How well do the wider public accept integrated flood risk management? An empirical study in two Swiss Alpine valleys

Matthias Buchecker, Dominika Maria Ogasa and Elisabeth Maidl

Environmental Science & Policy, 2016, vol. 55, issue P2, 309-317

Abstract: The EU Floods Directive and Swiss water law both stipulate that non-structural prevention measures should be accorded a high priority in risk management. Several studies, have, however, found that, following flood events, the affected population tend to call for massive structural measures. Which factors can help to convince the local public to view integrated risk management more positively? We conducted a household survey in two Swiss Alpine valleys in which a disastrous flood event had taken place two years before. A total of 2100 standardized questionnaires were sent to all households in the Lötschen Valley and to a random sample of the households in the (larger) Kander Valley. The response rate was 30% with 647 completed questionnaires returned. The analysis showed that, after the flood event, the local populations in both valleys mostly favoured traditional measures of hazard control; but support for non-structural prevention measures also appeared to be rather high. A regression analysis revealed that the level of trust in the federal and cantonal authorities, and that of negative emotional experiences during the flood event were the main predictors for this support. Active information behaviour, in contrast, appeared to have only a marginal influence. Interestingly, however, the belief that floods will occur more frequently due to climate change and the support for ecological river management were also found to be relevant predictors. Communicating with the locals about these more graspable issues might be a promising way to increase their support for integrated flood risk management.

Keywords: Integrated flood risk management; Local population; Acceptance; Standardized survey; Risk communication; Influence factors (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115300460
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:55:y:2016:i:p2:p:309-317

DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.021

Access Statistics for this article

Environmental Science & Policy is currently edited by M. Beniston

More articles in Environmental Science & Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().