ORI GIN AL PA PER

Influences of place characteristics on hazards, perceptionand response: a case study of the hazardscapeof the Wellington Region, New Zealand

Shabana Khan • M. J. Crozier • David Kennedy

Received: 21 July 2010 / Accepted: 10 January 2012 / Published online: 26 January 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The biophysical characteristics of a place not only bring variations in natural

hazards, but also influence people’s associated perception and response to the hazard.

Although these influences are noted in the literature, their relationship has been less

explored for planning hazard mitigation and disaster response. This paper evaluates the

role of place in a hazardscape by using a case study of the Wellington Region, New

Zealand. The study explores the differences between the physical and perceived suscep-

tibility to natural hazards and how this affects people’s response to a hazard. The analysis

is based on a questionnaire survey and interviews conducted with local people. It finds that

disparities between physical and perceived hazard susceptibility engender different moti-

vations and types of response. A close alignment of the two produces a high response rate

for earthquakes and droughts, whereas a significant divergence leads to a poor response as

observed for volcanic ash fall. The relationship, however, is not linear, as indicated by the

poor response even to such well-perceived hazards as tsunami and bushfire. The reasons

behind this uneven response can be related back to place characteristics, such as the nature

of hazard susceptibility, as well as factors such as fatalism or blase effect. It is concluded

that mapping physical and perceived susceptibility to hazards over space, understanding

their relationship and ultimately narrowing the gap between perception and reality can

contribute to effective hazard management at a place.

Keywords Hazards � Place � Hazardscape � Physical susceptibility �Perceived susceptibility � Response

S. Khan (&) � M. J. CrozierVictoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealande-mail: Shabana.Khan@hotmail.co.nz

M. J. Croziere-mail: Michael.Crozier@vuw.ac.nz

D. KennedyThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiae-mail: davidmk@unimelb.edu.au

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0091-y

AbbreviationsCDEM Civil Defence and Emergency Management

GWRC Greater Wellington Regional Council

GNS Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd

NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

VUW Victoria University of Wellington

WELA Wairarapa Engineering Lifeline Association

1 Introduction

The legitimacy of locational choices and hazard response behaviour of people has often

been subjected to geographic investigations (Golledge and Stimson 1987; Gold 1980;

Burton and Kates 1964; Burton et al. 1993). A few frequently asked questions include why

people choose to live in a hazard prone area, and why they do not move even after a

disaster. Other questions are often designed to investigate the rationality of decision-

making in the face of impending hazard and to explore why an individual’s risk perception

only partially relates to the calculated scientific risks (Tobin and Montz 1997). Some

answers can be linked to the functional organisation of cities, where hazard mitigation

measures, such as fire, building and land-use zoning codes, are set after their establishment

and thus have less control on socio-economic and political processes that shape risks

(Lynch 2008). People’s perception of, and response to, hazards on the other hand is noted

to be influenced by various factors ranging from the physical and social environment to

individual characteristics such as personality, knowledge, age, gender, ethnicity or socio-

economic status (Burton et al. n.d.; Park 1983; Tobin and Montz 1997). This paper focuses

on the role of the biophysical characteristics of a place in shaping hazard characteristics,

perception and local response.

The Wellington Region, New Zealand, provides an ideal case study as it is exposed to

various natural hazards including earthquakes, flooding, droughts, landslides, windstorms,

extra-tropical cyclones, bushfires, tsunami and volcanic ash fall (Crozier and Aggett 2000).

Further, diverse spatial characteristics of the region, such as mountains, coastal dunes and

floodplains, give an opportunity to distinguish role of various geographic factors on hazard,

perception and response.

2 Conceptual background

The concepts underlying the design of this study are those of ‘hazardscape’ and ‘place’.

These concepts are defined later in this section; however, in brief, a hazardscape provides

the context in which hazards and response occur (Paton 2006). Place, on the other hand, is

a portion of geographic space, which is both an element of hazardscape and reflection of

human response to hazards (Johnston et al. 2000; Khan 2010).

The significance of the physical characteristics of a place in the occurrence of a hazard

has been noted in various models. They have been described as the factors in natural

systems (Burton et al. 1978), intervening conditions between hazards and vulnerability

(Hewitt and Burton 1971), physical exposure (Smith 1998) and biophysical vulnerability

(Cutter et al. 2000). Place characteristics have also been studied on various scales from

502 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

short-term adjustments for flooding (Ward 1978; White 1945; Ericksen 1986), drought

(Hill 1973; French 1987) and hail (Rydant 1979) to long-term adaptations for drought

(Firth 2008; Campbell 1984), flooding (Hoyt and Langbein 1955) and frost (Waddell

2008). The perception of hazards is noted to be often implicit in the local response. Burton

and Kates (1964) noted that dwellers in flood prone areas often see floods as cyclic rather

than random events and therefore make adjustments accordingly (Leigh and Sim 1983). A

few studies have focused on the influences of hazard perception on response, such as

Saarinen (1967) and Marriot (2002). While relationships between place and hazards, place

and response, and perception and response have been studied separately, interrelationships

among biophysical characteristics of place, hazard characteristics, perception and response

are less explored.

Models on the relationships between hazard, perception and response often suggest that

perception forms after a hazard occurs. These models are based on the understanding that

every individual receives signals and stimuli from the environment and uses them to

understand and behave in that environment in which they interact with (Park 1983). By

considering hazards as stimuli, hazard-perception models, such as Ward (1978) and Park

(1983), position perception as an intermediate step between hazard occurrence and

response. This, however, overlooks the role of place characteristics in building hazard

perception (Fig. 1a, b). Tobin and Montz (1997) suggested that the situational factors that

include both physical and socio-economic elements could influence cognitive process and

hence response to hazards (Fig. 1c). By physical factors, they mean the physical charac-

teristics of events that influence responses and actions, for example, hazard frequency,

magnitude or duration (Tobin and Montz 1997). Studies have thus repeatedly assessed the

influence of hazard events rather than place characteristics on hazard perception.

Tuan (1974) studied how the attachment to a particular place influences behaviour

which he termed as ‘Topophilia’. The influences of place attachment have been noted on

various aspects of hazard response including mitigation, preparedness, emergency response

(mainly motivation for evacuation and immediate response) and recovery (Burley et al.

2006; Mishra et al. 2010; Billig 2006; Hull and Wenger 2012). However, the role of

emotions, topophilia and placeism in influencing behaviour has been studied mainly with

respect to people and assets related to a place rather than its biophysical characteristics.

Likewise, situational settings in social contexts have been researched more for their

influences on perception (Tobin and Montz 1997; Mitchell 1987). Studies relating to hazard

perception and response have also assessed how individual factors including the perception

of women, elderly and children (Simpson-Housley and Curtis 1983; Burton et al. n.d.; Lai

and Tao 2003; Ronan and Johnston 2001; Finnis et al. 2004), the role of media (Cowan

1998), knowledge and culture (Harmsworth and Raynor 2005; Gregory et al. 1997) influ-

ence response. There are a number of reasons behind a lack of emphasis on place charac-

teristics and their influences on hazard perception in geography. These include a fear of

environmental determinism that led to a greater emphasis on human focus in geography as

the study of human ecology (Chorley 1973), use of a political economy approach to study

hazards, particularly amongst social geographers (Wisner et al. 1994), a lack of theory or

techniques for measuring environmental perception (Desai 1985) and inadequate precision

in assessing physical influences on the social behaviour (Brody et al. 2004).

The role of biophysical characteristics of place in influencing perception and response

on the other hand has been clearly identified. In urban design and architecture, the role of

‘genus loci’ has been discussed for shaping both physical and social space (Forusz 1981;

Norberg-Schulz 1979). More recent theories relating to the ‘sense of place’ also emphasise

that the distance from a particular environmental feature influences both the perception of,

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 503

123

and support for, environmental management policies (Cantrill 1998; Cantrill and Senecah

2001; Brody et al. 2004). While distance provides a useful measure, it gives a limited

understanding of a range of other geographic factors that may influence hazard perception

and response. In order to achieve a holistic understanding of influences of place charac-

teristics for hazard occurrence, perception and response, the conceptual framework of

hazardscape is used.

2.1 Place in a hazardscape

Place is an inseparable element of a hazardscape. Khan (2010) defines hazardscape as a

dynamic scape that reflects the physical susceptibility of a place and vulnerability of

Fig. 1 Models on relationships between hazards, perception and response. a Elements of flood hazardresponse based on Ward (1978, 115), b model of hazard perception and response based on Park (1983, 15),c relationships between perception and response based on Tobin and Montz (1997, 136)

504 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

human life and assets to various hazards within a given human ecological system. Place,

process and people are three essential elements of a hazardscape that produce hazards,

physical susceptibility and human vulnerability (Fig. 2a). Thus defined, the concept of

hazardscape serves a role in hazard studies by providing a framework for holistic

Response zones1. Planned and regular response2. Inherent or cultural response3. Precautionary or voluntary response4. Regulatory response or ‘feel good’ policies

Non-response zones5. Fatalism or blasé effect6. Lack of hazard awareness7. Lack of choice or options

Physical

Susceptibility

Perceived

Susceptibility

Response

123

5

7 6

4

HS=Hazardscape

E= Ecosystem

H=Hazard

P1=Process

P2=Place

P3=People

E

P3HS

P2

P1 (H)

P3P2

P1

PS

V+R

Hazardscape = Process (Hazard) + Place (Physical Susceptibility) + People (Vulnerability)

a

b

c

No response(Limited

Capacity)

Response

Capacity to make change (short-term)

ResilienceDisaster

Recovery & Adaptive

AdjustmentAdaptation

Emergency Response

Mitigation

Preparedness

Recovery

Hazard

Susceptibility

Vulnerability

Hazardscape

Resistance & Coping

Capacity to make change (long-term)

Nature & Type response

(Possibilities & Constraints)

Fig. 2 The relationships between place, hazardscape and response. a Elements of a hazardscape,b relationship between hazardscape and response, c relationship between physical susceptibility, perceivedsusceptibility and hazard response

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 505

123

understanding, as opposed to the more traditional, analytical reductionist studies carried

out from a single discipline perspective.

Place provides an integrative base to a hazardscape where other elements (processes and

people) adjust and evolve. It reflects the nature of ecological relationships between a

community and its environment. Place characteristics not only condition the process

behaviour that may lead to a hazard, but also govern the settings for human livelihood that

contributes to vulnerability (through exposure), perception of hazards and the nature of

local response. Assessing a place for hazards, perception and response also facilitates

mapping and cross comparison of a distinct, local and controlled case study (McCright and

Clark 2006).

The hazardscape and people’s response share a direct relationship with each other

(Fig. 2b), and even though they are influenced by the same factors, hazardscape and

response are not equivalent. While hazardscape is the outcome of real interactions among

its elements, human response is based on the perceived hazardscape which is constrained

by a number of factors, such as awareness or accessibility of knowledge. The biophysical

characteristics of a place influence response both directly by governing physical suscep-

tibility that dictates response requirements and indirectly by influencing perceived sus-

ceptibility that stimulates motivation for response. This interaction may produce a disparity

between appropriateness of response of people in a hazardscape which can be attributed to

gaps between physical and perceived susceptibility of a place to hazards. A spatial

interpretation of such gaps could be useful in planning of risk reduction strategies and

hazard mitigation at a place.

2.2 Physical susceptibility and response

In a hazardscape, physical susceptibility is defined as the likelihood of a place to expe-

rience any natural hazard due to its biophysical characteristics. The biophysical charac-

teristics that govern physical susceptibility can be classified into three broad categories

namely (1) location, (2) natural biophysical characteristics and (3) human-modified bio-

physical conditions. Although they are not entirely independent, they can influence

response in distinct ways.

Location, in both absolute and relative sense, plays a crucial role in governing the nature

and impact of natural hazards. The natural biophysical characteristics of a place include its

geological, physiographic, hydrological and other characteristics produced by natural

processes. They not only make a place susceptible to natural hazards but can also modify

their intensity. For example, higher intensities of shaking during earthquakes occur in

sands as compared to rocky substrates. Most engineering solutions are based on these

characteristics. Certain biophysical characteristics of a place attract more people for

habitation for example, floodplains, coasts, gentle hills or moderate climate. This leads to

increased risk due to greater exposure of a growing population in specific areas. Physical

susceptibility is distinct from exposure to hazards as the latter places more emphasis on

location of communities while the former extends into areas that are not populated.

Understanding the physical susceptibility of a wider area than is currently populated can

help in planning emergency response and mitigating future risks. The third set of place

characteristics that generate physical susceptibility to hazards are its human-modified

biophysical conditions resulting from excavation and construction of infrastructure, etc.

The early studies in human ecology including French studies on criminology (Elmer

1933), McKenzie (1926) and Hawley (1944) emphasised that human behaviour is influ-

enced by spatial geographic factors (Brody et al. 2004). Various aspects of place

506 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

characteristics that influence physical susceptibility also affect response to hazards.

Location and biophysical characteristics of a place play a crucial role behind most engi-

neering solutions for hazards, such as building designs and measures for flood or earth-

quakes. The human-modified conditions further bring changes in response due to altered

susceptibility, for example, a shift in response from moving out of floodplain to a greater

reliance on warning and hazard information due to stop banks (Tobin and Montz 1997).

The overall physical susceptibility can be broadly classified into two types. First is the

‘location-specific’ physical susceptibility, for example, susceptibility of fault lines to high

magnitude earthquakes, flood-plains to flooding and hills to landslides. The second can be

called ‘non-location-specific’ susceptibility which extends over a wider area, such as

susceptibility of an entire town to volcanic ash fall. The differential nature of susceptibility

generates different motivations and types of response. In case of location-specific sus-

ceptibility, risk is spatially concentrated and requires specific actions from the exposed

community. In the case of non-location-specific susceptibility, decision-making is needed

from a higher level of organisation, such as a city or national administration.

2.3 Perceived susceptibility and response

The geographical characteristics of a place play a vital role in building hazard perception

due to its direct contact and influences on the human cognition (Kirschenbaum 2005; Tobin

and Montz 1997). The physical environment not only acts as a source of stimuli (hazards)

but also governs the conditions (susceptibility) that may modify the perception of hazards.

A perception of a hazard can be held without an individual having ever experienced it.

While socio-economic context and knowledge can be argued as the source of such per-

ception, the physical environment establishes this threat as real. This is to say a steep hill

may enhance the perception of landslide, while gentle slopes may create a mirage of safety.

The perceived susceptibility differs from the physical susceptibility as it is governed by a

number of intermediate factors, such as hazard frequency, past experience or how spatial

characteristics are viewed in a given cultural context (Steg and Sievers 2000; Burton et al.

n.d.).

The influences of location on perception have received more attention than other place

characteristics. Tobin and Montz (1997) identified the significance of an individual’s

location in relation to a hazardous area affecting perception and response. Studies in

environmental psychology (e.g. Hannon 1994; Cantrill 1998; Cantrill and Senecah 2001;

Brown et al. 2002; and Brody et al. 2004) have highlighted the implications of a ‘sense of

place’ on the perception of environmental problems. Human-modified conditions, at times,

influence hazard perception more than location and natural biophysical characteristics. For

example, a false sense of security may be observed among residents of high-rise buildings

because of the introduction of such measures as building codes. But in reality, building

codes are developed to meet a chosen design magnitude event and will not reduce impact

from large supra-design events—so a residual risk continues to exist. Since human-induced

changes are rapid and variable, hazard perception associated with them is also likely to

vary over time and space. Tobin and Montz (1997) found that a significant modification of

the physical environment (for example deforestation and landslide occurrence) could

exacerbate the hazard occurrence to an extent that even the most accurate hazard per-

ception will not be true over time.

It has been established that it is the view of things rather than things themselves that

influence how humans react (Nerb et al. 2008). Therefore, the response to a hazard is

governed by its perception and awareness of opportunities to make adjustments rather than

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 507

123

physical hazard characteristics (Tobin and Montz 1997; Burton et al. 1993). Perceived

susceptibility to a hazard is, therefore, essential as it can contribute to as well as detract

from effective response (Tobin and Montz 1997). A population with heightened hazard

perception not only consciously makes choices to adapt to such events, but is likely to

support government programmes more than those with low perception (Armas 2006; Wood

1970). The two types of physical susceptibility, location specific and non-location specific,

also influence perceived susceptibility and subsequent response. While location-specific

susceptibility leads to a heightened perceived susceptibility, non-location-specific sus-

ceptibility is often associated with poor perception and response.

2.4 Relationship between physical susceptibility, perceived susceptibility and response

While physical susceptibility based on the scientific assessment generates engineering

solutions to hazards, perceived susceptibility leads to their adoption by people. Therefore,

for an effective response to hazards, it is important that physical and perceived suscepti-

bility overlap. However, in reality, they often diverge for various reasons.

Zones created by overlapping of physical and perceived susceptibility can be classified

into two broad categories: (1) response and (2) non-response zones (Fig. 2c). There are

four zones that suggest different motivations and types of response in the first category.

Zone 1 represents a response that is based on both physical and perceived susceptibility.

Response here is generally planned either for adjustment or adaptation and therefore tends

to be regular in space due to mutual acknowledgement from both local people and gov-

ernment. Zone 2 shows a response in areas of physical susceptibility without perceived

susceptibility, where residents do not consider themselves to be personally exposed to a

particular hazard. The response in this zone includes inherent or cultural adaptations, such

as slanting roofs for rain and snow or the choice of wooden houses in earthquake zones. On

the other hand, responses in areas of perceived susceptibility without physical suscepti-

bility (Zone 3) are precautionary or voluntary. These are mainly minor adjustments and

often not regular over space as they are based on individual choices and may not be

supported by scientific evidence or government planning. In addition to various responses

initiated by individuals, the response at times is also governed by processes operating at

higher level, which are organised at the national or international scale irrespective of the

local physical and perceived susceptibility. Such response falls in Zone 4. An example of

this may include government action for climate change for which the nature of hazard at a

very specific location may not be either obvious or clearly perceived. It may also include

‘feel good’ policies that do not necessarily treat the root cause of disaster (Tobin and

Montz 1997).

The non-response zones, on the other hand, point to a different set of factors influencing

response. It is noted that if people see the effects of a hazard as insurmountable, they are

unlikely to respond positively (Paton et al. 2001). The physical characteristics of a place

may influence the perception of locus of control, which plays an important role behind the

response taken for a particular hazard. While a perception of an internal locus of control

may lead to a high response rate, a perception of an external locus of control may generate

fatalism (Hurnen and McClure 1997). Various biophysical characteristics, such as a major

fault line, extreme elevation or exposure to open ocean, may enhance the perceived threat

of a hazard and place locus of control in the external environment. On the other hand,

hazards that pose minimum threat or risk also get less response from people, mainly due to

a blase effect. In Zone 5 despite having physical and perceived susceptibility, the reason

for no response could be attributed to either fatalism or a blase effect.

508 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

Awareness of hazards or mitigation opportunities has been recognised as prerequisites

for hazard response (Tobin and Montz 1997). A lack of awareness of physical suscepti-

bility can be given as the main reason for no response in Zone 6. Non-response in Zone 7

despite a perceived susceptibility could be attributed to high economic cost or lack of

choices or response options. While there can be other secondary causes for response and

non-response in these demarcated zones, the classification is restricted to dominant causes

in order to simplify complexities for efficient planning.

This understanding and mapping of physical and perceived susceptibility is significant

because often a place is susceptible to multiple hazards. Multiple hazard susceptibility in

combination with the nature of physical susceptibility creates complexity and confusion

around which hazards are perceived and responded to. However, very few studies have

delved into this aspect. Hewitt and Burton (1971) studied hazardousness of a place by

assessing all hazards of southwest part of Ontario Region, Canada. They developed a

hazard classification that was focused around the hazard characteristics and response rather

than the influences of place characteristics on hazard perception. In New Zealand, Gee

(1992) plotted the physical susceptibility of a part of the Wellington Region to various

hazards, but did not address its influences on the perception or the response of the local

people. Mapping the physical susceptibility, perception and response for different hazards

at a place could help in identifying the gaps in response and opportunities for local

intervention.

3 Methodology

The physical susceptibility of the Wellington Region, New Zealand to various hazards and

their characteristics is based on the secondary data obtained from Greater Wellington

Regional Council (GWRC), Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd (GNS),

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and Victoria University of

Wellington (VUW). In order to study the influences of place characteristics on hazard

perception and response, questionnaires and interviews were conducted with people living

in different hazards susceptibility zones in the eight territorial local authorities of the

region. The samples were selected by using the stratified purposive method (Paton 2002).

The general criteria applied to locate and identify the respondents included proximity to a

fault line, river, coast, farms and dense vegetation. In case of absence of selected

respondents or lack of interest in participation, flexibility of the sampling method allowed

the selection of another respondent from a particular hazard susceptibility zone. In total,

272 responses were collected with a response rate of 44% from eight territorial local

authorities of the region. These responses were geocoded and superimposed on the

physical susceptibility map of the region by using a GIS system (ArcGIS version 9.2

version) (Fig. 3). The respondents were then classified according to their different loca-

tional and socio-economic characteristics and assessed for different perception and

response to hazards (Table 1). While hazards, perception and response are also modified by

the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, the focus of this paper is limited to

analysing the differences that emerge due to the physical characteristics of a place.

The data obtained from the primary survey varied from quantitative answers for closed

questions to qualitative descriptions of past experiences and response measures adopted by

the respondents. The data are statistically analysed by using SPSS (version 16). Due to

non-random sampling method, the strength of association between selected elements is

assessed by using nonparametric statistical methods. Pearson chi-square test [X2] with

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 509

123

continuity correction [X2c] is selected to find any significant association between physical

susceptibility and perception of hazard exposure. The strength of association is noted by

using contingency coefficient [C], the values of which vary from 0 to 1, implying that the

greater the value, the higher the strength of association (Altman 1999).

4 The Wellington Region hazardscape: interrelations between physical susceptibility,perceived susceptibility and response

In Wellington, nearly 17% of the respondents in the primary survey mentioned that they

chose to live at their current residence primarily because of its physical characteristics,

such as an easy living on flat land, high aesthetic value or ‘a nice view’. Another 14%

mentioned place characteristics in association with other factors. The physical character of

the place was the second most dominant motive following employment or location near

workplace (29%). The decisions made around such locational choices influence exposure,

perception and response to various hazards in the region.

4.1 Physical susceptibility and response in the region

4.1.1 Location

In Wellington, the role of location behind its physical susceptibility to hazards is prominent

(Fig. 4). It sits at the frontal ridge of the Indo-Australian crustal plate on the Pacific Rim

where it is exposed to active seismic forces from the subduction of the Pacific oceanic plate

underneath (McConchie 2000; Begg and Johnston 2000). Consequently, the region

experiences regular earthquakes and has the potential to experience a very high-intensity

030 15 Kilometers

Location of Respondents

Fault lines

Administrative boundaries

Slope: High

Slope: Low

Wildfire: High

Wildfire: Low

Built up areas

Fig. 3 Distribution of respondents in the Wellington Region. Based on data from Greater WellingtonRegional Council, Primary Survey (2007)

510 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

Table 1 Characteristics and distribution of respondents in the Wellington Region

Characteristics Respondents (in %) Characteristics Respondents (in %)

Number Percent Number Percent

Liquefaction area 87 32 Age group

Slope angle 16–30 years 37 13.6

0–2 degree 134 49.3 31–45 years 70 25.7

2–5 degree 34 12.5 46–60 years 73 26.8

5–10 degree 39 14.3 61 and above 92 33.8

10–18 degree 45 16.5 Total 272 100

More than 18 degree 20 7.4 Gender

Area under 10 m contour 52 19 Not answered 1 0.4

Distance from fault by WRC Male 112 41.2

Within 150 m 18 7 Female 159 58.5

150–300 m 29 11 Total 272 100

300–600 m 39 14 Ethnicity

600–1,200 m 57 21 European 222 81.6

1,200–2,400 m 59 22 Maori 11 4

More than 2,400 m 70 26 MELAAa 2 0.7

Total 272 100 Pacific 4 1.5

Rainfall (in mm) Asian 10 3.7

Less than 800 14 5 Otherb 6 2.2

800–1,000 33 12 European and Maori mix 8 2.9

1,000–1,200 112 41 New Zealander 9 3.3

1,200–1,400 72 26 Total 272 100

1,400–1,600 34 13 Education

1,600–2,000 7 3 Not answered 1 0.4

Total 272 100 None 5 1.8

Flood plain 10 4 School 20 7.4

Wind speed zones (142 year wind gust) College 110 40.4

Less than 45 m/s 33 12 University 125 46

45–55 m/s 218 80 Vocational 11 4

55–65 m/s 21 8 Total 272 100

Total 272 100 Work status

Bushfire susceptibility Not answered 1 0.4

Not susceptible 167 61.4 Unemployed 30 11

Low 72 26.5 Employed full time 110 40.4

Medium 17 6.3 Employed part time 55 20.2

High 8 2.9 Pension or benefits 76 27.9

Very high or extreme 8 2.9 Total 272 100

Total 272 100 Place of residence before current

Year of residence in house Not answered/not applicable 18 6.6

Not answered 2 0.7 Within city/district 95 34.9

Less than a year 41 15.1 Within the region 83 30.5

1–5 years 77 28.3 Within New Zealand 44 16.2

5–10 years 51 18.8 Overseas 32 11.8

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 511

123

earthquake of MM (Modified Mercalli Scale) IX (ODESC 2007). Since 1900, it has

experienced 15 earthquakes of CMM V, eight of which were [MM VII (Crozier and

Aggett 2000). High seismic activity at the Pacific Rim also makes the region susceptible to

both locally sourced and distant tsunami (Berryman 2005; Goff et al. 2010). Subduction-

related volcanic eruptions also occur in New Zealand. However, the relative location of the

region at the southern tip of the North Island makes it susceptible to only volcanic ash fall

and gas plumes. The region is considered to have the potential to receive C300 mm

thickness of volcanic ash fall from Taupo and Okaitaina volcanoes that may destroy local

infrastructure and kill vegetation and aquatic life in addition to severe human health

problems (Paterson 2001; Neall et al. 1999).

The location of the region in the mid latitudes and southern hemisphere ocean places it

in the zone of the ‘‘roaring forties’’ which brings high-speed winds and gales (Tait et al.

2002). In addition, La Nina and El Nino events in the Pacific Ocean influence the

occurrence and distribution of droughts and extra-tropical cyclones within the region (Tait

et al. 2002). Apart from global and regional situations, location also plays a significant role

in the local contexts. For example, while houses on the Eastbourne coast of Lower Hutt

(eastern side of Wellington Harbour) are susceptible to tsunami due to their absolute

location, their relative location at the foot of steep hill country also exposes them to

landslide hazards (Fig. 5). Similar cases can be noted in many of the region’s coastal areas

(Figs. 6, 7).

0 3015 Kilometers

Carterton

South

Wairarapa

Kapiti

Coast

Porirua Upper

Hutt

Lower

Hutt

Wellington

Masterton

Urban areas Rural areas Water Council boundaries

1750E

410S

Pacific Ocean

Tasman

1760E

N

Pacific Plate

Indo-

Australian

a b c

0550 275 Kilometers

Wellington

Region

North

Island

South

Island

Volcanic

Fields

Fig. 4 Location of the Wellington Region. a On Pacific Rim, b in New Zealand, c the Wellington Region.Based on Ansell and Taber (1996, 34) and GWRC (2007)

Table 1 continued

Characteristics Respondents (in %) Characteristics Respondents (in %)

Number Percent Number Percent

More than 10 years 101 37.1 Total 272 100

Total 272 100

Based on Primary Survey, Young, 1972, and data from Wellington Regional Council, 2006, Grant (2005)a Middle Eastern, Latin American and African; b American, Australian, English

512 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

4.1.2 Natural biophysical characteristics

Wellington’s geology varies from a basement Jurassic greywacke (i.e. the hardest rock of

the region) to soft Holocene unconsolidated sediments in river basins, sand dunes, landfills

and reclaimed areas (Begg and Johnston 2000). Accordingly, variations in the nature of

hazards can be observed throughout the region. For example, in case of a high magnitude

earthquake (*MM8), the steep greywacke areas are susceptible to rock and debris slides,

Fig. 5 Damage to houses in Eastbourne from debris flow (October, 2006) (GNS Photo D200-2657,26Nov06 as cited in Hancox et al. (2007, 32)

Fig. 6 Perceived hazard exposure of respondents living in and outside the hazard susceptible zones.Criteria of susceptibility zones: Tsunami Area below 10 m above sea level, Bushfire Area in high to extremebushfire susceptibility, Drought Area that receives less than 1,000 mm of rainfall per annum, Flooding Areaunder 100-year flood event zone, Landslide Area with [10� slope angle, Windstorm Area of wind speed55–65 m/s (142 year wind gust), Earthquake (1) Area within 150 m of fault line, Earthquake (2) Areawithin liquefaction zone

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 513

123

gentle eastern hills may experience superficial landslides, and liquefaction can occur in

Holocene sediments and reclaimed areas (GWRC 2007).

The region primarily receives orographic rainfall with a mean annual average of

1,200–1,400 mm. The highest precipitation occurs in the Tararua Ranges (average

3,200 mm) where maximum elevation is 1,571 m (Mitre Peak) (Tait et al. 2002). The

lowest rainfall is received in Martinborough, South Wairarapa and areas adjacent to

Masterton city (B800 mm) (GWRC 2007). The coastal western areas of the region also

receive less rainfall and experience frequent water scarcity (GWRC 2007). The local

hydrological conditions and associated hazards are also governed by the nature of drainage

density. Long rivers in the east experience frequent flooding due to high rainfall in the

mountainous catchment areas of the Tararua Ranges, while short and dense drainage

networks in western parts may lead to faster flow and water scarcity despite receiving more

rainfall (GWRC 2007).

Wind is a dominant aspect of Wellington’s climate, and the region experiences frequent

windstorms. In low lying areas of the region, a maximum 3-s wind gusts of C198 km/h

have a return period of 142 years while 216 km/h has 475 year return period (Tait et al.

2002). These speeds are more frequent for higher areas including hills, ridges and es-

carpments (Tait et al. 2002). In severe wind events from 1996 to 2004, the sea surge height

is noted to vary from 5 to 14 m sufficient to cause closure of roads, ferry and air traffic

services (Grant 2005). Fifty-one people lost their lives when inter-island ferry Wahine sank

in the Wellington Harbour due to high winds (110 km/h) in combination with sea surge

(10 m) in 1968 (Tait et al. 2002).

Variable vegetation cover in the region, on the other hand, generates differential

bushfire susceptibility. A wide area under pastoral grassland in Masterton, Carterton and

South Wairapara along with parts of the Kapiti Coast is less susceptible to bushfire, while

areas under shelterbelts, wetland and shrub lands in Wellington, Porirua, Lower Hutt,

Upper Hutt and Featherston are highly susceptible (GWRC 2007; FCGL 1998).

Fig. 7 Dense vegetation on slopes that generate perceived susceptibility to bushfires

514 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

4.1.3 Human-modified biophysical conditions

Clearing and modification of native vegetation has affected slope stability and other

associated hazards in the region. While both Maori and European population have con-

tributed to this, changes made to vegetation during Polynesian settlement had an insig-

nificant influence on slope instability, compared to those made after European colonisation

(Glade 1997). This is evident in the sedimentation rates in Wellington Harbour, which

averaged 2.1 mm per year during the Polynesian period and rose to 38.2 mm per year in

the European period (Glade 1997). The enhanced erosion was the result of extensive

deforestation for pasture and urbanisation, which saw a decline in forest cover of[60% in

the period after 1840 (Glade 1997; Newsome 1987). Forest clearance not only increased

slope instability due to reduction of root cohesion, but also the rate of run-off (Crozier

1990), and therefore enhanced the region’s susceptibility to landslides, flood and drought.

Eyles et al. (1978) studied the landslides in the Wellington City and found that out of 1,149

landslides that occurred in 1974 (one of the wettest years recorded in the region), only two

landslides occurred on natural slopes and the rest occurred on modified slopes. The

compounding effect of slope destabilization and higher stormflow resulting from defor-

estation was investigated by McConchie (1980) in the Wellington floods of 1976. He was

able to demonstrate that while flood control measures were capable of handling run-off, the

additional contribution of landslide sediment imparted to the streamflow, overwhelmed

the culvert design capability and produced extensive flooding.

4.1.4 Response to physical susceptibility in the region

Most engineering and cultural solutions, such as building designs and standards, retaining

walls, shelterbelts, stop banks or drainage systems, reflect a response to the physical

susceptibility to hazards in the region. Apart from the types of response, physical sus-

ceptibility has also influenced the nature and intensity of response. Cities with intensive

land use in the western section of the region have elaborate hazard management systems

while gentle slopes in the east are mainly rural where sparse population and less dense

infrastructure support the presence of smaller Civil Defence and Emergency Management

[CDEM] groups. Despite administrative unification of western and eastern parts as a single

region in 1989, gaps in development and hazard management activities exist across the

Rimutaka Range which acts as a physical barrier for communication and growth in the

east. Ranging from hazard analysis to the regional strategy, the focus was initially titled

towards high-risk zones in the west, although attention is now being given to fill those

gaps.

4.2 Perceived susceptibility and response in the region

4.2.1 Location

The location of respondents in both an absolute and relative sense has an influence on the

perception of hazard exposure. The results of the questionnaire survey indicate that a

noticeably greater proportion of respondents living in areas of high physical susceptibility

perceived themselves to be exposed to the respective hazard compared to those living

outside that zone (Fig. 8). The greatest difference in hazard perception of respondents

living in and outside a given susceptibility zone is noted for tsunami where only 5% of

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 515

123

those living outside the zone perceived themselves to be exposed. In the absence of any

damaging tsunami in last 50 years in New Zealand, the perceived exposure by 64%

respondents living in areas of less than 10 m above sea level could be attributed to their

proximity to the coast and awareness of major events in other parts of the world, such as

the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Coastal proximity was also a reason behind not perceiving

this hazard as a threat by the other 36% of the respondents. In the South Wairarapa, for

example, a few respondents did not perceive themselves to be exposed to tsunami because

they lived relatively distant from the coast. In reality, however, these respondents were still

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-2 2-5 5-10 10-18 18-30 30-45

Slope Angle (in degrees)

Res

pond

ents

Earthquake Flood Landslide Bushfire Windstorm Cyclone Tsunami Drought Volcanic ash fall

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

>186-180-5

Slope Angle (in degrees)

Res

pond

ents

(%

)

Earthquake Flood Landslide

Bushfire Windstorm CycloneTsuanmi Drought Volcanic ash fall

D. Respondents who took measures for hazards after moving in

a

b c

Slope (in angles),

Respondents (in %)

Slope (in angles),

Respondents (in %)

Fig. 8 Perceived hazard exposure, problems experienced and response across slope angles in theWellington Region. a Hazards perceived by respondents at different slope angles, b problems experiencedfrom hazard by respondents living at different slope angles, c respondents who considered hazards beforemoving in their house, d respondents who took measures for hazards after moving in. Based on PrimarySurvey, 2007 and data from GWRC, 2007

516 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

physically exposed by the low relief of the near by Ruamahanga River which acts as a

gateway for tsunami waves moving inland from the coast. On the Kapiti Coast, a few

respondents did not perceive their exposure to tsunami as they saw themselves to be

protected by the Kapiti Island. The minimum gap between physical susceptibility and

perceived susceptibility is observed for earthquakes, that is 5% of respondents in case of

distance from fault lines and 0.01% for area susceptible to liquefaction. Possible reasons

behind a small difference in the perception for earthquakes across different physical sus-

ceptibility zones can be attributed to high density of faults and active government cam-

paigns for preparedness.

4.2.2 Natural biophysical characteristics

While on an average 78% of the respondents did not particularly mention physically

susceptible zones to be most or least affected by given hazards, percentage of those who

mentioned it to be the case varied for different hazards. The biophysical susceptibility was

noted highly for areas being most or least exposed to flooding (41%), landslides (36%),

tsunami (28%), bushfire (26%), windstorm (22%) and earthquake (19%), and less for

cyclones (11%), drought (11%) and volcanic ash fall (2%). Prominent qualitative differ-

ences are also observed in the influences of natural biophysical characteristics of place on

the nature of hazard perceived and experienced. While earthquakes are perceived

throughout the region, the respondents living in areas susceptible to liquefaction mentioned

experiencing high shaking intensities and yet perceived their properties to be exposed to

less damage than those living on steep slopes. In contrast, the respondents living on hills

experienced less shaking from earthquakes than those living in the flat liquefaction zones

but feared greater property damage from possible landslides and fires in case of a major

event.

The assessment of individual biophysical characteristics of a place shows that phys-

iography influences the perception of hazard exposure to some hazard more dominantly

than others. The proportion of respondents who perceived themselves to be exposed to

landslides, bushfire and to an extent cyclones increased with steepness of slopes

(Fig. 8a). The perception of bushfire exposure on steep slopes is mainly due to the

presence of vegetation retained or planted in these areas to mitigate landslides. The

proportion of respondents who perceived themselves to be susceptible to flooding and

drought, on the other hand, declined on steep slopes. The low lying coastal floodplains

and interior basins receive low rainfall that makes them susceptible to frequent droughts,

while they experience flooding through rivers having catchments in high rainfall areas in

the Tararua Ranges. Flooding on slopes mainly occurs due to inadequate drainage, while

faster run-off and extended gaps between rainfall periods cause droughts on hills. Per-

ception data in relation to rainfall zones showed that respondents living in areas of high

rainfall (slopes) perceived their susceptibility to landslide and bushfire, while those living

in areas of low rainfall (floodplains) perceived susceptible to droughts and flooding. The

perceived susceptibility to earthquakes and windstorms showed minor variations either

with slope or rainfall. This is due to a wider susceptibility of the region to these hazards

along with a high awareness attributed to active government education campaigns. A

consistent relationship is also seen for the perception of windstorm hazards across dif-

ferent wind speed zones in the region. The proportion of respondents who perceived

problems, high frequency and awareness of windstorms increased with increasing wind

speed zones.

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 517

123

4.2.3 Human-modified conditions

Built-up areas were specifically mentioned by on an average 8% of the respondents for areas

to be most or least exposed to the given hazards. This percentage is noted high for earth-

quake (15%), flood (11%), drought (11%), bushfire (11%) and landslide (10%), and less for

tsunami (3%), cyclone (2%) and volcanic ash fall (1%). In some cases, built areas can also

conceal the physical susceptibility. Five out of the ten respondents living on floodplain did

not perceive flooding as being problematic or a hazard. It may relate to a sense of security

engendered by the high visibility of stop banks and other flood control structures.

4.2.4 Response to perceived susceptibility in the region

Distance is an important control of perceived susceptibility that has influenced response in

the region. It was mentioned as the second most dominant reason after apathy for not being

prepared for any particular hazard. Nearly 19% of the respondents did not prepare for

flooding, landslides and volcanic ash fall because they considered they lived too far away

from the source of these hazards to be affected. Fear of potential damage is another aspect

of perceived susceptibility that has influenced responses. However, this too appears to be

controlled by place conditions such as slope angle. A low proportion (14%) of the

respondents from gentle slopes (\5�) perceived significant potential damage from hazards

compared to 15.5% of respondents from moderately steep slopes (5–18�) and 19% of

respondents from steep slopes ([18�). In contrast, the proportion of respondents who felt

safe decreased with increasing slope angle, that is, 26% on gentle slopes, 23% on moderate

slopes and 17% on steep slopes. Even though the differences in the numbers are subtle,

they indicate a trend of increasing fear or perception of greater loss with increasing slope

angle. In contrast, when actual problems experienced are surveyed, apart from floods and

droughts, there appears to be little relationship with slope angle. While the highest pro-

portion of the respondents (40%) living on steep slopes enquired about the hazard sus-

ceptibility of their house when they first moved into residence, 25% of such respondents

took mitigation measures (Fig. 8c, d). In contrast, while the lowest proportion of

respondents (28%) living on moderate slopes enquired about hazards before moving into

their current residence, a greater proportion of respondents from this zone (41%) took

mitigation measures. An increasing trend is noted in the proportion of respondents who

made changes in their house to avoid natural hazards. It varied from 20% on gentle slopes

to 45% on steep slopes. In contrast, more respondents on gentle slopes made changes

outside their house to avoid hazards, mainly for flooding.

Some variations are also noted across slopes in the type of measures taken. Nearly 25%

of respondents living on steep slopes have stored emergency material compared to less than

10% of respondents on any other slope angle. Respondents on steeper slopes also scored

high in conserving water and seeking out information to enhance their awareness about

hazards. This can be attributed to high perceived susceptibility for physical isolation in case

of a major hazard event. On gentle plains, a higher proportion of respondents had cash and

an emergency plan as safety measures which could help them for evacuation in case of

hazard warning. A high proportion of respondents across all slopes took safety measures

either not for any specific hazard or just for earthquakes. The proportion of respondents who

took measures for no specific hazard increased with slope angle, while those who took

safety measures for earthquakes generally decline with increasing steepness.

A trend in response to windstorms is also noted across different wind speed zones.

Although many respondents have taken measures such as securing households items,

518 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

planting trees as shelter, the locus of control for windstorm is predominantly seen outside

of human control, and therefore, the fear for this hazard increases and perceived pre-

paredness decreases in areas of high wind speed.

5 Relationships between physical susceptibility, perceived susceptibility and responsein the Wellington Region: planning implications for hazard mitigation and disasterresponse

While most respondents living in susceptible zones perceived and have responded to their

hazard exposure, gaps between the physical and perceived susceptibility have induced

variations in the response (Fig. 9). These gaps indicate different types and motivations for

response in the region that can be mapped for planning hazard mitigation and emergency

response management.

Physical susceptibility of the region to drought closely aligns with the respondents’

perception of this hazard. All respondents living in low rainfall areas (\800 mm/year) of

the Wairarapa considered themselves to be exposed to drought. A close alignment of

physical and perceived susceptibility has generated greater awareness and response both in

the form of adjustments and adaptations, such as water conservation, planning for buying

and selling of livestock, and change in land use. The respondents who did not respond to

drought despite having physical and perceived susceptibility (Zone 5) were either not

engaged in any activity that is directly affected by drought or the supply of water from their

personal borehole was sufficient for their families. While this may appear a reasonable

response, it is only such if climatic and water demand conditions remain unchanged in

future and ignore the likelihood of climate change and population growth.

The perceived susceptibility also closely aligns with physical susceptibility for wind-

storms and earthquakes. It can be attributed to a frequent occurrence of low magnitude

events and a wider spatial spread of these hazards in the region. A greater response to both

123

5 67

6. Landslide

1

5

1. Drought3. Earthquake

15

6

2

5. Tsunami

1 23

5 67

2. Windstorm

1

5

67

3 2

4. Flood

5

13 2

67

8. Cyclone

12

6

5

7. Bushfire

7

12

3

5 6

9. Volcanic Ash fall

65

Fig. 9 Approximate alignment of physical susceptibility, perceived susceptibility and response to varioushazards in the Wellington Region

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 519

123

hazards can also be attributed to active government participation to enhance preparedness

in the region. The planned response in Zone 1 for these hazards includes building codes

and survival kits. Zone 2 mainly includes those respondents who are either new residents or

are not aware of these hazards. The response in this zone is either inherent from previous

occupiers or regulatory as enforced by government, but the occupants do not see them-

selves particularly susceptible to these hazards. With reference to earthquakes, a few

respondents in the region were not aware of the significance of wooden houses which

illustrates an adaptation that has become a cultural norm. The construction of resistant

wooden houses after the destruction of brick and stone buildings in the 1848 Wellington

earthquake was a conscious adjustment which became an adaptation over time (Crozier

and Aggett 2000). In Zone 3, despite low susceptibility due to local geomorphic charac-

teristics, people perceived hazard and adopted measures due to high awareness or because

others have done so. The Zone 5 for both earthquakes and windstorms represents either too

high (fatalism) or too low (blase effect) perceived risk that has inhibited a proactive

response to these hazards. In Zone 6, lack of response could be attributed to a lack of

awareness about these hazards either due to the respondents short stay within the area or a

lack of experience of any hazardous event.

