Technical Papers
Jun 7, 2024

Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Identify Key Factors Motivating Flood-Prone Residents to Implement Private Flood Mitigation Measures

Publication: Natural Hazards Review
Volume 25, Issue 3

Abstract

Flood mitigation behavior is essential for effective flood risk management, particularly in Australia, where the federal government has increasingly emphasized individual responsibility for preventing and preparing for flood disasters. Despite this emphasis, around 60% of flood-prone residents hesitate to adopt private mitigation measures. Their reluctance highlights the complexities of decision making regarding the implementation mitigation measures, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of flood mitigation behavior among Australian residents. In order to address this knowledge gap, we conducted household surveys in flood-prone regions of Australia and used six machine learning algorithms—logistic regression, k-nearest neighbor, support vector machine, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and artificial neural network—to analyze the proposed framework for flood mitigation behavior. The results of five-fold cross-validation demonstrated that the random forest algorithm provided superior accuracy for predicting protection motivation compared to the other five algorithms. Furthermore, seven of the 37 predictors utilized in the model had a higher impact on protection motivation than the other predictors. These influential predictors included self-efficacy, response efficacy, response costs, key variables within the coping appraisal factor, fear or worry about future flood risk, one variable associated with the threat appraisal factor, past experiences of flooding inside the house linked to the prior flood experience factor, and the implementation of flood mitigation measures by individuals connected to the householder, such as family, friends, and neighbors, which pertains to the social environment factor within the proposed framework for flood mitigation behavior. These predictors were deemed adequate to be used as input variables in the random forest model, because they provided accuracy and performance similar to when all 37 predictors were included. These insights into influential predictors can be used to develop an optimal prediction model for protection motivation in flood-prone areas of Australia and reduce the effort needed to collect the required data during postdisaster surveys. This research is of value to policymakers and floodplain managers in designing effective flood mitigation strategies and promoting the adoption of protective measures in flood-prone communities to reduce flood risk.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data obtained from surveys conducted among residents in various flood-prone regions are subject to confidentiality and restrictions to ensure participant privacy; however, any restrictions do not bind the model and code utilized in this research and can be shared without limitations.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University and Geoscience Australia for providing the necessary support and funding to conduct the present research.

References

Agresti, A. 2018. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
AIDR (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience). 2017. “Managing the floodplain: A guide to best practice in flood risk management in Australia.” In Australian disaster resilience handbook 7. 3rd ed. East Melbourne, VIC, Australia: AIDR.
Babcicky, P., and S. Seebauer. 2019. “Unpacking protection motivation theory: Evidence for a separate protective and non-protective route in private flood mitigation behavior.” J. Risk Res. 22 (12): 1503–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1485175.
Bamberg, S., T. Masson, K. Brewitt, and N. Nemetschek. 2017. “Threat, coping and flood prevention–A meta-analysis.” J. Environ. Psychol. 54 (Dec): 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.08.001.
Bonafilia, D., B. Tellman, T. Anderson, and E. Issenberg. 2020. “Sen1Floods11: A georeferenced dataset to train and test deep learning flood algorithms for sentinel-1.” In Proc., IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. New York: Computer Vision Foundation.
Breiman, L. 2001. “Random forests.” Mach. Learn. 45 (1): 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.
Bubeck, P., W. J. W. Botzen, H. Kreibich, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2013. “Detailed insights into the influence of flood-coping appraisals on mitigation behaviour.” Global Environ. Change 23 (5): 1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.009.
Bubeck, P., W. J. W. Botzen, J. Laudan, J. C. J. H. Aerts, and A. H. Thieken. 2018. “Insights into flood-coping appraisals of protection motivation theory: Empirical evidence from Germany and France.” Risk Anal. 38 (6): 1239–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12938.
Bzdok, D., N. Altman, and M. Krzywinski. 2018. “Statistics versus machine learning.” Nat. Methods 15 (4): 233–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4642.
Canterford, S., V. Juskevics, M. Middelmann-Fernandes, M. Wehner, and W. Oh. 2016. Household experiences of flooding in Brisbane and Ipswich, Queensland - Results of Geoscience Australia surveys following flooding in south east Queensland in 2011 and 2013, 1448–2177. Canberra, ACT: Geoscience Australia.
Chen, T., et al. 2023. “Xgboost: Extreme gradient boosting. In R package version 1.7.5.1.” Accessed March 30, 2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xgboost.
Chen, T., and C. Guestrin. 2016. “XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system.” In Proc., 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Chicco, D., M. J. Warrens, and G. Jurman. 2021. “The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation.” PeerJ Comput. Sci. 7 (Jul): e623. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.623.
COAG (Council of Australian Governments). 2011. National strategy for disaster resilience: Building the resilience of our nation to disasters. Mount Macedon, VIC: Australian Emergency Management Institute.
Dale, K., T. Maqsood, and M. Wehner. 2019. Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings: Annual project report 2018-2019. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2008. Developing the evidence base for flood resistance and resilience. Rep. No. FD2607/TR1. London: Defra.
Deloitte Access Economics. 2017. Building resilience to natural disasters in our states and territories. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience & Safer Communities.
Deloitte Access Economics. 2021. Special report: Update to the economic costs of natural disasters in Australia. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience & Safer Communities.
Dhonau, M., and J. Lamond. 2012. “Property-level flood protection: Case studies of successful schemes.” In Flood hazards: Impacts and responses for the built environment, edited by J. Lamond, C. Booth, and F. Hammond, D. Proverbs, 291–303. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Dittrich, R., A. Wreford, A. Butler, and D. Moran. 2016. “The impact of flood action groups on the uptake of flood management measures.” Clim. Change 138 (3–4): 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1752-8.
Ethem, A. 2010. “Design and analysis of machine learning experiments.” In Introduction to machine learning, 475–515. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Field, A. P. 2018. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. 5th ed. London: SAGE.
Fouladi Semnan, A., T. Maqsood, and S. Venkatesan. 2023. “Identification of motivating factors to help decision-making to minimise flood risk by applying private mitigation measures.” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 97 (Oct): 104038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104038.
Fritsch, S., F. Günther, and M. N. Wright. 2019. “Neuralnet: Training of neural networks. In R package version 1.44.2.” Accessed February 7, 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=neuralnet.
Ge, Y., G. Yang, X. Wang, W. Dou, X. Lu, and J. Mao. 2021. “Understanding risk perception from floods: A case study from China.” Nat. Hazards 105 (3): 3119–3140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04458-y.
Goodfellow, I., Y. Bengio, and A. Courville. 2016. Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gravetter, F. J., and L.-A. B. Forzano. 2018. Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Cengage.
Gravetter, F. J., L. B. Wallnau, L.-A. B. Forzano, and J. E. Witnauer. 2021. Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. 10th ed. Boston: Cengage.
Grigg, N. S. 2023. “Comprehensive flood risk assessment: State of the practice.” Hydrology 10 (2): 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology10020046.
Grothmann, T., and F. Reusswig. 2006. “People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not.” Nat. Hazards 38 (1–2): 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-8604-6.
Ha, J., and J. E. Kang. 2022. “Assessment of flood-risk areas using random forest techniques: Busan metropolitan city.” Nat. Hazards 111 (3): 2407–2429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05142-5.
Haer, T., W. J. W. Botzen, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2016. “The effectiveness of flood risk communication strategies and the influence of social networks—Insights from an agent-based model.” Environ. Sci. Policy 60 (Jun): 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.006.
Hair, J. F., B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2018. Multivariate data analysis. Andover, MA: Cengage.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2021. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Harries, T. 2008. “Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself against a natural hazard.” Health, Risk Soc. 10 (5): 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570802381162.
HNFMSC (Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee). 2006. Reducing vulnerability of buildings to flood damage: Guidance on building in flood prone areas. Parramatta, NSW, Australia: HNFMSC.
Hodson, T. O. 2022. “Root-mean-square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE): When to use them or not.” Geosci. Model Dev. 15 (14): 5481–5487. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022.
Hosmer, D. W., S. Lemeshow, and R. X. Sturdivant. 2013. Applied logistic regression. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Huang, D., S. Wang, and Z. Liu. 2021. “A systematic review of prediction methods for emergency management.” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 62 (Aug): 102412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102412.
Huang, S.-K., M. K. Lindell, and C. S. Prater. 2016. “Who leaves and who stays? A review and statistical meta-analysis of hurricane evacuation studies.” Environ. Behav. 48 (8): 991–1029. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515578485.
IBM. 2021. Vol. 142 of IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Armonk, NY: IBM.
Ishwaran, H., and U. B. Kogalur. 2023. “Fast unified random forests for survival, regression, and classification (RF-SRC).” Accessed December 6, 2023. https://cran.r-project.org/package=randomForestSRC.
Jierula, A., S. Wang, T.-M. Oh, and P. Wang. 2021. “Study on accuracy metrics for evaluating the predictions of damage locations in deep piles using artificial neural networks with acoustic emission data.” Appl. Sci. 11 (5): 2314. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052314.
Jung, Y., and J. Hu. 2015. “A K-fold averaging cross-validation procedure.” J. Nonparam. Stat. 27 (2): 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10485252.2015.1010532.
Koks, E. E., B. Jongman, T. G. Husby, and W. J. W. Botzen. 2015. “Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management.” Environ. Sci. Policy 47 (Mar): 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.013.
Kousky, C., and H. Kunreuther. 2014. “Addressing affordability in the national flood insurance program.” J. Extreme Events 1 (1): 1450001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2345737614500018.
Kreibich, H. 2011. “Do perceptions of climate change influence precautionary measures?” Int. J. Clim. Change Strategies Manage. 3 (2): 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691111129011.
Kreibich, H., A. H. Thieken, T. Petrow, M. Müller, and B. Merz. 2005. “Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures–Lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 5 (1): 117–126. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-5-117-2005.
Kuhn, M. 2022. “Caret: Classification and regression training. In R package version 6.0-93.” Accessed August 9, 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caret.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., et al. 2013. “Flood risk and climate change: Global and regional perspectives.” Hydrol. Sci. J. 59 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.857411.
Lamovec, P., T. Velkanovski, M. Mikos, and K. Osir. 2013. “Detecting flooded areas with machine learning techniques: Case study of the Selška Sora River flash flood in September 2007.” J. Appl. Remote Sens. 7 (1): 073564. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.7.073564.
Lantz, B. 2019. Machine learning with R: Expert techniques for predictive modeling. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing.
Lawshe, C. H. 1975. “A quantitative approach to content validity.” Personnel Psychol. 28 (4): 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
Liaw, A., and M. Wiener. 2002. “Classification and regression by randomForest.” R News 2 (3): 18–22.
Makridakis, S., E. Spiliotis, and V. Assimakopoulos. 2018. “Statistical and machine learning forecasting methods: Concerns and ways forward.” PLoS One 13 (3): e0194889. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194889.
Mansfield, E. R., and B. P. Helms. 1982. “Detecting multicollinearity.” Am. Stat. 36 (3a): 158–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1982.10482818.
Maqsood, T., M. Wehner, and K. Dale. 2015a. Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings: Annual project report 2014-2015. Melbourne, VIC: Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, Geoscience Australia.
Maqsood, T., M. Wehner, and K. Dale. 2015b. Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings: Literature review of mitigation strategies. Melbourne, VIC: Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, Geoscience Australia.
Maqsood, T., M. Wehner, K. Dale, and M. Edwards. 2015c. “A schema to categorise residential buildings in Australian floodplains.” In Proc., Floodplain Management Association National Conf. Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia: Floodplain Management Australia.
Meyer, D., E. Dimitriadou, K. Hornik, A. Weingessel, and F. Leisch. 2023. “E1071: Misc functions of the department of statistics, probability theory group (formerly: E1071), TU Wien. In R package version 1.7-13.” Accessed February 1, 2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=e1071.
Mobley, W., A. Sebastian, R. Blessing, W. E. Highfield, L. Stearns, and S. D. Brody. 2021. “Quantification of continuous flood hazard using random forest classification and flood insurance claims at large spatial scales: A pilot study in southeast Texas.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 (2): 807–822. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-807-2021.
Moksony, F., and R. Heged. 1990. Small is beautiful. The use and interpretation of R2 in social research. Szociológiai Szemle, Special issue, 130–138. Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Sociological Association.
