Advertisement

The Role of Risk Perceptions in Climate Change Communication: A Media Analysis on the UK Winter Floods 2015/2016

  • Viktoria Cologna
  • Rosalind H. BarkEmail author
  • Jouni Paavola
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

In the winter 2015/2016 a series of storms resulted in widespread flooding in northern England, damaging hundreds of properties, disrupting transport and exposing public contempt of flood risk management. The flooding was widely covered in the media. This chapter develops a methodological framework to conceptualise factors influencing risk perception related to flood events and discusses the media’s role as communicator of climate change and related risks. We demonstrate how understanding the factors that affect risk perception, including how engineered flood defences might distort risk perception and therefore risk preparedness, can be utilised by the authorities to deploy more effective risk management policy and increase individual and community preparedness. Given that increased flood risk due to climate change is a reality, and that there is evidence that this increased risk is not yet understood by the public, nor addressed by the media, we suggest that a change is needed. Not only is there a need for more dialogue between those at risk and the flood risk management authorities and between experts and the public and the media and the public, but also a need for improved risk communication delivered with greater understanding of how at-risk communities perceive risk.

Keywords

Flooding Risk perception Media coverage United kingdom Climate change communication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 659449 and from the School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds’s Research Experience Placement scheme. Jouni Paavola also acknowledges the support of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP).

References

  1. Abric JC (1984) A theoretical and experimental approach to the study of social representations in a situation of interaction. In: Farr R, Moscovici S (eds) Social representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–183Google Scholar
  2. Armas I, Ionescu R, Nenciu Posner C (2015) Flood risk perception along the Lower Danube River, Romania. Nat Hazards 79:1913–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bichard E, Kazmierczak A (2012) Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Clim Change 112:633–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boykoff MT (2011) Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boswell C, Geddes A, Scholten P (2011) The role of narratives in migration policy-making: a research framework. Br J Polit Int Relat 13(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler C, Walker-Springett K, Adger WN, Evans L, O’Neill S (2016) Social and political dynamics of flood risks, recovery and response. The University of Exeter, Exeter. Available online at http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/schoolofgeography/winterfloods/documents/Butler_et_al_2016_Socia_Political_DynamicsFloods.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2016
  8. Cash DW et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceed Natl Acad Sci U S 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Committee on Climate Change (2016) UK climate change risk assessment 2017. Synthesis report: priorities for the next five years. Available online at https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/UK-CCRA-2017-Synthesis-Report-Committee-on-Climate-Change.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2016
  10. Escobar M, Demeritt D (2014) Flooding and the framing of risk in british broadsheets, 1985–2010. Public Underst Sci 23(4):454–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans ER (2004) Foresight future flooding, scientific summary, vol 1. Dept. of Trade and Industry, London. Available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-flooding. Accessed 18 Aug 2016
  12. Evans EP, Ashley R, Hall JW, Penning-Rowsell EP, Saul A, Sayers PB, Thorne CR, Watkinson A (2004) Foresight future flooding, scientific summary, vol 1. Future risks and their Drivers (London: Office of Science and Technology)Google Scholar
  13. Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse Soc 3:193–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman L, Myers TA, Hmielowski JD, Leiserowitz A (2014) The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. J Commun 64(4):590–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frewer L (2004) The public and effective risk communication. Toxicol Lett 149:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabe M (2004) A critical introduction to the risk society. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gavin NT, Leonard-Milsom L, Montgomery J (2011) Climate change, flooding and the media in Britain. Public Underst Sci 20:422–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazards 38:101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall A (2011) The rise of blame and recreancy in the United Kingdom: a cultural, political and scientific autopsy of the North Sea flood of 1953. Environ Hist 17:379–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harries T (2013) Responding to flood risk in the UK. In: H Joffe, Rossetto T, Adams J (eds) Cities at risk: living with perils in the 21st Century. Advances in natural and technological hazards research, vol. 33, pp 45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. HM Government (2016) National flood resilience review. Available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/551137/national-flood-resilience-review.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2016
  24. Jenkins GJ, Perry MC, Prior MJ (2008) The climate of the united kingdom and recent trends. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter. Available online at http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/UKCP09_Trends.pdf. Accessed 18 August 2016
  25. Joffe H (2003) Risk: From perception to social representation. Br J Soc Psychol 42:55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joffe H (1999) Risk and ‘The Other’. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joffe H, O’Connor C (2013) Risk societies and representation of risk: earthquakes and beyond. In: Joffe H, Rossetto T, Adams J (eds) Cities at risk: living with perils in the 21st century. Advances in natural and technological hazards research, vol. 33. pp 9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2010) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(12):147–174Google Scholar
  29. Kaufmann M et al (2016) Shock events and flood risk management: a media analysis of the institutional long-term effects of flood events in the Netherlands and Poland. Ecol Soc 21(4):51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P et al (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kazmierczak A, Bichard E (2010) Investigating homeowners’ interest in property-level flood protection. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 1(2):157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T et al (2011) An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian Coast. Risk Anal 31(7):1055–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kingdon JW (1995) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd edn. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Kreibich H, Seifert I, Thieken AH, Lindquist E, Wagner K, Merz B (2011) Recent changes in flood preparedness of private households and business in Germany. Reg Environ Change 11:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lamond JE, Proverbs DG (2009) Resilience to flooding: lessons from international comparison. Urban Des Plan 162(2):63–70Google Scholar
  36. Lorenzoni I, Leiserowitz A, Doria M, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2006) Cross-national comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and “climate change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. J Risk Res 9:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCombs ME (2005) A look at agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journal Stud 6:543–547Google Scholar
  38. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2001) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NAO (2001) Inland flood defence: report by the controller and auditor general HC 299, Session 2000–2001. National Audit Office. Available online at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2001/03/0001299.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2016
  40. Pantti MK, Wahl-Jorgensen K (2011) ‘Not an act of God’: anger and citizenship in press coverage of British man-made disasters. Media Cult Soc 33(1):105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paton D (2008) Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: how trust influences its effectiveness. Int J Glob Environ Issues 8(1/2):2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rausand M (2011) Risk assessment theory, methods, and applications. John Wiley & Sons, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  43. Renn O, Levine D (1988) Trust and credibility in risk communication. In: Jungermann H, Kasperson RE, Wiedemann PM (eds) Risk communication. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Risk Communication October 17–21, 1988. Jülich. Jülich, FRG: Kernforschungsanlage Jülich, pp 51–81Google Scholar
  44. Renn O (2004) Perception of risks. The geneva papers on risk and insurance 29:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rose EA (1998) Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. J Risk Res 1:15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. J Risk Res 8(2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(3):14Google Scholar
  48. Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A (2012) Public opinion and climate-related policy solutions: a comparison of the policy preferences of the public, stakeholders, and climate scientists. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  49. Stoutenborough JW et al (2014) Understanding the communication of climate change risk: climate scientists’ perspectives of media sources and policy makers. Risk Hazards Cris Public Policy 5(4):365–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor AL, Bruine de Bruin W, Dessai S (2014) Climate change beliefs and perceptions of weather-related changes in the United Kingdom. Risk Anal 34(11):1995–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor AL, Dessai S, Bruine de Bruin W (2015) Communicating uncertainty in seasonal and interannual climate forecasts in Europe. Philos Trans Royal Soc A 373:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Terpstra T (2009) Flood preparedness: thoughts, feelings and intentions of the Dutch Public. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239851761_Flood_Preparedness_Thoughts_Feelings_and_Intentions_of_the_Dutch_Public. Accessed on 16 Aug 2016
  53. Thieken AH, Kreibich H, Müller, Merz B (2007) Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002. Hydrol Sci J 52(5):1016–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thorne C (2014) Geographies of UK flooding in 2013/4. The Geogr J 180(4):297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitmarsh L (2008) Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J Risk Res 11(3):351–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilkinson I (2001) Anxiety in a risk society. Routledge, London, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson R, Crouch E (1982) Risk/Benefit analysis. Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. Witte K, Allen M (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 27(5):591–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viktoria Cologna
    • 1
  • Rosalind H. Bark
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jouni Paavola
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Earth and Environment, Maths/Earth and Environment BuildingUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations