How government-public collaboration affects individual mitigation responses to flooding: A case study in Yellow River Delta area, China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v7i2.22601Keywords:
Flooding management, Public involvement, Public awareness, Political trust, Disaster mitigation, Risk governance, Yellow RiverAbstract
In the top-down Chinese political system, flood management has traditionally been led by the government, with the general public playing a supporting role. Within this context, individual-level disaster prevention behaviors are strongly interacted with the government-public collaboration during the government-led flood management processes. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how government-public collaboration affects individuals’ flood mitigation responses in China. An online survey data with 550 respondents from the Yellow River Delta area was examined with regard to the individuals’ willingness to take positive mitigation actions, and ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to explore the influence of the government-public collaboration factors, which are digested into three aspects: public involvement, public awareness and political trust, that motivate individuals to take flood mitigation measures. The results demonstrate that public involvement and political trust are positively correlated with the likelihood of individuals’ adopting positive mitigation actions, while public awareness and self-reported preparedness were also positively correlated, although to a less significant degree. This study contributes to the current literature by increasing the understanding of how government-public collaboration determines individual mitigation actions in the Chinese collectivist cultural environment. The results of this study reveal that involving the public effectively and earnestly through various forms of community engagement are likely to promote individual-level disaster prevention behaviors, from this point of view, can help policymakers to guide local residents towards taking responsible flood risk management and preventative actions.
References
Adger, W. N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C. & Sweeney, J. (2013a). Changing social contracts in climate-change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 330-333. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1751
Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K. (2013b). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nclimate1666
Adger, W. N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., & Murphy, C. (2016). Sharing the pain: perceptions of fairness affect private and public response to hazards. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(5), 1079-1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 24694452.2016.1182005
Armaş, I., & Avram, E. (2012). Cognitive and emotional aspects in evaluating the flood risk. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 939-943. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.260
Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., Burby, R. J., Levine, J., Cruz, A. M., & Huang, C. (2009). The effects of confidence in government and information on perceived and actual preparedness for disasters. Environment and behavior, 41(3), 338-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317222
Begg, C., Callsen, I., Kuhlicke, C., & Kelman, I. (2018). The role of local stakeholder participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(2), 180-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jfr3.12305
Begg, C., Walker, G., & Kuhlicke, C. (2015). Localism and flood risk management in England: the creation of new inequalities?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(4), 685-702. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12216
Brombal, D., Moriggi, A., & Marcomini, A. (2017). Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. An integrated Public Participation Index and its application to the case of the New Beijing Airport. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.001
Bubeck, P., & Botzen, W. W. (2013). Response to “The necessity for longitudinal studies in risk perception research”. Risk Analysis, 33(5), 760-762. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/risa.12028
Burningham, K., Fielding, J., & Thrush, D. (2008). ‘It'll never happen to me’: understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters, 32(2), 216-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01036.x
Cannon, C., Gotham, K. F., Lauve-Moon, K., & Powers, B. (2021). From the general to the specific: the influence of confidence and trust on flood risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 24(9), 1161-1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020. 1806909
DeYoung, S. E., & Peters, M. (2016). My community, my preparedness: The role of sense of place, community, and confidence in government in disaster readiness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 34(2), 250-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072701603400204
Dieperink, C., Hegger, D. L. T., Bakker, M. H. N., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Green, C., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2016). Recurrent governance challenges in the implementation and alignment of flood risk management strategies: a review. Water Resources Management, 30, 4467-4481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1491-7
Drabek, T. E. (2018). The human side of disaster. CRC Press.
Duckett, J., & Munro, N. (2022). Authoritarian regime legitimacy and health care provision: survey evidence from contemporary China. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 47(3), 375-409. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9626894
Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural hazards, 38, 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-8604-6
Hagemeier-Klose, M., & Wagner, K. (2009). Evaluation of flood hazard maps in print and web mapping services as information tools in flood risk communication. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9(2), 563-574. https://doi.org/10.5194/ nhess-9-563-2009
Han, Z., Lu, X., Hörhager, E. I., & Yan, J. (2017). The effects of trust in government on earthquake survivors’ risk perception and preparedness in China. Natural Hazards, 86, 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2699-9
He, G., Mol, A. P., Zhang, L., & Lu, Y. (2014). Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.726251
Heitz, C., Spaeter, S., Auzet, A. V., & Glatron, S. (2009). Local stakeholders’ perception of muddy flood risk and implications for management approaches: A case study in Alsace (France). Land Use Policy, 26(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2008.05.008
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493-504. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13602381003637609
Huang, Y., Ning, Y., Zhang, T., & Fei, Y. (2015). Public acceptance of waste incineration power plants in China: Comparative case studies. Habitat International, 47, 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.12.008
Hung, H. C. (2009). The attitude towards flood insurance purchase when respondents' preferences are uncertain: a fuzzy approach. Journal of Risk Research, 12(2), 239-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802497702
Johnson, T. (2020). Public participation in China's EIA process and the regulation of environmental disputes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 81, 106359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106359
Kuhlicke, C., Seebauer, S., Hudson, P., Begg, C., Bubeck, P., Dittmer, C., ... & Bamberg, S. (2020). The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7(3), e1418. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1418
Kuhlicke, C., Begg, C., Beyer, M., Callsen, I., Kunath, A., & Löster, N. (2014). Hochwasservorsorge und Schutzgerechtigkeit: Erste Ergebnisse einer Haushaltsbefragung zur Hochwassersituation in Sachsen (No. 15/2014). UFZ Discussion Paper.