National Research Council. 2013. Levees and the national flood insurance program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Osberghaus, D. 2015. “The determinants of private flood mitigation measures in Germany—Evidence from a nationwide survey.” Ecol. Econ. 110 (Feb): 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.010.
Ozdemir, O., and C. Yilmaz. 2011. “Factors affecting risk mitigation revisited: The case of earthquake in Turkey.” J. Risk Res. 14 (1): 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669871003782751.
Ozili, P. K. 2022. “The acceptable R-square in empirical modelling for social science research.” Social research methodology and publishing results. Accessed June 5, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4128165.
Pakmehr, S., M. Yazdanpanah, and M. Baradaran. 2020. “How collective efficacy makes a difference in responses to water shortage due to climate change in southwest Iran.” Land Use Policy 99 (Dec): 104798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104798.
Poussin, J. K., W. J. W. Botzen, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2013. “Stimulating flood damage mitigation through insurance: An assessment of the French CatNat system.” Environ. Hazards 12 (3–4): 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2013.832650.
Poussin, J. K., W. J. W. Botzen, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2014. “Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households.” Environ. Sci. Policy 40 (Jun): 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.013.
Poussin, J. K., P. Bubeck, J. C. J. H. Aerts, and P. J. Ward. 2012. “Potential of semi-structural and non-structural adaptation strategies to reduce future flood risk: Case study for the Meuse.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 (11): 3455–3471. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3455-2012.
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Reynaud, A., C. Aubert, and M.-H. Nguyen. 2013. “Living with floods: Protective behaviours and risk perception of Vietnamese households.” Geneva Papers Risk Insur. Issues Pract. 38 (3): 547–579. https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2013.16.
Richert, C., K. Erdlenbruch, and C. Figuières. 2017. “The determinants of households’ flood mitigation decisions in France—On the possibility of feedback effects from past investments.” Ecol. Econ. 131 (Jan): 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.014.
Rogers, R. W. 1975. “A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change.” J. Psychol. 91 (1): 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803.
Singh, P., N. Singh, K. K. Singh, and A. Singh. 2021. “Chapter 5 - Diagnosing of disease using machine learning.” In Machine learning and the internet of medical things in healthcare, edited by K. K. Singh, M. Elhoseny, A. Singh, and A. A. Elngar, 89–111. London: Academic Press.
Tajeri Moghadam, M., H. Raheli, S. Zarifian, and M. Yazdanpanah. 2020. “The power of the health belief model (HBM) to predict water demand management: A case study of farmers’ water conservation in Iran.” J. Environ. Manage. 263 (Jun): 110388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110388.
Terpstra, T. 2011. “Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior.” Risk Anal. 31 (10): 1658–1675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01616.x.
Thieken, A. H., M. Müller, H. Kreibich, and B. Merz. 2005. “Flood damage and influencing factors: New insights from the August 2002 flood in Germany.” Water Resour. Res. 41 (12): 16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004177.
Tibshirani, R., T. Hastie, D. Witten, and G. James. 2021. An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
Tin Kam, H. 1995. “Random decision forests.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Document Analysis and Recognition, 278–282. New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdar.1995.598994.
Venables, W. N., and B. D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer.
Vishwanath Harish, T., N. Sairam, L. E. Yang, M. Garschagen, and H. Kreibich. 2023. “Identifying the drivers of private flood precautionary measures in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 23 (3): 1125–1138. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1125-2023.
Wagenaar, D., A. Curran, M. Balbi, A. Bhardwaj, R. Soden, E. Hartato, G. Mestav Sarica, L. Ruangpan, G. Molinario, and D. Lallemant. 2020. “Invited perspectives: How machine learning will change flood risk and impact assessment.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20 (4): 1149–1161. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1149-2020.
Weiss, K., F. Girandola, and L. Colbeau-Justin. 2011. “Protection behaviors with regard to natural hazards: From resistance to commitment.” Pratiques psychologiques 17 (3): 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prps.2010.02.002.
Zhang, Q., L. T. Yang, Z. Chen, and P. Li. 2018. “A survey on deep learning for big data.” Inf. Fusion 42 (Jul): 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.10.006.
Zhu, Z., and Y. Zhang. 2022. “Flood disaster risk assessment based on random forest algorithm.” Neural Comput. Appl. 34 (5): 3443–3455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-05757-6.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Natural Hazards Review
Natural Hazards Review
Volume 25Issue 3August 2024

History

Received: May 3, 2023
Accepted: Mar 19, 2024
Published online: Jun 7, 2024
Published in print: Aug 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Nov 7, 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

ASCE Technical Topics:

Authors

Affiliations

Sessional Lecturer, Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, STEM College, RMIT Univ., Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-0462. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Tariq Maqsood [email protected]
Associate Professor, Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, STEM College, RMIT Univ., Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Senior Lecturer, Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, STEM College, RMIT Univ., Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7382-7576. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share