The susceptibility to flood is well perceived on the floodplains. However, many people

did not respond to this hazard because of greater reliance on the engineering solutions such

as stop banks. Lack of response may also be due to fewer options or choices available at

the individual level in Zone 7. The response where physical and perceived susceptibility

coincide includes improving drainage, relocation of household and constructing stop banks

by seeking community or government support. The response without perceived suscepti-

bility in Zone 2 is inbuilt in the building design about which the current occupiers are not

aware of such as, raised ground level to avoid flood water inundation in house, while

response in Zone 3 without physical susceptibility is precautionary and includes measures

suggested by the local government, such as putting names in the list of flood warning

receiving families.

More than 60% of the respondents living in tsunami susceptible zones perceived

themselves to be exposed to tsunami, but the share of respondents who prepared for this

hazard is very low. The response for this hazard mainly includes preparedness for evac-

uation as suggested by the local government authorities. The dominant zone outside the

response circle is of Zone 5, 6 and 7, which represents fatalism, unawareness of hazard and

lack of choices or response options. Most people in the region depend on the civil defence

warning systems for their response to tsunami.

Similarly, a high proportion of respondents ([60%) living in susceptible zones per-

ceived themselves to be exposed to landslides. The response for landslides includes

building retaining walls (Zone 1 and 2), planting trees to stabilise slopes (Zone 3) and

strengthening of the house (Zone 1). Retaining walls in Zone 2 include those that are either

built by government or by previous occupants of the property. The absence of response

could be partly due to lack of awareness (Zone 6), fatalism (Zone 5), or lack of knowledge

or options to respond (Zone 7).

For bushfire, the perceived susceptibility varied significantly from the physical sus-

ceptibility. Many respondents in the high susceptibility zone did not perceive themselves to

be exposed to bushfire, while many others who lived outside the susceptibility zone per-

ceived themselves to be exposed. The response to bushfires is driven by the perceived

susceptibility attributed to the presence of dense vegetation in neighbourhood and frequent

human-induced fire incidents. Response to bushfires in the region mainly includes the

purchase of sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers as well as the removal of vegetation

520 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

immediately next to the house. The greater area in Zone 5, 6 and 7 indicates fatalism, lack

of awareness and perceived lack of control measures for human-induced bushfires,

respectively. There is also a heavy reliance on fire fighting agencies in the region.

Similarly, awareness of extra-tropical cyclone is found to be low among respondents,

and many confused cyclone occurrence with high winds and rainstorms generated by other

weather systems. The divergence between physical and perceived susceptibility was widest

for volcanic ash fall. Most of the respondents were either unaware or perceived a very low

risk from volcanic ash fall, which subsequently resulted in no response.

Knowing about the existence and causes of gaps between physical susceptibility, per-

ceived susceptibility and response can help to identify local barriers to effective response

and provide location-specific information for hazards and response requirements. At

present, the distribution of information throughout the region is governed by administrative

divisions rather than their biophysical susceptibility. Figure 10 shows that the fear of

respondents from various hazards within local council areas and the information received

by them from the local council. While the overall trend may look similar, as noted before

fear from various hazards varies over space with changing physical susceptibilities. Fig-

ure 10c shows that the fear of earthquake declines with the increasing distance from fault

when the fear of other hazards correspondingly increases. In contrast, the proportion of

respondents who received information on earthquakes was similar over space, irrespective

of the distance from fault. Likewise, while flooding and droughts are feared by more

respondents in a low rainfall area (Fig. 10e), a lower proportion of respondents living in

this area received information about these hazards than those living in high rainfall areas

despite their lower susceptibility. In contrast, windstorm is most feared by the respondents

living in high rainfall zones, but none of them mentioned receiving information from the

council about this hazard.

Influences of biophysical susceptibility are therefore clear and need to be planned even

within a city or district. Figure 11 shows a greater diversity in the nature of exposure to

hazards in all councils of the region. Due to multiple hazard susceptibility and lack of

clarity at the very local level, out of 74% of respondents who took safety measures, such as

purchasing survival kits, storing water, having cash or an emergency plan, about 30% of

them took these measures either for all hazards or not for any specific hazard. A detailed

planning and information provision could help people to be aware and respond to hazards

they are particularly exposed to.

The pattern in both physical and perceived susceptibility can be mapped and planned for

(Figs. 11, 12). In general, the western section of the region including Wellington, Lower

Hutt, Upper Hutt, Porirua and the Kapiti Coast has high susceptibility to fault rupture,

landslides, tsunami, flooding and bushfire. The three rural districts of South Wairarapa,

Carterton and Masterton, on the other hand, are more susceptible to drought, flooding,

liquefaction and soil erosion, which can be prioritized for planning hazard response

(Fig. 11).

Similarly, there is a pattern in perception that aligns with biophysical characteristics of a

place (Fig. 12). A significant strength of association (based on the continuity correction

score for chi-square) is noted between the respondents who lived in areas susceptible to

liquefaction (soft ground), and those who perceived themselves exposed to cyclone,

flooding, tsunami and bushfire. The percentage data showed a positive relation for

flooding, tsunami and cyclone and a negative relation for bushfire. The association is noted

stronger for tsunami (C = 0.44), as compared to cyclone (C = 0.23), flooding (C = 0.22)

or bushfire (C = 0.19). A similar association is noted between the respondents who lived

in tsunami zone (\10 m elevation) and those who perceived themselves to be exposed to

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 521

123

cyclone, tsunami and flood. The association was noted strong for tsunami (C = 0.53)

followed by cyclone (C = 0.30) and less for flood (C = 0.14). This shows the links

between the biophysical characteristics of the place and its hazard, that is, the low lying

coastal zones with friable sediments are susceptible to liquefaction, tsunami, cyclone and

flooding. Besides, dense population and therefore less vegetation in the coastal flat areas

are factors reflected in a high but negative association with perceived bushfire exposure.

The respondents who lived in 100-year flood zone shared significant association only with

b

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wellington KapitiCoast

Carterton Masterton SouthWairarapa

Porirua Upper Hutt Lower Hutt

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wellington Kapiti

Coast

CartertonMasterton South

Wairarapa

Porirua Upper

Hutt

Lower

Hutt

Res

pond

ents

a

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Within150m

150-300m 300-600m 600-1200m

1200-2400m

>2400m

Distance from fault

Res

pond

ents

c d

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than800

800-1000 1000-1200 1200-1400 1400-1600 1600-2000

Rainfall (in mm)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Within150m

150-300m 300-600m 600-1200m 1200-2400m >2400m

Distance from fault

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than800

800-1000 1000-1200 1200-1400 1400-1600 1600-2000

Rainfall (in mm)

Res

pond

ents

e f

Earthquake Flood Landslide Bushfire Windstorm Cyclone Tsunami Drought Volcanic ash fall

Fig. 10 The most feared hazard and hazard information respondents mentioned to receive from localcouncils. a Most feared hazards of respondents across local councils, b information received about hazardsacross local councils, c Most feared hazards of respondents across fault lines, d information received abouthazards across fault lines, e most feared hazards of respondents across rainfall zones, f information receivedabout hazards across rainfall zones. Based on Primary Survey, 2007

522 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

Susceptibility

Active Faults

Drought

Wind speed >55m/s

Wind speed >65m/s

Liquefaction

Tsunami

Flood

Bush fire (Medium)

Bushfire (High)

Slopes

1. Porirua City 2. Kapiti Coast

3. Masterton & Carterton

4. Wellington City 5. Lower & Upper Hutt 6. South Wairarapa

1

2

3

4

0 15 30 Kilometers

5

6

Fig. 11 Physical susceptibility of the Wellington Region. Based on digital data from GWRC, WELA,NIWA, GNS, 2007

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 523

123

Hazard Susceptibility

Hazard Perception

Tsunami (P=<0.01; C=0.53) Cyclone (P=<0.01; C=0.30)

Flood (P=<0.05; C=0.37) (+)

Area under 10m contour (Tsunami Susceptibility)

(+)

Soft rocks and loose sediments (Liquefaction Susceptibility)

Tsunami (P=<0.01; C=0.44) Cyclone (P=<0.01; C=0.23) Flood (P=<0.01; C=0.23)

100 year flood event zone (Flood Susceptibility)

Bushfire (P=<0.01; C=0.19)

(+)

Flood (P=<0.01; C=0.18)

Increasing slope angle

Landslide (P=<0.01; C=0.37) Bushfire (P=<0.01; C=0.25)

(+)

Flood (P=<0.01; C=0.32) Drought (P=<0.01; C=0.27)

(-)

Increasing rainfall

Flood (P=<0.01; C=0.35) Drought (P=<0.01; C=0.395) Tsunami (P=<0.01; C=0.28)

(-)

Landslide (P=<0.01; C=0.27) Bushfire (P=<0.01; C=0.46)

(+)

(-)

Idealised

Topographic

Profile

Fig. 12 Place characteristics and perceived susceptibility to hazards in the Wellington Region. Based onPrimary Survey, 2007 and data from GWRC, 2007

524 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

those respondents who perceived their exposure to flood; however, the association was not

very strong (C = 0.18).

