NH13C-1938
Preparing for Local Adaptation: Understanding Flood Risk Perceptions in Pittsburgh
Monday, 14 December 2015
Poster Hall (Moscone South)
Kelly Klima, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States and Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, Carnegie Mellon University, Engineering and Public Policy, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
Abstract:
The City of Pittsburgh experiences numerous floods every year. Aging and insufficient infrastructure contribute to flash floods and to over 20 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows annually, contaminating Pittsburgh’s streets, basements, and waterways. Climate change is expected to further exacerbate this problem by causing more intense and more frequent extreme precipitation events in Western Pennsylvania. For a stormwater adaptation plan to be implemented effectively, the City will need informed public support. One way to achieve public understanding and support is through effective communication of the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of local flooding hazards and adaptation methods. In order to develop these communications effectively, the city and its partners will need to know what knowledge and attitudes the residents of Pittsburgh already hold about flood risks. Here we seek to (1) identify Pittsburgh residents’ knowledge level, risk perception and attitudes towards flooding and storm water management, and (2) pre-test communications meant to inform and empower Pittsburghers about flood risks and adaptation strategies. We conduct a city-wide survey of 10,000 Pittsburgh renters and homeowners from four life situations: high risk, above poverty; high-risk, below poverty; low risk, above poverty; and low-risk, below poverty. Mixed media recruitment strategies (online and paper-based solicitations guided/organized by community organizations) assist in reaching all subpopulations. Preliminary results suggest participants know what stormwater runoff is, but have a weak understanding of how stormwater interacts with natural and built systems. Furthermore, although participants have a good understanding of the difference between green and gray infrastructure, this does not translate into a change in their willingness to pay for green infrastructure adaptation. This suggests additional communications about flood risks and adaptation strategies.