Theoretical frameworks of risk perception and protective behaviour: an empirical comparison

Abstract Climate change and socio-economic development in disaster-prone areas are causing rising risks over time, especially flooding, which is a worsening global issue. Flood risk management requires proactive action by all the stakeholders, including those residing in flood-prone areas, and understanding how these humans perceive flood risk and adapt is crucial for effective disaster risk management policy. However, there is a high degree of heterogeneity in how researchers from the different disciplines involved have approached this field, including social vulnerability. While this has resulted in a range of competing theories that have been operationalised, they are usually implemented in different studies instead of empirically compared. This paper addresses this gap by comparing the power of the six main behavioural theories (Expected Utility Theory; Protection Motivation Theory; Protective Action Decision Model; Social Capital Theory; Hazards-of-Place; and Cultural Theory of Risk). We explore the extent to which the theories explain risk perceptions relative to one another; the extent to which they explain adaptive behaviour compared to each other; and better than others. We conduct this analysis using a sample of 5,000 Paris metropolitan residents surveyed in 2022. Our analysis finds that the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) and the Hazards-of-Place (HoP) inspired models describe the largest amount of observed variability. While no theory was very effective at predicting specific emergency behaviours, they are often overlooked in the literature. Moreover, rationalist and constructivist approaches could be combined to refine the theories, as both models are suitable for being nested together in future research.