Natural Hazards

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 305–314 | Cite as

Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?

  • Shuyeu Lin
  • Daigee Shaw
  • Ming-Chou Ho
Original Paper


Almost annually, natural hazards such as floods and landslides cause a great deal of financial loss and human suffering in Taiwan. In order to gain a better understanding of disaster preparedness, this paper examines several factors in relation to hazard mitigation behavior: social economic status (education, income), psychological vulnerability (sense of powerless and helpless), risk perception (perceived impact and control) and social trust. The statistical analysis reported here is based on the “2004 National Risk Perception Survey of Floods and Landslides in Taiwan”. The main findings include: (1) in comparison with general public, victims are less willing to adopt risk mitigation measures than the public, even though they perceive larger impacts, worry more about the hazard, and pay more attention to hazard information; (2) trust, risk perception and social economic status are positive predictors for mitigation intentions, whereas psychological vulnerability is a negative predictor; and (3) psychological variables are stronger predictors for mitigation intentions than that of socio-economic variables. In light of these findings, the policy implications and intervention strategy are also discussed.


Flood Landslide Risk Perception Powerless Vulnerability Hazard Mitigation 


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards ML (1993) Social location and self-protective behavior: implications for earthquake preparedness. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 11:293–304Google Scholar
  5. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lindell MK, Alesch D, Bolton PA, Greene MR, Larson LA, Lopes R, May PJ, Mulilis J-P, Nathe S, Nigg JM, Palm R, Pate P, Perry RW, Pine J, Tubbesing SK, Whitney DJ (1997) Adoption and implementation of hazard adjustments. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters Spl Issue 15:327–453Google Scholar
  7. Mileti DS (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (2006) The executive report of the survey of social-economic impacts and risk perception of floods and landslides. ISBN 986-00-5244-1Google Scholar
  9. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Slovic P (1997) Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K (eds) Environment ethics and behavior. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, pp 277–313Google Scholar
  12. Starr C (1985) Risk management, assessment, and acceptability. Risk Anal 5:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Science and Technology Center for Disaster ReductionTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of EconomicsAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyChung-Shan Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Business AdministrationMing Hsin University of Science and TechnologyHsin ChuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations