Factors of subjective heat stress of urban citizens in contexts of everyday life

Heat waves and the consequent heat stress of urban populations have a growing relevance in urban risk management and strategies of urban adaptation to climate change. In this context, social science studies on subjective experiencing of heat as stress by urban citizens are a new emerging field. To contribute to the understanding of selfreported subjective heat stress and its major determinants in a daily life perspective, we conducted a questionnaire survey with 323 respondents in Karlsruhe, Germany, after heat waves in July and August 2013. Statistical data analysis showed that subjective heat stress is an issue permeating everyday activities. Subjective heat stress at home was lower than at work and in general. Subjective heat stress in general, at home, and at work was determined by the health impairments experienced during the heat and the feeling of being helplessly exposed to the heat. For subjective heat stress at home, characteristics of the residential building and the built environment additionally played a role. Although the rate of implemented coping measures was rather high, coping measures showed no uniform effect for the subjective heat stress. We conclude that in terms of urban adaptation strategies, further research is needed to understand how various processes of daily social (work) life enable or limit individual coping and that communication strategies are important for building capacities to better cope with future heat waves

Factors of subjective heat stress of urban citizens in contexts of everyday life

Heat waves and the consequent heat stress of urban populations have a growing relevance in urban risk management and strategies of urban adaptation to climate change. In this context, social science studies on subjective experiencing of heat as stress by urban citizens are a new emerging field. To contribute to the understanding of selfreported subjective heat stress and its major determinants in a daily life perspective, we conducted a questionnaire survey with 323 respondents in Karlsruhe, Germany, after heat waves in July and August 2013. Statistical data analysis showed that subjective heat stress is an issue permeating everyday activities. Subjective heat stress at home was lower than at work and in general. Subjective heat stress in general, at home, and at work was determined by the health impairments experienced during the heat and the feeling of being helplessly exposed to the heat. For subjective heat stress at home, characteristics of the residential building and the built environment additionally played a role. Although the rate of implemented coping measures was rather high, coping measures showed no uniform effect for the subjective heat stress. We conclude that in terms of urban adaptation strategies, further research is needed to understand how various processes of daily social (work) life enable or limit individual coping and that communication strategies are important for building capacities to better cope with future heat waves

Tailoring Climate Parameters to Information Needs for Local Adaptation to Climate Change

Municipalities are important actors in the field of local climate change adaptation. Stakeholders need scientifically sound information tailored to their needs to make local assessment of climate change effects. To provide tailored data to support municipal decision-making, climate scientists must know the state of municipal climate change adaptation, and the climate parameters relevant to decisions about such adaptation. The results of an empirical study in municipalities in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg in Southwestern Germany showed that adaptation is a relatively new topic, but one of increasing importance. Therefore, past weather events that caused problems in a municipality can be a starting point in adaptation considerations. Deduction of tailored climate parameters has shown that, for decisions on the implementation of specific adaptation measures, it also is necessary to have information on specific parameters not yet evaluated in climate model simulations. We recommend intensifying the professional exchange between climate scientists and stakeholders in collaborative projects with the dual goals of making practical adaptation experience and knowledge accessible to climate science, and providing municipalities with tailored information about climate change and its effects. View Full-Tex

Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment

An urgent need to take perception into account for risk assessment has been pointed out by relevant literature, its impact in terms of risk-related behaviour by individuals is obvious. This study represents an effort to overcome the broadly discussed question of whether risk perception is quantifiable or not by proposing a still simple but applicable methodology. A novel approach is elaborated to obtain a more accurate and comprehensive quantification of risk in comparison to present formal risk evaluation practice. A consideration of relevant factors enables a explicit quantification of individual risk perception and evaluation. The model approach integrates the effective individual risk reff and a weighted mean of relevant perception affecting factors PAF. The relevant PAF cover voluntariness of risk-taking, individual reducibility of risk, knowledge and experience, endangerment, subjective damage rating and subjective recurrence frequency perception. The approach assigns an individual weight to each PAF to represent its impact magnitude. The quantification of these weights is target-group-dependent (e.g. experts, laypersons) and may be effected by psychometric methods. The novel approach is subject to a plausibility check using data from an expert-workshop. A first model application is conducted by means of data of an empirical risk perception study in Western Germany to deduce PAF and weight quantification as well as to confirm and evaluate model applicbility and flexibility. Main fields of application will be a quantification of risk perception by individual persons in a formal and technical way e.g. for the purpose of risk communication issues in illustrating differing perspectives of experts and non-experts. For decision making processes this model will have to be applied with caution, since it is by definition not designed to quantify risk acceptance or risk evaluation. The approach may well explain how risk perception differs, but not why it differs. The formal model generates only "snap shots" and considers neither the socio-cultural nor the historical context of risk perception, since it is a highly individualistic and non-contextual approach.ISSN:1561-8633ISSN:1684-998