Sustainability 13 12389

sustainability
Article
Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Mitigation
Actions of Flash Floods: Results from a Survey in
Three Types of Communities
Ming Zhong 1,2 , Lu Xiao 1 , Qian Zhang 3 and Tao Jiang 1, *
1 School of Geography and Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China;
zhongm37@mail.sysu.edu.cn (M.Z.); xiaolu5@mail2.sysu.edu.cn (L.X.)
2 Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Zhuhai 519080, China
3 Guangdong Research Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower, Guangzhou 510275, China;
skyhhs@126.com
* Correspondence: eesjt@mail.sysu.edu.cn
Abstract: In order to improve the decision-making of risk management and enhance community
resilience to flash floods, the perception of risks, communication of warnings, and mitigation actions
concerning flash floods were investigated in this study. The survey involves 280 participants from
three types of communities in flash flood-prone areas. Results show that: (i) About 55.4% of commu-
nity participants misperceived or underestimated the risk of flash floods, especially in the suburban
communities, and people had misconceptions about the safety of crossing fast-flowing water, even
though most of them had experienced flash flood hazards. (ii) In total, 67.9% of participants indicated

that they had at some point received a flash flood warning. The perception of accuracy was related
to trust in flash flood warnings, but they were different constructs for some individuals. Moreover,
Citation: Zhong, M.; Xiao, L.; Zhang,
residents in the rural community and suburban community reported a closer social communication
Q.; Jiang, T. Risk Perception, Risk
with neighbors, which would greatly influence inhabitants’ attitudes and behaviors towards the flash
Communication, and Mitigation
Actions of Flash Floods: Results from
flood warnings and mitigation actions. (iii) Most of the participants indicated they would take some
a Survey in Three Types of protective action when they received a warning. Risk perceptions and risk communications influence
Communities. Sustainability 2021, 13, the mitigation actions in the community. Significant variables in the rural community and non-rural
12389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ community were explored, and some important suggestions are highlighted. These findings suggest
su132212389 that risk perception and risk communication in neighborhoods help people to decide what action
to take in the given scenarios, contribute to enhancing the community resilience, and contribute to
Academic Editors: Baojie He, coping with future flash floods in a more specific and effective way.
Ayyoob Sharifi and Raffaele Pelorosso
Keywords: flash floods; community resilience; communication; risk perception; urban community;
Received: 10 September 2021
rural community
Accepted: 8 November 2021
Published: 10 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- Flash floods are one of the most disastrous forms of natural hazards worldwide due to
iations. the devastating impact on lives and infrastructure [1,2]. The rapid and complex evolution
of flash floods creates challenges for effective decision-making in risk management [3].
Over the last few decades, massive flood protection efforts have been undertaken, the
hydrological model and the improved model were developed [4,5], real-time monitoring
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
and simulation has been conducted [6], and the accuracy of flash flood warnings has
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
improved greatly. According to the Annual Flood and Drought Hazards Report of China [7],
This article is an open access article
direct flood damages for the water year 2016 totaled USD 57 billion in China, and the
distributed under the terms and amount in 2017 decreased to USD 23.1 billion. However, the Ministry of Emergency
conditions of the Creative Commons Management has stated that flood hazards are still the major form of natural disaster
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in China. Flood hazards affected 55.8 million people during the year of 2018, causing
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 187 deaths and 32 missing persons. Furthermore, 8.4 million people had to be relocated,
4.0/). and 85,100 houses collapsed.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12389. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212389 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12389 2 of 23
A community is the smallest scale in hazard risk management, which aims to fur-
ther strengthen community capacity to resist disasters and help to reduce the degree of
community vulnerability to natural hazards, and residents are encouraged to participate
in the management of community risk reduction. Community resilience as a concept in
hazard risk management has received a sharp increase in attention since the 1970s [8,9].
Community resilience to natural hazards, such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes, has
been observed to reduce the impacts of disasters on a nation and its communities [10,11].
Community resilience generally refers to the ability that a community maintains or the
speed at which it returns to normal operating conditions in the face of a disturbance [8,12].
In literature, the current studies on community resilience mainly refer to: (1) description
of community resilience and the multiple dimensions [13,14]; (2) tools for community re-
silience evaluation [15–17]; and (3) measurements to enhance community resilience [18–20].
A variety of factors assemble and shape community resilience, including the environmental
dimension, social relations dimension, economy dimension, institutional dimension, and
communications dimension [21,22]. A number of studies have examined the community
resilience (e.g., [23–25]), good conditions of infrastructure, transportation, and communica-
tion systems, as well as partnerships with the private sector or public organizations, which
may play important roles in improving community resilience.
Communication is the core adaptive capacity in the framework of community re-
silience, which informs people about hazard risks [26,27]. The communication dimension
includes communication systems, trust in information sources, and concepts related to
interpersonal communication such as social networks [22,28,29]. Communication could
enhance community resilience to natural hazards, and the public risk perceptions and miti-
gation actions are greatly influenced by the communication dimension [30]. The adaptive
capacity is required to achieve sustainable resilience in communities; some researchers and
practitioners indicate that preparedness is the first level of the hierarchical priorities [31].
Flash floods occur suddenly, and residents’ perception and communication significantly
impact the disaster response and adoption of mitigation actions [32]. Thus, risk perception
can help people to revise their knowledge on community resilience through communication
and preparedness and help to improve hazard risk management.
The extent to which a community can demonstrate resilience after a flood largely
depends on human perception [33]. Risk perception is a “subjective” cognition used to
evaluate the potential impact and consequences of risks and choose appropriate behavioral
responses [34–36]. The cognition affects people’s early warning risk communication and
disaster prevention actions, thus becoming the basis of community flood risk management
analysis. It is one of the most significant links to improve the resilience of the community
by exploring the relationship between risk perception and behaviors. Studies have been
conducted to discuss the relationship between risk perception and risk communication and
mitigation actions. Many studies showed that the willingness to take protective measures is
positively correlated with the level of risk perception of residents in most cases. Therefore,
investigating the risk perception ability of residents in flood-prone areas can help to assess
the sensitivity of local residents to disasters and their willingness to resist them and help
people understand when, where, and how they are at risk and how to protect themselves if
needed [37,38].
In order to address the role of individual flood risk perceptions in enhancing commu-
nity resilience to flash floods, this study investigated the perception of flash floods and
response to flash flood warnings in communities based on the relationship between flash
flood risk perception, communication, and mitigation actions. Due to the differences of
resources, capacity, and organization in communities, this study utilized the type of com-
munity as the parameter of social communication and examined how it affects community
resilience to flash floods. The multiple linear regression (MLR) method was applied to
quantitatively analyze the correlation between the residents’ defense decisions and the
social structure, risk perception, and early warning communication. The objectives of this
study were as follows: (a) identifying the sensitivity of community residents to disaster
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23
social structure, risk perception, and early warning communication. The objectives of this
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12389 study were as follows: (a) identifying the sensitivity of community residents to disaster 3 of 23
response, so as to assess the risk perception level of residents in the flood-prone area; (b)
exploring the relevance of risk perception to risk communication and response, so as to
investigate residents’ trust in disaster warning and the influence of early warning com-
response,
munication soof
asdisaster
to assess the risk perception
prevention level of(c)
decision-making; residents
examiningin the
the flood-prone
major impactarea;
fac-
(b) exploring the relevance of risk perception to risk communication and response,
tors of the adoption of flood mitigation actions, so as to provide specific and accurate so as to
investigate residents’ trust in disaster warning and the influence of early warning commu-
warnings for different communities, evaluate their risk, and decide how to take effective
nication
actions. of disaster prevention decision-making; (c) examining the major impact factors of
the adoption of flood mitigation actions, so as to provide specific and accurate warnings
for different communities, evaluate their risk, and decide how to take effective actions.
2. Methods
2.1.
2. Study Area
Methods
The Qingyuan
2.1. Study Area district of Guangdong province in China is prone to flash floods and
covers an area of approximately
The Qingyuan district of Guangdong 19,000 km2province
. The region has a subtropical
in China is prone to monsoon
flash floodsclimate
and
and is warm and rainy in summer. The 2average annual precipitation
covers an area of approximately 19,000 km . The region has a subtropical monsoon climate is 1600 mm. The
annual precipitation is uneven, mainly from April to July. The
and is warm and rainy in summer. The average annual precipitation is 1600 mm. The study area is in the north
of Qingyuan
annual district,is
precipitation including
uneven, Lianshan
mainly fromCounty,
AprilLiannan
to July. County,
The studyLianzhou
area is inCounty, and
the north
Yangshan County (Figure 1), with numerous mountainous areas
of Qingyuan district, including Lianshan County, Liannan County, Lianzhou County, and and rivers. Heavy pre-
cipitationCounty
Yangshan accompanied
(Figureby 1), steep terrain leads
with numerous to the frequent
mountainous outbreaks
areas and rivers. of flashprecipi-
Heavy floods.
For example,
tation a large-scale
accompanied by steepflood occurred
terrain leadsintoQingyuan
the frequenton 22 May 2014,
outbreaks of which resulted
flash floods. in
For
a reported
example, 712,500 people
a large-scale flood being affected
occurred by the disaster,
in Qingyuan on 22 1Maymissing
2014,person, and 5 deaths.
which resulted in a
The direct
reported economic
712,500 people loss of reached
being affectedUSD
by the 363.3 million
disaster, in thisperson,
1 missing flash flood
and 5event, among
deaths. The
which the direct economic loss of Lianshan County was USD 18.1 million,
direct economic loss of reached USD 363.3 million in this flash flood event, among which and Yangshan
County
the directwas the most
economic seriously
loss affected,
of Lianshan Countywithwasa direct
USD economic lossand
18.1 million, of USD 147.1 County
Yangshan million.
Thethe
was study
mostarea comprises
seriously affected,different ethniceconomic
with a direct minorities,
loss especially
of USD 147.1 in million.
Lianshan County,
The study
where
area ethnic minorities
comprises have aminorities,
different ethnic population of over 77,728,
especially making
in Lianshan up nearly
County, where 63.9% ofmi-
ethnic the
total population.
norities have a population of over 77,728, making up nearly 63.9% of the total population.
Figure 1. Location map of the investigation regions.

