Sustainability 13 00302

sustainability
Article
Place-Based Citizen Science for Assessing Risk Perception and
Coping Capacity of Households Affected by Multiple Hazards
Priscila Barros Ramalho Alves 1, * , Maria José de Sousa Cordão 2 , Slobodan Djordjević 1 and Akbar A. Javadi 1
1 Centre for Water Systems (CWS), University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK; [email protected] (S.D.);
[email protected] (A.A.J.)
2 PPGECA-Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Campina Grande 58428-830, Brazil;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-(0)75-0120-7574
Abstract: Since hazards act upon vulnerability and exposure to become disasters, the understanding
of societal challenges is key for disaster risk reduction. This condition is even more critical when
more than one hazard is in place. Taking the case of flooding and water shortage, this study is built
upon the premise that disasters are a social phenomenon; therefore, it is essential to comprehend
the social context in which they occur. Particularly, this study aims to evaluate the similarities and
differences in risk perception and the coping capacity of residents in the multiple-hazard context.
For this, a place-based citizen science approach was developed in this study in Campina Grande,
a semiarid region of Brazil, with the collaboration of 199 participants. Risk perception and coping
capacity were analysed through the citizens’ participation, while combining subjective and objective
methods. The results indicate that even though residents have experienced severe flooding and water
shortages in the past, they still have low coping capacity. The findings highlight the need to combine
a triad of societal challenges, namely information, trust, and incentives, to improve coping capacity
in the future and increase resilience. This study underlines the need to understand multiple hazards

according to social, spatial, and temporal scales in a socio-spatial perspective.
Citation: Alves, P.B.R.;
Cordão, M.J.d.S.; Djordjević, S.; Keywords: disaster; multiple hazards; risk perception; coping capacity; flooding; water shortage
Javadi, A.A. Place-Based Citizen
Science for Assessing Risk Perception
and Coping Capacity of Households
Affected by Multiple Hazards.
1. Introduction
Sustainability 2021, 13, 302. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13010302 Disasters are a social phenomenon [1]. According to United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction (UNDRR), disasters are a serious disruption to the functioning of a com-
Received: 24 November 2020 munity or a society at any scale. Hazardous events interact with conditions of exposure,
Accepted: 28 December 2020 vulnerability, and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material,
Published: 31 December 2020 economic and environmental losses, and impacts. People who are socially, economically,
culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalised are especially vulnerable to
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses [2]. This intensified
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai- vulnerability is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in
ms in published maps and institutio- socioeconomic status and income, as well as exposure [3,4]. Such social processes include,
nal affiliations. for example, discrimination based on gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability [5,6].
Other social configuration sources can also intensify vulnerabilities, such as the political
and sociocultural context, and geographical location [7].
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
In the literature, concepts of perception, coping, adaptation, and mitigation have defi-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
nitions that often appear concurrently and occur alongside discussions on vulnerability and
This article is an open access article
resilience. Although these concepts together form a network of resources that at high levels
distributed under the terms and con- create resilience and at low levels create vulnerabilities, they have been applied differently
ditions of the Creative Commons At- in disaster risk approaches. Risk perception is a fundamental factor in understanding the
tribution (CC BY) license (https:// population’s responses to hazards. In other words, it describes the level of preparedness
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ for hazard occurrences [8]. Therefore, the empirical knowledge about the risk that people
4.0/). acquire through the information communicated and their own experience are defining
Sustainability 2021, 13, 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010302 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 302 2 of 20
elements of risk perception. According to Renn [9], perception of risk must be seen as a
mental or sociopsychological instrument that allows for the prediction of future dangers
and facilitates risk reduction measures.
The processes that contribute to disaster risk management and reduction comprise
coping, adaptation, and mitigation measures. We distinguish between coping, adaptation,
and mitigation following the terminology derived from the universal concepts. The term
coping capacity is the ability of people, organisations, and systems, using available skills
and resources, to manage adverse conditions of risk or disasters [10]. Adaptation refers to
the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects to moderate harm or
exploit beneficial opportunities [2]. Lastly, mitigation is the lessening or minimising the
adverse impacts of a hazardous event [10].
Despite the similarity and overlapping of these definitions, coping measures are
emergency reactions to a specific event that often take the form of reactive, immediate,
and informal schemes [11,12]. Adaptive strategies, on the other hand, are actions before
the disaster, typically medium and long term. In turn, mitigation involves strategies
that reduce the severity of the impacts of disasters that cannot be avoided (for example,
structures resistant to hazards). The three types of responses can transform and evolve on
the temporal and spatial scales. Coping strategies can develop into adaptive strategies,
which in turn can become mitigation strategies over time and as the scale changes. Coping
strategies are more likely to occur at the local scale, at the individual and family level,
and adaptive strategies are more likely to emerge at larger spatial scales, from a sector or
neighbourhood, or the entire city [12–14]. For their part, mitigation strategies can involve
even larger scales, up to municipalities and jurisdictions.
Daramola et al. [8] argued that while coping strategies are needed in the aftermath of
disasters, they may not always represent desirable options for households (for example,
relocating furniture to upper floors and temporary migration). In contrast, strengthening
adaptive capacity serves to reduce the establishing of the risks associated with disasters.
Norris [15] defined adaptive capacities as resources with dynamic attributes of (i) robust-
ness, i.e., the resource strength in combination with a low probability of deterioration;
(ii) redundancy, i.e., the extent to which elements are substitutable in the event of dis-
ruption or degradation; and (iii) rapid accessibility, i.e., how quickly the resource can be
accessed and used. The interaction between these available resources and disaster risk
factors produces different responses due to the social differences between individuals,
families, and communities.
Due to the relationship between the risk of disasters and the existing social configu-
rations, we agree that disasters are a social event. In this way, vulnerability is a dynamic
factor that changes as the coping, adaptation, and mitigation arrangements develop. We
argue that coping, adaptation, and mitigation are processes that, in this sequence, advance
to generate risk reduction. As risk reduction strategies begin with coping strategies and
move towards adaptation and mitigation strategies, the processes used evolve, reduce
vulnerability, and increase resilience.
The reduction of vulnerability can be even more complex in regions with multiple
hazards. Multi-hazards coexist when two or more disasters occur simultaneously or in
succession [16,17]. A study from Pagliacci and Russo [18] observed positive correlations
between multi-hazards, exposure, vulnerability, and risk. The results express clear trends of
interaction between the disasters’ drivers which amplify the multiple hazards impacts. This
means that due to the multiplicity of simultaneous risks, many citizens may already have a
vulnerability (i.e., from another hazard) and at the same time may need multiple resources
for preparation. This condition was highlighted by Aksha [19], whose work show the
cumulative and cascading impacts produced using integrated hazard maps as a function
of spatial information (e.g., Geographic Information System-GIS) and socioeconomic data.
According to Binita [16], in the future, urban areas will be even more susceptible to multiple
risks due to the increase in population and infrastructure concentration.
Even though the importance of integrating multiple hazards is recognised, especially

floods and droughts, most research on hydrological risks tends to focus on either flood risk
or drought risk [20]. Certain locations may suffer flooding and may also experience extreme
drought in some years and extreme precipitation in others, even in dry periods; this means
that these areas can be facing either water shortage or flooding or both in different times
(temporal scale). Temporal and spatial dynamics of disasters are particularly important
given that design and implementation of disaster risk strategies can reduce risk in the short
term but may increase exposure and vulnerability in the long term [2].
Therefore, this paper considers the importance of understanding the multiple hazards
in both spatial and temporal scales [21], by linking it with the concept of vulnerability and
resilience, and considering the position and situation as elements that produce hazards,
while also giving conditions to face them [22]. With the premise that disaster risk is social,
we acknowledge the importance of understanding vulnerabilities and human interactions
to comprehend the social context in which the disasters occur [23], and to evaluate ways to
minimise the hazards with the implementation of mitigation strategies [24,25].
For this, we developed a place-based citizen science methodology [26,27] with the
participation of stakeholders including residents, authorities, and specialists. A total of
199 participants collaborated in our project, plus 10 from the project team. The context
in the study is Campina Grande, Brazil; it is a city with multiple-hazard occurrence
(i.e., flooding and water shortage), which implies more complexity in management [28].
The city has low public participation in the management and issues related to legislation
and governance, such as integration between water resources and urban planning [29].
This study is built upon answering this question: How can we improve the uptake of
coping capacity strategies, in the future, when residents face multiple hazards? Particularly,
our study aims to understand more deeply the social vulnerabilities in the multi-hazard
context by answering two research questions:
1. In what way are the risk perception (RP) and coping capacity (CC) of residents similar
(or different) when facing flooding and water shortage?
2. What are the main preferences of mitigation strategies to mitigate the hazards?
This paper is organised as follows. First, the case study is presented along with
the socio-spatial context of floods and water shortage. Then, aspects of the place-based
citizen science framework are explained. Thirdly, the differences and similarities of the risk
perception and coping capacity (RQ1) and mitigation (RQ2) of each hazard are detailed.
Afterwards, a discussion about the key societal challenges for improving coping capacity is
offered by looking at the impacts into vulnerability and resilience. Finally, the study draws
up some conclusions about the management of multiple hazards.
2. Case Study
Campina Grande in Brazil is the second-most urbanised city in Paraíba state (PB),
with more than 400,000 inhabitants [30]. The city is located in the countryside, but it is an
urban area [31], which makes it an important route of mobility between cities and states.
From the environmental point of view, the city faces two water-related hazards. On
the one hand, the city lacks water due to the dry climate of the semiarid region (Figure 1),
but on the other hand, when it rains (a concentrated rain), the city experiences flooding [28].
Reports provided by the Civil Defence show flood cases at different scales (buildings and
part of streets). At the other end of the spectrum, the Water Company Agency (CAGEPA)
imposes water rationing periods on a city scale [32] by dividing the urban area into two
operational zones and spreading the rationing period in the weekdays (for example, zone 1
will have water from Monday to Thursday, and zone 2 from Friday to Sunday). From this,
we can infer that each hazard happens in a different spatial scale (Figure 1).
Due to the multiple-hazard character of the city, the population of Campina Grande
Sustainability 2021, 13, 302 is forced to adapt to two differing water-related hazards. In this sense, we believe
4 of 20 that
understanding the perceptions and behaviours of these residents can improve the pro-
posal of mitigation strategies and achieve resilience from a long-term perspective.
Figure 1. Location of Campina Grande in the Brazilian semiarid region.

Figure 1. Location of Campina Grande in the Brazilian semiarid region.
3. The Socio-Spatial Context

Due to the multiple-hazard character of the city, the population of Campina Grande
is Since
forcedeach
to adapt
hazardto two
hasdiffering
a spatialwater-related
scale but onlyhazards.
becomes In athis sense,with
disaster we believe that
the component
understanding the perceptions and behaviours of these residents can improve the proposal
of social interaction (e.g., see the disaster risk definition from IPCC [2]), we classified the
of mitigation strategies and achieve resilience from a long-term perspective.
complex system (i.e., the city) with a socio-spatial view (Figure 2). This analysis was in-
spired
3. The with the perspectives
Socio-Spatial Contextpresented by Ruiter et al. [21], in which temporal and spatial
scales wereSince discussed
each hazardfor hasconsecutive
a spatial scalehazards
but only (more
becomes details are with
a disaster available in [21]). Our
the component
approach presents an analysis for flooding and water shortage (WS)
of social interaction (e.g., see the disaster risk definition from IPCC [2]), we classified not only according
the temporal
to the complex system (i.e., the
and spatial city) with
scales, a socio-spatial
but also concerning view
the(Figure 2). This
social view (oranalysis
exposure wasscale)
inspired
as an attemptwithtothebetter
perspectives presented
characterise theby Ruiter
view et al.the
from [21], in which who
residents temporalare and spatial
forced to cope
scales were discussed for consecutive hazards (more details are
with hazards in different scales. The analysis can be applied to multiple hazards and dif-available in [21]). Our
approach presents an analysis for flooding and water shortage (WS) not only according
ferent characteristics.
to the temporal and spatial scales, but also concerning the social view (or exposure scale)
Figure 2 illustrates that flooding can take place in only a few minutes or hours (tem-
as an attempt to better characterise the view from the residents who are forced to cope
poral
with scale).
hazardsMoreover, flooding
in different scales.can create
The impacts
analysis can be toapplied
specifictohouseholds (and streets)
multiple hazards and in
thedifferent
spatial scale. Damages
characteristics. can be indirect or direct, depending mainly on the vulnerabili-
ties at the time2 of
Figure the hazard
illustrates occurrence.
that flooding On place
can take the other
in only hand,
a fewwater
minutesshortage
or hourscan have two
(tempo-
ral scale).
different Moreover, First,
behaviours. floodingtherecanare
create impacts
specific to specific
places (spatialhouseholds
scale) in(and streets)
the city thatincan
the have
spatial scale. Damages can be indirect or direct, depending mainly
a lower water supply in normal days (i.e., not in the dry season) due to losses and prob- on the vulnerabilities
lemsat in
thethe
time of the hazard
network occurrence.
[32]. This can lastOnforthe otherdays,
hours, hand,and water shortage
weeks. can haveintwo
However, the dry
different behaviours. First, there are specific places (spatial scale) in the city that can have a
season (i.e., rationing days), due to management choices, the whole city is exposed to the
lower water supply in normal days (i.e., not in the dry season) due to losses and problems
hazard, which can last for weeks, months, and years.
in the network [32]. This can last for hours, days, and weeks. However, in the dry season
Citizens
(i.e., rationingaredays),
expected
due totomanagement
face and cope withthe
choices, hazards
whole cityof various
is exposed different nature and
to the hazard,
spatial and temporal scales. On one
which can last for weeks, months, and years. side, the population located only in a part of the city
is exposed to flooding
Citizens and WS
are expected on and
to face normal
copedays, but on other
with hazards daysdifferent
of various (or months, nature years),
and the
whole cityand
spatial cantemporal
be exposedscales.to On
theone
hazard
side, of
theWS on rationing
population located days.
onlyDue to the
in a part character
of the city of
is exposed to flooding and WS on normal days, but on other days
the hazards, flooding can happen in dry years or in a period of a lack of water on normal (or months, years), the
whole
days, city makes
which can be exposed
the same to the hazard ofexposed
population WS on rationing
to moredays. thanDueonetohazard
the character
on theofsame
the hazards, flooding can happen in dry years or in a period of a lack of water on normal
temporal scale.
days, which makes the same population exposed to more than one hazard on the same
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 2
temporal scale.
Figure2.2.The
Figure The complex
complex socio-spatial
socio-spatial context
context of waterof shortage
water shortage and flooding.
and flooding. Each
Each disaster disaster is de-
is described
scribed in three main scales: exposure (or social), spatial,
in three main scales: exposure (or social), spatial, and temporal. and temporal.
Although
Although WS
WS and flooding
and generate
flooding directdirect
generate and indirect impacts
and indirect to the exposed
impacts pop-
to the exposed pop
ulation, we suggest that other factors are sources of vulnerabilities that may
ulation, we suggest that other factors are sources of vulnerabilities that may increase th increase the
damages. Particularly, we highlight that the way which citizens cope with the event can
damages. Particularly, we highlight that the way which citizens cope with the event ca
increase or decrease the vulnerabilities. If a community implements sufficient coping
increase or decrease the vulnerabilities. If a community implements sufficient coping re
responses, the impact of the hazard event may be attenuated [1]. For example, housing
sponses, the
conditions (i.e.,impact
buildingofmaterials)
the hazardcanevent may
increase thebeeffects
attenuated [1]. For
of flooding. On example, housing con
the other hand,
ditions (i.e.,
rainwater building
harvesting canmaterials)
reduce thecan increase
impacts for WSthe(and
effects of flooding.
flooding). On the other
Vulnerabilities are hand
rainwaterasharvesting
considered a combination canofreduce the impacts
behaviours for WS
and attitudes that (and flooding).
may influence theVulnerabilities
actions (or ar
considered
choices) as a combination
for hazards mitigation inof thebehaviours
socio-spatialand attitudes
context. Here,that may influence
we analyse the action
the vulnera-
bilities as “keyfor
(or choices) societal
hazardschallenges”
mitigationfaced
in by
thethe exposed population
socio-spatial context. that
Here,have
weaanalyse
crucial the vul
role for increasing
nerabilities the resilience
as “key [15].
societal challenges” faced by the exposed population that have a cru
4.cial role for increasing the resilience [15].
Methodology
Citizen science terminologies are dynamic and change over time [33]. Throughout
4. Methodology
this study, the definition of citizen science (CS) provided by Lewentein (2016) is used. The
authorCitizen scienceCSterminologies
characterised as a science toare dynamic
society andaschange
and also over time
participatory citizen[33]. Throughou
science,
this study,
where peoplethemostly
definition of citizen
contribute science (CS)
observations provided
or efforts by scientific
for the Lewentein (2016) is(aused. Th
enterprise
complete description is detailed in [33]). In this paper, the place-based
author characterised CS as a science to society and also as participatory citizen science is science
citizen
used as a tool that provides more means to understand the social environment in
where people mostly contribute observations or efforts for the scientific enterprise (a com which
disasters take place [34]. Our method is based on three steps detailed below.
plete description is detailed in [33]). In this paper, the place-based citizen science is use
1.as a The
toolplace-based citizen
that provides science
more meansproject
to understand the social environment in which disas
ters The
takecitizen
placescience
[34]. Our
was method is based
conceptualised in aon three steps
participatory detailedi.e.,
approach, below.
Project PLANE-
JEEE (abbreviated from Planeje Eventos
1. The place-based citizen science project Extremos in Portuguese, translated as “to plan
extreme events”), from May to June 2019. The project had the participation of 172 residents
and 27The citizenand
specialists science was conceptualised
policymakers in a participatory
in different collaboration approach,
strategies, including i.e., Projec
surveys,
PLANEJEEE
informal (abbreviated
meetings, workshops,fromandPlaneje Eventos
discussion Extremos
groups. in Portuguese,
The sample translated as “t
size for residents’
participation was calculated through the simplified Yamane’s formula [35]. Data from of 17
plan extreme events”), from May to June 2019. The project had the participation
residents
the andSurvey
Geological 27 specialists
of Braziland policymakers
(CPRM) show that in different
2156 citizenscollaboration
were in the riskstrategies,
areas of includ
ing surveys, informal meetings, workshops, and discussion groups. The sample size fo
residents’ participation was calculated through the simplified Yamane’s formula [35
Data from the Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM) show that 2156 citizens were in the ris
areas of Campina Grande in 2014. From this, the sample size with a minimum of 96 peopl
Campina Grande in 2014. From this, the sample size with a minimum of 96 people with an
error acceptance of 10% was determined using Equation (1).
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20
N
n = (1)
1 + Ne2
wherennisis the
where the sample size,N
samplesize, N is
is the
the total
total number
number ofof residents, and ee is
residents,and is the
the error
error acceptance
acceptance
value.
value. Data
Data were
were obtained
obtained to
to cover
cover other
other areas
areas of
of this
this research,
research, but
but only
only results
resultsrelated
relatedto
to
the comparison of social vulnerabilities of residents are discussed
the comparison of social vulnerabilities of residents are discussed here. here.
2.
2. Questionnaire conceptualisation
The questionnaires
The questionnaires were were given
given to
to all
all stakeholders
stakeholders and and intended
intended toto cover
cover three
threemainmain
areas (Figure 3)
areas 3) from
fromthe thedefinition
definitionofofsocial
social factors
factorsto to
thethe
proposal andand
proposal evaluation
evaluationof mit-
of
igation strategies.
mitigation strategies.Residents
Residentsparticipated
participated according
according to their geographic
to their location.
geographic Since
location. wa-
Since
water shortage
ter shortage occurs
occurs ininthe
thewhole
wholecitycityand
andflooding
flooding occurs
occurs localised in the the municipality
municipality
(Figures
(Figures 11 and
and 2),
2), we
we applied
applied the
the questionnaire
questionnaire to to residents
residents mainly
mainly in
in danger
danger of of flooding,
flooding,
with
with the premise that those areas will also be affected by water shortage. From the
the premise that those areas will also be affected by water shortage. From the 172
172
respondents, 95% experienced flooding before, and 96% experienced
respondents, 95% experienced flooding before, and 96% experienced water shortage water shortage before.
be-
The
fore.questionnaire
The questionnairehad twohadsections, i.e., flooding
two sections, and water
i.e., flooding shortage,
and water each with
shortage, each30withques-
30
tions that aimed
questions to reflect
that aimed the indicators
to reflect spreadspread
the indicators in eachin area of analysis
each (Figure 3).
area of analysis During
(Figure 3).
the participatory
During approach,approach,
the participatory the city wasthenotcityfacing
was notrationing
facingperiods. However,
rationing periods. due to the
However,
intermittent supply issues, many residents face a water supply reduction
due to the intermittent supply issues, many residents face a water supply reduction on “normal days”
on
(see more details in the socio-spatial context in Section 3). The participatory
“normal days” (see more details in the socio-spatial context in Section 3). The participatory approach and
survey
approachapplication
and survey hadapplication
the supporthad of undergraduate
the support of and postgraduate
undergraduate andstudents at the
postgraduate
Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) and the Civil
students at the Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) and the Civil Defence. Defence.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Areas
Areas of
of analysis
analysis with
with the
the questionnaire
questionnaireapplication
applicationin
inthe
thePLANEJEEE
PLANEJEEE(Planeje
(PlanejeEventos
EventosExtremos)
Extremos)project.
project.
3. The analysis of risk perception and coping capacity (RQ1), and preferences of miti-
3. The analysis of risk perception and coping capacity (RQ1), and preferences of mitiga-
gation measures (RQ2)
tion measures (RQ2)
The risk perception (RP) and coping capacity (CC) were analysed with socio-psycho-
The risk perception (RP) and coping capacity (CC) were analysed with socio-psycholo-
logical indicators. The indicators aimed to express how people perceive the risk before the
gical indicators. The indicators aimed to express how people perceive the risk before the
occurrence (i.e., RP) and how they cope (i.e., CC) with adaptive and permanent measures
in their household. Coping and adaptive capacity were analysed at the household level
(i.e., measures that citizens can apply them in their home), and the mitigation capacity at
the city scale (i.e., measures applied in the urban area). The third area of analysis (Figure
3) evaluated how likely the residents would agree with some measures to reduce the im-
occurrence (i.e., RP) and how they cope (i.e., CC) with adaptive and permanent measures
in their household. Coping and adaptive capacity were analysed at the household level
(i.e., measures that citizens can apply them in their home), and the mitigation capacity at
the city scale (i.e., measures applied in the urban area). The third area of analysis (Figure 3)
evaluated how likely the residents would agree with some measures to reduce the impacts
of flooding and water shortage. Here, we aimed to understand how the residents see the
effectiveness of mitigation measures.
Respondents could answer the questions with a 1–5 Likert scale, expressing how
likely they agreed with the options (i.e., 5 as expressing strong agreement and 1 as least
agreement). The answers were plotted in a RP and CC wheel that accounts for answers
for both hazards and facilitate comparisons in the next section of this paper. The influence
of each social factor (Figure 3) was analysed on the RP and CC indicators according to
Wilcoxon Z and Mann–Whitney U tests, in which p-values lower than 0.05 are considered
as significant [36].
5. Results
This section is divided into three main phases. First, the results obtained with the social
factors are presented. Secondly, the analysis of risk perception and coping capacity and,
thirdly, the perceived effectiveness of mitigation measures are presented and discussed.
5.1. The Social Factors

Social factors were divided in four groups: (i) socio-economical, (ii) informational,
(iii) geographical, and (iv) contextual and cultural. The choice of social groups was based
on studies of [36–42]; full details are presented in Table 1.
5.1.1. Socio-Economical Factors

The majority of respondents were female (65%). From the total, 38% of the respondents
were over 55 years old, and 80% of the residents received fewer than 2 wages per month.
In addition, 12.2% were illiterate, 48.3% completed only the first grade in school, and only
8.2% had a university degree.
Most respondents (75.3%) own property. Other questions were also asked that were
intended to survey details about living conditions; it was found that 94% were houses and
69.8% of the residents lived in the same place for more than ten years. About the number
of people in households, 48.2% had more than four people living in the property with at
least one child in 47% of the properties. These questions were essential to further evaluate
the previous experiences with the hazards and the choice of application of coping and
adaptive measures at the household level.
5.1.2. Information and Geographical Factors

From the 172 residents, 94.8% confirmed having faced flooding before (i.e., indirect
experience) and 75.46% affirmed the flooding reached inside their properties (i.e., direct
experience). They were also asked whether they had any damage and whether they had to
be removed from their households in any of the experiences, in which respectively 43.6%
and 63% answered positively for these questions. Even though the selection of areas was
mainly flooding based, 95.9% of the residents confirmed to also have issues with water
shortage (i.e., direct experience).
5.1.3. Contextual Factors

Another question was aimed to evaluate how the residents trusted in the management
bodies to manage each hazard; the residents could answer with the 1 to 5 Likert scale.
Responses showed that 51.2% and 37.8% have “very low” (score 1 of the Likert scale) trust
in public authorities to manage flooding and water shortage, respectively. From this, it is
possible to see that residents trust more in the management of water shortage than flooding.
Table 1. Division of social factors into four groups covered in the PLANEJEE questionnaire.
Percentage (%)
Social Social
Groups Classification Water
Factors General Flooding
Shortage
Illiterate 12.2 - -
Education
Literate 87.8 - -
Feminine 64.5 - -
Gender
Masculine 35.5 - -
Less than 25 year 6.4 - -
25–35 year 16.4 - -
Age 35–45 year 19.8 - -
45–55 year 19.8 - -
Socio- More than 55 year 37.8 - -
Economical
Own 75.3 - -
House
Rent 17.1 - -
Ownership
Other 7.6 - -
Less than 1 wage 23.6 - -
1–2 wages 56.4 - -
Income 2–4 wages 10.3 - -
More than 4 wages 1.2 - -
Rather not to say 8.4 - -
With children 47.1 - -
Children
Without children 52.9 - -
Indirect With ind. experience - - 94.8
Informational Experience Without ind. experience - - 5.2
Direct With d. experience - 95.6 75.46
Experience Without d. experience - 4.3 24.54
Geographical I don’t know 5.52
Living near hazard - - 64.7
Hazard
Not living near hazard - - 13.5
Proximity
I don’t know - - 21.8
1 (very low trust) - 37.8 51.2
2 (low trust) - 21.5 19.8
Contextual Management
3 (moderate trust) - 12.2 11.0
and Cultural Trust
4 (high trust) - 18.0 13.4
5 (very high trust) - 10.5 4.7
5.2. Risk Perception and Coping Capacity

The risk perception analysis was based on four indicators that cover the cognitive
and behavioural factors of residents (Figure 3). Each indicator was analysed with specific
questions that are detailed in Table A1 (Appendix A). Figure 4 shows the mean answers of
each indicator to the water-related hazards. Overall, two indicators, i.e., awareness and
worry, had high mean values in both hazards (Figure 4), with slightly higher values for
the flooding. This indicates that residents consider the flood and WS events as very severe
and are very worried (from 4 to 5 on the Likert scale) about other similar events in the next
10 years.
In both hazards, the lower answers can be seen in the preparedness indicator (P).
Preparedness generally refers to activities that improve the readiness to respond to a
disaster, and we focus here on community preparedness and early warning systems. This
is a broad concept, and many activities can fall under its umbrella, but it is distinct from
hazard mitigation, which typically involves specific investments undertaken to lower
damages from an event. For this question, we asked the respondents how likely they
are to receive warnings before the extreme event. The mean answer for flooding was
1.7 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.24; variation (CV) = 73.26) and 3.32 for water shortage
stainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(SD = 1.60; CV = 48.09). Answers show that residents receive more warnings for water 10 o
shortage than for flooding, which was expected due to the different temporal scales of the
hazards.
Figure 4. Figure
Risk 4.perception andand
Risk perception coping capacity
coping capacity wheel
wheel tohazard
to each each inhazard in study.
study. Photos Photos
(A–D) were (A–D)
obtained in thewere obtained in the
PLANEJEEE
PLANEJEEE project
project with authorisation
with authorisation of residents.of(A,B)
residents. (A,B)
are water tanks are
and water tanks
water butts andwater
to save water butts
in the WS,to save
and (C,D)water in the WS, and
are barriers
to avoid the entrance of flooding waters.
(C,D) are barriers to avoid the entrance of flooding waters.
Risk communication and warnings are considered as critical social problems in risk
The second[37].
management phase of risk perception
Communication and coping
has uncountable benefitscapacity
since it canwas the
better analysis
prepare the of the
fluence of each
residents social
before, factor,
during, andaccording to Wilcoxon
after the hazard. AccordingZtoand Mann–Whitney
Kelman [23], in the caseUoftests.
a In r
disaster, it is extremely important to provide enough information for
perception, for flooding, the residents with direct (p = 0.000 ) and indirect experience (
F residents to enable
0.000them to prepare and protect themselves
F), house ownership (p = 0.028F), and before the disaster occurrence. Another study
hazard proximity (p = 0.037) presented m
from Nguimalet [42] emphasised the need for preparedness; this is not only restricted to
differences
“warnings”in thebut awareness indicator.
also decentralised For WS, the
decision-making and influence was given
effective engagement, by direct exp
especially
ence in(pdeveloping
= 0.000 ), WS incomeTo(pbetter
countries. = 0.041 WS ) andthe
understand age (p = 0.048
societal WS ). Full
challenges, details
we asked how can
thebe seen
Tableresidents
A2 in Appendix B. Although
are usually informed about this analysis
extreme weather shows
events;that
49.6% independent socio-econo
and 16.8% affirmed
that they use television
cal, informational, and social and
geographical, media, respectively.groups
contextual Since the PLANEJEEE
have project on
an influence hadRP indi
mixed age respondents (Table 1), these options can indicate ways to inform people about
tors, the
which express the importance of considering different social information, the ana
hazards’ occurrence effectively.
sis also indicates
The answers that
of aknowledge
differentindicator
type of show
socialthat
constraint influenced
people think that they each cognitive a
can apply
behaviour
measures indicator. It mainly
for protecting suggests
and reducing the importance
hazards impacts at home, of analysing the higher
with a slightly influence of
answer to water shortage (i.e., M 4.37 WS ; M 4.19F ). This does not necessarily mean that
verse social indicators to RP and CC.
Similar behaviour is seen in coping capacity. For responsiveness, house owners
(p = 0.003F), age (p = 0.009F), and direct experience (p = 0.000F) were representative
flooding. However, no social group was influenced by the answers for WS responsi
ness. For applying adaptive measures in the household, only management trust was r
they will apply measures, but it does show that residents know it is possible to protect
themselves from the hazards.
Three questions analysed the coping capacity for the household level. First, residents
were asked whether they have coping measures in place to avoid the extreme event
(responsiveness indicator). The main answers showed 1.34 for flooding (SD 1.21 and CV
91.94) and 1.77 for water shortage (SD 1.11 and CV 62.62). This indicates that although
people agree that they can apply measures at their homes (i.e., knowledge indicator),
consider the hazard very severe (i.e., awareness indicator), and are very worried about
other events in the future (i.e., worry indicator), they do not have many protection measures
at the household level. In addition, we asked them what the main factors that can limit the
use of measures by the population were. Money was considered as the main constraint,
where 57% scored 1 (1 to 5 Likert scale). About the motivation to apply the measures in the
future, the majority answered that they would be keen to use more measures with a tax
relief (49.4% answered 4 and 43% answered 5 scales). Other motivations such as “if I knew
it was really going to be effective” and “if a strong flooding or water shortage happened”
also had high means (M = 4.33 and M = 4.30, respectively).
During the survey application in the PLANEJEEE project, some mitigation measures
were seen in the households. Examples are water butts and tanks (Figure 4A,B) for
water shortage and barriers for flooding (Figure 4C,D). Other questions asked about
their willingness to apply adaptive measures (AM) or permanent measures (PM) in the
future, and residents answered that they would be keen to do it in both hazards.
The second phase of risk perception and coping capacity was the analysis of the
influence of each social factor, according to Wilcoxon Z and Mann–Whitney U tests. In
risk perception, for flooding, the residents with direct (p = 0.000F ) and indirect experience
(p = 0.000F ), house ownership (p = 0.028F ), and hazard proximity (p = 0.037) presented
more differences in the awareness indicator. For WS, the influence was given by direct
experience (p = 0.000WS ), income (p = 0.041WS ) and age (p = 0.048WS ). Full details can be
seen in Table A2 in Appendix B. Although this analysis shows that independent socio-
economical, informational, geographical, and contextual groups have an influence on RP
indicators, which express the importance of considering different social information, the
analysis also indicates that a different type of social constraint influenced each cognitive
and behaviour indicator. It mainly suggests the importance of analysing the influence of
diverse social indicators to RP and CC.
Similar behaviour is seen in coping capacity. For responsiveness, house ownership
(p = 0.003F ), age (p = 0.009F ), and direct experience (p = 0.000F ) were representative for flood-
ing. However, no social group was influenced by the answers for WS responsiveness. For
applying adaptive measures in the household, only management trust was representative
(p = 0.010F ). Education (p = 0.022F ) was seen to influence permanent measures for flooding
and age (p = 0.05WS ) for WS. In summary, the influence analysis shows that social groups
are interrelated with RP and CC in different ways to each extreme event, which highlights
the need to build more multi-disciplinary analyses to provide more understanding in
how/what/why social factors influence the perception and adaptability.
5.3. Preferred of Strategies to Mitigate the Hazards

Residents were asked how they see the efficiency of structural and non-structural
measures for reducing flooding and water shortage, including infiltration and retention, as
well as grey and green strategies (Table 2). For flooding, the lowest efficiencies were found
related to the green measures (items C–F), mainly to the use of green roofs (M = 2.99). In
addition, the highest variances were also seen in these options (CV > 25%), which indicates
that residents have less agreement in these options. The highest efficiencies are mainly
related to management actions, such as the maintenance of existing measures (item B)
and improvement of awareness and preparedness of residents (items H and I). This is an
indication that residents prefer proven technologies [43]. The analysis shows that green
and infiltration measures are less supported as ways to reduce flooding in comparison
with structural measures (item A). For water shortage, both management and structural
measures (items J–O) are seen as effective with very low variance in answers (CV lower
than 20%). The residents appreciate the high efficiency of rainwater harvesting to mitigate
the effects of water shortage (M = 4.31), but they do not consider it as effective for flooding
(M = 3.75).
Table 2. Effectiveness of mitigation measures to each hazard.
Flooding Mitigation Measures Mean SD CV (%)

A Design and implementation of new protection measures 4.25 0.71 16.7
Maintenance of existing protection measures (drainage
B 4.47 0.61 13.6
system, channels)
C Construction of green areas in the city 3.92 1.09 27.9
D Use of green roofs in the buildings 2.99 1.23 41.1
E Use of rainwater harvesting 3.75 1.08 28.9
F Use of pavement permeable in the city 4.17 0.86 20.6
G Ensure better land use management plans 4.33 0.59 13.7
H Improve awareness of citizens 4.47 0.58 12.9
I Improve preparedness of citizens 4.45 0.65 14.6
Water Shortage Mitigation Measures Mean SD CV (%)
J Design and implementation of new protection measures 4.17 0.71 17.1
K Use of rainwater harvesting 4.31 0.70 16.1
L Maintenance of existing water supply system 4.37 0.64 14.7
M Ensure better land use management plans 4.37 0.54 12.4
N Improve awareness of citizens 4.51 0.55 12.1
O Improve preparedness of citizens 4.51 0.52 11.6
These results can be an indication of the need for preparing the personnel and residents
for the advantages of strategies such as green infrastructure (GI) and nature-based solutions
(NbS) [44]. In 2020, the IUCN defined NbS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and
restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges (e.g., climate
change, food and water security or natural disasters) effectively and adaptively, while
simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”. We argue that
another critical point for implementing NbS in disaster planning is social participation.
Exchange of information will be possible when individuals who experience risky situations
report their experiences and solutions; on the other hand, policymakers can provide
knowledge to citizens. The proposal of solutions must take social justice into account [45,46]
and provide co-benefits [47].
6. Discussion
In general, the results show that residents had severe experiences with flooding and
water shortage in the past. However, even though residents present high awareness and
worry to both hazards (Figure 4), the number of coping measures in place (i.e., respon-
siveness) is low. Mondino, et al. [48], highlighted that previous experience influences risk
awareness not only directly but also indirectly through the knowledge that was gained
from that experience. Residents seem to have high knowledge on protecting themselves
from hazards in the future, but they rarely effectively apply any measure, which makes us
conclude that having previous experience (direct or indirect) is not enough for people to
protect themselves from hazards.
The WS and flooding socio-spatial complex (Figure 2) pose even more complexity to
the analysis since, depending on the nature of hazards, a person can contribute to reducing
disasters’ effects without having experienced them before. For example, flooding can be
minimised with the implementation of adaptive measures in households located upstream,
which means that people without experience may be asked to apply adaptive or mitigation
measures in their houses to reduce flooding downstream.
us conclude that having previous experience (direct or indirect) is not enough for people
to protect themselves from hazards.
The WS and flooding socio-spatial complex (Figure 2) pose even more complexity to
the analysis since, depending on the nature of hazards, a person can contribute to reduc-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 302 ing disasters’ effects without having experienced them before. For example, flooding 12 ofcan
20
be minimised with the implementation of adaptive measures in households located up-
stream, which means that people without experience may be asked to apply adaptive or
mitigation measures in their houses to reduce flooding downstream.
In light of this discussion, we suggest that three main societal challenges, namely
In light of this discussion, we suggest that three main societal challenges, namely
information, incentive, and trust, should be integrated to increase the uptake of measures
information, incentive, and trust, should be integrated to increase the uptake of measures
for hazards mitigation (Figure 5). Here, we use the definition of societal challenges as
for hazards mitigation (Figure 5). Here, we use the definition of societal challenges as re-
resources that generate abilities for individuals to deal with disasters [15]. Therefore, those
sources that generate abilities for individuals to deal with disasters [15]. Therefore, those
with greater resources are less vulnerable and more resilient (Figure 5). As said before,
with greater resources are less vulnerable and more resilient (Figure 5). As said before,
findings were produced in line with the integrated planning of water shortage and flooding
findings were produced in line with the integrated planning of water shortage and flood-
but can also be applied to hazards of other nature.
ing but can also be applied to hazards of other nature.
Figure 5. The triad of societal challenges for increasing the uptake of measures in the multiple
Figure 5. The triad of societal challenges for increasing the uptake of measures in the multiple
hazards context.
hazards context.
6.1. The
6.1. The Role
Role of
of Information
Information
Although the
Although the knowledge
knowledgeobtained
obtainedfrom from thethe
previous
previous experience
experience is essential [48], [48],
is essential peo-
people need more information throughout the hazard. For this, some questions must an-
ple need more information throughout the hazard. For this, some questions must be be
swered to to
answered provide
provide information
information before
before(e.g., how
(e.g., cancan
how I know
I knowthe hazard
the hazardwill will
occur?), dur-
occur?),
ing (e.g.,
during how
(e.g., should
how shouldI proceed?)
I proceed?) andand afterafter
the disaster (e.g.,(e.g.,
the disaster howhowcan Ican
prepare for the
I prepare fornext
the
event?).
next Due Due
event?). to thetomixed spatial
the mixed and temporal
spatial and temporal dynamics, specific
dynamics, challenges
specific of theof
challenges study
the
case will
study casebewilldiscussed, with an
be discussed, aim
with antoaim
enhance the disaster
to enhance risk reduction.
the disaster risk reduction.
The first
The firstissue
issueisisthe theaccess
accessto toclimate-related
climate-relatedinformation.
information.Effective
Effectivecommunication
communication
andappropriate
and appropriatechoices choicesbased
based onon information
information cancan create
create a difference
a difference in hazard
in hazard impactsimpacts
[23].
In theInCampina
[23]. the Campina Grande case,case,
Grande the availability
the availabilityof information
of information in the pre-disaster
in the pre-disasterphase phaseis
low in in
is low bothbothWS WS (M(M = 3.2) and
= 3.2) and flooding
flooding(M (M= =1.8).
1.8).Since
Since2014,
2014,thetheNational
NationalWater
WaterAgency
Agency
(ANA)
(ANA)of ofBrazil
Brazilprovides
providesaaDrought
DroughtMonitor (Monitordas
Monitor(Monitor dasSecas
Secasin inPortuguese)
Portuguese)for forcritical
critical
regions
regions in in the
the territory.
territory. The The monitor
monitor isisaareference
referencefor forthe
thedevelopment
developmentand andadoption
adoptionof of
public
public policies
policies to to reduce
reduce drought
drought in inthe
thecountry
country[49].
[49]. Similarly,
Similarly, the the National
National Centre
Centre of of
Alert
Alert and
andMonitoring
Monitoring of ofNatural
NaturalDisasters
Disasters(CEMADEN)
(CEMADEN) provides providesmappings
mappingsof ofdrought
drought
and flooding in the Brazilian cities [50]. However, this information
and flooding in the Brazilian cities [50]. However, this information is more restricted is more restricted to the to
academics and authorities, which means that more efforts should
the academics and authorities, which means that more efforts should be made to deliver be made to deliver this
information
this information to residents. In addition,
to residents. In addition,authorities must must
authorities find appropriate
find appropriateways ways
to improve
to im-
the accessibility
prove and usefulness
the accessibility of information
and usefulness provided
of information to facilitate
provided their adaptation
to facilitate [51].
their adapta-
Another
tion [51]. specific challenge is that, even though people are aware of flooding, approxi-
mately 65% of the respondents still live in risk-prone areas. When asked about the reasons
for that, they mainly selected “I don’t have money to move”, “I don’t have anywhere else
to go”, and “I got used to the situation”. This context shows that there is a need not only
to provide more information but also to consider other factors, such as the availability of
other land, economic power, and personal desire to reduce the vulnerabilities. A study by
Danso and Addo [52] investigated the reasons that residents continued to live in unsafe
flood areas in Ghana. Although they were knowledgeable of the risk they faced, the main
reasons cited were land affordability, easy land accessibility, and the quest to preserve
ancestral lands. This is evidence that different social and cultural contexts can interfere
with the ability to make choices, even when the level of information is high. In Campina
Grande, temporary relocation was made to reduce risk of disasters in the past. While
temporary or permanent relocation is a viable strategy, it is important to ask whether they
will be moving to a place with sufficient access to water and other amenities [42].
Moreover, an information and educational movement can foster the outdated idea
that floods in arid and semiarid regions are very unlikely [53]. Since the flooding does not
occur regularly, there is an underestimation of flood risks, as floods are a local disaster
in some cities and therefore only affect specific social classes. The event takes place in a
short time, and people can believe that the damage is not that great. Those that are affected
have become familiar with the event and simply try to live with the impacts generated.
Concerning WS, some studies have observed a naturalisation of water under-consumption
by residents who have extensive experiences of living with water scarcity (i.e., these people
think it is “normal” to have a lack of water) [54]. In contrast, this behavioural change
lasts only during periods of severe drought or until the following year [55], meaning that
information about WS may decline over the years after a severe drought, and people will
only feel its impacts on the next drought disaster when the information will have little
influence in the time.
The last societal challenge is the need to enhance the understanding of the effectiveness
of green interventions. Although mitigation solutions can be suggested in different scales to
the city, the process of adaptation involves more than only proposing new technologies [51].
Ward et al. [20] suggested that a critical problem is a lack of understanding of how the
underlying technologies and mechanisms can influence overall flood and drought risk at
local and regional scales. Wright et al. [24] suggested that for resilience, citizens’ attitudes
and behaviours to flood and water infrastructure must change so that they can better
understand and appreciate the multiple benefits of blue and green infrastructure. In terms
of bridging the gap between science and decision-making, it is essential to construct a
mutual dialogue and learning mechanism among stakeholders to facilitate the mission of
adaptation to climate change by reducing disaster risks [56].
6.2. The Role of Trust

The political and socio-cultural context is also a significant aspect in the research of
risk perception and coping capacity, but it is often neglected [7,39]. There is a relationship
between coping capacity and trust in the management, whereas there is a common belief
that authorities are primarily responsible for the protection and thus obliged to release the
residents from flood protection responsibility [57]. A similar situation was characterised by
Fuchs et al. [39], in which respondents believe that authorities are the only responsible for
managing floods. These conditions represent challenges that were already in place before
the extreme event. For example, people have a level of trust before the extreme event (the
lack of or abundance of rainfall) take place in the socio-spatial system [1]. This means that
high local confidence in climate-related information provides enough time for residents’
preparation before the disaster [20]. On the other hand, mistrust in forecasting can delay
the time for people to prepare.
In Campina Grande, trust is higher for management in WS than in flooding (Table 1).
People have a high degree of confidence in the water supply systems, as they believe that the
authorities will join efforts for solutions, regardless of the investments applied (for example,
the transposition of flows from distant places) that may be linked to the universal right to
water. As seen in Figure 4A,B, people have water tanks and water butts in their homes, but
this does not necessarily indicate a lack of confidence in management. In fact, it is an indicator
that they know about the inefficiency of the service, regardless of drought disasters. People
want to protect themselves against phenomena that generate intermittences in the water
service [58], such as hydraulic oscillations and piping ruptures. In addition, we consider the
spatial and temporal scales to influence the way people trust in management.
In floods, due to the low trust in the municipal management actions, coping measures
are more easily seen (Figure 4C,D), but mainly flood barriers. Residents are willing to
accept greater responsibility for the risk of floods (i.e., to apply more measures), as they do
not believe that the government will do so. For example, residents shared a lack of proper
information and warning before the flooding, and also a lack of belief that changes will be
made before the next events. This is particularly important because if residents are to be
asked to take on greater responsibility concerning their local environments, then there is
a need to build relationships based on two-way dialogue and mutual representation [59].
Trust will interfere directly with the way that people believe in each other in times of crisis
or agree on coordinated action from management to confront threats [60].
6.3. The Role of Incentives

Addressing societal challenges requires strong leadership and involvement of the
government in planning for adaptation and implementing measures to facilitate adaptation
at the local level [51]. Incentives are defined with two main applications: to provide means
for more coping capacity and to encourage more collaboration. These issues are mainly
related to the way the management, legislation, and stakeholder collaboration is performed.
The participation of stakeholders throughout environmental decision-making is an
established principle [61], and significant value is given in including stakeholders in the
process from early on, all the way from problem structuring through to problem analysis
and the interpretation of results. According to Cinner et al [60], the formal and informal
relationship between individuals, communities, and organisations can help people deal
with change by providing social support and access to knowledge and resources. The
defining characteristic of institutions is their capacity for stability and resistance to changes,
including thinking, which means that encouraging people to participate in planning can
generate changes in the administrative routines and professional cultures of the institutions
responsible for planning. For example, while recovering from water-related hazards, not
only will residents be asked to take individual actions, but agencies will also be asked to
coordinate short-term recovery and long-term resilience strategies [60].
In Campina Grande, 75.6% affirmed that they could support and collaborate with
the planning of WS and flooding. To assess what residents think participation is, we
asked them how they can participate in the planning. A different range of answers was
collected, involving mainly “reporting the lawbreakers”, “keeping the city clean”, “sharing
my opinion, ideas and experiences”, and “saving water”. In general, people feel more
encouraged to support WS and flooding management. The main criticisms were given
related to flooding, such as, “The city council forgot about us, and there is only monitoring
when the flood is occurring”. We asked how some factors could facilitate their participation
in management. The options with higher percentages were “if I received a monetary
incentive”, “if I knew the authorities would listen to me”, and “if I knew my help was
being used in the planning”, with the mean being at 3.89, 4.41, and 4.44, respectively.
Even though the city faces both hazards, the findings obtained in this study show that
residents are subjected to different levels of societal challenges in the socio-spatial system.
As an attempt to illustrate the current situation of both water-related hazards, the triad of
challenges is plotted in Figure 6. Levels of information, trust, and incentive are expressed
on an increasing scale, where “−” and “+” represent lower and higher levels, respectively,
to the current (tι ) and the future (t f ). The analysis is fundamental since each challenge
performs specific functions, as detailed previously, that together must integrate a network
of important resources to mitigate water scarcity and floods. Notably, the plot emphasises
that there are differences in terms of social vulnerabilities to each extreme event.
(indicated by the blue) than water shortage (orange). Consequent
these specific challenges must be tackled to improve the services
Sustainability 2021, 13, 302
ties in each water challenge. For the future (𝑡 ), the grey15dots
of 20
illus
of social challenges may reduce the vulnerabilities and increase re
Figure 6. Scheme of the triad of societal challenges in the socio-spatial context. Colours express the
Figure 6. Scheme
water shortage offlooding
(orange) and the triad
(blue)of
nowsocietal challenges
(tι ) and how in the
it should be (grey) socio-spatial
in the future (t f ). co
water shortage (orange) and flooding (blue) now (𝑡 ) and how it should b
For the current time (t ), the residents appear to have more trust, information, and
ι
incentive to WS than to flooding, which makes the overall condition of flooding worse
(indicated by the blue) than water shortage (orange). Consequently, we recommend that
In Brazil, drought and flood disasters have severely affecte
these specific challenges must be tackled to improve the services and reduce vulnerabilities
decades
in each water[62–64]. Between
challenge. For the future1991(t f ), theand 2012,
grey dots 39,000
illustrate natural
how the reduction disasters
of
social challenges may reduce the vulnerabilities and increase resilience.
which are associated with water, whether drought or flood [65].
In Brazil, drought and flood disasters have severely affected the country in recent
and
decades2017, the
[62–64]. northeast
Between 1991 and region
2012, 39,000 ofnatural
the country
disasters were that integrates
recorded, 84% of the
which are associated with water, whether drought or flood [65]. Between the years 2012
through
and 2017, thethe worst
northeast drought
region period
of the country of the last
that integrates 50 ofyears
the state Paraíba[66].
passed Betwee
national metropolises,
through the worst drought periodsuch as 50
of the last São Paulo,
years recorded
[66]. Between 2014 andthe 2016,highest
major tem
national metropolises, such as São Paulo, recorded the highest temperatures in the previous
ous 70 and
70 years years andwater
a severe a severe water
crisis [67]. In 2014,crisis [67].region
the Amazon In 2014, theoneAmazon
suffered of the re
biggest floods
biggest floods in recentinyears
recent
[68]. On years
the other [68].
hand,On theconfirmed
studies other thathand, studies
the process of con
facing risks in Brazil, in general, is still capable of delays or absence of actions by authorities
of facing risks
or individuals [69]. Theinhuman
Brazil, in togeneral,
capacity respond to is andstill
recovercapable of delays
from disasters in Brazil or ab
lacks structures and indicators to assess the situation for
thorities or individuals [69]. The human capacity to respond to and the whole country [70]. In addition,
the Brazilian society’s lack of confidence in the agencies and bodies responsible for risk
in Brazil lacks
management structures
and the absence of a planandto engageindicators
the public into theassess the situation
decision-making process for
are addition,
In relevant points raised.
the In this way,
Brazilian our work contributes
society’s to the field by finding
lack of confidence in the keyagenci
societal challenges according to the residents’ view. This is particularly important since
ble
publicfor risk management
involvement is still limited in theand the absence
Brazilian context, mainly of due
a plan
to the to engage the
centralised
access to information and low participation in decision-making consultation exercises [69].
making process are relevant points raised. In this way, our work
by finding key societal challenges according to the residents’ vi
important since public involvement is still limited in the Brazilian
7. Conclusions
The understanding of the social context in which disaster occurs provides conditions
to face them, especially for less developed regions. Disasters act upon vulnerability and
exposure to create risk; however, this context can be worsened when more than one hazard
is in place. In that context, this study builds a place-based citizen science approach to more
deeply comprehend the social context in which multiple water-related hazards take place.
The study case is Campina Grande, a city located in the semiarid region of Brazil that suffers
from water shortage and flooding. The methodology is based on a participatory approach,
the PLANEJEEE project, which had the collaboration of 172 residents and 27 authorities
and specialists.
Throughout the study, a combination of subjective (i.e., surveys, workshops) and objec-
tive (i.e., Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney tests) methods were supported. The methodology
was built upon the premise that vulnerabilities are influenced by actions and behaviours,
which can increase or decrease resilience. The preliminary analysis indicated that hazards
have differences in spatial, temporal, and social scales, which must be taken into account
for a proper investigation into the perception and coping capacity of residents. For this, we
presented an innovative perspective with a socio-spatial representation (Figure 2).
The findings show that residents have a high risk perception of flooding and water
shortage. High levels of awareness and worry regarding both hazards were found (Figure 4),
which indicates that residents had severe experiences in the past and fear new experiences in
the future. However, even though they affirmed to believe that coping measures can reduce
the risk, low coping and adaptive capacity were found.
In this sense, linking the relationship between risk perception and the social risk
formula [71], we consider that the way people perceive risk is more related to the social
vulnerability experienced by the participants. Individuals become more interested in
assuming environmental attitudes that transform their own space with the understanding
of their own weaknesses to certain disasters, although coping is limited due to the number
of resources available. However, the individuals’ own location (i.e., territorial exposure)
also characterises them as more or less vulnerable, that is, the vulnerability is specific to the
site; for example, the poorest residents may occupy areas close to drainage channels, or their
low standard housing limits the construction of water reservoirs. An approach to the social
amplification of risk [69] assumes that the dangers and their material characteristics are real
enough, but they interact with a series of psychological, social, and cultural processes. The
interests of economic groups transform risk statements. This results in the intensification
or attenuation of your perception. The low coping capacity of the present time shows that
residents face strong economic and cultural barriers. However, for the future, economic
and social incentives can provide motivations to increase adaptive capacity. In addition,
other issues such as the inadequate early warning system, low communication, and low
understanding of mitigation measures emerged in the analysis.
Finally, we conceptualised a triad of societal challenges that should be integrated to
increase the coping capacity and to mitigate multiple hazards in the future. Looking at the
triad of societal challenges that formed, findings suggest that previous experience alone
(i.e., direct and indirect) is not enough to increase coping capacity. The social challenges
are expressed in three areas, i.e., information, trust, and incentives, that form a network of
resources to reduce social vulnerability and increase resilience. It is essential to mention
that measures to improve preparedness, risk perception, awareness, information, and trust
can be beneficial for both extremes, but these do not always result in vulnerability-reducing
actions [20]. Future studies must analyse deeply how each class of social factors influence
the ability to cope and perceive risk for multiple hazards. Multidisciplinary analyses are
suggested to account for the interdependencies between hazards [21].
Since extreme weather events are very likely to become more common in the fu-
ture [37], we believe these findings can assist scientists and policy makers to establish
societal challenges to improve risk perception and coping capacity through the analysis
of different social, spatial, and temporal scales of multiple hazards, thereby increas-
ing resilience.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, P.B.R.A., S.D., A.A.J.; methodology, P.B.R.A., M.J.d.S.C.,

