Flood risk perception in the Red River Basin, Manitoba : implications for hazard and disaster management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 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 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».