IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v105y2021i2d10.1007_s11069-020-04398-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial–temporal differences in disaster perception and response among new media users and the influence factors: a case study of the Shouguang Flood in Shandong province

Author

Listed:
  • Shuolin Geng

    (Baoji University of Arts and Sciences
    Baoji University of Arts and Sciences)

  • Qi Zhou

    (Baoji University of Arts and Sciences
    Baoji University of Arts and Sciences)

  • Mingjie Li

    (Baoji University of Arts and Sciences)

  • Dianxing Song

    (Baoji University of Arts and Sciences
    Baoji University of Arts and Sciences)

  • Yanjun Wen

    (Baoji University of Arts and Sciences
    Baoji University of Arts and Sciences)

Abstract

When human beings cannot avoid extreme climate disasters, it is widely accepted to take measures to address climate change. Research on ordinary people’s perception of disasters is not only helpful in formulating coping strategies, but also in improving the sustainable development of man and nature. With the rise of new media, more and more ordinary people can pay attention to disasters and express their opinions in time. From the perspective of the Weibo topic “Shouguang Flood,” web crawler is used to obtain the perception and comments of new media users in various provinces of China on the storm flood. Based on the Grounded theory, with the help of text analysis, user comments are divided into four latitudes: attention, cognition, response, and trust, and an index system is constructed. Then, the Likert scale method is used to assign scores to the corresponding indicators. Finally, the new media users’ perception of storm flood disasters is evaluated. The results show that users have more cognitive comments on the disaster in the middle and early periods after the disaster, and they are more inclined to express their emotions and attitudes and evaluate the government’s response to disasters in the middle and later periods. On the whole, new media users can clearly understand the severity of disasters but have low-risk awareness. At the beginning of the disaster, a large number of users show positive emotions in response to the disaster, but over time, low trust causes users to become negative. There are obvious differences in the perception of users in different regions. Users in disaster areas have higher levels of cognition and response than users in non-disaster areas. The psychological distance on the Internet and the effect of risk communication may be the main factors that cause the temporal and spatial differences in the perception of storms flood by new media users. Compared with questionnaires, perception data on the Internet can not only broaden the scope of research in this field, but also provide a timely understanding of the status quo of the general public’s perception of disasters.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuolin Geng & Qi Zhou & Mingjie Li & Dianxing Song & Yanjun Wen, 2021. "Spatial–temporal differences in disaster perception and response among new media users and the influence factors: a case study of the Shouguang Flood in Shandong province," 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. 105(2), pages 2241-2262, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04398-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04398-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04398-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-04398-7?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    2. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    3. T. Terpstra & R. Zaalberg & J. de Boer & W. J. W. Botzen, 2014. "You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1506-1520, August.
    4. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    5. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic & Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Srinivas Emani, 1993. "Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 611-623, December.
    6. Li Peng & Lei Lin & Shaoquan Liu & DingDe Xu, 2017. "Interaction between risk perception and sense of place in disaster-prone mountain areas: a case study in China’s Three Gorges Reservoir Area," 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. 85(2), pages 777-792, January.
    7. Panagiotopoulos, Panos & Barnett, Julie & Bigdeli, Alinaghi Ziaee & Sams, Steven, 2016. "Social media in emergency management: Twitter as a tool for communicating risks to the public," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-96.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ling Meng & Qianguo Xing & Xuelu Gao & Diansheng Ji & Fanzhu Qu & Xiaoqing Wang & Ling Ji, 2022. "Effects of an Episodic Storm-Induced Flooding Event on the Biogeochemistry of a Shallow, Highly Turbid, Semi-Enclosed Embayment (Laizhou Bay, Bohai Sea)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Chenchen Yang & Han Zhang & Xunhua Li & Zongyi He & Junli Li, 2023. "Analysis of spatial and temporal characteristics of major natural disasters in China from 2008 to 2021 based on mining news database," 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. 118(3), pages 1881-1916, September.
    3. Shan Gao & Ye Zhang & Wenhui Liu, 2021. "How Does Risk-Information Communication Affect the Rebound of Online Public Opinion of Public Emergencies in China?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    2. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    4. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    5. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    6. Jamleck Osiemo & Ruerd Ruben & Evan Girvetz, 2021. "Farmer Perceptions of Agricultural Risks; Which Risk Attributes Matter Most for Men and Women," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    7. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    8. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    9. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    10. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Huang, Yi, 2021. "Salience of hazard disclosure and house prices: Evidence from Christchurch, New Zealand," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Sarah-Kristina Wist & Sinika-Marie Steinhilber & Ulrike Triemer, 2014. "Using participation to create resilience: how to involve citizens in designing a hospital system?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 208-223, June.
    13. Xin Deng & Dingde Xu & Miao Zeng & Yanbin Qi, 2018. "Landslides and Cropland Abandonment in China’s Mountainous Areas: Spatial Distribution, Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, October.
    14. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    15. Han, Chunjia & Yang, Mu & Piterou, Athena, 2021. "Do news media and citizens have the same agenda on COVID-19? an empirical comparison of twitter posts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    17. KASHIWAGI Yuzuka & TODO Yasuyuki, 2022. "Trade Disruption and Risk Perception," Discussion papers 22086, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    18. Minh Ha-Duong & Ana Sofia Campos & Alain Nadaï, 2007. "A survey on the public perception of CCS in France," Working Papers hal-00866557, HAL.
    19. Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    20. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.

    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:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04398-7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.