2.3.1 Definition of risk
Risk is considered to be a complex concept that represents something unreal and is related to random chance or uncertainty (Holton, 2004). However, while the concept of risk is associated with the known, uncertainty is associated with the unknown (Gough, 1998). In the field of hazard studies, the term ‘risk’ can be used to refer to the hazard itself, or the probability or consequences of the hazard or of a potential adversity (UNDP-BCPR, 2006). While natural hazards cannot be prevented, many of the associated risks can be assessed and the consequences prevented or mitigated (UN/ISDR, 2005).
Risk is quantified objectively for risk assessment and risk management (Slovic and Weber, 2002). According to Haque and Etkin (2005), the objective method of quantifying risk has proved to be ineffective since it neglects a wide range of disaster impacts, such as the psychological effects and social disruption (McEntire, 2005) that are known to increase vulnerability. Some drawbacks of objective risk in DRR management are as follows:
Quantitative risk evaluation is understood only by a minority of people and thus is poorly understood by the public and those who are most at risk.
Risk analysis also ignores individual’s concerns and fears in hazardous conditions. It is often difficult to quantify risks from multiple hazards, especially those created by low-frequency/high magnitude events. The risk may also be spread very unevenly between different communities (Smith, 2007).
Decisions to implement risk reduction strategies are made by the government and other experts with little participation from the public (Patt and Schröter, 2008).
23
The collection, processing, and assessment of data are subject to cognitive biases based on human judgement before a decision is made (Cutter, 2006).
Therefore a ‘quantitative expert view’ may not be entirely objective.
‘Top-down’1 institutional measures to reduce risk in the aftermath of a hazard have proved to be ineffective. A ‘bottom–up’ community-based rehabilitation scheme is recommended for increased effectiveness (Haque and Etkin, 2005).
The focus of risk management has somehow neglected the wide range of disaster impacts, such as psychological and social disruption (McEntire, 2005).
Given these limitations in reducing risks, disasters have continued to increase globally (IPCC, 2007), and systematic efforts to lessen the vulnerability of people and property have not been successful (UN/ISDR, 2007).Taking an interdisciplinary approach by including not only the physical but also the human perspectives in DRR management would be beneficial to decision making. The human perspective of risk is explored in the next section.
2.3.2 Perceived risk
Perceived risk was defined by Slovic (1987) as ‘a set of mental strategies or heuristics that people employ in order to make sense of the uncertain world’ (p. 280). People think, feel, and make judgments and ultimately choose the level of risk they can accept.
Anderson-Berry and King (2005) stated that many of the decisions people take are based on their perception and understanding of risk. People’s interpretation of risks is also shaped by their own experience, personal values, and cultural beliefs and by a changing social environment (Eiser et al., 2012). A determinant factor suggested by Anderson-Berry and King (2005) in managing risks is the empowerment of communities in understanding the nature and dimensions of risk and in sharing their
1 The top-down approach as a conventional disaster response approach has a historical background in civil defence and the application of a ‘command and control’ approach to dealing with emergencies and immediate recoveries (Haque and Burton pp. 335-353 in Mitigation of Natural Hazards and Disasters-International perspectives, 2005)
24
local knowledge with other stakeholders. Among other factors that influence risk perception are socio-economic conditions (Pelling, 2007; Berkes, 2007; Wisner et al., 2006; Linnekamp et al., 2011); the situational characteristics of the person, such as age and gender (Kellens et al., 2011); educational level (Patt and Schröter, 2008); and experience(Smith, 2007; Houston et al., 2007).
Some of the drawbacks of perceived risk that have to be taken into consideration in addressing DRR management are as follows:
The concept embodies elements of subjectivity. Nevertheless, it provides insight into the complexities of public perception.
Given the subjectivity, the cost-effectiveness of the different solutions aimed at reducing risk cannot be assessed when the phenomenon occurs on a large scale.
Risk perception is found to be useful in formulating preparedness strategies but a lack of resources may not allow the implementation of mitigation measures in an environment where there are very diverse views (Terpstra and Lindell, 2012).
Risk perception can be conflicting in communication when experts and lay people hold different views. Haynes et al. (2008) claimed that social, cultural, political, and economic forces distort risk messages, leading the public to rely more on a network of lay knowledge.
Studies are exploratory in nature with difficulties in measuring and analysing patterns of behaviour in people’s perceptions of risk. This heterogeneity leads to problems in comparing results among studies (Kellens et al., 2011)
In spite of these drawbacks, risk perception has been intensively used to highlight issues related to the flood risks suffered by vulnerable communities. A few studies on risk perception are listed below as they provide a valuable guide to this study:
25
(i) Household surveys in Guyana by Pelling (1999) were used to assess the perception of risks linked to environmental problems. The study incorporated social and economic aspects along with the exposure of communities to environmental hazards. The study showed that politically-oriented elite groups usually excluded marginalised people from any decision-making. It was therefore deduced that the assessment of risk should involve representative groups and take into account the location and needs of the affected communities.
(ii) In a study of flood hazards in Scotland, Werritty et al. (2007a) used questionnaires at the household level and conducted focus groups and stakeholder interviews to collect data on flood risks. The analysis of the data enabled the authors to gain in-depth insights into the vulnerabilities of affected communities based on their perception of flood risks. It was found that enhancing social resilience remained a major challenge requiring much more detailed research on the location and on the needs of communities at risk of being flooded.
(iii) Miceli et al. (2008) explored risk perceptions of residents exposed to hydrogeological phenomena in an alpine valley of northern Italy through a questionnaire survey. The results showed that the assessment of perceived risk of localised communities was useful in formulating preparedness against future hazards.
(iv) Linnekamp et al. (2011) carried out a study on the risk perception of households regarding flooding, as part of possible climate change impacts on two cities in the Caribbean. The research was carried out via interviews with householders about perceived risk with regard to disaster preparedness measures. The study showed that the households perceived the existence of differences in vulnerability as a result of socio-economic inequalities and differential exposure to natural hazards. The results also showed that collective action by affected communities and national authorities were lacking in the building of resilience.
26
(v) A case study in the Netherlands by Terpstra (2011) indicated that emotions related to previous flood hazards influenced citizens’ perception of risk and preparedness strategies in the event of future hazards.
The outcomes of the above studies in both developing and developed countries show how achieving a reduction in vulnerability requires an understanding of the following:
the dimensions of the risks that residents face
how they take decisions in the light of their perception and understanding of those risks
how they take decisions about what level of risk is acceptable
what actions they decide on or the behaviour they wish to adopt to minimise their exposure to risk.
2.3.3 Conceptualizing perceived risk in this research study
While the concepts of objective and perceived risks have comparative advantages in particular situations, the concept of perceived risk is more suited to answering the research questions in this study (Section 1.6). The study requires an assessment of the perceptions of stakeholders (householders and officials–Research Questions I and II) hold.). The answers to these questions form the basis for understanding how the concept of ‘environmental justice’ can be used in the study (Research Question III) and for the development of a framework for DRR management in Mauritius (Research Question IV). However, the experience of previous studies (Section 2.2.3) in the use of perceived risk needs to be taken into account, in particular:
(i) the differential vulnerabilities due to differences in the socio-economic status of households
(ii) the emotional and behavioural patterns that may render coping and resilience building strategies difficult
27
(iii) the involvement of marginalised groups in decision-making as a form of community-based participation
It was important to give careful consideration to conceptualising risk perception in this study when developing the methodology to collect and interpret data.