S.D., A.A.J.; software, P.B.R.A.; formal analysis, P.B.R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B.R.A.,
M.J.d.S.C.; writing—review and editing, P.B.R.A., M.J.d.S.C., S.D., A.A.J.; visualisation, P.B.R.A.,
M.J.d.S.C.; supervision, S.D., A.A.J.; funding acquisition, P.B.R.A., S.D., A.A.J. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001 (Grant No. 88881.129673/2016-01) and European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant
agreement No. 778120 (GeoRes Project).
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
University of Exeter and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Exeter (UK).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study during the PLANEJEEE Project.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical constraints.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the support of the Federal University of Campina
Grande (UFCG) and Campina Grande City Council (PMCG). We thank all the stakeholders and
students for collaborating in the PLANEJEEE project. This paper is an extended version of the
presentation given by the first author at the URCC2020 conference organised by the RESCCUE
project and the authors are grateful to the organisers of this event for selecting this paper for this
Special Issue.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Details of the questions to analyse risk perception and coping capacity.
Risk Perception
Cognitive
Awareness (A): How do you classify the severity of the floods and water shortage?
Worry (W): How likely is flooding and water shortage going to occur within the next ten years?
Behavioural
Preparedness (P): How likely do you receive warnings before the disasters?
Knowledge (K): Do you think you can handle disasters better with adaptation measures in your
home?
Coping Capacity
Adaptation
Responsiveness (R): Which of the following measures would you use in your home to prevent
flooding and water shortage?
Adaptive measures (AM): Would you make any investment in your home to reduce the risk of
flooding and water shortage?
Permanent measures (PM) If you had a chance to move home because of flooding or water
shortage, would you?
Appendix B
Table A2. Influence of social factors in risk perception and coping capacity.
Flooding Water Shortage