A significant association is observed between the respondents living at increasing slope

angle and those who perceived themselves to be exposed to landslides, bushfires, flooding

and drought. The strength of association is noted stronger for landslide (C = 0.37) and

flooding (C = 0.32) as compared to drought (0.27) and bushfire (0.25). In terms of direction

of change, perceptions of landslide and bushfire increase (positive) with increasing slope

angle while perception of flood and drought decreases (negative) with increasing slope.

Similarly, a significant association is noted between the respondents living in high

rainfall zones and those who perceived hazard exposure for flooding, drought, landslide,

bushfire and tsunami. The strength of association is noted stronger for bushfire (C = 0.46),

drought (C = 0.39) and flooding (0.35) as compared to tsunami (C = 0.28) and landslide

(0.27). A positive relation of landslide and bushfire with rainfall zones and a negative

relation for flooding, drought and tsunami again depict the spatial spread of physical

susceptibility in the region. Therefore, a trend is apparent in the perceived susceptibility to

hazards that aligns with place characteristics, which can be mapped and planned for greater

effectiveness of hazard mitigation (Fig. 12).

6 Discussion and conclusion

Brody et al. (2004) argued that knowledge and support for environmental concern is

affected by location, place and space. Place is an essential component of hazardscape

where its interactions with other elements in the human ecosystem shape hazards, per-

ception and response at a location. While both physical and perceived susceptibility are

reinforced by other elements of hazardscape, the role of a place is distinct and needs to be

considered in planning for hazard mitigation and emergency response.

The influences of place characteristics on physical susceptibility, perceived suscepti-

bility and response are different from those that arise from the nature of hazard or vul-

nerability. A high perception of hazards, such as earthquakes, can be attributed to their

high frequency. However, the nature of potential damage perceived from earthquakes in

the Wellington Region not only varied with slope angle but also across areas susceptible to

liquefaction and with the distance from faults. Heightened risk perception of landslides and

bushfire on hills despite lack of past experience also signifies influences of biophysical

characteristics of a place on physical and perceived susceptibility.

Human vulnerability, on the other hand, influences people’s perception and response by

limited or constrained capacity of individuals or groups. For example, lack of education is

an important factor of vulnerability (Cutter et al. 2003). Its reduction can enhance hazard

awareness and response, but facilitating education to a specific disadvantaged group may

not treat the perceived threat of landslides, bushfires and earthquakes in all communities

living on steep slopes. A high proportion of respondents in the Wellington Region per-

ceived physical susceptibility to be a more important reason for being affected by any

hazard than vulnerability either for themselves or neighbourhood. Further, people and their

vulnerability are transient as compared to the biophysical characteristics, mapping varia-

tions of which is therefore, more reliable and can help in the current and future planning,

by targeting places facing poor responses.

Mapping the location of various hazards is a conventional geographic approach.

However, it has not been used for understanding how the perception of hazards varies in a

community. In geographic terms, Dansereau (1975) made a distinction between landscape

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 525

123

and inscape where latter governs response and varies over space. While everyone has a

perception of hazards, those living in susceptible zones, such as on steep hills or next to

fault lines, have a different and often a heightened hazard perception. An understanding of

the variations in perceived susceptibility in relation to physical susceptibility can help to

find response gaps.

For high magnitude hazards, some fatalism is noted in the Wellington Region, but it

also has a spatial expression that cannot be explained by the magnitude alone. The Wel-

lington region, within the last 150 years, has experienced widespread destruction and loss

of life from both earthquakes and windstorms. It is therefore not surprising that fatalism is

observed to be high near faults, open ocean, on top of hills or in high wind zones. Given the

history of impact in the region, high magnitude events seem, to many, to be beyond

mitigation capabilities of the individual. This degree of individual resignation implicitly

transfers responsibility from the individual to an external entity—a condition referred to by

psychologists as a perceived external locus of control. Response then is either considered a

waste of time or the responsibility of someone else. This conclusion is strongly supported

by a study on the wide differences in human willingness to adopt personal risk reduction

measures attributed to the level of the seismic risk zone occupied (Crozier et al. 2006).

They found that those living in the extreme risk zones considered they could do little or

nothing to prevent loss from earthquakes, compared to those living in low-risk zones who

were willing to personally adopt risk reduction measures. Similarly, despite experiencing

fewer problems, a greater sense of vulnerability and fatalism is noted in respondents living

on steep slopes where they saw less scope as an individual to modify risks from hazards,

whereas respondents living on gentle slopes, though making fewer enquiries about hazards,

made more changes to their properties than those living on steep slopes who enquired more

but made less changes to avoid hazards. To manage fatalism, populations living in high

susceptibility zones can be given specific information targeted at their perception and

designed to engender an effective response. In the Wellington Region, a greater fear from

location-specific hazards has led to underestimation of non-location-specific hazards,

which can be adjusted by raising awareness of underestimated hazards.

The influences of place characteristics on hazard susceptibility, perception and response

of people are clearly observed in the Wellington Region. The respondents living in gentle

plains perceived themselves to be exposed to tsunami, flooding and drought, while those

living on slopes feared landslides, bushfires and cyclones. Earthquakes and windstorms are

feared across all slopes, but they are perceived highly destructive on steep slopes. A

general trend is observed in terms of high response and readiness for hazards for which

physical and perceived susceptibility were closely aligned.

The gap between physical and perceived susceptibility is clearly an impediment to the

adoption of effective and appropriate mitigation measures whether initiated by the indi-

vidual or local government. The spatial manifestation of this gap has been demonstrated

here and thus provides a framework for targeting hazard education and other mitigation

programs. It is likely that localised solutions will be more readily acceptable to local

people compared to generalised solutions at a district, regional or national level. Local

councils can also get benefits in the form of public support as it is found that a population

that perceives hazards accurately is more likely to support government initiatives for

response (Armas 2006).

One drawback of this approach can be the rapidly changing perception with time due to

flow of people, information and changing socio-economic and climatic conditions. This

would require a regular update of information. The hazardscape is clearly dynamic and

continually evolving in response to environmental, demographic and political change.

526 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

Hazard and risk reduction measures need to be continually informed by assessment of the

dynamics of the hazardscape.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the research grant provided by the School of Geography,Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington to support this paper. We also give oursincere thanks to the Greater Wellington Regional Council, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences,National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research and Victoria University of Wellington for datasupply, friends for helping with the field work and the local people of the Wellington Region for giving theirprecious time and generous response. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Dallice Sim for providingstatistical guidance and to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions for this manuscriptwhich helped to improve this paper.

References

Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonAnsell R, Taber J (1996) Caught in the crunch: earthquakes and volcanoes in New Zealand. Harper Collins,

AucklandArmas I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26:1223–1234Begg JG, Johnston MR (2000) Geology of the Wellington area. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences,

Lower HuttBerryman K (2005) Review of tsunami hazard and risk in New Zealand. Institute of Geological and Nuclear

Sciences Ltd., Lower HuttBillig M (2006) Is my home my castle? Place attachment, risk perception, and religious faith. Environ Behav

38:248–265Brody SD, Highfield W, Alston L (2004) Does location matter?: measuring environmental perceptions of

creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environ Behav 36:229–250Brown GG, Reed P, Harris CC (2002) Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska

case study. Appl Geogr 22:49–76Burley D, Jenkins P, Azcona B (2006) Loss, attachment, and place: land loss and community in coastal

Louisiana. In: McCright AM, Clark TN (eds) Community and ecology: dynamics of place, sustain-ability and politics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 21–42

Burton I, Kates RW (1964) The floodplain and the seashore: a comparative analysis of hazard-zoneoccupance. Geogr Rev 54:366–385

Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1978) The environment as hazard. Oxford University Press, New YorkBurton I, Kates RW, White GF (1993) The environment as hazard. The Guilford Press, New YorkBurton I, Kates RW, White GF (n.d.) Human ecology of extreme geophysical events. Natural hazards

research, Working Paper No. 1. TorontoCampbell DJ (1984) Response to drought among farmers and herders in Southern Kajiado District, Kenya.

