| Abstrakt: |
Introduction: To cope with catastrophic floods, people need to be better prepared. In this context, a self-assessment digital tool for habitat vulnerability was developed. To improve its take-up rate, we are looking at the motivations associated with the social acceptability of this tool. The motivations (hedonic—gain—normative), derived from goal-frame theory, as well as elements relating to risk perception, are tested. Method: One, 688 participants (aged between 18 and 87) first read a scenario presenting the application (reflecting either one of the motivations of the Goal Framing Theory or a control scenario with no motivation). After reading one of the scenarios, they completed an online questionnaire, measuring the acceptability of the tool using three measures: a direct one (items from the Technological Acceptability Model: ease of use, perceived usefulness and social influence), an indirect measure (by asking the percentage of neighbours interested in the tool) and a social measure (judgement of a person using the tool). The last part of the questionnaire was about subjects' risk perception. Results: The analyses show that, of all the scenarios, the one involving hedonic motivation leads to the lowest social acceptance of the tool. We also observe that a better risk perception predicts better tool acceptability. Finally, we observe interaction effects between risk perception and motivations, showing that normative motivation is better when risk perception increases and that the control condition is better when risk perception decreases. Discussion: Goal framing theory is usually used for ecological behaviors. It also appears here as relevant in the field of risk prevention. Although risk perception remains the best predictor of acceptability, these results lead us to conclude that hedonic motivation is not appropriate for the acceptability of a flood risk prevention tool. It is preferable to focus on normative and gain motivations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
