Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2023): NOVEMBER

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How government-public collaboration affects individual mitigation responses to flooding: A case study in Yellow River Delta area, China

https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v7i2.22601
Lei Xie
Institute of Governance, Shandong University, Qingdao, China
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4535-7893
Yijie Wang
Institute of Governance, Shandong University, Qingdao, China
Shuang Li
Institute of Governance, Shandong University, Qingdao, China

Corresponding Author(s) : Yijie Wang

yijiewang@sdu.edu.cn

Forest and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2 (2023): NOVEMBER

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Flooding management Public involvement Public awareness Political trust Disaster mitigation Risk governance Yellow River
Xie, L., Wang, Y., & Li, S. . (2023). How government-public collaboration affects individual mitigation responses to flooding: A case study in Yellow River Delta area, China . Forest and Society, 7(2), 184-199. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v7i2.22601
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Drabek, T. E. (2018). The human side of disaster. CRC Press.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. Lei, Y. (2007). The Value and Ethics of Rivers [In Chinese]. Huanghe shuili Publishing.
  28. 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
  29. Li, L. (2022). Decoding political trust in China: A machine learning analysis. The China Quarterly, 249, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741021001077
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Rao, M., & Wang, G. (2015) Water and Institutional Culture [In Chinese]. China Water and Power Publishing.
  38. 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
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Truex, R. (2016). Making Autocracy Work: Representation and Responsiveness in Modern China. Cambridge University Press.
  46. 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
  47. Walker, G., Whittle, R., Medd, W., & Watson, N. (2010) Risk governance and natural hazards. WP2 Report. CapHaz-Net Consortium
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF