Charles Darwin University Disaster risk reduction ...

Charles Darwin University

Disaster risk reduction

Psychological perspectives on preparedness

Paton, Douglas

Published in:Australian Journal of Psychology

DOI:10.1111/ajpy.12237

Published: 01/12/2019

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Paton, D. (2019). Disaster risk reduction: Psychological perspectives on preparedness. Australian Journal ofPsychology, 71(4), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12237

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 05. Apr. 2022

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12237

https://researchers.cdu.edu.au/en/publications/bbbd8061-d721-46d0-85f9-1de738e89309

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12237

Paton, D. (2019) Disaster risk reduction: Psychological perspectives on preparedness, Australian Journal of

Psychology, 71, DOI: 10.1111/ajpy.12237

Disaster Risk Reduction: Psychological perspectives on preparedness

Douglas Paton

College of Health and Human Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT

Abstract

Facilitating people’s ability to anticipate, prepare for and recover from disaster is an important

component of the UNISDR strategy for disaster risk reduction. Following a discussion of the

functional characteristics of preparedness, this paper first discusses how hazard characteristics

and psychological constructs influence people’s ability to anticipate uncertain future events. It

then reviews how psychological theories (Health Belief Model, Protection Motivation Theory,

PrE Theory, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Critical Awareness Theory, Social Marketing,

Protective Action Decision Model, Social Capital, Community Engagement Theory and Social

Identity Theory) can inform understanding of preparedness for likely and current hazard events.

Discussion then then turns to applying concepts and theories to understanding preparedness for

current disasters. The all-hazards and cross-cultural applicability of preparedness theory is

discussed, as are a need for a critical appraisal of preparedness, its predictors, and the nature and

development of the preparedness process and its application in facilitating effective intervention

strategies.

Keywords: Disaster risk reduction, preparedness, community, culture, intervention

Introduction

Australia is a hazardous continent. The regular exposure of Australia’s citizens to hazards

from bushfire, flood, cyclone and drought sources is well documented and publicized. In an era

in which climate change will increase the frequency, intensity and duration of all hazards of

hydrological and meteorological origin, the risk posed by hazards from these sources to

Australia’s (and, indeed, to peoples the world over) citizens will increase over the coming

decades. These are not the only sources of risk present within Australia’s environs. While

enjoying less prominent positions within its hazard-scape, and in the minds of most of its

citizens, Australians face risk from earthquake, tsunami and volcanic hazards (Seismology

Research Centre, 2018; Paton et al., 2017). Though occurring less frequently, they can, as events

in Newcastle in 1989 demonstrated, create considerable loss and damage. In addition to their

impacts on the social and psychological well-being of those affected by disaster, the forecast

escalation in the frequency and intensity of hazard activity will, in the absence of concerted risk

reduction activities, result in the economic impact of hazard activity in Australia rising from $5

billion/year to around $18 billion/year by 2050 (Attorney General's Department, 2017; McClean,

2017).

The consequent recognition of a need for proactive and comprehensive risk reduction and

management strategies was one reason for Australia becoming a signatory of the Sendai

Framework (UNISDR, 2015 - Sendai Framework for Action [SFA]) for Disaster Risk Reduction



(Merrin-Davies, 2018; Tiernan et al., 2018). An important component of a comprehensive

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategy is encouraging sustained preparedness (UNISDR, 2015;

2017). Preparedness functions not only to decrease risk and increase people’s ability to cope,

adapt and recover when disaster strikes, it also contributes to curtailing the ballooning costs of

hazard events.

For example, structural (e.g., creating a defensible space, securing buildings and content to

counteract the effect of ground shaking etc.) and survival (e.g., storing food, water, cooking

resources etc.) preparedness measures reduce the risk of injury and death to family members,

increase opportunities for people to remain living in their home and neighbourhood, and allow

them to meet important needs without relying on societal assistance. By being able to remain in

situ, residents can participate in local recovery activities (e.g., support family, friends and

neighbours), reduce response and recovery costs, and hasten social and economic recovery (e.g.,

supporting neighbours, returning to work, being consumers) in disaster-affected areas. If this

goal is to be realized, people and communities need to prepare. What this entails is introduced

next.

Preparedness

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction defines preparedness

as the knowledge and capacities developed by governments, response and recovery

organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and recover

from the impacts of likely, imminent or current disasters (UNISDR, 2016). A key component of

this definition is its alluding to the need for knowledge and capability to be developed.

The emphasis on preparedness as something that needs to be developed derives from

recognition that the traditional assumption behind risk communication programs, that advising

people of their risk will automatically motivate their comprehensive preparedness, is unfounded

(Harries, 2008; Johnson & Nakayachi, 2017; Levac, Toal-Sullivan & O’Sullivan, 2012; Lindell,

Arlikatti & Prater, 2009; Solberg, Rossetto & Joffe, 2010). The consequent need to delve deeper

into the social and psychological processes that influence whether and to what extent people

prepare (i.e., acquire knowledge and response resources and develop capacities to apply them)

for hazard events has resulted in preparedness becoming a phenomenon that has attracted

considerable psychological interest. This paper discusses how psychological constructs and

theories contribute to developing community and individual preparedness and to answering calls

for preparedness to encompass all-hazards and cross-cultural issues (UNISDR, 2015).

The diverse characteristics of Australia’s hazards-cape has implications for preparedness (e.g.,

bushfires, cyclones and flooding can occur in the same jurisdiction, but create different

preparedness needs). Hence, ensuring that theories can predict preparedness irrespective of the

source of a hazard (i.e., all-hazards) becomes a pertinent goal of preparedness research.

Preparedness theorizing must also be cognizant of the fact that hazards impact on populations

characterized by considerable social and cultural diversity. To increase the applicability of

preparedness theory in multi-cultural countries and across international borders, it becomes



necessary to explore the cross-cultural utility of theories and constructs. Accommodating all-

hazards and cross-cultural issues increases confidence in being able to use preparedness theories

to provide an evidence base for DRR planning and implementing irrespective of the location, the

hazard-scape prevailing within a jurisdiction, or the socio-cultural characteristics of the

population being encouraged to prepare.