Figure 1. Location map of the investigation regions.
In the administrative divisions of China, the county consists of towns, and the towns
are composed of multiple communities with different locations, population compositions,
and economic levels. According to urban and rural classification by National Bureau of
Statistics of China in 2019, communities in this study were categorized into three different
types, including urban, suburban, and rural. Homogenous communities have similar social
characteristics, such as community size, population density, and intensiveness of social in-
teractions among the citizens [39]. The investigations were conducted in 19 communities in
this study area distributed into 9 resident locations, in which there are 5 urban communities,
5 suburban communities and 9 rural communities, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Types of investigated communities.
County Code Town Community Type

A Dubu Hankeng rural
Yangshan Furong rural
B Qigong
Heping rural
Shikenglang rural
Wanjiao rural
C Zhaigang Jinxing suburban
Zhaigang center urban
Liannan Liulian suburban
Donghe suburban
D Sanjiang Wuxing urban
Shunde cultural
urban
square
Dengyang rural
E Xiaosanjiang
Lianshan Luming rural
F Shangshuai Lianguan suburban
Caiyuanba suburban
G Lianzhou Commercial
urban
street
Lianzhou Jiulong rural
H Yao’an
Luoyang urban
I Fengyang Kemuwan rural
2.2. Survey Questionnaire Development

The survey questionnaire used in this study was initially developed based on the
literature review [21,22,27,40] and modified by the experts and the government manager in
the field of flash flood hazards. The questionnaire was pretested by flash flood professionals
and local residents. With the suggestion of experts, some existing questions were modified
and some new questions were designed. Based on the preliminary implementation, as
well as the ideas of the research team members and cooperative scholars, the revised
questionnaire was confirmed in August of 2019.
To determine the sample size of questionnaires, the following formula was used,
n = N/(1 + Ne2 ) (1)
in which n is the population size, N is the corrected sample size, e is the error acceptance,
supposing e = 6%. The questionnaires were handed out in the communities of Lianshan
County, Liannan County, Lianzhou County, and Yangshan County, where the total perma-
nent resident population was 984,000. By using Equation (1), the formula produces a value
of “n = 277.7” with error acceptance value of 6%.
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection was based on face-to-face interviews, electronic questionnaires, and
door-to-door surveys in this study. The survey data were collected using two sampling
strategies: interviewing with community residents and distributing questionnaires to
government managers in the community with a simple random sampling method. The
questionnaires were distributed in the surveyed communities on site, mainly through
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection was based on face-to-face interviews, electronic questionnaires, and
door-to-door surveys in this study. The survey data were collected using two sampling
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12389 strategies: interviewing with community residents and distributing questionnaires to gov- 5 of 23
ernment managers in the community with a simple random sampling method. The ques-
tionnaires were distributed in the surveyed communities on site, mainly through semi-
structured interviews.
semi-structured Residents
interviews. completed
Residents paper questionnaires
completed paper questionnaireswhile investigators ex-
while investigators
plained the questionnaire and conducted in-depth communication
explained the questionnaire and conducted in-depth communication and inquiries. and inquiries.
Of Of
thethe
returned
returnedsamples,
samples, there were
there 280280
were completed
completed surveys
surveys andand
12 invalid samples,
12 invalid samples,
which were abandoned. The reliability and structural validity
which were abandoned. The reliability and structural validity analyses showed analyses showed that the that
Cronbach’s alpha was
the Cronbach’s alpha 0.670,
was the
0.670,KMOthe index
KMO was index0.673,
was and0.673,Bartlett’s test was
and Bartlett’s testalso
wasac-also
ceptable with with
acceptable p < 0.001 for the
p < 0.001 fortotal questionnaire,
the total indicating
questionnaire, thatthat
indicating the the
results of this
results survey
of this survey
were reasonable. Residents living in the rural community of North
were reasonable. Residents living in the rural community of North Qingyuan District Qingyuan District areare
potentially at the highest risk of flash floods, and there is a greater percentage
potentially at the highest risk of flash floods, and there is a greater percentage of disabled of disabled
or elderly people
or elderly in the
people rural
in the community.
rural community. Thus,
Thus,among
among valid questionnaires,
valid questionnaires, 146146
samples
samples
came from the rural community, 77 samples came from the suburban
came from the rural community, 77 samples came from the suburban community, community, and 57 and
samples came came
57 samples from from
the urban community,
the urban community, as shown
as shownin Figure
in Figure2 and Table
2 and 2. The
Table total
2. The total
proportion
proportion of suburban
of suburban andandrural samples
rural samples was 48%,
was 48%,which
which is in
is line with
in line thethe
with urbanization
urbanization
of the city of Qingyuan in 2017 (50.7%). Residents in the rural community
of the city of Qingyuan in 2017 (50.7%). Residents in the rural community were vulnerable were vulnerable
groups
groupswhowho might need
might needmore
more help
helptotoaccess
accesstransportation
transportationorortotomaintain
maintainindependence
independence in
in disease control and prevention
disease control and prevention actions.
20%
Rural sample
52% Suburban sample
Urban sample
28%
Figure
Figure 2. Sample
2. Sample distribution.
distribution.
Table 2. Sociodemographic
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics
characteristics of the rural,
of the rural, suburban, andsuburban, and urban samples.
urban samples.
Rural RuralSuburbanSuburban Urban Urban

Sociodemographic Characteristics
Sociodemographic Characteristics (N = 146) (N = 77) (N = 57)
(N = 146) (N = 77) (N = 57)
Age (% older than 50) Age (% older than 50)
56.8% 56.8% 45.5% 45.5% 29.8%29.8%
Gender (% male) 53.4% 42.9% 35.1%
Gender (% male) 53.4% 42.9% 35.1%
Ethnic (% Han) 77.4% 42.9% 71.6%
Ethnic (% Han) Residence ownership 1 77.4%
(%) 93.8% 42.9% 91.0% 71.6%86.0%
Residence ownership 1 (%)
Length 93.8%
of residence in local place (median) >15 years 91.0% >15 years 86.0%
>15 years
2 (% Bachelor’s degree or higher) 8.9%>15 years 14.3% 17.5%
Length of residence in local Education
place (median) >15 years >15 years
Income
Education (% Bachelor’s degree or higher)
2 per month (median)
8.9% <500 RMB 14.3% 500–1000 RMB 1500–2000
17.5% RMB
Primary language 3 (% Cantonese) 65.8% 61.0% 68.4%
Income per month (median) <500 RMB 500–1000 RMB 1500–2000 RMB
1 Percentage of the owner of the house is his/her family. 2 and 3 Percentage of the sample size that contains
Primary language 3 (%thisCantonese)
option.
65.8% 61.0% 68.4%
1 Percentage of the owner of the house is his/her family. 2 and 3 Percentage of the sample size that contains this option.
Demographic characteristics have a direct impact on community disaster resilience [41].
For example, there
Demographic are gender differences
characteristics in disaster
have a direct impact response, as women
on community tendresilience
disaster to be more
risk
[41]. averse
For and more
example, there likely to respond
are gender to warnings,
differences whileresponse,
in disaster men are as
more likelytend
women to volunteer
to be
to assist
more with rescue
risk averse [42]. likely
and more Communities with
to respond tohigher educational
warnings, levels,
while men arefewer
more elderly and
likely to
disabledtoresidents,
volunteer andrescue
assist with more local
[42]. speaking residents
Communities withexhibit
highergreater resilience
educational [43].fewer
levels, Culture
playsand
elderly an disabled
important role in how
residents, people
and more assess
local risk and
speaking make exhibit
residents decisions [44]. resilience
greater Sociodemo-
graphic characteristics of the community samples are listed in Table 2. Residents aged 50
and above comprised the majority of participants in the rural community and suburban
community, accounting for percentages of 56.8% and 45.5%, respectively. The survey
sample contained a high percentage of people who were of Han ethnicity, owned their own
residence, had lower education, had lower incomes, and spoke Cantonese as a primary
language. The survey sample included a variety of ethnic backgrounds, including not
only the Han ethnicity but also Yao and Zhuang ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities have
minorities have stronger networks, which can help identify community lead
information, and organize emergency rescue. On the other hand, ethnic minorit
live in settlements in remote and highly isolated areas, which makes them mo
ble to disaster.
3. Results and Discussion

