Theoretical frameworks of risk perception and protective behaviour: an empirical comparison

Samuel Rufat (), Paul Hudson () and Eric Enderlin ()
Additional contact information
Samuel Rufat: CY Cergy Paris University
Paul Hudson: University of York
Eric Enderlin: CY Cergy Paris University

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2025, vol. 121, issue 12, No 31, 14697-14767

Abstract: Abstract Climate change and socio-economic development in disaster-prone areas are causing rising risks over time, especially flooding, which is a worsening global issue. Flood risk management requires proactive action by all the stakeholders, including those residing in flood-prone areas, and understanding how these humans perceive flood risk and adapt is crucial for effective disaster risk management policy. However, there is a high degree of heterogeneity in how researchers from the different disciplines involved have approached this field, including social vulnerability. While this has resulted in a range of competing theories that have been operationalised, they are usually implemented in different studies instead of empirically compared. This paper addresses this gap by comparing the power of the six main behavioural theories (Expected Utility Theory; Protection Motivation Theory; Protective Action Decision Model; Social Capital Theory; Hazards-of-Place; and Cultural Theory of Risk). We explore the extent to which the theories explain risk perceptions relative to one another; the extent to which they explain adaptive behaviour compared to each other; and better than others. We conduct this analysis using a sample of 5,000 Paris metropolitan residents surveyed in 2022. Our analysis finds that the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) and the Hazards-of-Place (HoP) inspired models describe the largest amount of observed variability. While no theory was very effective at predicting specific emergency behaviours, they are often overlooked in the literature. Moreover, rationalist and constructivist approaches could be combined to refine the theories, as both models are suitable for being nested together in future research.

Keywords: Risk perception; Adaptation; Disaster risk reduction; Flood; Protective action decision model; Hazards-of-place (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-025-07368-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:nathaz:v:121:y:2025:i:12:d:10.1007_s11069-025-07368-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-025-07368-z

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().