To understand preparedness and the challenges that theory helps surmount, it is important to

first consider the implications that the (fortunately) infrequent nature of large-scale hazard

events, and the fact that, when hazard activity does occur, it tends to do so at the lower end of the

range of intensities and durations that could occur, has for conceptualizing preparedness. A

consequence of these factors is that for most people, the preparedness processes starts, as

reflected in the UNISDR definition, with people having to anticipate what will occur.

Anticipating Hazardous Circumstances

In some parts of the world, people experience hazardous events with a frequency that affords

them numerous opportunities to develop their appreciation of what can happen, what needs to be

done to adapt to hazard consequences, and that protective actions work. For example, the citizens

of Kagoshima (Japan) experience ashfall and ballistic debris from nearby Sakurajima volcano on

average every third day. Such regular experience means that Kagoshima’s citizens do not need to

anticipate anything; they know what happens from experience and have developed ways to

support the continuity of their everyday life accordingly (Paton, Jang, Kitagawa, Mamula-

Seadon & Sun, 2017). For most people, however, the infrequent nature of large-scale hazard

events denies them access to the kind of first-hand experience afforded Kagoshima’s citizens to

guide their preparedness planning.

If people are to engage in the preparedness process, they must first anticipate both what could

occur and what that means for what they need to do to reduce their risk and increase their

capacity to respond when hazard events occur. However, several impediments to anticipation

have been identified, with these emanating from both hazard and psychological sources.

From a natural hazards perspective, a significant impediment to people engaging in

anticipatory thinking stems from the fact that the consequences hazard events do not create

homogenous impacts over the area of impact. To anticipate their risk, people must interpret how

dynamic hazard characteristics (e.g., return periods, magnitude, response times, duration,

distribution over time and space etc.) and behaviours (e.g., levels of water inundation, ground

shaking, radiant heat etc.) interact within the area in which they live and work to determine what

they can expect to experience.

While people can get some information about the hazard characteristics and behaviours that

could occur in their locality from formal civic sources, they need to take some responsibility for

interpreting that risk information and applying it to their specific local circumstances. This

includes assessing their exposure to a range of events and making judgements about the likely

effectiveness of protective measures. The complexity inherent in this task can discourage people

from engaging in anticipatory thinking (Bočkarjova, van der Veen & Geurts, 2009; Gregg &



Houghton, 2006; Paton, Kersholt & Skinner, 2017). Additional challenges to anticipation emerge

when the psychological processes that people introduce into the risk management process are

considered. Several psychological biases exist that can circumvent people appreciating their need

to anticipate what could befall them. Some of these are illustrated here, starting with unrealistic

optimism.

Unrealistic optimism results in people believing that, compared to the average person, they

are less likely to be affected by a disaster (Weinstein, 1980). By effectively transferring risk to

others, the likelihood of people believing that they need to anticipate what they could experience

is diminished. Encouraging discussion of preparedness with others in community and

neighbourhood settings can reduce the influence of this bias (Paton & McClure, 2013). Another

cognitive bias, risk compensation, sheds additional light on challenges to anticipation.

Risk compensation describes how people’s perceived need for preparedness is proportional to

their beliefs about the degree to which the environment can pose threats to them (Etkin, 1999).

For example, becoming aware that civic agencies are taking steps (e.g., building levees,

undertaking controlled burning etc.) to mitigate risk lessens the degree to which people perceive

the environment as threatening. In this example, this bias results in people transferring

responsibility for risk management from themselves to civic risk management agencies, reducing

their belief regarding their need to anticipate what they could experience (Paton & McClure,

2013). The influence of this bias is reduced when risk management agencies emphasise how and

why societal mitigation and personal preparedness complement one another and make it explicit

that people are responsible for reducing their household and neighbourhood risk (Paton et al.,

2017). A need to accommodate cognitive biases and their potential for increasing the likelihood

of people discounting or minimizing their risk is one issue that has been reiterated in social

marketing approaches to DRR (Guion, Scammon & Borders, 2007).

Social marketing researchers further suggest that anticipation can be fostered by

communication that encourages people to consider the costs and benefits of preparedness (Guion

et al., 2007). Guion and colleagues continue by discussing the importance of risk communication

accommodating the social and cultural diversity within a target area and to develop strategies

accordingly. Social marketing strategies also draw attention to another impediment to

anticipation; hazard-related fear and anxiety.

Risk communication strategies, either by design or because they impart information on

potentially catastrophic events, often expose people to fear-inducing content. While fear-related

content can facilitate short term interest in hazard preparedness, the effect is often short-lived

(Daniel, 2007a). Recognition of this dichotomy led several social marketing researchers to argue

that including fear messages in risk communication is counterproductive (Daniel, 2007a, b;

Hastings, Stead & Webb, 2004). These authors discuss how, in the longer term, fear-related

content reduces the likelihood of people attending to messages, ignoring messages, and

transferring risk from themselves to those depicted as targets in risk communication. The net

effect is a reduction in the likelihood that people will engage in anticipatory searches. Hastings et

al. propose that messages containing humour and irony may represent more effective approaches



to encouraging people to engage in thinking about their potentially hazardous futures.

Risk communication is not the only source of anxiety; it can also stem from people’s exposure

to historical and media accounts of disaster. This exposure, for some, results in their developing

hazard-specific anxiety. For example, a public health survey of sources of anxiety in the high

seismic risk areas in the south of the North Island, New Zealand revealed that for some 20% of

the population, earthquakes were the most prominent source of anxiety (Paton et al., 2005). An

inverse relationship between hazard-specific anxiety and preparedness has been found for flood,

bushfire and earthquake hazards (Armaş, Cretu & Ionescua, 2017; Kerstholt, Duijnhoven &

Paton, 2017; Lamontaigne & La Rochelle, 2000; McLennan, Cowlishaw, Paton, Beatson &

Elliott, 2014; Mishra & Suar, 2012; Paton et al., 2005).

Research consistently points to most people being unprepared for natural hazard events (see

above). Drawing on this, McLennan et al. (2014) argued that the consequent reduction in

perceived control that results from being unprepared supports Witte’s (1992) proposal that a

combination of high perceived threat and low perceived efficacy activates defensive fear-control

processes such as denial of risk and information-avoidance. These, in turn, perpetuate people’s

unwillingness to engage in anticipatory thinking. Support for this view comes from studies of

flood and earthquake preparedness (Harries, 2008; Lamontaigne & La Rochelle, 2000; Paton et

al., 2005). Psychological preparedness (anticipating sources of anxiety, identifying distressing

thoughts and emotions that may exacerbate anxiety, and developing stress management

strategies) can help overcome this barrier to anticipation (Morrisey & Reser, 2003).

Morrisey and Reser (2003) discuss how, because psychological preparedness enhances

people’s ability to appraise information and make decisions about challenging circumstances, it

can increase the likelihood of people anticipating the nature of the risks they face and so lay a

foundation for the enhancing the efficacy of other preparedness development initiatives. The

latter can circumvent the processes being referred to by McLennan et al. (2014) and Witte

(1992). That is, psychological preparedness can contribute to increasing perceived control and

creating a psychological state conducive to people’s risk acceptance and the progressive

development of their preparedness (Bočkarjova, van der Veen & Geurts, 2009; Guion et al.,

2007; Paton & McClure, 2013). Facilitating anticipation thus lays the foundation for the next

area of UNISDR interest, preparedness for likely events. Discussion starts with identifying what

being prepared means.

Hazard Preparedness for Likely Events

Because it tends to be hazard focused, preparedness research has developed diverse

preparedness inventories and measurement strategies (Kohn et al., 2012; Lindell et al., 2009;

Onuma, Shin, & Managi, 2017; Paton, Anderson, Becker & Petersen, 2015; Solberg et al., 2010).

Despite the broad range of knowledges, activities and competences elicited by such hazard-

specific research, it is possible to express this diversity in the form of several generic functional

preparedness categories.

In an early approach to describing functional preparedness categories, Russell, Goltz and



Bourque (1995) described preparedness as comprising structural (e.g., seismic retrofitting,

creating a defensible space), survival (e.g., storing food and water), and planning (e.g.,

household planning, attending community meetings) functions. This work and that of subsequent

studies (Lindell et al., 2009; Paton, Johnston, Mamula-Seadon & Kenney, 2014) led to

identifying comprehensive preparedness as comprising structural (reduce building and contents

damage), survival (store food/water etc.), planning (provide for family needs), psychological

(enhance self and family coping), community/capacity building (work with neighbours to

confront local issues), livelihood (meet employment needs), and community-agency (collaborate

with response agencies, businesses, NGOs etc. during recovery and rebuilding) components. A

subsequent study, Onuma et al. (2017), recommended including evacuation preparedness as a

distinct functional category. These are summarized in Figure 1.

When considered from a relatively objective standpoint, the protective activities that populate

each of the above functional categories play clear roles in, for example, reducing the risk of

death and injury, reducing reliance on external assistance during disaster response, and hastening

recovery. Civic and scientific risk management agencies with responsibility for risk

communication acknowledge this and assume that those to whom they present preparedness

information will automatically recognize these benefits and adopt the recommended measures.

This underlying logic, however, rarely has the intended effect on the recipients of risk

communication.

Even when readily acknowledging their risk, people differ in their level of preparedness; a

minority prepare comprehensively, but the majority either adopt a few (easily adopted) measures

or do not prepare (Becker, Paton, Johnston & Ronan, 2012; Becker, Paton, Johnston, Ronan &

McClure, 2017; Dooley, Catalano, Mishra & Serxner, 1992; Dow & Cutter, 2000; Lindell &

Perry, 2000; Levac, Toal-Sullivan & O’Sullivan, 2012; Lindell et al., 2009; Lindell & Whitney,

2000; Marti, Stauffacher, Matthes & Wiemer, 2018; Paton et al., 2005; Solberg et al., 2010). The

search for explaining such differences underpinned the need for the development of preparedness

theories.

Developing Preparedness Theory: The social-environmental context

An important SFA goal is developing preparedness processes in ways that reconcile

environmental and social contributions to DRR (Buergelt & Paton, 2014; Paton, 2017; Twigg,

2015; UNISDR, 2015). In preparedness theory, the environmental element captures the need for

variables that tap into people’s interpretation of environmental hazards (e.g., via variables such

as risk perception, outcome expectancy). The social (and psychological) element encompasses

variables that mediate the relationship between interpretation of environmental threat and

preparedness. It is possible to identify several functions that social/psychological variables need

to encompass.

For example, the infrequent nature of complex, challenging hazard events, and thus people’s

lack of opportunity to build understanding through experience, makes it necessary for theory to

include variables that reflect the social processes (e.g., community participation, bonding social



capital) that influence the social construction of risk and preparedness beliefs and actions under

conditions of uncertainty. Limited opportunities to gain first-hand insights into the implications

of large-scale hazard events increases people’s reliance on others (from within their social

networks and/or from the external scientific, professional and civic sources) for information and

resources. Variables that could capture this process include sense of community, empowerment,

trust, and linking social capital.

Preparedness theory can benefit from including variables that provide insights into their

individual and collective capacities to adopt and maintain preparedness behaviours (e.g., coping,

self-efficacy and collective efficacy). The need for people to confront the possibility of facing

threating and challenging conditions makes it pertinent to include variables such as anxiety in

preparedness theories.

Preparedness theories integrate interpretive (e.g., risk perception), competence (e.g., coping),

affective (e.g., anxiety) and relationship (e.g., community participation, bridging social capital,

collective efficacy, empowerment) variables in various combinations into frameworks that seek to

account for differences in people’s levels of natural hazard preparedness. At present, no one

theory captures all these elements. Before discussing the implications of this for preparedness

theorizing, this paper first briefly summarizes several theories have been applied to the task of

accounting for differences in levels of preparedness. These are summarized in Table 1.

Theory Constituent Constructs & Variables Indicative Sources

Health Belief

Model

Susceptibility to threat, severity of the threat,

perceived thret, personal costs and benefits,

likelihood of takin action

Dooley et al., 1992;

Ejeta et al., 2016

Protection

Motivation

Theory

Risk perception, response efficacy,

acceptance/personalizing of risk, self-efficacy,

coping appraisal, protection motivation

Grothmann &

Reusswig 2006;

Martin et al., 2007;

McLennan et al.,

2014; Bočkarjova et

al., 2009

Transtheoretical

Model

Pre-contemplation, contemplation, action,

maintenance, sustaining preparedness

Bočkarjova et al.,

2009

Person relative

to Event Theory

Threat and vuknerability appraisal, self-efficacy,

outcome efficacy, coping appraisal, perceived

resource availability, perceived event severity

Duval & Mulilis

1995; Duval &

Mulilis 1999;

Mulilis, 1996;

Mulilis & Duval,

1995; Mulilis &

Duval, 1995; Mulilis

et al., 2000; Mulilis

et al., 2003



Theory of

Planned

Behaviour

Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived

behavioural control

McIvor & Paton,

2007; McLennan et

al., 2014

Critical

Awareness

Theory

Frequency of discussion of hazards in social

settings, risk perception, anxiety, resource

availability, self-efficacy, problem-focused

coping, timing, trust.

Paton et al. 2005;

Paton et al., 2006

Social

Marketing

Marketing strategies, fatalism, hazard

knowledge, resource limitations, self-efficacy,

trust, gratitude

Andreason, 2007;

Evans, 2006;

Faulkner & Ball,

2007; Guion et al.,

2007; Hastings &

McDermott, 2006;

McKenzie-Mohr,

2000; McKenzie-

Mohr & Smith,

1999; O'Neill, 2004;

Raggio & Folse,

2011.

Protective

Action Decision

Model

Source characteristics, message content,

information access, Receiver characteristics,

social and environmental cues, exposure,

attention, comprehension, threat perception,

Protective action perception, situational

constraints and facilitators, protective response.

Houts et al., 1984;

Lindell & Perry,

2012; Terpstra &

Lindell, 2013

Social Capital Bonding social capital, bridging social capital,

linking social capital, trust, social norms, social

network characteristics, perceived fairness.

Aldrich & Meyer,

2015; Elliott et al.,

2010; Hawkins &

Maurer, 2010;

Shepherd &

Williams,

2014Nakagawa &

Shaw, 2004;

Reininger et al.,

2013; Sadeka et al.,

2015;.

Faultline

Theory

Procedural and distributive justice, community

engagement

Lau & Murnighan,

1985; Lau &

Murnighan, 2005;

Paton & Buergelt,



2012

Community

Engagement

Theory

Risk perception, outcome expectancy, anxiety,

place attachment, sense of community,

community participation, collective efficacy,

empowerment, trust.

Adhikari et al., 2018;

Kerstholt et al.,

2017; Paton, 2008;

Paton, Bürgelt &

Prior, 2008; Paton,

2013; Paton et al.,

2017.

Social Identity

Theory

Social identity, trust, “social cure,” social

support, empowerment.

Drury, 2012; Farida,

2014; Kellezi &

Reicher, 2012

Table 1. Summary of prominently used preparedness theories, their content, and sources.

Preparedness Theories

Research using the Health Belief Model (HBM) identified how people’s perceived

susceptibility to threat, their interpretation of the severity of the threat, and their interpretation of

the personal costs and benefits of acting influenced earthquake preparedness (Dooley et al.,

1992). Support for the ability of the HBM to predict flood preparedness has also been found

(Ejeta, Ardalan, Paton & Yaseri, 2016).

Work applying Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to preparedness identified how people’s

acceptance and personalizing of their risk interacts with their beliefs about the effectiveness of

preparedness actions and their ability to implement them (e.g., self-efficacy and coping

appraisal) predicts preparedness. PMT has been successfully applied to flood and bushfire

preparedness (Grothmann & Reusswig 2006; Martin, Bender & Raish, 2007; McLennan et al.,

2014). Research combining PMT with the Trans-Theoretical (or Stages of Change) Model

(Bočkarjova et al., 2009) described how the relative salience of predictors changes as people

progressively develop their preparedness.

Bočkarjova et al. (2009) discuss how people’s transitioning from a pre-contemplation to a

contemplation stage was influenced by perceived vulnerability and response efficacy prevailed,

while advancing from contemplation to action saw response efficacy, information about the

severity of consequences, the costs of protective actions and subjective hazard knowledge

becoming the most salient predictors. To progress from action to maintenance, perception of the

intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of hazard preparedness emerged as a key predictor. Finally,

variables implicated in sustaining preparedness were response efficacy and self-efficacy. Future

research will benefit from systematically exploring the developmental nature of preparedness.

A variant of PMT, the Person-relative-to-Event (PrE) theory (Duval & Mulilis 1999; Mulilis

& Duval, 1995), describes how personal characteristics (self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, coping

appraisal) and perceived resource availability mediate the relationship between people’s beliefs

about event characteristics (e.g., severity) and preparedness. The PrE-theory has been



successfully applied to earthquake (Duval & Mulilis 1999; Mulilis & Duval, 1995) and tornado

preparedness (Mulilis, Duval & Bovalino, 2000; Mulilis, Duval & Rogers, 2003), and to the

adoption of disaster-resistant technology (Mulilis, 1996). Other theories added attitudinal and

normative factors to the mix of variables influencing preparedness.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) describes how interaction between people’s attitudes

to preparedness, their subjective preparedness norms, and their beliefs regarding their level of

behavioural control over the adoption of preparedness measures predicts preparedness. Support

for the TPB has come from research into flood and bushfire preparedness (McIvor & Paton,

2007; McLennan et al., 2014). In this work, a role for social norms was not well supported. This

may reflect the lack of normative influence when research is tapping into the views of people

characterized by low levels of engagement in the preparedness process. It follows that social

norms may be more important in sustaining preparedness, but less relevant when initially

motivating people to engage in the preparedness process. Other theories expanded the range of

social dynamics covered.

Critical awareness theory identifies how the social salience of hazards (i.e., the frequency

with which people discuss hazard issues with others), risk perception and hazard-specific anxiety

interact to motivate preparedness (Paton et al. 2005). The relationship between these motivating

factors and preparedness is mediated by resource (e.g., time, skill) availability, self-efficacy, and

problem-focused coping, and is moderated by trust. Support for CA theory comes from studies of

earthquake and bushfire preparedness (Paton et al. 2005; Paton, Kelly, Bürgelt & Doherty, 2006).

The theories introduced above introduced several approaches to behaviour change. The latter

have made additional contributions to DRR via social marketing.

Community-based (C-B) social marketing integrates commercial marketing techniques with

knowledge and practices drawn from psychological theories of behaviour change to develop and

implement risk communication strategies (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). C-B social marketing uses

this composite approach to progressively map intervention practices onto the needs of different

community groups and sub-groups (Andreason, 2007; Evans, 2006; Faulkner & Ball, 2007;

Hastings & McDermott, 2006; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999; Guion

et al., 2007).

Community-based social marketing proposes that DRR strategies first target behaviours that

have the greatest influence on safety (e.g., structurally reinforcing one’s home for earthquake

hazards, creating a defensible space for bushfire hazards) while applying behaviour change

practices to counter impediments (e.g., fatalism, lack of knowledge, resource limitation etc.) to

DRR implementation (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). C-B social marketing researchers add their voice

to calls for community engagement strategies to be adopted both to increase people’s

appreciation of their need to share responsibility for DRR and to facilitate their fulfilling their

responsibility (Guion et al., 2007). Guion and colleagues continue by stating that this is more

likely if risk communication focuses less on the technical aspects of hazard management and

more on explaining and applying hazard knowledge in ways that accommodate the social

diversity. Doing so can also foster self-efficacy in target populations, develop and sustain



people’s trust in risk management agencies, and help people personalize DRR information. The

process of personalizing information is the cornerstone of another DRR theory, the Protective

Action Decision Model (PADM) (Lindell & Perry 2012).

The Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) describes preparedness as emanating from

interaction between a) people’s judgments of the threat posed by a hazard and identifying actions

available and capable of protecting them against hazard consequences and b) complementary

information search and evaluation (assessing information needs, identifying sources, and

assessing when information is needed) processes (Houts et al., 1984; Lindell & Perry, 2012;

Terpstra & Lindell, 2013). The protection motivation beliefs that ensue guide people’s protective

action implementation and thus their preparedness (Lindell & Perry, 2012; Terpstra & Lindell,

2013). A key goal of the PADM is developing functional relationships between users and

providers of information. To reflect this, Figure 1 includes reference to how information search,

evaluation and personalization processes cut across the community (the source of much of the

sense making that takes place when dealing with uncertain events – see discussion of community

participation below) and societal (reflecting the civic sources of information that is sought and

evaluated) levels of analysis. This process taps into the social context that the application of the

social capital paradigm offers DRR.

Social capital research has contributed to understanding how factors such as trust, social

norms (particularly regarding reciprocity), and social network characteristics support the

attainment of DRR outcomes (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004). Reininger et

al. (2013) added to the range of variables captured in social capital models when finding a

relationship between levels of preparedness and perceived fairness.

Fundamentally, social capital comprises bonding (e.g., bonds between family members or

members of ethnic groups etc.), bridging (bonds between friends, members of different social

groups etc.) and linking (e.g., bonds between citizens and members of civic or government

agencies) social capital. Bonding social capital has been linked to facilitating warning

effectiveness and hazard preparedness (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010; Sadeka, Mohamad, Reza,

Manap & Sarkar, 2015). An interesting point made by Sadeka et al. concerned the reciprocal

relationship between preparedness and social capital; engaging in hazard preparedness activities

acts as a catalyst for developing future social capital.

An important source of bonding social capital is the family. Family characteristics such as the

degree to which family members share comparable views on the importance of preparedness and

relationships between gender role and preparedness activities (Armaş et al., 2017; Cottrell, 2006;

Garrison & Sasser, 2009; Kirschenbaum, 2006) influence levels of preparedness. Cottrell

discussed how family conflict regarding the need for or benefit of preparing can reduce the

likelihood of family support for preparedness in the home. This possibility is summarized in

Figure 1, showing family dynamics as a potential constraint on preparedness.

Several theories, including CA theory, the PADM and Social Capital theory highlighted the

importance of including people’s social context in conceptualizations of preparedness. The value

accruing from doing so was highlighted by finding that active engagement in local and



community social networks is a better predictor of preparedness than risk information per se

(Mileti & Darlington, 1997). The latter finding draws attention to the benefits that could accrue

from exploring other aspects of people’s social network and environmental relationships. This

can include exploring how people’s sense of connectedness to where they live and to those living

there could inform understanding of the preparedness process.

Variables such as social cohesion, place attachment, place identity, and sense of community

(De Dominicis, Fornara, Cancellieri, Twigger-Ross & Bonaiuto, 2015; Forrest & Kearns, 2001;

Koh & Cadigan, 2008; Paton & Irons, 2016; Paton & Tedim, 2013) are strong candidates for

inclusion in future models of preparedness, as are social responsibility (McIvor et al., 2009) and

people’s sense of bondedness (e.g., time living in a neighbourhood, identifying a neighbourhood

as home, presence of nearby family and friends) to where they live (Heller et al., 2005;

Lichterman, 2000). Social relationships are not, however, always supportive.

Several social marketing and social capital researchers have drawn attention to how failing to

accommodate socio-cultural diversity can influence DRR outcomes (Elliott, Haney & Sams-

Abiodun, 2010; Guion et al., 2007). The latter authors describe how inappropriate assumptions

of group homogeneity in intervention practices can manifest in the generation of inter-group

conflict and undermine the effectiveness of DRR activities. It is also important to consider how

intra-group dynamics can adversely affect the effectiveness of DRR strategies.

The theory of Group Faultlines (Lau & Murnighan, 1985; 2005) describes how social

fragmentation can emerge in families and in neighborhood networks whose members previously

enjoyed cohesive or neutral relationships when an external stress mobilizes normally benign

attitudinal differences into sources of conflict. For example, people living in bushfire-prone areas

can be expected to hold attitudes to things like environmental protection and household safety

but differ in the relative salience they attribute to them (Cottrell, 2006; Paton et al., 2006;

Siegrist, Cvetkovich, & Roth, 2000). During periods of hazard quiescence when most DRR

preparedness work is undertaken, these beliefs rarely influence the quality of relationships within

families or between neighbours. This can, however, change.

Studies of bushfire preparedness observed how local government calls for community-wide

household vegetation clearing had the unintended consequence of triggering the emergence of

social fragmentation within families and between neighbors who previously enjoyed neutral or

positive relations (Cottrell, 2006; Paton & Buergelt, 2012). Civic mitigation practices thus

contributed to creating a novel social context, and one which triggered elevating people’s

“safety” and “environmental” beliefs to positions where they impacted the quality of

relationships between neighbours.

Neighbours who valued environmental protection (keeping their vegetation) over bushfire

safety found themselves in conflict with those for whom the opposite views prevailed. In this

example, an external demand (e.g., civic calls for household vegetation management)

inadvertently resulted in differential attitude mobilization, with the latter acting as catalyst for

creating conflict between neighbours. This reduced both community cohesion and levels of

support for collective preparedness. Because the risk of fault-line activation is difficult to detect



in the absence of more neighbourhood focused DRR work (see Paton et al., 2017 for an example

of how a community engagement strategy can go some way managing diverse beliefs and goals

in community settings), the role of fault lines as an impediment to risk communication is

included as individual- and community-level impediment to action in Figure 1.

Traditional risk communication programs assume people hold comparable and positive

attitudes to all aspects of DRR and do not anticipate how DRR decisions could mobilize conflict.

The fault-line examples introduce how the quality of relationships between community members

and between civic and community stakeholders can influence the effectiveness of DRR

strategies. Developing an understanding of this process is the goal of Community Engagement

Theory (CET) (Paton, 2008; 2013).

The CET focuses on articulating how core characteristics of the relationships between

community members and between them and civic risk management agencies play interdependent

roles in predicting preparedness. While parallels can be drawn between the CET and bridging

and linking social capital constructs, the CET focuses more on the functional characteristics of

these relationships and how the key facets of these relationships can be captured in variables

whose actions can be modelled. The CET thus represents a response to calls (Aldrich & Meyer,

2015) for developing understanding of the measures and process that represent social predictors

of preparedness. Like social capital, the CET affords a central role to trust, but the CET defines it

as a transactional process, and one in which trust and distrust need to be accommodated within

conceptualizations of the preparedness process.

Recent developmental work on the CET has developed the range of variables identified as

acting as triggers for engaging in the preparedness process to include measures of risk

perception, coping and anxiety (Adhikari, Paton, Johnston, Prasanna & McColl, 2018; Kerstholt

et al., 2017). In its original conceptualization, the CET proposes that preparedness starts with

people’s hazard cognitions. If these cognitions focus predominantly on the ultimate causes (e.g.,

earthquakes) of events, negative outcome expectancies, arising if people infer that because

earthquakes cannot be prevented nothing can be done to mitigate the risk they pose, reduces the

likelihood of preparing (Paton, 2008).

If, however, hazard cognitions focus on the consequences (e.g., effects of ground shaking on

houses, ember attack etc.) of hazard activity, the development of positive outcome expectancies

prompts people to inquire about what can be done (e.g., to ask about what can be done to prevent

or reduce the impact of ground shaking on a house and its contents or the risk to a house posed

by a bushfire). When applied to bushfire preparedness, analyses of the CET included roles for

sense of community and place attachment in the process of developing risk response actions

(Paton, Bürgelt & Prior, 2008). For the other hazards that the CET has been applied to, people

develop their understanding of their risk and how it can be managed by engaging (via community

participation) with others within their social networks.

Community participation becomes a salient preparedness theory variable because the

discussions that occur and the stories that circulate in the social settings in which people

regularly engage with like-minded others informs how they socially construct their



understanding of uncertain future hazard events (Becker et al., 2012; Eng & Parker, 1994; Lion,

Meertens & Bot, 2002; Paton, McClure & Bürgelt, 2006; Paton, 2008; Rippl, 2002). This

meaning making process informs people’s future action or inaction (Paton et al. 2005). If

motivated to act, prevailing levels of experience collaborating with others to confront local issues

(collective efficacy) influences how plans are developed and enacted. If, however, gaps in

people’s knowledge remain, they seek input, directly or indirectly, from civic and scientific

sources.

Traditional models of risk communication assume that the authority and expertise vested in

civic and scientific risk management agencies means that people should be unequivocal in

accepting and using information from these sources. This is not always the case. Some people are

more circumspect in how they relate to civic sources, with this outcome reflecting on their prior

experience with an agency or institution.

People’ sum their experience with (e.g., from prior interaction with government agencies) or

of (e.g., from stories of agency action and the outcomes of these actions in past disasters) civic

agencies over time to define their relationship with a given agency in value-laden ways;

supportive or obstructive, empowering or marginalizing etc. (Paton, 2008; Siegrist &

Cvetkovich, 2000). The final stage of the CET argues that the more people believe an agency has

acted to empower community action over time, the more likely they are to trust an agency source

and use the information they provide to guide their preparedness (Paton, 2008). Hence the extent

to which people trust a source (agency) of information contributes to preparedness in ways that

are independent of the information provided per se (Basolo et al., 2009; Johnson & Nakayachi,

2017; Kirschenbaum, Rapaport & Canetti, 2017; Paton, 2008; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000).

In sum, the CET proposes that the preparedness process starts with people anticipating that

protective measures can be effective against hazard consequences. They then engage with others

in their social networks to collectively formulate their risk management needs and strategies. If

gaps in knowledge remain, people turn to expert civic sources. The more they perceive their

needs as having been met through relationships with civic agencies, the greater is the likelihood

of their trusting them and using the agency-sourced information to advance their preparedness.

The CET has demonstrated a capacity to predict seismic, volcanic, tsunami and flood

preparedness (Paton, Bürgelt & Prior, 2008; Paton, Smith, Daly & Johnston, 2008; McIvor,

Paton & Johnston, 2009; Paton, 2013).

Taken together, the preparedness theories discussed above go some way to answering

UNISDR calls for research into understanding preparedness for “likely events.” They do so from

several perspectives. Figure 1 summarizes the constructs derived from the theories reviewed are

described in terms of the interrelated contributions of personal, family, community and societal

contributions to preparedness. Before discussing the implications of this, this paper first

considers whether psychological theories can offer insights into UNISDR calls for research into

preparedness for current disasters.



Figure 1. Summary of personal, family, community, societal environmental and

informational influences on preparedness

Current Disasters

The empirical consensus that people are generally unprepared for disaster (see above)

provides the major rationale for UNISDR calls for work directed to facilitating preparedness for

current disasters. Work in this area has several applications. In addition to compensating for

people’s lack of pre-event preparedness, “current preparedness” strategies have roles to play in

supporting people long-duration hazard events and over the course of recovery and rebuilding

phases that can persist over several years.

Many hazard events have long durations. For example, the Christchurch earthquake and

aftershock sequence stretched over some 30 months. During this time, people had to cycle

through response, recovery and preparedness phases repeatedly following more intense

aftershocks. Volcanic hazards can have similarly prolonged periods of activity; Kilauea volcano

in Hawai’i has been erupting since 1982. “Current preparedness” strategies can facilitate

people’s capability to respond to periods of escalating activity (e.g., during the period of

intensification of eruptive activity at Kilauea volcano in 2018) over time. This aspect of DRR is

relatively new and represents an area for future attention.



The development of “current preparedness” strategies have additional roles to play in

supporting people during the dynamic recovery and rebuilding phases that can persist for several

years (Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004; Paton et al., 2014). In this context, preparedness strategies can

be developed to facilitate people’s ability to cope with and adapt to the dynamic recovery

demands and challenges they face (e.g., temporary/permanent relocation, re-establishing social

networks, livelihood challenges, conflict generated by a lack of procedural and distributive

fairness in civic decisions etc.) over time. While this area of research has attracted less interest

than its pre-event counterpart, several studies undertaken in disaster recovery settings offer

insights into “current preparedness” and the importance of this phenomenon being included in

future DRR research agenda.

Bonding social capital has been implicated in facilitating independent (of societal resources)

recovery and the mobilization of community action to support the needs of disaster victims

(Hawkins & Maurer, 2010). Nakagawa & Shaw (2004) discussed how social capital influenced

not only rates of disaster recovery, but also people’s level of satisfaction with physical planning

(e.g., town planning initiatives) processes within recovery settings. In doing so, Nakagawa &

Shaw highlighted the pivotal roles community leaders played in the application of social capital

within recovery settings, particularly regarding leader influence on facilitating the collective

decision-making and actions that are pivotal to effective community recovery.

Other social capital research has highlighted the importance of accommodating community

diversity and its implications for social justice in recovery settings. For example, developing

networks and building trust in some sub-groups can, for example, exclude others from recovery

processes, restrict access of some groups to recovery resources, and sustain or magnify

preexisting social disadvantage (Elliott et al., 2010; Portes & Landolt, 1996). This reiterates calls

for social recovery strategies to be based on procedural and distributive justice principles (Guion

et al., 2007; Reininger et al., 2013). In doing so, it may be interesting to support this work with

strategies that recognize and reinforce gratitude.

Andreason (2007) and Raggio & Folse (2011) discuss the benefits of ensuring that people’s

participation in response, recovery and reconstruction activities is accompanied by public

(formal and informal) expressions of gratitude directed to those involved. Including expressions

of gratitude in recovery communications can act as a catalyst for the emergence of future

prosocial behaviours through providing moral reinforcement (Andreason, 2007). From a

practical perspective, according to Raggio and Folse (2011), public expressions of gratitude can

increase the quality of external social and economic assistance and facilitate the continuation of

prosocial behaviours beyond the triggering event. Other psychological constructs and theories

have demonstrated their potential to inform understanding of “current preparedness.”

Paton, Gregg, Houghton et al. (2008) demonstrated how collective efficacy was influential in

predicting preparedness in coastal communities in Thailand following the 2004 Indian Ocean

tsunami. Adhikari et al. (2018) discussed how the CET predicted preparedness during recovery

following the 2015 earthquake and aftershock sequence in Nepal. Studies of earthquake recovery

in Taiwan and New Zealand (Paton, Jang & Irons, 2015; Paton et al., 2014) and bushfire



recovery in Australia (Paton & Irons, 2016) made further contributions to understanding how

psychological constructs and theories can inform the development of “current preparedness”

strategies. The studies discussed so far have drawn on theories with some history of use in hazard

research. Other theories capable of informing understanding of current preparedness are

emerging.

Social Identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1978) is increasingly being applied to understanding

people’s response to challenging health (Chang et al., 2017; Haslam, 2014; Jetten et al., 2012;

Jetten et al., 2017) and disaster recovery experiences (Drury, 2012; Farida, 2014; Kellezi &

Reicher, 2012). Drury (2012) discussed how a Social Identity model of “collective resilience”

accounted for differences in positive social disaster recovery outcomes, particularly regarding

how shared social identity empowered collective action in recovery settings. Drury’s finding that

trust mediated the relationship between shared social identity and empowerment in recovery

settings offers the possibility of integrating this perspective with others (e.g., CET, social capital)

that have implicated trust as a pivotal variable within the preparedness process.

Farida (2014) reported links between collective actions facilitated reconstruction and

reproduction of social identities. Kellezi and Reicher (2012) discussed how interaction between

Social Identify and Social Support acted to sustain well-being following disaster-related loss of

home and evacuation. They posited that this interaction between social identity and social

support can constitute a “social cure” in those experiencing extreme environmental events.

The preparedness theories discussed above demonstrated a capacity to predict earthquake

(e.g., HBM, PrE, CA, CET, PADM), flooding (e.g., HBM, CET, PMT, TPB), and bushfire (e.g.,

CET, PMT, TPB) preparedness. They thus go some way to offering answers to UNISDR (2015)

calls for theories to offer all-hazards capability for likely events. While less well established as

an area for DRR research, theories applied in recovery and rebuilding settings (e.g., CET, social

capital, social identity) illustrate the potential of psychological theories to inform the

development of “current preparedness” strategies. Another question is whether psychological

theories can support the UNISDR (2015) appeal for theories to have cross-cultural applicability.

