While the methods of risk analysis are generally based on objective measurements, the subjective assessment of risk, such as risk perception, is currently considered a crucial aspect in the context of flood risk management. Risk perception is regarded as an assessment of the perceived probability of hazard and the perceived probability of the results (most often—negative consequences). The work attempts to answer the question: What determines flood risk perception? The knowledge of the factors influencing flood risk perception can solve the issue of the society’s underestimation of flood risk. This issue was considered both in terms of the impact of particular factors on flood risk perception and the interrelationship between three characteristics of flood risk perception: preparedness, worry and awareness. The results were developed based on critical analysis of the empirical research. The review shows that the way particular characteristics determine flood risk perception is not clear and many authors show the diverse conclusions from the similar research. Taking into account various research results, the following factors were distinguished: primary (which clearly influence risk perception), secondary (which influence it unclearly and require further research) and intervening (often describing the context). The organization of the results of the research on the flood risk assessment conducted herein aims to improve the understanding of the human perception of flood risk and, as a result, will lead to the decrease in flood risk by improving the communication of the issue and motivating the residents of the endangered areas to take actions that reduce the negative effects of floods.

The study of flood risk perception factors can be considered by using different paradigms. In an attempt to understand risk perception, two basic paradigms can be distinguished: rationalist and constructivist. The rationalist approach tends to focus on modeling, characterizing, and predicting behavioral results regarding various threats. According to the constructivist paradigm, threats are perceived as socially constructed. This review paper aims to assess the importance of the rationalist and constructivist approaches in research on flood risk perception and flood risk management more broadly by answering the questions: (1) Which paradigm dominates the research of flood risk perception?, (2) What is the relationship between rationalistic and constructivistic factors (e.g., stimulation, weakening, strengthening, etc.)?, (3) which factors are more effective in moderating attitudes toward flood risk? The paper concludes by pointing out the desired direction of research on flood risk perception from the perspective of improving flood risk management. In contemporary empirical works managing the perception of flood risk, a rationalistic approach that psychometrically searches for cognitive models dominates. Often, statistically obtained dependencies are mutually exclusive. Studies on perception that apply the constructivist approach are in an early stage of development, nevertheless providing consistent results. They indicate that the social, political, cultural, religious, and historical contexts shape the perception of flood risk. On the basis of the aforementioned information, research on flood risk in a constructivist approach should be expanded, as it provides a clear, often underappreciated catalog of contextual factors shaping risk perception and, importantly, simultaneously moderating the influence of rationalist factors on flood risk perception.

Cities, as places of social interactions and human relationships, face new challenges, problems, and threats, which are sources of stress for residents. An additional cause of stress in recent years has been the COVID-19 pandemic; it was urban dwellers who were most exposed to the virus and most affected by it. Chronic stress has led to the serious erosion of physical health and psychophysical well-being among urban dwellers, and so there is a need to seek new solutions in terms of building the resilience of cities and their residents to stress. This study aims to verify the hypothesis that greenery reduced the level of stress among urban dwellers during the pandemic. The verification of this hypothesis was achieved based on a literature analysis and the results of geo-questionnaire studies conducted involving 651 residents of Poznan—among the largest of Polish cities, where the share of green areas in the spatial structure is more than 30%. According to the analysis, the interviewees experienced above-average stress levels that went up during the pandemic, and the source was not so much the virus but the restrictions imposed. Green areas and outdoor activities helped in reducing this stress (being surrounded by and looking at greenery, garden work, or plant cultivation). Residents perceive a post-pandemic city as one that is more green, in which priority is given to unmanaged green areas. It has also been pointed out that a response to the reported need for urban re-construction towards stress resilience may be a biophilic city.

Miasta na ścieżce rozwoju napotykają wiele różnego pochodzenia zagrożeń, ryzyk i katastrof, nazywanych ogólnie stresorami. Obecnie, w warunkach globalizacji, oprócz tradycyjnych zagrożeń pojawiają się wciąż nowe (globalne kryzysy gospodarcze, zmiany klimatyczne, zagrożenia terrorystyczne, pandemie, jak w ostatnim czasie Covid-19 itp.), których skutki często są trudne do przewidzenia. Sytuacja taka skłania do podejmowania działań, mających na celu unikanie lub łagodzenie efektów oddziaływania stresorów, a przez to zapewnienie trwałości rozwoju miast. Chodzi więc o budowanie city resilience. W niniejszym artykule miasto traktowane jest jako złożony, dynamiczny system, którego trwanie i rozwój zależy od odpowiedniego planowania działań na rzecz budowania odporności miast. Resilience rozumiane jest przy tym nie w kategoriach statycznych, ale raczej jako umiejętność elastycznego dopasowywania się czy adaptowania do zmieniających się uwarunkowań. Wskazywana jest sekwencja działań, które w procesach planistycznych powinny zostać zachowane, aby odpowiednio przygotować system miasta na potencjalne ryzyka i zagrożenia. Chodzi o identyfikację stresorów, badanie wrażliwości systemu miasta na ich oddziaływanie, analizę możliwych skutków działania stresora oraz przyjęcie konkretnej strategii działania. Podkreślane jest przy tym znaczenie redundancji, społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, analizy rozmieszczenia zagrożeń i ryzyk w przestrzeni miasta oraz ich zmian w czasie.

This article analyzes the correlation between the city size, population density and character of three Polish cities and the following aspects: (1) inhabitants’ subjective stress level and its change during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) sources and effects of their stress during the pandemic, (3) ways of reducing stress by residents and the role of greenery in this respect and (4) directions of changes in the structure of post-pandemic cities desired by their residents. The main research method was geo-surveys, the results of which were developed using statistical analysis and GIS methods. On the basis of the constructed scale, respondents subjectively assessed the level of experienced stress and its change during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research shows that none of the considered features of cities (including size measured by the number of inhabitants) are related to the level of pandemic stress of their inhabitants. All of them, on the other hand, are correlated with the directions of urban spatial development desired by the residents, conducive to stress reduction. Furthermore, the size of the city and its character affect the subjectively perceived change in stress levels during the pandemic (compared to the stress level before pandemic). Some of the effects of pandemic stress and ways of reducing it depend on the character of the city. The stress experienced by the inhabitants is the lowest in cities with the largest share of green areas in the spatial structure (especially with forest complexes and naturally shaped areas of river valleys), where an effective system of greenery has been adopted (the Howard’s garden city model), and at the same time with dominant single-family housing. The research results were used to indicate new directions for shaping post-pandemic cities that are more resistant to stress and thus healthier for their residents.

The study of flood risk perception factors can be considered by using different paradigms. In attempting to understand risk perception, two basic paradigms can be distinguished: rationalist and constructivist. The rationalist approach tends to focus on modeling, characterizing, and predicting behavioral results regarding various threats. According to the constructivist paradigm, threats are perceived as socially constructed. This paper aims to assess the importance of the rationalist and constructivist approaches in research on flood risk perception and flood risk management more broadly by answering the questions: (1) which factors are more effective in moderating attitudes towards flood risk?, (2) which research approach provides more useful information in shaping attitudes towards flood risk?, (3) research in which approach provides more useful information to improve flood risk management? The paper concludes by pointing out the desired direction of research on flood risk perception from the perspective of improving flood risk management. In contemporary empirical works managing the perception of flood risk, a rationalistic approach that psychometrically searches for cognitive models dominates. Often, statistically obtained dependencies are mutually exclusive. Thus, studies on perception that apply the constructivist approach are in an early stage of development. They indicate that the social, political, cultural, religious, and historical contexts shape the perception of flood risk. On the basis of the aforementioned information, the focus of research on flood risk should shift to studies conducted by applying the constructivist approach, highlighting the role of contextual factors in shaping risk perception.