Lei, Y. (2007). The Value and Ethics of Rivers [In Chinese]. Huanghe shuili Publishing.
Li, L. (2016). Reassessing trust in the central government: Evidence from five national surveys. The China Quarterly, 225, 100-121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S03057 41015001629
Li, L. (2022). Decoding political trust in China: A machine learning analysis. The China Quarterly, 249, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741021001077
Lin, S., Shaw, D., & Ho, M. C. (2008). Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?. Natural Hazards, 44, 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9136-z
Marschütz, B., Bremer, S., Runhaar, H., Hegger, D., Mees, H., Vervoort, J., & Wardekker, A. (2020). Local narratives of change as an entry point for building urban climate resilience. Climate Risk Management, 28, 100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm. 2020.100223
McIvor, D., Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (2009). Modelling community preparation for natural hazards: understanding hazard cognitions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 3(2), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1375/prp.3.2.39
Mees, H., Crabbé, A., Alexander, M., Kaufmann, M., Bruzzone, S., Lévy, L., & Lewandowski, J. (2016). Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecology and Society, 21(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08500-210307
Neuwirth, K., Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (2000). Protection motivation and risk communication. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 721-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205065
Noll, B., Filatova, T., Need, A., & Taberna, A. (2022). Contextualizing cross-national patterns in household climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 30-35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01222-3
Nouzari, E., Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2019). The usefulness of interactive governance for underground planning. Nature and Culture, 14(2), 147-167. https://doi.org/ 10.3167/nc.2019.140203
Rao, M., & Wang, G. (2015) Water and Institutional Culture [In Chinese]. China Water and Power Publishing.
Raška, P. (2015). Flood risk perception in Central-Eastern European members states of the EU: a review. Natural Hazards, 79, 2163-2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11069-015-1929-x
Raška, P., Slavíková, L., & Sheehan, J. (2019) Scale in nature-based solutions for flood risk management. In Nature-based flood risk management on private land (pp. 9-20). Springer, Cham.
Raška, P., Slavíková, L., Sheehan, J. (2019). Scale in Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risk Management. In Hartmann, T., Slavíková, L., McCarthy, S. (Eds.), Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land (pp. 9-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23842-1_2
Rollason, E., Bracken, L. J., Hardy, R. J., & Large, A. R. G. (2018). Evaluating the success of public participation in integrated catchment management. Journal of Environmental Management, 228, 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2018.09.024
Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 156913306778667357
Terpstra, T. (2011). Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 31(10), 1658-1675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01616.x
Tong, X., Nikolic, I., Dijkhuizen, B., van den Hoven, M., Minderhoud, M., Wäckerlin, N., ... & Tao, D. (2018). Behaviour change in post-consumer recycling: applying agent-based modelling in social experiment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 1006-1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.261
Truex, R. (2016). Making Autocracy Work: Representation and Responsiveness in Modern China. Cambridge University Press.
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk analysis, 33(6), 1049-1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
Walker, G., Whittle, R., Medd, W., & Watson, N. (2010) Risk governance and natural hazards. WP2 Report. CapHaz-Net Consortium
Wei, T. (2011) The Development of the Concept of Chinese Water Culture from the Perspective of Water Management [In Chinese]. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology (Social Sciences), 2, 5-10.
Xu, D., Liu, Y., Deng, X., Qing, C., Zhuang, L., Yong, Z., & Huang, K. (2019). Earthquake disaster risk perception process model for rural households: A pilot study from southwestern China. International Journal Of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4512. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224512
Xu, L., Ling, M., Lu, Y., & Shen, M. (2017). Understanding household waste separation behaviour: Testing the roles of moral, past experience, and perceived policy effectiveness within the theory of planned behaviour. Sustainability, 9(4), 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040625
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Forest and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice
