Flood frequency and intensity are expected to increase in the Western US due to changes in the hydroclimatic cycle; however, many flood risk managers lack the updated topographic data needed to accurately predict their community’s flood risk. Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) has proven to be an effective technology for increasing accuracy of floodplain maps due to the fine scale of collection resolution, typically 1-meter. As of 2018, only 17% of the state of Idaho had been flown with lidar that could be publicly accessed. This slow adoption of this technology is a result of complex economic, social, cultural, and political factors. Through semi-structured interviews with flood risk managers, themes of risk preferences and perceptions, peer influence, and structural barriers such as lack of funding were identified as primary influencers of this adoption rate. A survey instrument was used to collect data to quantitatively assess the impact of these factors on the adoption of lidar. These findings will inform our understanding of the relationship of risk perceptions and preferences on natural hazard management decisions, and identify barriers to the adoption of lidar in Idaho. Our findings will also directly inform the design of workshops to promote the use of this technology for flood risk management, and promote awareness of flood risk throughout the state of Idaho through outreach materials.

1. Drivers of Technology Adoption in Flood
Risk Management:
A Case Study in Idaho
Presenter:
Tara Pozzi
MS Biology Candidate
Human-Environment Systems
Boise State University
Advisor:
Dr. Vicken Hillis
Assistant Professor
Human-Environment Systems
Boise State University

2. Background
Flood frequency and intensity are expected to increase in the Western US(1). In order to plan for
this, flood risk managers need up-to-date and detailed topographic data to accurately predict
their community’s flood risk.
One solution is the use of Light Detection and Ranging (lidar), a survey technology capable of a
fine scale of collection resolution, typically 1-meter. However, as of 2018, only 17% of the state of
Idaho had been flown with lidar that could be publicly accessed (2).
This research project explores the complex economic, social, cultural, and political factors that
could be driving the slow adoption of this technology in Idaho.
Left: 30-meter digital elevation
model from USGS National
Elevation Dataset
Right: 1-meter digital elevation
model from a lidar acquisition
project in Idaho

3. Motivation
Figure 2. Current publically-available lidar is depicted in grey,
over the level of flood risk for each watershed in Idaho (3)(4).
Figure 1. 22% of counties and tribes in Idaho do not have
floodplain maps, and more than 50% of the counties that
do have maps, are using maps from 2002 or later (4).
Many counties and tribes
in Idaho use floodplain
maps that are over 20
years old (Figure 1). In
order to update these
maps, it is essential that
communities have access
to accurate topographic
data. However, many high-
risk locations still lack
access to lidar (Figure 2).

4. Research Question and Hypotheses
Which flood risk managers are using lidar and why?
• H1.1: Flood risk managers with higher perceived risk
are more likely to adopt lidar.
• H1.2: Flood risk managers who share information with
other flood risk managers that use lidar are more
likely to use lidar themselves.
• H1.3: Flood risk managers who are more risk averse
are more likely to adopt lidar.
• H1.4: Flood risk managers who experience a
structural barrier* will be less likely to adopt lidar.
* structural barriers include: lack of funding, lack of
staffing, low urbanization rate, low population size, lack
of political support, distrust in scientific products, and
distrust in federal government
Technology
Adoption
Risk
Perception
Peer
Influence
Risk
Preference
Structural
Barriers

5. Methods
1. Literature review (Fall 2019)
2. 10 semi-structured interviews across four regions of Idaho
(Fall 2019)
3. Survey delivered to 365 flood-risk managers across Idaho
(Spring & Summer 2020)
4. Quantitative data analysis with a generalized linear multi-
level model and network analysis (Summer 2020)
5. Data-informed workshop and webinar offerings about lidar
(Summer 2020)
6. Outreach materials, including a Storymap and white paper
(Fall 2020)
Image: South Fork of the Salmon River depicted using lidar.

6. In response to why a community didn’t participate in the NFIP, “we
were never mapped…a great deal of it really is our core private
property rights…and really just being a self-sufficient community
where if you’re going to build there and it’s along a river or creek, you
probably inherently know that there’s some flood risk.”
Results from Interviews
Themes:
1. Varying levels of flood risk perception
2. Lidar is expensive and not all communities / regions have adequate
funding
3. Rural regions with smaller populations typically have lower priority
for revised mapping
4. Elected officials have authority in lidar acquisition
5. Community relationships are influential in lidar adoption
6. Hesitancy towards publically-accessible lidar from private landowners
7. Potential distrust in scientific products and/or the federal
government
One interviewer ended our conversation with
“…sometimes I have to say to my elected
officials, like this is common sense decision
making…we need to be consistent. We need to
make sure that we're making decisions that
are good for everyone, not just this one
property owner. And sometimes it's been a
challenge in that.”
Source: pixabay.com

7. Outcomes and Broader Impact
1. Prioritization of areas with highest flood risk and need for new maps
2. Offer solutions for increasing uptake of lidar
3. Creation of outreach material, including a Storymap and white paper, for decision-makers and the
public, that will highlight various lidar applications in hazard management throughout Idaho

8. References
1. Ralph et. al. (2014). A Vision for Future Observations for Western U.S. Extreme Precipitation and
Flooding. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 153(1), 16–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2014.03176.x
2. Elevation Technical Working Group (2018). Idaho Statewide Lidar Plan Version 1.1. Idaho
Lidar Consortium. https://ita.idaho.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2018/10/Idaho_Statewide_Lidar_Plan_Final_2018.pdf
3. GIS Training and Research Center (2020). Lidar Spatial Data Library. Idaho State University.
http://giscenter.isu.edu/data/index.htm
4. Idaho Office of Emergency Management (2018). Chapter 3.1 Flood. State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://ioem.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2018/12/Chapter-3.2-Flood-1.pdf
Acknowledgements
• Funding for this project is provided by FEMA Region X through Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP)
Community Outreach and Mitigation Strategies (COMS) Program.
• Thank you to my committee members : Dr. Marie-Anne de Graaff, Dr. Jesse Barber, and Dr. Brittany
Brand as well as additional project support from Dr. Nancy Glenn and Josh Enterkine.