stronger networks, which can help identify community leaders, spread information, and
3.1. Perceptions of Flash
organize emergency Flood
rescue. OnRisks
the other hand, ethnic minorities usually live in settlements
in remote and highly isolated areas, which makes them more vulnerable to disaster.
3.1.1. Experience and Preparation of Flash Flood
3. Results and Discussion
Previous studies have found that people with flood experience had more
3.1. Perceptions of Flash Flood Risks
and better understanding
3.1.1. Experience of historical
and Preparation flooding [33,34,45]. Residents’ previous e
of Flash Flood
of flood events
Previous increased theirthat
studies have found risk perceptions
people and hazard
with flood experience had moreadjustment.
knowledge In t
and better understanding of historical flooding [33,34,45]. Residents’ previous experiences
most of them mentioned their local experience with a significant flash flood e
of flood events increased their risk perceptions and hazard adjustment. In this survey,
it occurred.
most of A total
them of 80.82%
mentioned of rural
their local respondents
experience indicated
with a significant that
flash flood they
event had
when it expe
flash flooding, while
occurred. A total this percentage
of 80.82% was indicated
of rural respondents 63.64%that forthey
suburban respondents
had experience with a
flash flooding, while this percentage was 63.64% for suburban respondents and 71.93% for
for thetheurban community, as shown in Figure 3.
urban community, as shown in Figure 3.
100%
Rural
Percent of respondents
75%
Suburban
Urban
50%
Total
25%
0%
Experienced Heard from family Heard from the Never
or friends media
Figure 3. Experience of flash flooding.
Figure 3. Experience of flash flooding.
Long-term precautionary adaptation by households at risk of flooding can reduce
monetary damage by as much as 80% [46]. Moreover, a variety of private mitigation mea-
Long-term precautionary
sures have a significant adaptation
influence on flood damageby [47].households atthe
Figure 4 displays risk of flooding
preparation
monetary damage
for a potential byflood
flash as event
much as investigated
in the 80% [46].communities.
Moreover,In athevariety
suburbanofcom-private
munity and urban community, more than half of residents mentioned they had not made
measures have a significant influence on flood damage [47]. Figure 4 displays
any preparations for flood protection. In addition, 63% of village respondents indicated
rationthat
forthey
a potential
had made at flash flood
least one typeevent in the for
of preparation investigated communities.
flash floods. The most common In the
community and urban community, more than half of residentsfollowed
preparation of rural respondents was planning an evacuation route (30.8%), by
mentioned th
adjusting the structure of a house or household in order to prevent flash flooding (28.8%)
made and
anydiscussing
preparations
disasterfor floodwith
planning protection.
their familyIn addition,
(15.8%). 63%
With the of villageofrespon
improvement
cated levees,
that they
dams,had made
and the floodat least one
warning type of preparation
and monitoring for flash
hardware, residents believefloods.
in the The
protection measures from flood management organizations and tend not to carry out any
mon preparation of rural respondents was planning an evacuation route (30.8%
disaster preparedness by themselves.
by adjusting the structure of a house or household in order to prevent flas
(28.8%) and discussing disaster planning with their family (15.8%). With the im
of levees, dams, and the flood warning and monitoring hardware, residents be
protection measures from flood management organizations and tend not to ca
disaster preparedness by themselves.
60%13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2021, 7 of 2
Rural
Suburban
40%
60% Urban
Rural
Total
Suburban
20%
40% Urban
Total
20%
0%
0%
Figure 4. Preparation for flash floods.
Comparing the rural and non-rural subsamples, the assessment of flash flood risk
Figure Preparation for flash floods. than that of the non-rural community. T
residents of the rural
Figure 4.4.Preparation
community forisflash
higher
floods.
communities that have previous experiences
Comparing the rural and non-rural subsamples, of flashthefloods are better
assessment prepared;
of flash flood risk howev
Comparing
household
by residents of the
disaster ruralcommunity
prevention
the rural and non-rural
plansisshould subsamples,
higher that ofthe
be more
than theassessment
widely of flash flood
used.community.
non-rural The risk by
residents of thethat
communities rural
havecommunity is higher
previous experiences of than that of
flash floods arethe non-rural
better prepared;community.
however, The
3.1.2. household
communities disaster
that have
Understanding prevention
previous
of Whether plans
theshould
experiences be more
Community widely
of flash used.
floods
Is Located areinbetter prepared; however
the Floodplain
household disaster prevention
In order
3.1.2. to understand
Understanding theplans
of Whether concept should beIsmore widely used.
of a “floodplain”,
the Community Located in thetheFloodplain
question “do you agree
the statement that
In order to flash floodthe
understand risk is only
concept of afound near creeks?”
“floodplain”, was
the question asked
“do in the
you agree oninvestig
3.1.2.
theUnderstanding
statement that of Whether
flash flood risk the
is Community
only found near Is Located
creeks?” wasinasked
the Floodplain
in the investiga-
tion. The results are shown in Figure 5. Only 8.93% of respondents explicitly disagre
19.3% In
tion.order to understand theFigure
concept of a8.93%
“floodplain”, the question
explicitly “do
and 22.81% you
The results are shown in 5. Only of respondents disagreed,agree on
of respondents responded with “comparatively agree”, of them cho
19.3% of respondents responded with “comparatively agree”, and
the statement that flash flood risk is only found near creeks?” was asked in the22.81% of them chose
investiga
“fully“fully
agree”.
agree”.
tion. The results are shown in Figure 5. Only 8.93% of respondents explicitly disagreed
19.3% of respondents responded with “comparatively agree”, and 22.81% of them chose
60% “fully agree”.
Rural
60%
Suburban
40% Rural
Urban
Suburban
40% Total
Urban
20%
Total
20%
0%
Fully disagree
Comparative Neutrality Comparative Fully agree
0% disagree agree
Fully disagree Comparative Neutrality Comparative Fully agree
Figure 5.Figure 5. Respondents’
Respondents’ perception
perception onon thestatement
the statement “only
“onlycommunities near near
communities creeks are at risk”.
disagree agree creeks are at risk”.
Table 3 shows results for perceived floodplain locations for the full samples. Approxi-
Figure 5. Respondents’
Table
matelyperception
345.5%
shows on the statement
results in the“only
for perceived
of respondents communities
floodplain
suburban communitynearbelieved
creeksfor
locations are atthey
the
that risk”.
full samples.
lived in the Appro
imately 45.5% of
floodplain, respondents
while nearly 48.1%inof the
themsuburban community
indicated that believed
they were not that theythe
in the floodplain, lived in t
Table
greatest 3 shows
proportionresults
in thefor perceived
three floodplain
community types. Inlocations
the rural for the
communityfull
floodplain, while nearly 48.1% of them indicated that they were not in the floodplain, samples.
and urban Approxt
imatelyproportion
greatest 45.5% of respondents
in the threein the suburban
community community
types. believed
In the rural that they
community andlived in the
urban co
floodplain, while nearly 48.1% of them indicated that they were not in the floodplain, the
munity, the percentage of residents who believed they were in a floodplain was nea
greatest proportion in the three community types. In the rural community and urban com
twice that of the residents who believed they were not in a floodplain. This suggests th
munity, the percentage of residents who believed they were in a floodplain was nearly
community, the percentage of residents who believed they were in a floodplain was nearly
twice that of the residents who believed they were not in a floodplain. This suggests that
the respondents in the rural community and urban community tend to perceive more flash
flood risk, which would influence their response to a flash flood threat. Most areas of
the investigated urban community had not experienced major flood events in the recent
decades, and so most of the respondents were not clear on the floodplain locations, while
14.0% of respondents said they did not know whether they were located in the flood-
plain. According to the flood risk zone shown in Table 1, approximately 30.8% of rural
respondents and 29.8% of urban respondents had an incorrect perception of the floodplain.
The proportion of respondents who misread the floodplain was particularly high in the
suburban community, reaching 48.1%; moreover, nearly 6.5% of suburban respondents
chose “Don’t know”. The proportion of rural respondents who correctly perceived the
floodplain was the greatest, reaching 60.3%, followed by 56.1% of urban respondents and
45.5% of suburban respondents. In the full samples, 55.4% respondents could correctly
perceive whether their community was in a flooded area. If people believed that they were
in the flash flood-prone area, they were more likely to take the protective action for flood
hazards. Our findings are consistent with those of Ullah et al. [45], which indicated that re-
spondents with flood experience were more likely to perceive high flood risk. Furthermore,
our results also suggested that the awareness of flash floods needs to be strengthened, and
more information and knowledge should be promoted in flash flood-prone areas, which
would greatly help residents to correctly perceive flash flood hazards and possibly respond
to flooding risk with stronger measures.
Table 3. Respondents’ understanding of whether their community is located in the floodplain.
Community Type In Floodplain Not in Floodplain Don’t Know

88 45 13
Rural
(60.3%) (30.8%) (8.9%)
35 37 5
Suburban
(45.5%) (48.1%) (6.5%)
32 17 8
Urban
(56.1%) (29.8%) (14.0%)
155 99 26
Total
(55.4%) (35.4%) (9.3%)
3.1.3. Understanding of the Likelihood of Flash Floods

