10/14/2008 12:15pmgeog 21521 adjustment to hazards individual choice (kates, in cutter, ch 6)...
TRANSCRIPT
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 1
Adjustment to HazardsAdjustment to HazardsIndividual ChoiceIndividual Choice((Kates, in Cutter, Ch 6Kates, in Cutter, Ch 6 ))
• categories of adjustment• individual adjustment options• cognitive and affective influences
on choice• theory of choice• behavioural choice patterns
Geography 106bGeography 106bHazardsHazards
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 2
ExerciseIndividual Choice Scenario
• What will you do to reduce/prevent the impact of drought?
• How would your choices differ if you were an Australian wheat farmer?
You are a maize farmer on a mountain slope in Tanzania known to be at risk of drought.
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 3
Individual Adjustment Categories
cultural adaptation• more rapid than biological
adaptation but relatively slow compared to purposeful adjustment
• typically stable relations - people and environment
• e.g., Inuit Mackenzie River Delta• discovery of oil forces adaptation as
resource is developed• e.g., work in waged labour to offset
subsistence losses (e.g. fishing)
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 4
Individual Adjustment Categories
purposeful adjustment• relatively rapid and overlapping
adjustments• hazard related• focus of most research• e.g., Tanzanian farmer grows drought
resistant crops
incidental adjustment• relatively rapid• not hazard related• e.g, improved building materials due
to increased wealth• e.g., improved communications
networks
Pineapples, drought-resistant
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 5
Individual Adjustment Categories
absorptive capacity• measure of the ability of individuals or
groups to sustain impacts from hazard or disaster
• results from combinations of cultural adaptation, purposeful adjustment and incidental adjustment
• e.g., Kilungu of Kenya – plant maize, beans, millet, cow peas, sorghum, ground nuts etc all together – appears chaotic but drought resistant (e.g., encourages deep roots)! Moving to monoculture potentially devastating.
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 6
Individual Adjustment Options
(see also previous lecture)• change location• change use• prevent effects• modify events• share loss• bear loss
- adjustment varies greatly by culture and hazard
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 7
Individual Adjustment OptionsExamples
Note: Sri Lanka respondents listed 264 separate adjustments to flood
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 8
General Choice Model
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 9
Ordered Choice(decisions are social)
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 10
Choice Tree
• some strategies for preventing losses need to happen several years in advance of an event to be effective
• others only happen long after event occurs• Adaptations to drought in Kenya (YouTube)
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 11
Cognitive and Affective Influences on Choice
T or F?
Based on 100 years of data, the estimated probability of a “100 years” tornado touching down in Disastertown in 2005 was 0.01. In 2005 a tornado touched down in Disastertown. The likelihood of a “100 years” tornado touching down in 2006 year is considerably less than 0.01 because one already struck in 2005.
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 12
Cognitive and Affective Influences on Risk Appraisal
gambler’s fallacy• occurrence of a chance event influences
the probability of future occurrences• BUT, see
Monty Hall probability problem
anchoring• start with a initial rough estimate of
likely occurrence, then adjust slightly as new information arrives
• depends too much on the initial rough estimate
• typically leads to underestimation of risk
(Note: both of these assume knowledge of a “correct answer”, is this the case in the real world of hazards/disasters?)
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 13
Event Prediction by Hazard and Country
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 14
People are more likely to be better appraisers of hazard probability if they are:
• rural vs urban
• have more experience with the hazard
• urban owner vs urban renter
• middle aged vs young or old
Cognitive and Affective Influences on Risk Appraisal
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 15
Theory of Choice
Based on this information, which would you choose?
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 16
Theory of Choice
Based on this information, which would you choose?
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 17
Theory of Choice
expected utility• optimize, choose maximizing
outcome• choosing on the basis of all expected
outcomes• probabilities are multiplied against
normative assessments of value (utility) (e.g., equipment, evacuation costs)
• major hurdle: ascribing probabilities to events aka “uncertainty”
• perfect information rare for individual “choosers”
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 18
Theory of Choice
Based on this information, which would you choose?
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 19
Theory of Choice
subjective expected utility• optimize, choose maximizing
outcome• probabilities and values (utilities)
ascribed by “chooser”• experts and individuals may arrive at
very different “optimum” outcomes
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 20
Theory of Choice
Based on this information, which would you choose?
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 21
Theory of Choice
bounded rationality• satisfice, choose personally, socially
acceptable option• probabilities and values (utilities)
ascribed by “chooser” and/or experts• thresholds may apply or non-
maximizing priorities• e.g. fisher wants to remain debt-free
so will evacuate up to the point that it keeps her out of debt – otherwise remains regardless of “utility”
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 22
Theory of ChoiceReview
Difficult to know which form of choice people will use
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 23
Four Behaviour (Choice) Patterns
Absorb
• deny risk outright, or viewed as “unproblematic”
• typically probability dismissed as too low to worry about
• fate determined by capacity of individuals/group to absorb losses
• e.g., San Andreas fault, virgin islands coast
• cognitive dissonance– recognizes that choice is limited by social
influences
– acknowledging hazard risk involves “uncomfortable feelings”
– two general choices – a) action: admit there is a risk and thus take action (because that is socially required) b) no action: change your perception of the potential risk
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 24
Four Behaviour (Choice) Patterns
Accept
• aware of hazard (no denial)
• fatalistic – little can affect impacts
• acts of “God”
• passive – actions are useless
• e.g. Malawi floods, Nigerian drought, Hawaiian lava
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 25
Four Behaviour (Choice) Patterns
Reduce
• aware of hazard (no denial)
• take action to reduce impacts
• typically emergency action and some preparation
• usually “stay put”
• e.g., Malawi floods, many drought areas, snow and wind hazard sites
Change
• aware of hazard (no denial)
• take action to reduce impacts
• radical action: move away or change land use (e.g., subsistence to cash cropping; waged labour instead of farming)
• e.g., Brazilian and Australian droughts
10/14/2008 12:15pm Geog 2152 26
Implications of Individual Choice Patterns
• influences on choice are many and varied
• thus, patterns are tough to predict• being in MDC does not assure
maximum loss reduction• thus, vigilance required• individuals are influenced by social
values and norms as well as government intervention
• thus, considerable capacity for governments to influence loss reduction (e.g., education/awareness campaigns)