M5b

RISK ASSESSMENT for

Hydrometeorological
Hazards and
THE PSYCHOSOCIAL
PERSPECTIVE in Risk
Assessment

Aurora Odette C. Mendoza

DRMAPS
Institute of Civil Engineering

From the UNDRR terminology, Disaster Risk is defined in terms of the potential of disaster
damage and losses, specifically in terms of loss of life, injury or destroyed or damaged assets
which could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time. The
probabilities of such adverse consequences can be determined by an analysis of interactions
among the risk factors involved:

• Hazards such as typhoon, flood, landslide, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic hazards, and
fire
• Exposure to hazards of elements of the natural, built and social
DRMAPS environments
• Aurora Odette
Vulnerability of a specific system, society or community C. elements
or their Mendoza, Ph.D.
• Capacity to deal with hazards Department of Psychology

This process of analysis is called Risk Assessment and is conducted by scientists who are experts
in the Identification, Quantification and Characterization of various threats to people and the
environment.

• Risk Assessment provides important inputs to guide Risk Management. The latter refers
to the processes of risk communication, mitigation, preparedness, and decision-making,
all of which involve multisectoral collaborations to reduce disaster risk.

OUTLINE

Risk Risk Risk

Assessment Perception Acceptance
 RISK ASSESSMENT

ater related disasters such as The importance of disaster

damages and losses from
typhoons, oods, tsunami and
storm surge are frequent and or
large occurrences in the country
These disasters pose signi cant
obstacles to our social and
economic development
preparedness for such events can not
be understated
e need more e ec ve
hydrometeorological monitoring and
forecas ng
These are cri cal for mi ga ng
damage loss by early warning,
smooth evacua on promo on of
preparedness and preven ve
ac vi es
ll risk measurements have a
sub ec ve aspect

• Experts in related disciplines such as geology, physics, meteorology, and engineering, and
others have been conducting risk assessments on various hydrometeorological hazards
using increasingly specialized technical knowledge and sophisticated equipment.

• The risks from hazards such as typhoons are estimated by learning more about their
causes and by measuring physical characteristics of the hazard, including location,
shape, magnitude, intensity, movement direction and speed.

b ec ve risk assessment uses measures of risk that correspond to primary

characteris cs of hazards ( e.g. length, pressure, speed) that are assumed to
re ect physical aspects of the hazard that cause low, moderate or high risks.

n ocean o om sensor can detect

o intensit seismic noise rom a
di erent source the oceans
Hurricanes and t phoons can increase
the amp itude o ocean a es hich
in turn drum on the ocean oor
his instrument can e used to es mate
the oca on and speed o a t phoon .

If you’re interested, you can watch the YouTube video Hurricane Strength Measured using
Seismographs (from IRIS Earthquake Science,see link below) to learn more about risk assessment.
The Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology or IRIS has a website dedicated to
advance awareness and understanding of seismology and earth science while inspiring careers
in geophysics. (https: www.iris.edu hq about_iris)

• It is fascinating to learn, as shown by this video, that seismographs are instruments not
ust for learning about earthquakes but also atmospheric events. Highly sensitive
seismographs record anything that shakes the ground, including traffic, industrial noise,
explosions, “fan quakes” at sporting events, and even wind.
• The vast ma ority of the seismic record shows low intensity seismic “noise' from a
different source: the oceans. Hurricanes and typhoons can increase the amplitude of
ocean waves which, in turn, drum on the ocean floor.
https: www.youtube.com watch?v=QM 3Ze2vqN8 (approx. 5 mins video)

• This clip below from the same video shows the distinct patterns of seismic activity for a
severe tropical storm vs an earthquake, allowing for measurements of risk not ust
earthquakes but also for tropical storms:

In Japan, the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED)
conducts a wide variety of research to improve the “level of science and technology for disaster
risk reduction”, including “comprehensive research and development” that requires
multidisciplinary cooperation. (NIED, URL: http://www.bosai.go.jp/)

• Perhaps because of the devastation caused by the 2011 tsunami, the Earthquake and
Tsunami Research Division of NIED has produced the “most advanced earthquake and
tsunami observation system”, including the operation of nation-wide tsunami
observation networks using the newly developed ocean floor networks for forecasting
the entire process of a tsunami and estimate tsunami damage.
• The NIED Storm, Flood and Landslide Research Division focuses on research on the
Prediction of Complex Water-related Disasters. Noting the need for greater accuracy in
forecasting heavy rain, strong winds, floods and high tides, research is directed towards
developing flood forecasting technologies based on multi-sensing.
 • The primary ob ective of NIED in these endeavors is “to clarify the mechanisms
underlying meteorological, flood, and landslide disasters, to develop more precise
observation and forecasting methods, and to mitigate flood and landslide disasters due
to multiple factors”.

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA)

is the local agency that oversees risk assessments for hydrometeorological hazards.

• PAGASA uses risk assessment data derived from various instruments to provide
weather forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings, flood bulletins and advisories,
hydrological, climatological and farm weather forecasts. (The agency also provides
telescoping and stargazing sessions and astronomical data for enthusiasts -
from: https://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/products-and-services).

• A WEATHER FORECAST is simply a scientific estimate of future weather conditions. The

weather condition is the state of the atmosphere at a given time expressed in terms of
the most significant weather variables.

• The WEATHER MAP is the basic tool for weather forecasters and are of 2 types: surface
maps and upper-air maps. These show distribution patterns of atmospheric pressure,
wind, temperature and humidity at different atmospheric levels. These maps are
constructed several times daily at regular hourly intervals since weather conditions vary
across time.

• The above figure shows an example of a PAGASA weather map. You can see how a
PAGASA weather forecast is made from a weather map with this link:
https://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/learning-tools/how-weather-forecast-made
Weather maps may be important data sources for scientists but may be overwhelming for
ordinary people who are not familiar with technical terms. In recognition of this, PAGASA has
tried to provide more useful advisories to the public.
This is in line with the UNDRR definition of early warning systems which highlights the purpose
of such systems in “enabling individuals, communities, governments, businesses and others to
take timely action to reduce disaster risks in advance of hazardous events”. (From UNDRR
Terminology).
The PAGASA Public Storm Warning Systems (PSWS) which are developed from weather
forecasts, have since been revised to include more details and typhoon descriptions that are
more easily interpreted by non-experts, as shown below:
 • While text descriptions of possible risks have become more detailed to inform the public
and relevant DRRM agencies, some improvements in the use of visual images may still be
necessary due to some ambiguity in the visual array.
• It would also be very useful if information on what to do would also be available in the
same advisory. This is the case in the PAGASA warning example provided in the lecture
for Floods.

Risk assessment begins with the etec onof hazards in speci c

loca ons that contain human communi es as well as ora and fauna
that can be a ected signi cantly.
apping of hazards is an important use ofRisk assessment as it
indicates which loca ons would mean high exposure or low exposure.
orecas ngis another useful aspect of risk assessment, especially for
mobile hazards such astyphoons this informa on involves predic ons
of probable risks in given loca ons within a speci c me frame.
arning Systems contain hazard informa on that should provide
guidance on what people should do in response

These informa on are crucial to the formula ons of DRR strategies such
as Mi ga on, dapta on and reparedness

RISK PERCEPTION
It is interesting and important to note that many technologies utilized in risk assessment employ
“sensing”, the process by which environmental stimuli in various forms of physical energy (e,g,
lightwaves, soundwaves, pressure and chemical stimuli) are all converted into a form of energy
that can provide the awareness of objects and events in the environment – for example, the
detection of a low pressure area in a particular location.

• Humans use built-in sensory organs to convert environmental stimuli into

electrochemical energy that can travel through our nervous system. The brain interprets
this information for us to experience our environment meaningfully. That is, sensory
information is processed by the brain for us to detect, discriminate, recognize or identify
meaningful sights, smells, tastes, and sounds in the environment.

• We often use our sensory organs at the same time for “multiple sensing”. Sensation is a
subprocess of perception which refers to the complex process of making meaningful
interpretations of our environment. Limitations in our sensory organs limit our
experiences of the environment. For ex., humans can only detect lightwaves from 440
nm (bluish light) to 700nm (reddish light).
 • The sophisticated technologies developed by science thus serve as extensions of the
human senses (eyes, ears, nose, skin and tongue). A telescope allows the scientist to see
tiny objects too small, satellites can create images of very large areas of the earth, and
deep ocean sensors can feel movements of the ocean floor.

The risk assessments conducted by scientists using their technologies are assumed to be
ob ectively quantified. Many social scientists disagree, and argue that “risk is inherently
sub ective” – risk does not exist as a physical, objective event but only as an idea or probability
estimate using a particular theoretical model based on the scientists assumptions and
judgements (Slovic, 2002).

• Non-scientists have their own models and assumptions that involve subjective
assessment techniques, usually going beyond “mere sensing” to make interpretations
that include their personal experiences and innate risk-taking tendencies;

• Risk assessments developed by experts trained in specific disciplines serve as the basis
for early warning systems, whereas people who are the target of such warnings may not
understand the science in what is being communicated.

• It is clear that to bridge this gap, other experts are needed to communicate in hazard
warning systems the science of understanding how ordinary people assess risks.

Subjective Risk Assessment

Pe ple- nvir nment Framew rk

Disasters are events that are products of transactions of people
with their environments
Disasters have a personal sociocultural meaning based on:
a. ersonal interpretations or erceptions
b. Sociocultural Values
Responses to disaster risks are personal, social cultural

The Role of Perception

How we perceive objects and events is significant in determining our behavior in safe or unsafe
situations. Perception is the mechanism by which a person evaluates information from the
external environment which then determines what response to make.

• People have varying perceptions of hazards in their environments, because individuals

have:
➢ unique experiences with hazardous events and actual disasters, and
➢ diverse personalities with genetically determined propensities towards
risk-taking,
➢ particular cultural norms that affect how we should or should not behave.
 • Warning systems that serve to minimize risk-taking behavior very often fail to take into
account these individual differences. That is, it is assumed that people perceive and
assess risks in the same way.

P P
at we ee
ear mell eel
in r
envir nment are
per nal
interpreta n
ealit
Plea e view t e pinnin an er vi e in
t e ame l er t ee t i ill i n ake
re t ll w t e in tr n r viewin

hen viewing the video in the folder provided in UVLE, please stare at the rotating figure for 2
3 minutes. You can move your eyes over the figure or change briefly the spot you are staring at.
• Did you notice the figure rotating at some point in a reverse direction from your initial
viewing?
• If you think about it, the figure itself has not changed, it is a single stimulus array with
constant physical characteristics. It is the human mind that changed its interpretation of
what it sees.
This is an example of a re ersi e igure, a type of visual illusion. Illusions are normal occurrences
in humans because our brain makes several interpretations of the world not ust visual
interpretations but based on multiple sensing, and expectations from our experiences.
Below is another example of the effect of expectations and perspective on our perceptions.

This woman is often judged as a beauty. From a different perspective, not so often.
When ordinary people make risk assessments of real hazards or hazard warnings they encounter,
they are presented with a variety of hazard information that may be visual (texts or images),
auditory, tactile/kinesthetic, and sometimes even olfactory (as in the case of fire hazards), or
combinations of these. If we have little familiarity with the information, our risk assessment may
lead us to make an inappropriate response.

• An interesting example is when I had a meeting at the Office of Admissions located

near the UP Police station. The meeting was with a foreign guest when a siren
sounded – he immediately jumped up from his seat, grabbed his bag and
proceeded to the exit with a frightened look on his face.

• I then remembered that the siren came from the Police station and served as an
alarm to signify it was time for the lunch break (which the office staff were familiar
with) but it was actually the sound of an old siren that was used during WWII to
serve as a warning of an incoming air raid.

• With no experience of the siren as a signal for lunchtime, the foreign guest had
perceived the siren as a bomb warning, which is his meaning for that particular
sound. That explained his response of “evacuating”.

Sometimes a warning may provide conflicting information for the observer. For example, a traffic
sign along a street lined with a fence to prevent people from crossing for their safety, may say
something like “HU G TUM ID DIT , N K M M T Y”.

• A person who wishes to cross the street right there (instead of climbing the
elevated pedestrian crossing) may be looking at the sign but also happen to
perceive several individuals climbing the fence and getting to the other side
without getting hurt.

• In this example, there are two conflicting perceptions: one that warns about a
threat to safety, another that shows a convenient and relatively safe passage to
the other side of the street.

• People who take risks despite warnings and then do not experience any harm can
produce an illusion of control of what is actually uncontrollable. These people may
have high risk-taking tendencies as part of their personality (they tend by nature
to enjoy challenges to their skills because of the extra stimulation), but some
people do not really perceive a danger in the warning because of the way the
warning has been presented.

• Another example is the anti-smoking campaign with the by-line “Y SI K DIRI”

which in the Filipino language implies adverse/unpleasant effects from smoking,
but in some Visayan languages this is interpreted to mean “yosi ka dire” or “smoke
here”. Needless to say this campaign was effective in MetroManila but not so
much in other regions.
In many weather forecasts, the hazard warning may involve technical terms, quantitative
measurements, or codes that may be difficult for a layman to translate into a meaningful event.
Usually, science experts are trained to be precise in their communications with each other, but
not with the public.
Fortunately, many scientists are now collaborating with social scientists and creative artists for
more effective risk communication. These more public-oriented warnings utilize information
from risk assessments and communication technologies for RISK REDUCTION MANAGEMENT.

Studies on Risk Perception

Risk perceptions can also be studied systematically and scientifically in the social sciences. A
broad strategy for studying and measuring risk perceptions uses the Psychometric Paradigm
which has developed a taxonomy for hazards for better understanding and responding to hazard
risks (Slovic, 2002).

• Psychometric studies under this paradigm have shown unique patterns of qualities
associated with every hazard, creating a profile of perceived risk along several
dimensions.

One of the important dimensions is Perceived UNKNOWN RISK, where

hazards are characterized as:
• Not observable (i.e. hard or cannot be seen)
• Unknown to those exposed
• New or novel even to science
• Delayed in the manifestation of harm or adverse effects
The more unknown the risks are for a particular hazard, the less likely a
person will respond appropriately.

Another dimension is Perceived DREAD RISK, a dimension based on

characteristics of hazards associated with:
• lack of control
• dread (i.e. great apprehension about the hazard),
• catastrophic potential
• high fatal consequences
• difficulty in risk reduction
• increasing (not fixed) risk
• inequitable distribution of risks and benefits

Higher levels of perceived dread risk are consistently associated with the
extent to which people want the risk reduced and the extent to which they
would like strict regulation imposed in relation to this risk.
These dimensions of perceived risk are being utilized as a basis for developing subjective risk
assessment instruments with ordinary people as sources of information of hazard. Data from
such instruments are useful for developing more meaningful hazard warnings and advisories.
 RISK ACCEPTANCE
Slovic (2002) further noted that perceptions of risk of scientist experts for Objective Risk
Assessments are not closely related to the perceived risk characteristics of ordinary people and
are focused more on expected fatalities.
This indicates that there are different meanings attached to the concept of risk among experts
and laypeople.

• Research indicates that perceived risk can also serve as a feeling that provides
information that passes thru the lower levels of the cortex of the brain (as opposed to
higher levels of information processing in the cortex). For such information, processing is
fast and mostly automatic and not very accessible to conscious awareness and control.
• Such automatic processing requires real experience in the past, but the processing is
hard-wired - this points to the benefits of experience -based processing in the context of
risk which reduces the time it takes for the system to make a decision to select a response
to the warning.
• This has been likened to intuition or “gut feelings”, literally so because the emotion is
accompanied by reactions of the digestive system, e.g. butterflies in the stomach, upset
stomach, etc.) even though the person does not even know why or what.
• Additional studies on perception point to the importance of selective attention to
different hazards, or aspects of hazards, such that novel and high-intensity characteristics
– more rain, stronger wind - tend to be given more attention, and thus more likely to
produce responses.
Risk acceptance, or the willingness to accept risk is complicated with multiple interacting
factors.
• With regards to rare, extreme events, these are often not experienced and tend to be
underweighted in terms of risk, especially with people who normally base their decisions
on what happened previously – that is they survived an extreme event unscathed.

