IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v23y2020i5p642-663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The challenges of longitudinal surveys in the flood risk domain

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Hudson
  • Annegret H. Thieken
  • Philip Bubeck

Abstract

There has been much research regarding the perceptions, preferences, behaviour, and responses of people exposed to flooding and other natural hazards. Cross-sectional surveys have been the predominant method applied in such research. While cross-sectional data can provide a snapshot of a respondent’s behaviour and perceptions, it cannot be assumed that the respondent’s perceptions are constant over time. As a result, many important research questions relating to dynamic processes, such as changes in risk perceptions, adaptation behaviour, and resilience cannot be fully addressed by cross-sectional surveys. To overcome these shortcomings, there has been a call for developing longitudinal (or panel) datasets in research on natural hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks. However, experiences with implementing longitudinal surveys in the flood risk domain (FRD), which pose distinct methodological challenges, are largely lacking. The key problems are sample recruitment, attrition rate, and attrition bias. We present a review of the few existing longitudinal surveys in the FRD. In addition, we investigate the potential attrition bias and attrition rates in a panel dataset of flood-affected households in Germany. We find little potential for attrition bias to occur. High attrition rates across longitudinal survey waves are the larger concern. A high attrition rate rapidly depletes the longitudinal sample. To overcome high attrition, longitudinal data should be collected as part of a multisector partnership to allow for sufficient resources to implement sample retention strategies. If flood-specific panels are developed, different sample retention strategies should be applied and evaluated in future research to understand how much-needed longitudinal surveying techniques can be successfully applied to the study of individuals threatened by flooding.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Hudson & Annegret H. Thieken & Philip Bubeck, 2020. "The challenges of longitudinal surveys in the flood risk domain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 642-663, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:23:y:2020:i:5:p:642-663
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1617339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2019.1617339
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2019.1617339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Fekete, 2021. "Motivation, Satisfaction, and Risks of Operational Forces and Helpers Regarding the 2021 and 2013 Flood Operations in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-26, November.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:189-214 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paul Hudson & Annegret H. Thieken, 2022. "The presence of moral hazard regarding flood insurance and German private businesses," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(2), pages 1295-1319, June.
    4. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch, 2022. "After the virtual flood: Risk perceptions and flood preparedness after virtual reality risk communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 189-214, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:23:y:2020:i:5:p:642-663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.