Key Indicator
Social Factor with Social Factor with
Significant p-Value Significant p-Value
Influence Influence
Direct experience 0.000 Direct experience 0.000
Indirect experience 0.000 Income 0.041
Awareness
House ownership 0.028 Age 0.048
Hazard proximity 0.037
Risk Perception
Indirect experience 0.001 Direct experience 0.001
Worry
Hazard proximity 0.042
Preparedness - Non-significant - Non-significant
Knowledge - Non-significant - Non-significant
Adapt. measures House ownership 0.003 - Non-significant
taken Age 0.009
Coping Capacity (responsiveness) Direct experience 0.000
Adapt. measures
Management trust 0.010 - Non-significant
(future)
Perm. measures
Education 0.022 Age 0.05
(future)
Influence (p < 0.05): Wilcoxon Z and Mann–Whitney U tests.
References
1. Cutter, S.L.; Barnes, L.; Berry, M.; Burton, C.; Evans, E.; Tate, E.; Webb, J. A place-based model for understanding community
resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 598–606. [CrossRef]
2. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1–32.
3. Kaijser, A.; Kronsell, A. Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environ. Politics 2013, 23, 417–433. [CrossRef]
4. Djoudi, H.; Locatelli, B.; Vaast, C.; Asher, K.; Brockhaus, M.; Basnett Sijapati, B. Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting
inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio 2016, 45, 248–262. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Gambe, T.R. The Gender Dimensions of Water Poverty: Exploring Water Shortages in Chitungwiza. J. Poverty 2018, 23, 105–122.
[CrossRef]
6. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016. [CrossRef]
7. Lechowska, E. What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic
elements. Nat. Hazards 2018, 94, 1341–1366. [CrossRef]
8. Daramola, A.Y.; Oni, O.T.; Ogundele, O.; Adesanya, A. Adaptive capacity and coping response strategies to natural disasters: A
study in Nigeria. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 15, 132–147. [CrossRef]
9. Renn, O. Perception of risks. Toxicol Lett. 2004, 149, 405–413. [CrossRef]
10. UNISDR. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Available online: https://www.undrr.org/terminology (accessed on
1 November 2020).
11. Lund Schlamovitz, J.; Becker, P. Differentiated vulnerabilities and capacities for adaptation to water shortage in Gaborone,
Botswana. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 1–22. [CrossRef]
12. Westoby, R.; McNamara, K.E.; Kumar, R.; Nunn, P.D. From community-based to locally led adaptation: Evidence from Vanuatu.
Ambio 2020, 49, 1466–1473. [CrossRef]
13. Jolly, F.B.a.D. Adapting to Climate Change: Social-Ecological Resilience in a Canadian Western Arctic Community. Conserv. Ecol.
2001, 5, 18.
14. Whitney, C.K.; Bennett, N.J.; Ban, N.C.; Allison, E.H.; Armitage, D.; Blythe, J.L.; Burt, J.M.; Cheung, W.; Finkbeiner, E.M.;
Kaplan-Hallam, M.; et al. Adaptive capacity: From assessment to action in coastal social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2017,
22, 22. [CrossRef]
15. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of
capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kc, B.; Shepherd, J.M.; King, A.W.; Johnson Gaither, C. Multi-hazard climate risk projections for the United States. Nat. Hazards
2020, 10, 1–14. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, J.; He, Z.; Weng, W. A review of the research into the relations between hazards in multi-hazard risk analysis. Nat. Hazards
2020, 104, 2003–2026. [CrossRef]
18. Pagliacci, F.; Russo, M. Be (and have) good neighbours! Factors of vulnerability in the case of multiple hazards. Ecol. Indic. 2020.
[CrossRef]
19. Aksha, S.K.; Resler, L.M.; Juran, L.; Carstensen, L.W. A geospatial analysis of multi-hazard risk in Dharan, Nepal. Geomat. Nat.
Hazards Risk 2020, 11, 88–111. [CrossRef]
20. Ward, P.J.; de Ruiter, M.C.; Mård, J.; Schröter, K.; Van Loon, A.; Veldkamp, T.; von Uexkull, N.; Wanders, N.; AghaKouchak,
A.; Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K.; et al. The need to integrate flood and drought disaster risk reduction strategies. Water Secur. 2020.
[CrossRef]
21. Ruiter, M.C.; Couasnon, A.; Homberg, M.J.C.; Daniell, J.E.; Gill, J.C.; Ward, P.J. Why We Can No Longer Ignore Consecutive
Disasters. Earth’s Future 2020, 8, 3. [CrossRef]
22. Santos, F.M.d.; Carmo, R.L.d. As dimensões humanas das mudanças ambientais: Percepção ambiental e estratégias de adaptação
em Ilha Comprida—São Paulo. Rev. Gestão Costeira Integr. 2017, 17, 99–116. [CrossRef]
23. Kelman, I. Disaster by Choice: How Our Actions Turn Natural Hazards in Catostrophes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020.
24. Wright, N.; Vilcan, T.; Vercruysse, K.; Potter, K.; O0 Donnell, G.; Maskrey, S.; Lamond, J.; Krivtsov, V.; Kilsby, C.; Kapetas, L.; et al.
The blue-green path to urban flood resilience. Blue-Green Syst. 2020, 2, 28–45. [CrossRef]
25. Tassi, R.; Piccilli, D.G.A.; Brancher, S.C.; Roman, C.A. Preferências da população de diferentes estratos sociais no manejo das
águas pluviais urbanas. Ambiente Construído 2016, 16, 39–52. [CrossRef]
26. Mueller, J.; Lu, H.; Chirkin, A.; Klein, B.; Schmitt, G. Citizen Design Science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities
2018, 72, 181–188. [CrossRef]
27. Fraisl, D.; Campbell, J.; See, L.; Wehn, U.; Wardlaw, J.; Gold, M.; Moorthy, I.; Arias, R.; Piera, J.; Oliver, J.L.; et al. Mapping citizen
science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1735–1751. [CrossRef]
28. Alves, P.B.R.; Alexandra Alves Rufino, I.; Hermínio Cunha Feitosa, P.; Djordjević, S.; Javadi, A. Land-Use and Legislation-Based
Methodology for the Implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems in the Semi-Arid Region of Brazil. Sustainability 2020,
12, 661. [CrossRef]
29. Grangeiro, E.L.d.A.; Ribeiro, M.M.R.; Miranda, L.I.B.d. Análise da governança dos recursos hídricos na bacia hidrográfica do Rio
Paraíba. Rev. Ibero-Am. Ciências Ambient. 2019, 10, 314–330. [CrossRef]
30. IBGE. Estimativa de População Para os Municípios. Available online: www.ibge.gov.br (accessed on 1 September 2020).
31. Miranda, L.I.B. A Crise Hidrica e a Gestão das Águas Urbanas na Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Paraíba. XVII ENAPUR 2017.
32. Cordão, M.J.d.S.; Rufino, I.A.A.; Barros Ramalho Alves, P.; Barros Filho, M.N.M. Water shortage risk mapping: A GIS-MCDA
approach for a medium-sized city in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Urban Water J. 2020, 17, 642–655. [CrossRef]
33. Eitzel, M.V.; Cappadonna, J.L.; Santos-Lang, C.; Duerr, R.E.; Virapongse, A.; West, S.E.; Kyba, C.C.M.; Bowser, A.; Cooper, C.B.;
Sforzi, A.; et al. Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2017. [CrossRef]
34. Hardoy, J.; Gencer, E.; Winograd, M. Participatory planning for climate resilient and inclusive urban development in Dosque-
bradas, Santa Ana and Santa Tomé. Environ. Urban 2019, 31, 33–52. [CrossRef]
35. Yamane, T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed.; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
36. De Brito, M.M.; Evers, M.; Höllermann, B. Prioritization of flood vulnerability, coping capacity and exposure indicators through
the Delphi technique: A case study in Taquari-Antas basin, Brazil. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 24, 119–128. [CrossRef]
37. Ajibade, I.; McBean, G. Climate extremes and housing rights: A political ecology of impacts, early warning and adaptation
constraints in Lagos slum communities. Geoforum 2014, 55, 76–86. [CrossRef]
38. Bryan, K.; Ward, S.; Barr, S.; Butler, D. Coping with Drought: Perceptions, Intentions and Decision-Stages of South West England
Households. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 1185–1202. [CrossRef]
39. Fuchs, S.; Karagiorgos, K.; Kitikidou, K.; Maris, F.; Paparrizos, S.; Thaler, T. Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: A
contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 3183–3198. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, D.; Li, Y.; Shen, X.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, Y. Flood risk perception of rural households in western mountainous regions of Henan
Province, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 27, 155–160. [CrossRef]
41. Marfai, M.A.; Sekaranom, A.B.; Ward, P. Community responses and adaptation strategies toward flood hazard in Jakarta,
Indonesia. Nat. Hazards 2014, 75, 1127–1144. [CrossRef]
42. Nguimalet, C.-R. Comparison of community-based adaptation strategies for droughts and floods in Kenya and the Central
African Republic. Water Int. 2018, 43, 183–204. [CrossRef]
43. Leigh, N.; Lee, H. Sustainable and Resilient Urban Water Systems: The Role of Decentralization and Planning. Sustainability 2019,
11, 918. [CrossRef]
44. Ruangpan, L.; Vojinovic, Z.; Di Sabatino, S.; Leo, L.S.; Capobianco, V.; Oen, A.M.P.; McClain, M.E.; Lopez-Gunn, E. Nature-based
solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: A state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2020,
20, 243–270. [CrossRef]
45. Vojinovic, Z.; Abbott, M.B. Flood Risk and Social Justice. From Quantitative to Qualitative Flood Risk Assessment and Mitigation; IWA
Publishing: London, UK, 2012.
46. Heckert, M.; Rosan, C.D. Creating GIS-Based Planning Tools to Promote Equity Through Green Infrastructure. Front Built Environ.
2018, 4. [CrossRef]
47. Albert, C.; Brillinger, M.; Guerrero, P.; Gottwald, S.; Henze, J.; Schmidt, S.; Ott, E.; Schroter, B. Planning nature-based solutions:
Principles, steps, and insights. Ambio 2020. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Mondino, E.; Scolobig, A.; Borga, M.; Di Baldassarre, G. The Role of Experience and Different Sources of Knowledge in Shaping
Flood Risk Awareness. Water 2020, 12, 2130. [CrossRef]
49. ANA. Monitor das secas do Brasil. Available online: http://monitordesecas.ana.gov.br/ (accessed on 24 November 2020).
50. CEMADEN. Mapa Iterativo-Rede Observacional. Available online: http://www.cemaden.gov.br/ (accessed on 24 November 2020).
51. Bryan, E.; Deressa, T.T.; Gbetibouo, G.A.; Ringler, C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and
constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 413–426. [CrossRef]
52. Danso, S.Y.; Addo, I.Y. Coping strategies of households affected by flooding: A case study of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis in
Ghana. Urban Water J. 2016, 14, 539–545. [CrossRef]
53. Naima, Z.; Meddi, M.; LaVanchy, G.T.; Remaoun, M. The Impact of Human Activities on Flood Trends in the Semi-Arid Climate
of Cheliff Basin, Algeria. Water Resour. 2020, 47, 409–420. [CrossRef]
54. Del Grande, M.H.; Galvão, C.O.; Miranda, L.I.B.; Sobrinho, L.D.G. A PERCEPÇÃO DE USUÁRIOS SOBRE OS IMPACTOS DO
RACIONAMENTO DE ÁGUA EM SUAS ROTINAS DOMICILIARES. Ambiente Soc. 2016, XIX, 165–184.
55. Wens, M.; Johnson, J.M.; Zagaria, C.; Veldkamp, T.I.E. Integrating human behavior dynamics into drought risk assessment—A
sociohydrologic, agent-based approach. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2019. [CrossRef]
56. Lei, Y.; Wang, J.A. A preliminary discussion on the opportunities and challenges of linking climate change adaptation with
disaster risk reduction. Nat. Hazards 2014, 71, 1587–1597. [CrossRef]
57. Kazmierczak, B.E. Are homeworkers willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Clim. Chang. 2012, 112,
654–663.
58. Galaitsi, S.; Russell, R.; Bishara, A.; Durant, J.; Bogle, J.; Huber-Lee, A. Intermittent Domestic Water Supply: A Critical Review
and Analysis of Causal-Consequential Pathways. Water 2016, 8, 274. [CrossRef]
59. Scott-Bottoms, S.; Roe, M. Who is a hydrocitizen? The use of dialogic arts methods as a research tool with water professionals in
West Yorkshire, UK. Local Environ. 2020, 25, 273–289. [CrossRef]
60. Cinner, J.E.; Adger, W.N.; Allison, E.H.; Barnes, M.L.; Brown, K.; Cohen, P.J.; Gelcich, S.; Hicks, C.C.; Hughes, T.P.; Lau, J.; et al.
Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 117–123. [CrossRef]
61. Maskrey, S.A.; Mount, N.J.; Thorne, C.R.; Dryden, I. Participatory modelling for stakeholder involvement in the development of
flood risk management intervention options. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 82, 275–294. [CrossRef]
62. Marengo, J.A.; Jones, R.; Alves, L.M.; Valverde, M.C. Future change of temperature and precipitation extremes in South America
as derived from the PRECIS regional climate modeling system. Int. J. Climatol. 2009, 29, 2241–2255. [CrossRef]
63. Ávila, A.; Justino, F.; Wilson, A.; Bromwich, D.; Amorim, M. Recent precipitation trends, flash floods and landslides in southern
Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016. [CrossRef]
64. Lorentz, J.F.; Calijuri, M.L.; Marques, E.G.; Baptista, A.C. Multicriteria analysis applied to landslide susceptibility mapping.
Nat. Hazards 2016, 83, 41–52. [CrossRef]
65. BRASIL. Atlas Brasileiro de Desastres Naturais 1991 A 2012; Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro Universitário de
Estudos e Pesquisas sobre Desastres: Florianopolis, Brazil, 2013; p. 126.
66. ANA. Conjuntura dos Recursos Hídricos No Brasil 2018: Informe Anual; ANA: Brasília, Brasil, 2018; p. 72.
67. Millington, N. Producing water scarcity in São Paulo, Brazil: The 2014–2015 water crisis and the binding politics of infrastructure.
Political Geogr. 2018, 65, 26–34. [CrossRef]
68. Espinoza, J.C.; Marengo, J.A.; Ronchail, J.; Carpio, J.M.; Flores, L.N.; Guyot, J.L. The extreme 2014 flood in south-western Amazon
basin: The role of tropical-subtropical South Atlantic SST gradient. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014. [CrossRef]
69. Giulio, G.M.D.; Vasconcellos, M.d.P.; Günther, W.M.R.; Ribeiro, H.; Assunção, J.V.d. Percepção de risco: Um campo de interesse
para a interface ambiente, saúde e sustentabilidade. Saúde Soc. 2015, 24, 1217–1231. [CrossRef]
70. De Loyola Hummell, B.M.; Cutter, S.L.; Emrich, C.T. Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in Brazil. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci.
2016, 7, 111–122. [CrossRef]
71. Climent-Gil, E.; Aledo, A.; Vallejos-Romero, A. The social vulnerability approach for social impact assessment. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 2018, 73, 70–79. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 13 00302

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 00302

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 00302

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010302 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Even though the importance of integrating multiple hazards is recognised, especially

Figure 1. Location of Campina Grande in the Brazilian semiarid region.

3. The Socio-Spatial Context

5.1. The Social Factors

5.1.1. Socio-Economical Factors

5.1.2. Information and Geographical Factors

5.1.3. Contextual Factors

5.2. Risk Perception and Coping Capacity

5.3. Preferred of Strategies to Mitigate the Hazards

Table 2. Effectiveness of mitigation measures to each hazard.

Flooding Mitigation Measures Mean SD CV (%)

6.2. The Role of Trust

6.3. The Role of Incentives

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, P.B.R.A., S.D., A.A.J.; methodology, P.B.R.A., M.J.d.S.C.,

Flooding Water Shortage

You might also like