A single death can often produce a more powerful reaction than the prediction
of a large statistic of fatalities. This is called “psychophysical numbing” as
reflected in a saying that “a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths are just a
statistic”.
• The major variables in determining willingness to take risk are:
Risk-taking personality
Perceived risk
Momentary goals
Values related to the outcomes of risky behavior.
 This group of
geologists is
willing to cross
this rickety
hanging bridge to
get to the other
side where they
need to do their
required
eldwork.

me me we take ri k a part
r r t e r le we ave in li e

Sometimes it’s
what we value
at a given
moment

A photo of bride and groom just

married, with Taal Volcano erupting
at the background (from FB, owner
unknown)

The recommendation from these studies is to develop hybrid models of risk perception that
incorporates both affective variables (dread risk) and cognitive-consequentialist variables
(outcomes and probabilities).
This is supported by studies by neuroscientists which have demonstrated that rational decision-
making and analytical reasoning cannot be effective unless guided by emotions. Emotions tend
to dominate our perceptions of whether taking a risk is acceptable or not. (This is why there are
heroes.)
Many academics have the reverse assumption – that rational thinking will guide our emotions.

P
2

1
.

3
4

Our experiences and unique circumstances lead to different perceptions of events

1. Sometimes we just need to go over the difficulties we are facing, one step at a time;
2. Sometimes we can just lend our hand to help others;
3. Sometimes we have to take on risks to save others;
4. Sometimes we take the opportunity to do something we’ve never done and be happy in
that moment.

***********************
Please answer the following questions in the next pages.
 ma ine r el in t e ll win
enari Part
It is 1 :3 a.m on the 3 rd consecu ve day of heavy
rain. You are working at your one storey home for one
of your ma or sub ects.
You have ust started taking an online long exam for
which you studied all night. Suddenly, you hear an
alert from your mobile phone that Tropical
Depression epito is now a Super Typhoon
accelera ng quickly towards your loca on.
There is a call for an evacua on in your area.
Q1 hat would you consider in order to comply?

Part
hen you do evacuate and get to a safer place, you
realize you did not bring your bag which contains your
wallet and school materials with you.

Q2. hat are the chances that you will immediately

go back to retrieve your bag?

Q3 hat are the chances that you will go back to

retrieve your bag if your realize your wallet is with
you?

lease write your answers to Q1, Q2 and Q3 in the submission board for the
module sychosocial erspective together with a brief explanation for each
answer.
REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1993). Attitude theory and the attitude-behavior relation. In D. Krebs & P. Schmidt.
(Eds.), New directions in attitude measurement (pp. 41-57).
Almelor, A.C., Domingo, D.J., Manahan, P.N., Pascual, M.A. (2010). Disaster preparedness and
risk perception in high-risk and low-risk communities in Marikina City, Philippines. Unpublished
student paper submitted for Psych 135, UP Diliman.
Simonet, S., ilde G.J.S. (1997). “Risk: erception, cceptance, and Homeostasis”, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 46, 235-252
Cvetkovich, G. & Earle, T.C. (1994). Culture and Risk. In Walter Lonner and
Roy Malpass (Eds.) Psychology and Culture. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kleinhesselink, R.R., E.A. Rosa. (1994). Cognitive representation of risk perceptions: A
comparison of Japan and the U.S. J. of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Mendoza, .C. (2 4). Filipino drivers’ intentions to commit traffic violations: Social
psychological perspective. Unpublished dissertation, UP Diliman.
Slovic, P., & Weber, E. (2002). Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Conference Paper
for discussion in “Risk Management strategies in an Uncertain orld,” alisades, New York,
April 12-13, 2002.
Paul Slovic (2016) Understanding Perceived Risk: 1978–2015, Environment: Science and Policy
for Sustainable Development, 58:1, 25-29, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2016.1112169