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)