The Power of Theory: empirically comparing six behavioural frameworks in flood risk perception and adaptation

Flooding is a growing global hazard, driven by climate change and socio-economic pressures. Effective flood risk management requires proactive engagement from all stakeholders, especially in flood-prone areas. Central to this effort is understanding how humans perceive flood risks and adapt, a challenge complicated by the diverse disciplinary approaches researchers have taken. The field is currently fragmented: different disciplines have developed competing theories, each offering distinct explanations for risk perception and adaptive behaviour, including social vulnerability. While these approaches have generated competing theories, they are usually implemented in different studies across different context, and rarely compared empirically within a single study. As a result, there is a high degree of heterogeneity in how researchers from the different disciplines involved have approached this field. This study addresses this gap by systematically comparing the explanatory power of of the six main theories and frameworks: Expected Utility Theory, Protection Motivation Theory, the Protective Action Decision Model, Social Capital Theory, Hazards-of-Place, and Cultural Theory of Risk. Drawing on a 2022 survey of 5,000 residents in Paris, France, after a series floods, we evaluate which theories best account for variations in risk perception and adaptive actions. Our findings highlight the Protective Action Decision Model and Hazards-of-Place as the best explanations. We argue that future progress lies in integrating such rationalist and constructivist approaches, as these models offer complementary insights that could be integrated to strengthen flood risk management strategies.