IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v103y2020i1d10.1007_s11069-020-03957-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Homeostatic representation for risk decision making: a novel multi-method simulation approach for evacuation under volcanic eruption

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Favereau

    (Universidad Andrés Bello)

  • Luis F. Robledo

    (Universidad Andrés Bello)

  • María T. Bull

    (Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción)

Abstract

All decision-making processes are complex and include a high number of variables. Particularly, decisions related to disaster risk reduction despite having an inherent uncertainty, depend on many factors associated with the inhabitants in danger, risk disaster management authorities, previous experiences, among others. Although considerable research has been carried out to understand the evacuation processes undergoing among different types of natural hazards, few of them consider psychosocial variables under a dynamic approach. This research proposes a novel way of representing decision making using the risk homeostasis theory approach. We developed a multi-method simulation model to gain an understanding of how individuals react and what are the decision-making processes undergoing a volcanic eruption. For this, we developed a system dynamics (SD) model that captures the psychosocial decision-making process of individuals facing a volcanic eruption. This theory proposes that individuals will make decisions to balance their levels of perception and acceptance of risk and that, in addition, they depend on certain motivational and cognitive variables. Once the evacuation decision making was captured by the SD model, we represented the evacuation process through agent-based simulation based on the relationship between evacuation probability and the difference between risk perception and risk acceptance levels. For experimentation and validation methods, we worked with the 2008 Chaitén (southern Chile) volcanic eruption and further population evacuation as a use case scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Favereau & Luis F. Robledo & María T. Bull, 2020. "Homeostatic representation for risk decision making: a novel multi-method simulation approach for evacuation under volcanic eruption," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 29-56, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:103:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-03957-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-03957-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-03957-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-03957-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Helbing & Illés Farkas & Tamás Vicsek, 2000. "Simulating dynamical features of escape panic," Nature, Nature, vol. 407(6803), pages 487-490, September.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    4. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 971-979, August.
    6. Jean M Carlson & David L Alderson & Sean P Stromberg & Danielle S Bassett & Emily M Craparo & Francisco Guiterrez-Villarreal & Thomas Otani, 2014. "Measuring and Modeling Behavioral Decision Dynamics in Collective Evacuation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    8. Jungbu Kim & Seong Soo Oh, 2015. "Confidence, knowledge, and compliance with emergency evacuation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 111-126, January.
    9. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and Behaviors: Anticipating and Responding to Crises," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 579-582, April.
    10. John C. Whitehead & Bob Edwards & Marieke Van Willigen & John R. Maiolo & Kenneth Wilson & Kevin T. Smith, 2000. "“Heading for Higher Ground: Factors Affecting Real and Hypothetical Hurricane Evacuation Behavior,”," Working Papers 0006, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    11. Slobodan Simonovic & Sajjad Ahmad, 2005. "Computer-based Model for Flood Evacuation Emergency Planning," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 34(1), pages 25-51, January.
    12. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    13. J. Richard Eiser & Amy Donovan & R. Stephen J. Sparks, 2015. "Risk Perceptions and Trust Following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic Volcanic Ash Crises," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 332-343, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    2. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    4. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    5. Kaijing Xue & Shili Guo & Yi Liu & Shaoquan Liu & Dingde Xu, 2021. "Social Networks, Trust, and Disaster-Risk Perceptions of Rural Residents in a Multi-Disaster Environment: Evidence from Sichuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Abdul‐Akeem Sadiq & John D. Graham, 2016. "Exploring the Predictors of Organizational Preparedness for Natural Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1040-1053, May.
    7. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    8. Sunbin YOO & KUMAGAI Junya & KAWABATA Yuta & MANAGI Shunsuke, 2022. "Achieving Inclusive Transportation: Fully Automated Vehicles with Social Support," Discussion papers 22017, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    9. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    10. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    13. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    14. Hiroaki Daimon & Ryohei Miyamae & Wenjie Wang, 2023. "A critical review of cognitive and environmental factors of disaster preparedness: research issues and implications from the usage of “awareness (ishiki)” in Japan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(2), pages 1213-1243, June.
    15. Julita Gil Cuesta & Joris Adriaan Frank Van Loenhout & Maria Da Conceição Colaço & Debarati Guha-Sapir, 2017. "General Population Knowledge about Extreme Heat: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Lisbon and Madrid," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, January.
    16. Antonia Ilabaca & Germán Paredes-Belmar & Pamela P. Alvarez, 2022. "Optimization of Humanitarian Aid Distribution in Case of an Earthquake and Tsunami in the City of Iquique, Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    18. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    19. Shengnan Wu & Yu Lei & Wen Jin, 2022. "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Quantify the Human Disaster Risk Perception and Its Influence on the Population at Risk: A Case Study of Longchi Town, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.
    20. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:103:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-03957-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.