Hum Ecol 12:35–64Cantrill JG (1998) The environmental self and a sense of place: communication foundations for regional

ecosystem. J Appl Commun Res 26:301–318Cantrill JG, Senecah SL (2001) Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context of environmental

policy-making and landscape planning. Environ Sci Policy 4:185–203Chorley RJ (1973) Geography as human ecology. In: Chorley RJ (ed) Directions in geography. Methuen,

LondonCowan J (1998) The effects of media descriptions on judgements about earthquakes. Master of Science

Dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, WellingtonCrozier MJ (1990) Landslides and erosion in Wairarapa-mechanisms, controlling factors and processes and

regional differences. Occasional Paper 1, Series: ISSN-0114-9458. Department of Geography, VictoriaUniversity of Wellington, Wellington

Crozier M, Aggett G (2000) A hazardous place. In: McConchie J, Winchester D, Willis R (eds) DynamicWellington: a contemporary synthesis and explanation of Wellington. Victoria University of Wel-lington, Wellington, pp 137–154

Crozier M, McClure J, Vercoe J, Wilson M (2006) The effects of hazard zone information on judgementsabout earthquake damage. Area 38:143–152

Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study ofGeorgetown County, South Carolina. Ann As Am Geogr 90:713–737

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 527

123

Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Sci Q84:242–261

Dansereau P (1975) Inscape and landscape: the human perception of environment. Columbia UniversityPress, New York

Desai A (1985) Environmental perception: the human factor in urban planning. Ashish Publishing House,New Delhi

Elmer MC (1933) Century-old ecological studies in France. Am J Sociol 34:63–70. In: Theodorson GA (ed)Studies in human ecology. Harper & Row, New York (1961)

Ericksen NJ (1986) Creating flood disasters?: New Zealand’s need for a new approach to urban flood hazard.Published for the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority by the Water and Soil Directorate,Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington

Eyles RJ, Crozier MJ, Wheeler RH (1978) Landslips in Wellington city. N Z Geogr 34:58–74FCGL (1998) Rural fire hazard in the Wellington region. Forme Consulting Group Ltd., WellingtonFinnis K, Standring S, Johnston D, Ronan K (2004) Children’s understanding of natural hazards in

Christchurch, New Zealand. Aust J Emerg Manag 19:11–20Firth R (2008) Critical pressures on food supply and their economic effects. In: Dove MR, Carpenter C (eds)

Environmental anthropology: a historical reader. Blackwell, Malden, pp 202–222Forusz HN (1981) Review: genius of loci by C. Norberg-Schulz. New York: Rizzoli (1980). JAE 34:32–33French RJ (1987) Adaptation and adjustments in drought-prone areas: an overview—South Australian study.

In: Wilhite DA, Easterling WE, Wood DA (eds) Planning for drought: towards a reduction of societalvulnerability. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 369–389

Gee MD (1992) Natural hazard assessment and mapping Wellington region, PhD Thesis. Victoria Universityof Wellington, Wellington

Glade T (1997) The temporal and spatial occurrence of rainstorm-triggered landslide events in New Zea-land, PhD Thesis. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington

Goff JR, Nichol S, Kennedy D (2010) Development of a New Zealand palaeotsunami database for NewZealand. Nat Hazards 54:193–208

Gold JR (1980) An introduction to behavioural geography. Oxford University Press, New YorkGolledge RG, Stimson RJ (1987) Analytical behavioural geography. Croom helm, LondonGrant H (2005) Natural hazards: background report. Report for the Greater Wellington Regional Council,

WellingtonGregory G, Loveridge A, Gough J (1997) Social and cultural aspects of natural hazards perception and

response. New Zealand Geograph Soc Inc 53(1):47–54GWRC (2007) Digital data. Greater Wellington Regional Council, WellingtonHancox GT, Dellow GD, Massey C, Perrin ND (2007) Reconnaissance studies of landslides caused by the

July–october 2006 rainstorms in Southern North Island, New Zealand. Institute of Geological &Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt

Hannon B (1994) Sense of place: geographic discounting by people, animals and plants. Ecol Econ 10:157–174Harmsworth G, Raynor B (2005) Cultural considerations in landslide risk perception. In: Glade T, Anderson

MA, Crozier MJ (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, EnglandHawley AH (1944) Social forces. 17:398–405. In: Theodorson GA (ed) Studies in human ecology. Harper &

Row, New York (1961)Hewitt K, Burton I (1971) The hazardousness of a place: a regional ecology of damaging events. University

of Toronto, TorontoHill MK (1973) Farm management for drought mitigation. In: Lovett JV (ed) The environmental, economic

and social significance of drought. Angus & Robertson, Sydney, pp 196–219Hoyt WG, Langbein WB (1955) Floods. Princeton University Press, PrincetonHull RB, Wenger DE (2012) Relationship among neighbourhood evacuation, volunteering and place

attachment: Charleston and Hurricane Hugo. p 44Hurnen F, McClure J (1997) The effect of increased earthquake knowledge on perceived preventability of

earthquake damage, 1997-3. http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/1997-3/mcclure1.htmJohnston RJ, Gregory D, Pratt G, Watts M (2000) The dictionary of human geography. Blackwell Publisher

Ltd., OxfordKhan S (2010) A geographical assessment of hazardscape of Wellington region: influences on intra-regional

response, PhD Thesis. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, pp 421Kirschenbaum A (2005) Preparing for the inevitable: environmental risk perception and disaster pre-

paredness. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 23:97–127Lai JC, Tao J (2003) Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese. Risk Anal 23:669–684Leigh CH, Sim LK (1983) Attitude and adjustments to the flood hazard in a mixed ethnic community in

Malacca Town, Peninsular Malaysia. Singap J Trop Geogr 4:40–52

528 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529

123

Lynch KA (2008) What is the form of a city and how it is made? In: Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, EndlicherW, Alberti M, Bradley G, Ryan C, ZumBrunnen C, Simon U (eds) Urban ecology: an internationalperspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer, New York

Marriot A (2002) Earthquake risk perception and preparedness in Newlands, BSc (Honours) Dissertation.Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington

McConchie JA (1980) Implication of landslide activity for urban drainage. J Hydrol (NZ) 19:27–34McConchie J (2000) From shaky beginning. In: McConchie J, Winchester D, Willis R (eds) Dynamic

Wellington : a contemporary synthesis and explanation of Wellington. Institute of Geography, VictoriaUniversity of Wellington, Wellington

McCright AM, Clark TN (2006) Place: where community and environment meet. In: MCCright AM, ClarkTN (eds) Community and ecology: dynamics of place, sustainability, and politics. Elsevier, Amster-dam, pp 17–19

McKenzie RD (1926) The scope of human ecology. Publications of the American Sociological Society.20:141–154. In: Theodorson GA (ed) Studies in human ecology. Harper & Row, New York (1961)

Mishra S, Mazumdar S, Suar D (2010) Place attachment and flood preparedness. J Environ Psychol30:187–197

Mitchell JC (1987) Cities, society and social perception: a Central African perspective. Clarendon Press, OxfordNeall VE et al (1999) Volcanic hazards at Ruapehu Volcano. Report for the Ministry of Civil Defence,

WellingtonNerb J, Bender A, Spada H (2008) Attributed causes of environmental problems: a cross-cultural study of

coping strategies. In: Casimir MJ (ed) Culture and the changing environment: uncertainty, cognitionand risk management in cross-cultural perspective. Berghahn Books, New York, pp 107–124

Newsome PFJ (1987) The vegetation cover of New Zealand. National Water and Soil ConservationAuthority, Wellington

Norberg-Schulz C (1979) Genius Loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. Rizzoli, New YorkODESC (2007) National hazardscape report. Report for the Official’s Committee for Domestic & External

Security, WellingtonPark CC (1983) Environmental hazards. Macmillan Education, LondonPaterson M (2001) Volcanic hazards in the Wairarapa. Wellington Regional Council, MastertonPaton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, LondonPaton D (2006) Disaster resilience: building capacity to co-exist with natural hazards and their conse-

quences. In: Paton D, Johnston D (eds) Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Charles C. Thomas,Springfied, pp 3–10

Paton D, Johnston D, Smith L, M Millar (2001) Responding to hazard effects: promoting resilience andadjustment adoption. Aust J Emerg Manage Autumn:47–52

Ronan KR, Johnston DM (2001) Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk Anal21:1055–1063

Rydant AL (1979) Adjustments to natural hazards: factors affecting the adoption of crop-hail insurance. ProfGeogr 31:312–320

Saarinen TF (1967) Perception of drought hazard on the Great Plains. Department of Geography, Universityof Chicago, Chicago

Simpson-Housley P, Curtis FA (1983) Earthquake occurrence, experience and appraisal in Wellington, NewZealand. Prof Geogr 35:462–467

Smith K (1998) Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge, LondonSteg L, Sievers I (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ Behav

32:250–269Tait A, Bell B, Burgess S, Gorman R, Gray W, Larsen H, Mullan B, Reid K, Sansom J, Thompson C, Wratt

D, Harkness M (2002) Meteorological hazards and the potential impacts of climate change in Wel-lington region: a scoping study. Wellington Regional Council, Wellington

Tobin GA, Montz BE (1997) Natural hazards: explanation and integration. The Guilford Press, New YorkTuan YF (1974) Topophilia: study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyWaddell E (2008) How the Enga Cope with frost: response to climatic perturbations in Central Highlands of

New Guinea. In: Dove MR, Carpenter C (eds) Environmental anthropology: a historical reader.Blackwell, Malden, pp 223–238

Ward R (1978) Floods: a geographical perspective. The Macmillan Press, LondonWhite GF (1945) Human adjustment to floods: a geographical approach to the flood problem in the United

States. The University of Chicago, ChicagoWisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters.

Routledge, LondonWood LJ (1970) Perception studies in geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 50:129–142

Nat Hazards (2012) 62:501–529 529

123