MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7009870973

Flood risk perception in the Red River Basin, Manitoba : implications for hazard and disaster management

2005· dissertation· en· W7009870973 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2005
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFlood mythDelphi methodRisk perceptionHazardRisk managementPerceptionSample (material)Emergency managementRisk assessment
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A key element in hazard and disaster management is awareness of how stakeholders perceive risk. The primary goal of this study is to examine flood risk perception and its role in decision-making in relation to hazard and disaster management in the Red River Basin, Manitoba, Canada. The specific study objectives are to: 1) assess the nature of perceived risk at both the local and organizational levels; 2) determine if there is any variation between perceived risk among flood area residents and institutional experts; 3) identify various factors that influence perceptions of risk and decision-making processes at the local level; and 4) examine the variations in flood area residents' perceptions of risk and flood-related issues based on their geographical location. In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the research methods selected were qualitative in nature. A modified Delphi Process was utilized to solicit subjective, informed judgments from residents and decision makers in the basin. The Delphi Process involved two methods: 1) face-to-face interviews, and 2) a two-round mail-out Delphi survey. A sample (non-representative) of 42 respondents was divided into two separate groups, Flood Area Residents and Institutional Representatives. Flood Area Residents were divided into Winnipeg (urban) and South (rural) respondents and Institutional Representatives were divided into Senior, Local, and Non-Government respondents. The study findings established that while an element of variation in perceived risk between flood area residents and institutional experts does exist, it is not as significant as postulated in the literature. Residents' perceptions were based on subjective factors, but many exhibited a general awareness of objective risk. Perceptions of institutional experts responsible for managing risk involved some degree of value judgments and an element of subjectivity as well. The gap that did appear to exist between the two groups was associated with a lack of understanding and communication. The study findings also indicated that a number of factors have influenced residents' perceptions of risk. The most notable factors were the geographical location of Winnipeg and South respondents and the influence of large-scale structural mitigation measures. Other influencing factors identified were: past flood experience, uncertainty, and visual presentation of the flood. The research exemplified that the inclusion of perceptions of risk is pivotal to decision-making processes. For example, a lack of communication to residents regarding policy changes to evacuation procedures since 1997 could have considerable implications for future flood response (i.e. public opposition). Within the City of Winnipeg the reduction in physical risk and sense of security afforded by the Floodway has attenuated the perceptions of risk of some respondents and potentially made them more vulnerable to extreme flood events. The Floodway Expansion project may exacerbate this situation by increasing the level of physical protection. In addition, past flood experience heightened the awareness of some respondents and will serve as the context for future perceptions; uncertainty amplified risk-related anxiety for some respondents and could potentially increase stress in future floods; and visual presentation of the flood heightened perceptions of risk for some respondents and in some cases also influenced behaviour. With an enhanced understanding of risk perception, institutional experts and decision makers will be better able to establish and implement proactive mitigation and preparedness strategies that are sustainable and improve resiliency. One of the keys to this inclusion is a two-way communication process that involves learning on both sides.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,178

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,003
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMspace (University of Manitoba)Même sujetLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyTravaux en français237 207