In order to measure the risk perception in the investigated communities, the respon-
dents were asked to estimate the likelihood of flash floods in the next three years. As
shown in Figure 6, 3.6% of residents said there would be no flash floods occurring in their
community in three years, while 26.8% said that it was “not very likely”. When the scale is
broken down to three types of communities, the results are consistent with the full samples.
Risk perception directly affects the behavior choices of community members. Previ-
ous studies indicate that risk perception can be used either to reduce risk or to change
behavior [48]. In terms of the possibility of flash flood outbreak, the perception of residents
in the communities tends to be the same. Compared with the risk level of flash floods in
northern Qingyuan District, the perceived possibility of residents in the community is less
than the actual possibility.
Suburban
Percent of respondent
Urban
40% Total
inability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 2
20%
60%
Rural
0%
Suburban
Not at all Not very Somewhat Likely Very likely Extremely
Urban Don't know
40% likely likely likely likely
Total
Figure 6. Understanding on the likelihood of flash floods occurring in the next three years.
20%
Risk perception directly affects the behavior choices of community members. Prev
ous studies indicate that risk perception can be used either to reduce risk or to chang
behavior [48]. In terms of the possibility of flash flood outbreak, the perception of res
0% dents in the communities tends to be the same. Compared with the risk level of flas
Not at all
floodsNot very Somewhat
in northern Likely theVery
Qingyuan District, likely possibility
perceived Extremely ofDon't knowin the commu
residents
likelynity is less
likely
than thelikely
actual possibility. likely
3.1.4. Perception of the Loss from Flash Floods
Previous
3.1.4. studies
Perception found
of the that Flash
Loss from risk characteristics,
Floods such as seriousness of consequence
were important attributes for laypeople’s judgments
Previous studies found that risk characteristics, such as of risks [49]. ofToconsequences,
investigate percep
Risk perception directly affects the behavior choicesseriousness of community members. Prev
tions of important
were the risks attributes
posed byforflash flooding
laypeople’s in the study
judgments of risksarea, respondents
[49]. To were asked abou
investigate perceptions
ous studies indicate that riskflooding
perception can be used either to reduce risk orthe
to chang
theoflikelihood
the risks posed bypotential
of the flash lossinonce
the study
flasharea,
floodsrespondents
occurredwere askedcommunities.
in their about Th
behavior [48]. Inof terms
likelihood of theloss
the potential possibility
once flashoffloods
flashoccurred
flood outbreak, the perception of res
in their communities.
potential loss included the economic loss, road disruption, injury, damage to The the ecolog
dents potential
in the communities
loss included thetends
economicto be
loss,the
roadsame. Compared
disruption, with the
injury, damage to therisk level of flas
ecological
cal environment,
environment, interruption
interruption of
of supply,
water
water and supply, and interruption
interruption of power
of aspower
supply, shown
supply,
in commu
a
floods
shownin northern Qingyuan
in7.Figure 7. District, the perceived possibility of residents in the
Figure
nity is less than the actual possibility.
80% 80%
3.1.4. Perception of the Loss from Flash Floods
Previous studies found that risk characteristics, such as seriousness of consequence
60% 60%
were important attributes for laypeople’s judgments of risks [49]. To investigate percep
tions of the risks posed by flash flooding in the study area, respondents were asked abou
40% the likelihood of the potential loss once40%
flash floods occurred in their communities. Th
potential loss included the economic loss, road disruption, injury, damage to the ecolog
20% cal environment, interruption of water 20%supply, and interruption of power supply, a
shown in Figure 7.
0% 0%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% (a) 40% (b)

Figure 7. Cont.
20% 20%
0% 0%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
(c) (d)
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
(e) (f)
Rural Suburban Urban Total
Figure Figure 7. Perception
7. Perception of loss
of the the loss from
from flashfloods.
flash floods. (a)
(a)Economic
Economiclosses; (b) road
losses; disruption;
(b) road (c) injury;
disruption; (c)(d) irreversible
injury; damage
(d) irreversible dam-
to the ecological environment; (e) water supply; (f) power
age to the ecological environment; (e) water supply; (f) power outages. outages.
Results showed that residents in the three types of communities all agreed that the
Results
most likelyshowed that
loss caused residents
from in the
flash floods three outages
is power types of(Figure
communities all agreed
7f), followed by road that th
mostdisruptions (Figure 7b) and economic losses (Figure 7a). However, when it comes to the by roa
likely loss caused from flash floods is power outages (Figure 7f), followed
disruptions
likelihood(Figure
of injury,7b) and economic
respondents losses
in the rural (Figure 7a).
community However,
chose “Not verywhenlikely”itascomes
the to th
most common choice (36.3%) and respondents in the suburban community
likelihood of injury, respondents in the rural community chose “Not very likely” as th chose “Likely”
mostas common
the most common choice (20.0%),
choice (36.3%) while in theinurban
and respondents community,
the suburban the most common
community chose “Likely
choice was “Very likely” (8.8%). Results indicated that the perception of the loss from flash
as the most common choice (20.0%), while in the urban community, the most commo
floods was mostly concentrated in daily necessity in the investigated samples, while the
choice
fear was “Very
of injury likely”
in flash (8.8%).
floods mightResults indicated that the perception of the loss from flas
be underestimated.
floods was mostly concentrated in daily
Overall, community residents’ perceptions necessity in the investigated
and understandings samples,
of flash flood risk werewhile th
fearexamined
of injuryinintheflash floods
survey. Fourmight
analysesbewere
underestimated.
carried out in the investigation, including the
Overall, community residents’ perceptions and understandings of flash flood ris
were examined in the survey. Four analyses were carried out in the investigation, includ
ing the experience and preparation, understanding of the location of the floodplain, un
derstanding the likelihood of flood risk, and perception of loss. The findings suggest th
experience and preparation, understanding of the location of the floodplain, understanding

the likelihood of flood risk, and perception of loss. The findings suggest the potentially
important aspects of community residents’ attitudes towards and beliefs regarding flash
flood risks, which interact with interpretations of flash flood warnings and their decisions
in flash flood hazards. The media plays an important role in influencing public perception
of disasters, and the findings also suggested that the government exploit social media
to raise people’s awareness of disaster risk reduction strategies. We recommend that
communications be strengthened among the community and the concept of flood plain be
promoted by multiple media.
3.2. Communication of Flash Flood Warnings

3.2.1. Coverage of Flash Flood Warning in Investigated Communities
The early warning system is an essential factor in reducing the loss from flash
floods [50,51]. Flash flood warnings in the community usually include SMS, radio, televi-
sion, siren, and internet, as well as door-to-door warnings. Choosing an early warning
channel is also important [52] because each type of warning differs in the accuracy of the
communication and the specificity, and the public are informed of how much time they
have through the flash flood warnings.
According to Table 4 and Figure 8, most of the residents perceived that they received
flash flood warnings. The percentage was 61.0% in the rural community, 75.3% in the
suburban community, and 75.4% in the urban community. However, respondents from
different types of communities received significantly different types of flash flood warnings.
For example, residents in the rural community received multiple warnings, and this was
almost evenly distributed across each type. Residents in the suburban community and
urban community received warnings mainly by SMS, radio, and television. Relating to the
sociodemographic characteristics shown in Table 2, there were more elderly residents in
flood-prone areas who were less likely to receive warnings by mobile phone or internet; this
would be one of the reasons for the difference in types of flash flood warnings in different
communities. Moreover, frequent occurrence of flash floods in the rural community is also
the reason why the respondents from the rural community pay more attention to the flash
floods and the multiple types of flash flood warnings received.
3.2.2. Trust in Flash Flood Warning and Awareness of Its Accuracy

Trusting in hazard warnings and the warning sources can be an important component
of people’s interpretations and use of information about risks. People tend to ignore
early warnings if they do not trust in the warning (e.g., [49,52]). In this investigation,
residents were asked whether they trust in flash flood warnings, and the results did not
show a significant difference in the three types of communities. As shown in Table 5, most
respondents indicated a full trust in the flash flood warnings—the percentage was 50.4% in
the full sample—followed by the opinion of comparatively trusting in flash flood warnings,
with a percentage of 34.6%.
Table 4. Experience of flash flood warnings before flash flood events.
Experience of Flash Flood Warnings

Type
Yes No Don’t Know
89 35 22
Rural
61.0% 24.0% 15.1%
58 10 9
Suburban
75.3% 13.0% 11.7%
43 8 6
Urban
75.4% 14.0% 10.5%
190 53 37
Total
67.9% 18.9% 13.2%
Sustainability 2021, 13, x12389
FOR PEER REVIEW 1212of
of 23
23
80%
Rural
60%
Suburban
Urban
40%
Total
20%
0%
Figure 8. Types of flash flood warnings.

