Analyzing flood risk perception to connect forecasting and alert agencies with the community: the case of the LIFE PRIMES project

One of the main problems faced by scientists working on the prediction of geological phenomena is the effective communication of the expected impacts both to the population and to those that locally manage the risk. In fact, for the forecasting system to be functional to risk management, it is necessary to have (a) a strategy for passing accurate information around the local authorities and technical officers, and (b) a population willing to listen to institutions for activating correct behaviors (Lombardi, 2005). The reasoning that effectively connect forecasting and alert agencies with the community pertain to the social dimension of risk management. Hence, it is necessary to consider how individuals judge the characteristics and severity of the risks they face, namely the risk perception. The present study proposes a flood risk perception analysis of citizens and municipal civil protection technicians, focusing on: (i) knowledge of the flood hazard and risk; (ii) awareness of the local flood risk; (iii) perception of climate change; (iv) knowledge of the alerting tools; (v) accessibility and reliability of flood risk information; (vi) trust in institutions. The cases of 10 municipalities, belonging to the Emilia Romagna Marche and Abruzzo regions (central Italy), participant to the European Life PRIMES project, were analyzed. The municipalities were chosen because subject to an increasing number of floods, especially in autumn and spring (ARPAE-SIMC, 2016). Results show that both technician and citizens have a good knowledge of the flood causes but are mostly not aware of the actual hazard in their territory, particularly in spring. However, they all admit the possibility of widespread material and psychological damages, especially to vulnerable categories and in the light of the current climate change. Conversely, technicians consider alerts well spread, timely, but often wrong, while citizens are generally more uncertain. Citizens also declared to not have received any information about floods and what to do in an emergency, as opposed to the answer of the technicians, but they all agree that civil protection should oversee the risk communication. Finally, in contrast to technicians, citizens do not consider institutions efficient for the management of flood risk, particularly concerning the description of the alert systems and the return to normal conditions after the emergency.