Risk Perception and the Psychology of Natural Hazard Preparedness

Abstract:

In the preparedness phase of the disaster cycle, willingness to invest resources in prevention and mitigation doesn’t depend only on quantitative judgments of the probability of a disaster. People also evaluate the risks of situations in qualitative ways. Psychological studies of risk perception have shown that risk attitudes toward everyday technologies and activities (e.g., electric power, air travel, smoking) can be mapped onto two orthogonal dimensions: how unknown the risks seem, and how dread or severe they feel. Previously, this psychometric approach to risk perception has focused mostly on man-made risks (e.g., Fischhoff et al. 1978, Slovic 1987). In this paper we examine how natural hazards fit into the established unknown/dread risk space.

Hazards that are high on the unknown dimension of risk tend to be perceived as having effects that are unknown to science and to the exposed, uncontrollable, and new. Hazards that rank high on the dread/severity dimension are seen as immediate, catastrophic, highly dreaded on a gut level, new, and likely to be fatal. Perceived risk tends to be highest for hazards that are both high on the dread dimension and low on the unknown dimension.

We find that weather-related hazards rank lowest on both dimensions: blizzards, heat waves, hailstorms, fog, and ice storms are all feel very known and not particularly dread. The exception for this group is hurricanes and tornadoes, which are viewed as more similar to geophysical hazards and mass movements: high on dread, though not particularly unknown. Two notable outliers are climate change and sea-level rise, which are both considered very unknown (higher than any other natural hazard save sinkholes), and not at all dread (less dread even than fog and dust storms).

But when compared with perceptions of technological hazards, nearly every natural hazard ranks as more dread than any technology or activity, including nuclear power. Man-made hazards fall with technologies, rather than with natural hazards—climate change and sea-level rise are both only as dread as electric power and motor vehicles, yet feel as unknown as terrorism and GMO foods. We discuss the implications of these qualitative elements of hazard risk perception for the preparedness phase of the disaster lifecycle, and offer recommendations to practitioners and educators.