter is grounded in protection motivation theory, a widely-used behavioural framework in flood risk research. \nThe results indicate that most municipalities’ flood risk communications should theoretically be raising residents’ flood risk awareness and preparedness. Limited time and resources function as the greatest barriers to municipalities’ flood risk communication efforts to the public; such barriers impede some municipalities’ abilities to address known deficiencies in their flood risk communication practices. Public-private and public-public partnerships were identified as critical to overcome municipal resource constraints and to enhance the impact of flood risk education programs and/or flood risk communication messages. \nThe findings have implications for federal and provincial policies to expand local government responsibility for FRM, because they suggest that such decisions neglect the diversity of local governments with respect to their funding and capacities. Future research recommendations include the further application of evaluation frameworks to flood risk communication activities in light of the finding that Canadian flood risk communicators’ metrics of “successful” flood risk communications are highly variable or altogether absent. In the absence of flood risk communication standards, its impact will remain intangible.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».