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

Samuel Rufat (), Paul Hudson and Eric Enderlin ()
Additional contact information
Samuel Rufat: CREST - Centre de Recherche en Économie et Statistique - ENSAI - Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Analyse de l'Information [Bruz] - GENES - Groupe des Écoles Nationales d'Économie et Statistique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - ENSAE Paris - École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique - GENES - Groupe des Écoles Nationales d'Économie et Statistique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CY - CY Cergy Paris Université
Paul Hudson: University of York [York, UK]
Eric Enderlin: CREST - Centre de Recherche en Économie et Statistique - ENSAI - Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Analyse de l'Information [Bruz] - GENES - Groupe des Écoles Nationales d'Économie et Statistique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - ENSAE Paris - École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique - GENES - Groupe des Écoles Nationales d'Économie et Statistique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PLACES - EA 4113 - PLACES - Laboratoire de géographie et d'aménagement - CY - CY Cergy Paris Université

Post-Print from HAL

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; Vulnerability; Social vulnerability; Climate change; Behaviour; Hazards; Hazards and vulnerability; Risk (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Natural Hazards, 2025, ⟨10.1007/s11069-025-07368-z⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:hal:journl:hal-05103924

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-025-07368-z

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().