Figure 8. Types of flash flood warnings.
3.2.2.
Table Trust ininFlash
5. Trust flash Flood Warning and Awareness of Its Accuracy
flood warnings.
Trusting in hazard warnings and the warning sources can be an important compo-
Community Type Distrust Mistrust Comparative Trust Fully Trust Don’t Know
nent of people’s interpretations and use of information about risks. People tend to ignore
early warnings 1 12 44 77 12
Rural if they do not trust in the warning (e.g., [49,52]). In this investigation, res-
(0.7%) (8.2%) (30.1%) (52.7%) (8.2%)
idents were asked whether they trust in flash flood warnings, and the results did not show
a significant
Suburbandifference in2 the three5 types of communities.
28 As shown 38 in Table 5, most
4 re-
(2.6%) (6.5%) (36.4%) (49.4%) (5.2%)
spondents indicated a full trust in the flash flood warnings—the percentage was 50.4% in
the full Urban
sample—followed 1 by the opinion
2 25
of comparatively trusting26in flash flood3 warn-
ings, with a percentage(1.8%)
of 34.6%.(3.5%) (43.9%) (45.6%) (5.3%)
4 19 97 141 19
Total
(1.4%)
Table 5. Trust in flash(6.8%)
flood warnings. (34.6%) (50.4%) (6.8%)
Community Type Distrust Mistrust Comparative Trust Fully Trust Don’t Know
1 Awareness of
12 flash flood warning 44was related to residents’
77 trust in the information.
12
Rural Higher levels of awareness of inaccuracy corresponded with less trust; moreover, less trust
(0.7%) (8.2%) (30.1%) (52.7%) (8.2%)
would probably decrease the likelihood of protective action in response to the warning [53].
2 5
In this investigation, residents were28 asked about the accuracy
38 of flash flood4 warnings,
Suburban
(2.6%) (6.5%) (36.4%) (49.4%)
and differences were observed between the trust and the awareness of accuracy. (5.2%)Results
1 are shown in Table 2 6. In the rural community,
25 26
71.2% of respondents 3
acknowledged the
Urban
(1.8%)accuracy of the(3.5%)
warning, while only (43.9%) (45.6%)
56.1% trusted or fully (5.3%)
trusted flash flood warnings.
4 Therefore, for residents
19 in the rural community,
97 the accuracy
141 of flash flood 19 warning is
Total higher than that(6.8%)
of trust. This indicates that residents in(50.4%)
the rural community sometimes
(1.4%) (34.6%) (6.8%)
do not trust flash flood warnings. The reason might be that various warnings are received
in the rural community
Awareness but residents
of flash flood onlyrelated
warning was trust one kind of warning
to residents’ (such
trust in the as village
information.
committee information); they prefer to trust the accuracy of that warning
Higher levels of awareness of inaccuracy corresponded with less trust; moreover, because theyless
are
always alerted to flash flood risks.
trust would probably decrease the likelihood of protective action in response to the warn-
ing [53].
In this investigation, residents were asked about the accuracy of flash flood warnings,
and differences were observed between the trust and the awareness of accuracy. Results
are shown in Table 6. In the rural community, 71.2% of respondents acknowledged the
accuracy of the warning, while only 56.1% trusted or fully trusted flash flood warnings.
Therefore, for residents in the rural community, the accuracy of flash flood warning is
higher than that of trust. This indicates that residents in the rural community sometimes
do not trust flash flood warnings. The reason might be that various warnings are received
in the rural community but residents only trust one kind of warning (such as village com-
mittee information); they prefer to trust the accuracy of that warning because they are
always alerted to flash flood risks.
Table 6. Awareness of the accuracy of flash flood warning.

Table 6. Awareness of the accuracy of flash flood warning.
Community Type Inaccurate Less Accurate Comparative Accurate Fully Accurate Don’t Know
Community Type 2
Inaccurate 23
Less Accurate Comparative 72
Accurate 32
Fully Accurate 17
Don’t Know
Rural
(1.4%)
2 (15.8%)
23 (49.3%)
72 32(21.9%) (11.6%)
17
Rural
2
(1.4%) 15
(15.8%) (49.3%)30 (21.9%)26 4
(11.6%)
Suburban
(2.6%)
2 (19.5%)
15 (39.0%)
30 26(33.8%) (5.2%)
4
Suburban
(2.6%)
1 (19.5%)
5 (39.0%)36 (33.8%) 12 (5.2%)
3
Urban
(1.8%)
1 (8.8%)
5 (63.2%)
36 12(21.1%) (5.3%)
3
Urban
(1.8%)
5 (8.8%)
43 (63.2%)
138 (21.1%)70 (5.3%)
24
Total
5
(1.8%) 43
(15.4%) 138
(49.3%) 70(25.0%) 24
(8.6%)
Total
(1.8%) (15.4%) (49.3%) (25.0%) (8.6%)
Contrarily, residents in the suburban and urban communities trust the flash flood
Contrarily, residents in the suburban and urban communities trust the flash flood
warning more than its accuracy. In the urban community, 84.3% of respondents
warning more than its accuracy. In the urban community, 84.3% of respondents acknowl-
acknowledge the accuracy of the warning, while 89.5% trust or fully trust flash flood
edge the accuracy of the warning, while 89.5% trust or fully trust flash flood warnings. The
warnings. The percentages in the suburban community are as follows: 72.8% of respond-
percentages in the suburban community are as follows: 72.8% of respondents acknowledge
ents acknowledge the accuracy of the warning, and 85.8% trust or fully trust flash flood
the accuracy of the warning, and 85.8% trust or fully trust flash flood warnings. This
warnings. This indicates that residents in the rural community prefer to trust flash flood
indicates that residents in the rural community prefer to trust flash flood warnings, while
warnings, while residents in the suburban and urban communities tend to notice the ac-
residents in the suburban and urban communities tend to notice the accuracy of flash flood
curacy of flash flood warning. The reason might be that residents in the suburban and
warning. The reason might be that residents in the suburban and urban communities
urban communities believe in the flooding protection design in their area and sometimes
believe in the flooding protection design in their area and sometimes ignore the flash
ignore the flash flood warnings.
flood warnings.
Moreover,
Moreover, Figure
Figure 99 relates
relates to
to the
the awareness
awareness of
of accuracy
accuracy of
of flash
flash flood
flood warning
warning shown
shown
in Table 6, which indicates that most respondents trust the accuracy of flash
in Table 6, which indicates that most respondents trust the accuracy of flash flood flood warn-
warnings
ings and believe that flash floods will occur within 24 h of when the flash flood
and believe that flash floods will occur within 24 h of when the flash flood warning warning
is
is received.
received.
60%
Rural
Suburban
40%
Urban
Total
20%
0%
Figure 9.
Figure Possibility of
9. Possibility of flash
flash floods
floods occurring
occurring within
within 24
24 h
h after
after flash
flash flood
flood warning
warning is
is received.
received.
3.2.3. Communications with Neighbors
The communication dimension in risk was defined as the purposeful exchange of
information about environmental risk and individual knowledge about hazards within
parties, groups, or organizations [34,54]. Effective communication may have a major
influence on how well neighbors in a community are prepared for a flash flood event.
In this survey, the trust, cooperation, and information sharing among residents were
investigated, and results are shown in Figure 10. Most of the respondents fully agree on the
The communication dimension in risk was defined as the purposeful exchange of
information about environmental risk and individual knowledge about hazards within
parties, groups, or organizations [34,54]. Effective communication may have a major in-
fluence on how well neighbors in a community are prepared for a flash flood event. In
this survey, the trust, cooperation, and information sharing among residents were inves-
tigated, and results are shown in Figure 10. Most of the respondents fully agree on the
communications within the community, accounting for the highest proportion. As can
communications
been seen in Figure within theurban
10, the community, accounting
community hasfor the highest
a lower rate proportion. As can
than the rural been
community
and suburban community, which indicates that residents in the rural community and
seen in Figure 10, the urban community has a lower rate than the rural community and sub-
suburban
urban community,
community reportwhich indicates
closer that residentswith
communication in the rural community
neighbors. and suburban
Furthermore, participa-
community report closer communication with neighbors. Furthermore, participation
tion in a community association may greatly enhance communications with neighbors. As
in a community association may greatly enhance communications with neighbors. As
shown in Table 7, a few residents (15.4%) indicated that they participate in the community
shown in Table 7, a few residents (15.4%) indicated that they participate in the community
associations,
associations, andand6.4%
6.4%ofofthe
the residents saidthat
residents said thatthey
they
diddid
notnot
knowknow about
about the community
the community
associations. Though they report they keep in close communication
associations. Though they report they keep in close communication with neighbors, with neighbors,
the the
major path
major pathtotoexchanging information
exchanging information was was daily
daily communications.
communications. No significant
No significant difference differ-
was
ence found
was between
found betweenthe three different
the three types of
different residence.
types of residence.
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
disagree agree
(a)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
disagree agree
(b)
Figure 10. Cont.

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
15 of 23
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
disagree agree
(c)
Figure 10. 10. Communication
Communication
Figure with with neighbors.
neighbors. (a) (a) Trust
Trust ininneighbors;
neighbors; (b)
(b)Cooperation
Cooperationwith neighbors;
with (c) Sharing
neighbors; information
(c) Sharing information
with neighbors.
with neighbors.
Table 7. Participation in community associations.
Table 7. Participation in community associations.
Community Type Yes No Don’t Know
Community Type Yes
20 116
No Don’t Know
10
Rural
20
(13.7%) 116
(79.5%) (6.8%) 10
Rural
(13.7%)
13 (79.5%)
58 6 (6.8%)
Suburban
(16.9%) (75.3%) (7.8%)
13 58 6
Suburban 10 45 2
Urban (16.9%)
(17.5%)
(75.3%)
(78.9%) (3.5%)
(7.8%)
10
43 219
45 18
2
Urban
Total
(17.5%)
(15.4%) (78.9%)
(78.2%) (6.4%) (3.5%)
43 219 18
Total
3.3. Discussion of Mitigation Actions towards Flash Floods
(15.4%) (78.2%) (6.4%)
3.3.1. Likelihood of Taking Actions When Given a Flash Flood Warning
Respondents were asked how likely they would be to take protective action if they
3.3. Discussion of Mitigation Actions towards Flash Floods
received a flash flood warning, and the results of this question are shown in Figure 11.
3.3.1.Nearly
Likelihood
75.0% ofofrespondents
Taking Actions when
said that theyGiven a Flash Flood
were somewhat likelyWarning
or extremely likely to
take
Respondents were asked how likely they would be to take reporting
protective action if they received a warning, with the proportion extremely
protective action if they
likely being especially high: 68.5% in the rural community, 64.9% in the urban community,
received a flash flood warning, and the results of this question are shown
and 57.1% in the suburban community, indicating that when people feel they are in danger
in Figure 11.
Nearly 75.0% of
or insecure respondents
they said that
will take protective they
actions weredisaster
against somewhat[30]. likely or extremely likely to
take protective action if they received a warning, with the proportion reporting extremely
likely being especially high: 68.5% in the rural community, 64.9% in the urban community,
and 57.1% in the suburban community, indicating that when people feel they are in dan-
ger or insecure they will take protective actions against disaster [30].
Sustainability2021,
Sustainability 13,x 12389
2021,13, FOR PEER REVIEW 16 16
ofof2323
80%
Rural
60%
Suburban
Urban
40%
Total
20%
0%
Not at all Not very Somewhat Extremely Don't know
likely likely likely likely
Figure 11. Likelihood of taking actions when given a flash flood warning.
Figure 11. Likelihood of taking actions when given a flash flood warning.
In order to explore how the likelihood of flash flood warning response relates to
In order to explore how the likelihood of flash flood warning response relates to the
the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, receptions of flash flood risks, and
respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, receptions of flash flood risks, and com-
communication of flash flood warnings, regression analysis was employed between a
munication
subset of theof flash flood warnings,
independent variablesregression analysis
in this survey. was employed
Multiple between(MLR)
linear regression a subset
is a
ofstatistical
the independent variables in this survey. Multiple linear regression (MLR)
method that models the relationship between two or more interpretive variables is a statisti-
cal method thatvariables)
(independent models theandrelationship
a responsebetween
variabletwo or more
(related interpretive
variables) variables
by linear (in-
equations.
dependent variables)
The equation for MLR is: and a response variable (related variables) by linear equations. The
equation for MLR is:
yi =y a0 + a1 xi,1 + a2 xi,2 + . . . + ak xi,k + ei (2)
i = a0 + a1xi,1 + a2xi,2 + … + akxi,k + ei (2)
whichyiyis
ininwhich i is thedependent
the dependent variable, a0 ais0 is
variable, a constant,
a constant, xi,kxis is an
i,k an independent
independent ak isak
variable,
variable,
is the
the vector
vector of regression
of regression coefficients,
coefficients, ei is erandom
andand i is random measured
measured errors.
errors. The regression
The regression re-
results are shown in Table 8, with the significant variables indicated
sults are shown in Table 8, with the significant variables indicated in bold text. in bold text.
Resultsofofmultiple
Table8.8.Results
Table multiplelinear
linearregression.
regression.
Rural
Rural Non-Rural
Non-Rural
Independent Variables
Independent Variables Parameter Parameter
Parameter Significance Parameter Significance
Significance Estimate Significance
Estimate
Estimate Estimate
Age
Age −−0.09
0.09 0.27
0.27 −0.12
−0.12 0.13
0.13
Gender −0.12 0.49 0.20 0.32
Gender −0.12 0.49 0.20 0.32
Ethnic 0.04 0.86 0.53 0.01
Sociodemographic
Sociodemographic ResidenceEthnic
ownership 0.04
−0.85 0.86
0.03 −0.53
0.72 0.01
0.03
characteristics LengthResidence
of residenceownership
in local place −−0.85
0.04 0.03
0.72 −0.72
−0.05 0.03
0.58
characteristics
Education
Length of residence in local place 0.17
−0.04 0.09
0.72 −0.01
−0.05 0.92
0.58
Income per month
Education 0.00
0.17 0.98
0.09 0.05
−0.01 0.27
0.92
Experience
Income ofper
flashmonth
floods 0.12
0.00 0.62
0.98 0.19
0.05 0.43
0.27
Only communities near creeks at risk 0.08 0.28 0.06 0.44
Experience of flash floods 0.12 0.62 0.19 0.43
Located in the floodplain 0.08 0.57 −0.02 0.92
Likelihood of flash floods near
Only communities creeks
occurring in 3atyears
risk 0.08
0.06 0.28
0.44 0.06
0.06 0.44
0.42
Perceptions of PerceptionLocated
of economic in the
lossfloodplain
from flash floods 0.08
0.07 0.57
0.40 −0.02
0.12 0.92
0.16
flash flood risks Perception of injury from flash floods in 3 0.10 0.18 0.03 0.61
Perceptions of flash Likelihood flash floods occurring
Perception of water supply outages in 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.42
flood risks years −0.04 0.44 0.02 0.82
flash floods
Perception
Perception of economic
of power outages loss from
in flash flash
floods −0.08 0.30 − 0.18 0.06
0.07 0.40 0.12 0.16
floods
Perception of injury from flash floods 0.10 0.18 0.03 0.61
Table 8. Cont.
Rural Non-Rural
Independent Variables Parameter Parameter
Significance Significance
Estimate Estimate
Experience of flash flood warnings 0.18 0.16 −0.01 0.95
Trust in flash flood warnings 0.24 0.07 0.45 0.00
Awareness of the accuracy of flash
0.07 0.48 −0.13 0.33
Communications flood warning
on flash flood Possibility of flash floods occurring within 24 h 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.22
warnings Whether trust in neighbors −0.08 0.52 −0.11 0.42
Whether cooperation with neighbors −0.09 0.35 0.07 0.56
Whether share information with neighbors 0.06 0.54 0.01 0.95
Participate in the community association 0.02 0.93 −0.12 0.58
In the rural communities, residence ownership and education are identified as a signif-
icant predictor in the sociodemographic characteristics, which indicates that the residence
owners and the residents with high education have a significantly higher likelihood to take
action for a flash flood warning. Moreover, two variables of communication of flash flood
warnings are identified as significant: trust in flash flood warnings and possibility of flash
floods occurring within 24 h. Results indicate that people who trust in flash flood warnings
are more likely to take actions for flash flood warnings, and protective action intentions
were higher for respondents who perceived a high possibility of flash floods occurring
within 24 h [49]. Although some respondents in the rural community have an incorrect or
incomplete understanding of flash flood risks, there were no significant variables related to
the protective action intention.
In the non-rural communities, several variables were identified as significant predic-
tors: ethnic and residence ownership in the sociodemographic characteristics, perception
of power outages in flash floods in the perceptions of flash flood risks, and trust in flash
flood warnings in the communication of flash flood warnings. The results shed light on the
perceptions of flash flood risks, as protective action intentions were higher for residents in
the non-rural communities who perceive the possibility of power outages in flash floods.
3.3.2. Protective Actions in Response to the Flash Flood Warning

Respondents were also asked what they would do if a flash flood warning was issued;
the results are shown in Table 9. Nearly 80.0% of respondents indicated that they would
engage in more than one protective activity, such as placing sandbags outside the door;
storing food and supplies; preparing torches, whistles, and colorful flags to signal for help;
or planning a safe route with their family. The remaining respondents said they would stay
at home and do nothing, usually because they did not believe their home was at risk, or
they would try to avoid risky areas on the second floor. The percentages of respondents
who indicated that they would do nothing was 22.8% in the urban community, 19.9% in
the rural community, and 13.0% in the suburban community. Thus, the protective actions
in response to the flash flood warning were mostly influenced by residents’ judgments and
their house conditions.
3.3.3. Decision-Making When a Flash Flood Threatens

The deaths caused by flash floods usually occur when people became trapped in or
enter floodwaters, such as by driving in a vehicle or entering flooded areas on foot. The
reason might be a misunderstanding of the flash flood risks. In order to explore whether
residents know what actions to take, respondents were asked about the decisions they
would made in the flash floods in different scenarios, such as while outdoors, while in a
vehicle, while walking, and while driving.
Table 9. Protective actions in response to the flash flood warning.
Placing Preparing Torches, Planning a

Community Sandbags Storing Food Whistles, and Safe Route Transferring of Nothing
Type Outside and Supplies Colorful Flags to with Family Risk Aversion to Do
the Door Signal for Help Members
17 55 52 26 69 29
Rural
(11.6%) (37.7%) (35.6%) (17.8%) (47.3%) (19.9%)
11 40 24 22 36 10
Suburban
(14.3%) (51.9%) (31.2%) (28.6%) (46.8%) (13.0%)
8 24 13 11 29 13
Urban
(14.0%) (42.1%) (22.8%) (19.3%) (50.9%) (22.8%)
36 119 89 59 134 52
Total
(12.9%) (42.5%) (31.8%) (21.1%) (47.9%) (18.6%)
As shown in Figure 12a, respondents suggested several specific actions while outdoors
when a flash flood threatens, for example, moving to higher place (shelter), moving to an
interior, moving away from the river, calling for help, and collecting more information.
Some respondents noted the difficulty in evaluating the flash flood risks, and it may depend
on the specific circumstances; thus, these respondents indicated “depends on the situation”.
The percentages of these respondents were 19.2% in the rural community, 16.9% in the
suburban community, and 26.3% in the urban community. Only one responder in the rural
community and two respondents in the urban community said they would move their car
while outdoors when a flash flood threatened. As shown in Figure 12b, several specific
actions while in vehicle when a flash flood threatens were also indicated by respondents,
for example, moving away from the car, running to a higher place, running to an interior,
calling for help, collecting more information, depends on the situation, and driving to
open space. Only one responder said he would hide in the car and wait for rescue. It is
important to highlight that “not trying to drive or hide in the car” is the advocated safe rule
in flash flood hazards. Results show that most of the respondents would take the correct
actions when a flash flood threatens, though some respondents said they would drive to
an open space, which might be because they would estimate the risk in advance and make
the decision related to their situation.
In the walking scenario, as shown in Figure 12c, most of the respondents would
try to go through the flooding area with calves submerged (24.35%), knees submerged
(21.4%), and thighs submerged (16.1%); 14 respondents even said they would go through
the flooding area with the head submerged (5%). In addition, 5.4% of the respondents
showed conservative judgement and stated that it would not be safe no matter how deeply
submerged. These percentages were 6.8% in the rural community, 5.2% in the suburban
community, and 1.8% in the urban community.
In the driving scenario, as shown in Figure 12d, most of the respondents indicated
that it was not safe to drive through the flooding area (20.0%), when with the hub is
submerged (15.7%), and when half of the wheel is submerged (27.5%). Moreover, 19.3% of
the respondents said it was difficult to make a decision, as they did not own a car or rarely
went out by car. The results of decision-making in the driving scenario displayed a similar
distribution in the three types of communities.
60%
40%
20%
0%
(a)
60%
40%
20%
0%
(b)
60%
40%
20%
0%
(c)
Figure 12. Cont.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12389
60%
40%
20%
0%
(d)
Figure 12. Decision-making when a flash flood
Figure 12. Decision-making threatens.
when a flash(a)flood
Outdoors; (b) in (a)
threatens. car;Outdoors;
(c) walking(b)
safety; (d) driving safet
in car;
(c) walking safety; (d) driving safety.
In the walking scenario, as shown in Figure 12c, most of the respondents wo
4. Conclusions to go through the flooding area with calves submerged (24.35%), knees subm
Community resilience
(21.4%), andplays
thighsa major role in risk
submerged disaster
(16.1%); reduction, aseven
14 respondents different
said types of
they would go t
communities might experience different levels of loss in the hazardous
the flooding area with the head submerged (5%). In addition, 5.4% of the respo event. This research
investigated perception
showed of risks, communication
conservative judgementof warnings,
and mitigation
stated that it wouldactions
not beconcerning
safe no matter how
flash floods, andsubmerged.
the differences These among differentwere
percentages community
6.8% intypes.
the ruralThecommunity,
findings are 5.2%basedin the su
on a survey of 280 samples from
community, and 1.8% the residents
in the urban in the north of Qingyuan district, and the
community.
main conclusions of In thetheinvestigation are as follows:
driving scenario, as shown in Figure 12d, most of the respondents in
1. that it and
For the exposed was vulnerable
not safe to communities,
drive throughthe theperception
flooding area (20.0%),
of flash floodwhen with
risk is an the hub
merged
essential link in the(15.7%),
responseand whenflood
of flash halfwarnings.
of the wheel Theisconscious
submerged and(27.5%).
unconsciousMoreover, 19
the respondents
attitudes towards the risk fromsaid itthewas difficultwere
residents to make
defineda decision, as they did
by quantitative andnot own a car o
quali-
wentwhich
tative analysis, out byrevealed
car. The results of decision-making
the psychological in the
vulnerability ofdriving scenarioand
the inhabitants displayed a
distribution
could characterize the in the three types
community of communities.
resilience to flash flood in the study area. Some
residents misperceive or underestimate the risk of flash floods in the survey. The
proportion4.isConclusions
higher in the suburban community, and at the same time, their general
level of anxiety Community
for flash flood loss is significantly
resilience plays a major smaller than
role in riskthat of thereduction,
disaster participants as differen
from the rural communities and urban communities. These subjective
of communities might experience different levels of loss in the hazardous attitudes would event. T
greatly influence
search the response to
investigated flash flood
perception of warnings and the mitigation
risks, communication actions for
of warnings, mitigation
flash floods.
concerning flash floods, and the differences among different community types. Th
2. This research
ingsalsoare shed
basedlights
on a on the communications
survey of 280 samples from dimension of community
the residents re- of Qin
in the north
silience. The differences
district, and the of maincoverage of flash
conclusions flood
of the warnings, trust
investigation are asinfollows:
flash flood
warnings, and awareness of their accuracy were investigated in three types of commu-
1. For the exposed and vulnerable communities, the perception of flash flood ri
nities. The findings suggest that residents in the rural community usually ignore early
warnings because essential linkmore
there are in theelderly
response of flashinflood
residents warnings.
the rural The conscious
community, and they and uncon
attitudes towards the risk from the residents
do not fully trust in the warnings but believe in their own judgement from previous were defined by quantitative an
itative analysis, which revealed the psychological
experiences, while residents in the suburban and urban communities trust the flash vulnerability of the inhabita
flood warning more could thancharacterize
its accuracy.the community
Thus, multiple resilience
types of to flash
flashflood
floodwarnings
in the study area
are frequently used residents
in themisperceive
rural community, or underestimate the risk informed
such as door-to-door of flash floods in the surve
warnings.
proportion is higher in the suburban community,
Moreover, residents in the rural community and suburban community report a closer and at the same time, their
level of anxiety for flash flood loss is significantly
social communication with neighbors (e.g., cooperating within neighborhoods, shar- smaller than that of the parti
from the rural communities and urban communities.
ing lifestyles), which would greatly influence inhabitants’ attitudes and behaviors in These subjective at
flash flood warnings and mitigation actions.
3. This study focused on residents’ effective responses to mitigation actions towards flash
floods, and some significant variables were explored in the rural communities and
non-rural communities. The findings suggest that residence ownership, education,
trust in flash flood warnings, and possibility of flash flood warnings within 24 h
influence the decisions of inhabitants in the rural community. The results also indicate
that in the non-rural (urban and suburban) communities, the significant variables
were ethnicity, residence ownership, perception of power outages in flash floods, and
trust in flash floods occurring within 24 h. The differences of significant variables in
different types of communities can be used to improve the specific and accurate alerts
for different communities, which could help people evaluate their risk and decide
what to do effectively. Furthermore, some protective actions and specific scenarios
have been investigated in this study, and the findings indicate that incorrect decisions
were often mentioned by the respondents, and risk communication would help people
to assess their situation accurately in the face of hazards. In order to narrow the gaps,
this study also suggests that it is critical to release flash flood warnings in specific
scenarios to help people take mitigation actions quickly.
Author Contributions: All authors were involved in the production and writing of the manuscript.
Supervision, M.Z.; project administration, T.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research was funded by Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. U1911204, 51861125203), the Innovation Group Project of Southern Marine Science and
Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai) (Grant No. 311021018), and the National Key Research
and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2021YFC3001000).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the undergraduate students (Juting Luo, Yuzhen
Chen, Jiawen Liu, Zhuowen Kuang) for their fieldwork.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ahmadalipour, A.; Moradkhani, H. A data-driven analysis of flash flood hazard, fatalities, and damages over the CONUS during
1996–2017. J. Hydrol. 2019, 578, 124106. [CrossRef]
2. Saharia, M.; Kirstetter, P.; Vergara, H.; Gourley, J.J.; Hong, Y.; Giroud, M. Mapping flash flood severity in the United States. J.
Hydrometeorol. 2017, 18, 397–411. [CrossRef]
3. Loczy, D.; Pirkhoffer, E.; Gyenizse, P. Geomorphometric floodplain classification in a hill region of Hungary. Geomorphology 2012,
147, 61–72. [CrossRef]
4. Avolio, E.; Cavalcanti, O.; Furnari, L.; Senatore, A.; Mendicino, G. Brief communication: Preliminary hydro-meteorological
analysis of the flash flood of 20 August 2018 in Raganello Gorge, southern Italy. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 19, 1619–1627.
[CrossRef]
5. Khosronejad, A.; Kang, S.; Flora, K. Fully coupled free-surface flow and sediment transport modelling of flash floods in a desert
stream in the Mojave Desert, California. Hydrol. Process. 2019, 33, 2772–2791. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, G.; Cui, P.; Yin, Y.; Liu, D.; Jin, W.; Wang, H.; Yan, Y.; Ahmed, B.N.; Wang, J. Real-time monitoring and estimation of the
discharge of flash floods in a steep mountain catchment. Hydrol. Process. 2019, 33, 3195–3212. [CrossRef]
7. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Annual Flood and Drought Hazards Report of China; Sinomaps Press:
Beijing, China, 2017.
8. Sharifi, A. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 629–647. [CrossRef]
9. Xu, L.; Marinova, D. Resilience thinking: A bibliometric analysis of socio-ecological research. Scientometrics 2013, 96, 911–927.
[CrossRef]
10. Stanton, R.R., Jr.; Duran-Stanton, A.M. Vulnerable populations in disaster residence, resilience, and resources. Physician Assist.
Clin. 2019, 4, 675–685. [CrossRef]
11. Khalili, S.; Harre, M.; Morley, P. A temporal framework of social resilience indicators of communities to flood, case studies:
Wagga wagga and Kempsey, NSW, Australia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 13, 248–254. [CrossRef]
12. Aguilar-Barajas, I.; Sisto, N.P.; Ramirez, A.I.; Magana-Rueda, V. Building urban resilience and knowledge co-production in the
face of weather hazards: Flash floods in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area (Mexico). Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 99, 37–47. [CrossRef]
13. Cimellaro, G.P.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Bruneau, M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32,
3639–3649. [CrossRef]
14. Hosseini, S.; Barker, K.; Ramirez-Marquez, J.E. A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2016, 145, 47–61. [CrossRef]
15. Eisenman, D.; Chandra, A.; Fogleman, S.; Magana, A.; Hendricks, A.; Wells, K.; Williams, M.; Tang, J.; Plough, A. The Los
Angeles county community disaster resilience project—A Community-Level, public health initiative to build community disaster
resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 8475–8490. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Faulkner, L.; Brown, K.; Quinn, T. Analyzing community resilience as an emergent property of dynamic social-ecological systems.
Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 24. [CrossRef]
17. Plough, A.; Fielding, J.E.; Chandra, A.; Williams, M.; Eisenman, D.; Wells, K.B.; Law, G.Y.; Fogleman, S.; Magana, A. Building
community disaster resilience: Perspectives from a large urban county department of public health. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103,
1190–1197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Chandra, A.; Williams, M.; Plough, A.; Stayton, A.; Wells, K.B.; Horta, M.; Tang, J. Getting actionable about community resilience:
The Los Angeles county community disaster resilience project. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 1181–1189. [CrossRef]
19. Cui, P.; Li, D. A SNA-based methodology for measuring the community resilience from the perspective of social capitals: Take
Nanjing, China as an example. Sust. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, 101880. [CrossRef]
20. Graham, L.; Debucquoy, W.; Anguelovski, I. The influence of urban development dynamics on community resilience practice in
New York City after Superstorm Sandy: Experiences from the Lower East Side and the Rockaways. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum.
Policy Dimens. 2016, 40, 112–124. [CrossRef]
21. Cutter, S.L.; Barnes, L.; Berry, M.; Burton, C.; Evans, E.; Tate, E.; Webb, J. A place-based model for understanding community
resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2008, 18, 598–606. [CrossRef]
22. Pfefferbaum, R.L.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Van Horn, R.L.; Klomp, R.W.; Norris, F.H.; Reissman, D.B. The communities advancing
resilience toolkit (CART): An intervention to build community resilience to disasters. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2013, 19,
250–258. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Cui, K.; Han, Z.; Wang, D. Resilience of an Earthquake-Stricken rural community in southwest China: Correlation with disaster
risk reduction efforts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 407. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Qasim, S.; Qasim, M.; Shrestha, R.P.; Khan, A.N.; Tune, K.; Ashraf, M. Community resilience to flood hazards in Khyber
Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 18, 100–106. [CrossRef]
25. Scherzer, S.; Lujala, P.; Rod, J.K. A community resilience index for Norway: An adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators
for Communities (BRIC). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 36, 101107. [CrossRef]
26. Bromley, E.; Eisenman, D.P.; Magana, A.; Williams, M.; Kim, B.; McCreary, M.; Chandra, A.; Wells, K.B. How do communities use
a participatory public health approach to build resilience? The Los Angeles county community disaster resilience project. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1267. [CrossRef]
27. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of
capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [CrossRef]
28. Buikstra, E.; Ross, H.; King, C.A.; Baker, P.G.; Hegney, D.; McLachlan, K.; Rogers-Clark, C. The components of resilience-
perceptions of an australian rural community. J. Community Psychol. 2010, 38, 975–991. [CrossRef]
29. Houston, J.B.; Spialek, M.L.; Cox, J.; Greenwood, M.M.; First, J. The centrality of communication and media in fostering
community resilience: A framework for assessment and intervention. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 270–283. [CrossRef]
30. Lazo, J.K.; Bostrom, A.; Morss, R.E.; Demuth, J.L.; Lazrus, H. Factors affecting hurricane evacuation intentions. Risk Anal. 2015,
35, 1837–1857. [CrossRef]
31. Gillespie-Marthaler, L.; Nelson, K.; Baroud, H.; Abkowitz, M. Selecting indicators for assessing community sustainable resilience.
Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 2479–2498. [CrossRef]
32. Bubeck, P.; Botzen, W.J.W.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior.
Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1481–1495. [CrossRef]
33. Bodoque, J.M.; Amerigo, M.; Diez-Herrero, A.; Garcia, J.A.; Cortes, B.; Ballesteros-Canovas, J.A.; Olcina, J. Improvement of
resilience of urban areas by integrating social perception in flash-flood risk management. J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 665–676. [CrossRef]
34. Kellens, W.; Terpstra, T.; De Maeyer, P. Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research.
Risk Anal. 2013, 33, 24–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Birkholz, S.; Muro, M.; Jeffrey, P.; Smith, H.M. Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management.
Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 478, 12–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Fuchs, S.; Karagiorgos, K.; Kitikidou, K.; Maris, F.; Paparrizos, S.; Thaler, T. Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: A
contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 3183–3198. [CrossRef]
38. Scolobig, A.; De Marchi, B.; Borga, M. The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: Findings from case
studies in an Alpine Region. Nat. Hazards 2012, 63, 499–520. [CrossRef]
39. Rapaport, C.; Hornik-Lurie, T.; Cohen, O.; Lahad, M.; Leykin, D.; Aharonson-Daniel, L. The relationship between community
type and community resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 470–477. [CrossRef]
40. Zhao, G.; Pang, B.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Shi, R. Assessment on the hazard of flash flood disasters in China. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE
2016, 47, 1133–1142.
41. Cutter, S.L.; Ash, K.D.; Emrich, C.T. The geographies of community disaster resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens.
2014, 29, 65–77. [CrossRef]
42. Armas, I.; Avram, E. Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Nat. Hazards 2009, 50, 269–287. [CrossRef]
43. Cutter, S.L.; Burton, C.G.; Emrich, C.T. Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg.
Manag. 2010, 7, 51. [CrossRef]
44. Rippl, S. Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement. J. Risk Res. 2002, 5, 147–165. [CrossRef]
45. Ullah, F.; Saqib, S.E.; Ahmad, M.M.; Fadlallah, M.A. Flood risk perception and its determinants among rural households in two
communities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2020, 104, 225–247. [CrossRef]
46. Grothmann, T.; Reusswig, F. People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat.
Hazards 2006, 38, 101–120. [CrossRef]
47. Poussin, J.K.; Botzen, W.J.W.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Effectiveness of flood damage mitigation measures: Empirical evidence from French
flood disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2015, 31, 74–84. [CrossRef]
48. Ho, M.; Shaw, D.; Lin, S.; Chiu, Y. How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 635–643.
[CrossRef]
49. Morss, R.E.; Mulder, K.J.; Lazo, J.K.; Demuth, J.L. How do people perceive, understand, and anticipate responding to flash flood
risks and warnings? Results from a public survey in Boulder, Colorado, USA. J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 649–664. [CrossRef]
50. Alshehri, S.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. Disaster community resilience assessment method: A consensus-based Delphi and AHP
approach. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 395–416. [CrossRef]
51. Haynes, K.; Barclay, J.; Pidgeon, N. Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res. 2008, 172, 259–272. [CrossRef]
52. Mayhorn, C.B.; McLaughlin, A.C. Warning the world of extreme events: A global perspective on risk communication for natural
and technological disaster. Saf. Sci. 2014, 61, 43–50. [CrossRef]
53. Ripberger, J.T.; Silva, C.L.; Jenkins-Smith, H.C.; Carlson, D.E.; James, M.; Herron, K.G. False alarms and missed events: The
impact and origins of perceived inaccuracy in tornado warning systems. Risk Anal. 2015, 35, 44–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Fischhoff, B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 1995, 15, 137–145. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

Sustainability 13 12389

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 12389

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12389. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212389 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. Location map of the investigation regions.

Table 1. Types of investigated communities.

County Code Town Community Type

2.2. Survey Questionnaire Development

n = N/(1 + Ne2 ) (1)

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Rural RuralSuburbanSuburban Urban Urban

3. Results and Discussion

Table 3. Respondents’ understanding of whether their community is located in the floodplain.

Community Type In Floodplain Not in Floodplain Don’t Know

3.1.3. Understanding of the Likelihood of Flash Floods

40% (a) 40% (b)

experience and preparation, understanding of the location of the floodplain, understanding

3.2. Communication of Flash Flood Warnings

3.2.2. Trust in Flash Flood Warning and Awareness of Its Accuracy

Table 4. Experience of flash flood warnings before flash flood events.

Experience of Flash Flood Warnings

Figure 8. Types of flash flood warnings.

Table 6. Awareness of the accuracy of flash flood warning.

Figure 10. Cont.

3.3.2. Protective Actions in Response to the Flash Flood Warning

3.3.3. Decision-Making When a Flash Flood Threatens

Table 9. Protective actions in response to the flash flood warning.

Placing Preparing Torches, Planning a

Figure 12. Cont.

You might also like