Cross-Cultural Issues

While hazards from natural process such as earthquakes and cyclones (typhoons/ hurricanes)

occur worldwide, the social and cultural characteristics of populations affected by them are

diverse. The theories introduced above have consistently demonstrated their utility as predictors

of preparedness. However, the fact that they were developed, and predominantly tested in,

western, culturally individualistic (e.g., the United States, Australia) countries makes it pertinent

to inquire about their applicability in the more collectivistic cultures in Asia where some 70% of

the world’s disasters occur. Exploring this issue has additional relevance regarding applying

theories in multi-cultural countries.

Preliminary comparative analyses of the CET were conducted in countries situated at higher,

medium and lower positions on Hofstede’s (2001) individualism-collectivism dimension.

Earthquake preparedness was examined in New Zealand (higher individualistic), Japan



(intermediate collectivistic) and Taiwan (high collectivistic). Volcanic preparedness was explored

in New Zealand (higher individualistic), Japan (intermediate collectivistic) and Indonesia (high

collectivistic), and bushfire preparedness in Australia (high individualistic) and Portugal (high

collectivistic) (Jang, Wang, Paton & Ning-Yu, 2016; Paton, Bajek, Okada & McIvor, 2010;

Paton, Okada & Sagala, 2013; Paton & Tedim, 2013). These analyses offered support for the

CET’s cross-cultural applicability.

However, while a role for CET variables was supported in each country, this does not mean

that how, for example, people participate with others or develop collective efficacy in the context

of such participation is the same in each country. Recent work has begun exploring the culture-

specific processes that underpin scores on CET variables.

For example, in Taiwan, the Hakka Spirit, an enduring socio-cultural characteristic of the

Hakka ethnic group who were impacted by a large earthquake in 1999, represents possible

origins for people’s positive outcome expectancy, community participation and collective

efficacy variable scores (Jang et al., 2016). In Kagoshima, Japan, where the CET was applied to

predicting volcanic preparedness, socio-cultural constructs of personal agency and responsibility

(a process memorialized in the interestingly-named ‘monument to the distrust of science’) could

represent sources of outcome expectancy scores (Paton et al., 2017).

In Japan, culture-specific constructs such as Jishubo and Kyojo represent potential sources of

community participation and collective efficacy, with the local governance mechanism of

Chonaikai doing likewise for empowerment and trust variable scores (Paton et al., 2017). In

Indonesia, the construct of smong was implicated as a source of positive outcome expectancy

beliefs, with community participation, collective efficacy and empowerment possibly being

influenced by processes such as gotong royong and Tri Hita Karana (Paton & Sagala, 2018).

These examples illustrate how the same culture-general theoretical structure (e.g., the CET)

can account for differences in levels of readiness, with the source of scores on each variable

emanating from culture-specific processes and beliefs prevailing in each country. While these

views remain tentative until additional work is undertaken, they offer insights into how the SFA

goal of making strategic advice, coordination and intervention practices available internationally

(UNISDR 2015) could be realized. From a practical perspective, the development of the cross-

cultural applicability of preparedness theory could, for example, facilitate collaborative learning

and research across national borders and provide a mechanism to support DRR in the developing

and least developed countries least able to undertake preparedness research themselves

(UNISDR, 2015).

Conclusion

Preparedness is an important component of a comprehensive DRR strategy. This review

identified how psychological constructs and theories can answer UNISDR (2015) calls for

strategies to facilitate people’s anticipation of and preparedness for likely and current disasters.

The theories discussed here have enjoyed comparable levels of success but comprise diverse

variables and process. This opens opportunities to draw on the collective wisdom captured in



these theories to develop a framework that integrates the wealth of psychological constructs that

exist across person, family, community and societal levels of analysis to develop a framework

from which composite theories could be developed. How this process might commence is

depicted in Figure 1. In Figure 1, variables that constrain preparedness are bounded by dotted

lines, those facilitating preparedness by solid lines, and prospective environmental influences by

hatched lines. Organizing the variables into person, family, community and societal levels of

analysis has several implications.

One reason for extracting variables in this way is to create a framework that could be used for

more comprehensive theorizing or for developing transtheoretical approaches to how the

preparedness process is conceptualized. Modeling variables in this way identifies a need to

consider how intervention can be directed at each level of analysis and to consider how these

factors at each level can be integrated to ensure that person, family, community and societal

resources play complementary and interdependent roles in developing and sustaining hazard

preparedness. The fact that most of the variables summarized in Figure 1 are accompanied by

psychometrically sound measures affords opportunities for applying this composite model to

assessment, program design and evaluation strategies.

It is also clear from considering the diverse origins of the variables summarized in Figure 1

that DRR strategies must extend beyond relying solely on imparting information to engage in

more capacity building (e.g., to develop self-efficacy, coping appraisal etc.), family and

community development (e.g., to develop active community participation, collective efficacy,

empowerment, bonding/bridging/linking social capital etc.) and organizational development

(Paton, 2017). Including an organizational development element is important from the

perspective of building agency capability to create empowering settings in ways that

accommodate social and cultural diversity (Guion et al., 2007; Paton & Buergelt, 2012).

Including strategies to accommodate diversity is essential for building and sustaining trust and

facilitating, as far as possible, procedural and distributive justice in planning and intervention

processes. When conceptualizing preparedness, it is important to see it as a developmental

process.

Preparedness does not come into being fully formed. Bočkarjova et al. (2009) demonstratd

this when discussing how the preparedness process involved people transitioning through a series

of stages on their way to becoming (more) comprehensively prepared. Preparedness thus need to

be conceptualized as a developmental process and managed accordingly. Bočkarjova and

colleagues demonstrated this by applying the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) to preparedness.

Understanding how this can be integrated into broader DRR strategies is an activity that can be

added to future research agenda (e.g., how might the variables and processes depicted in Figure

map onto a developmental process?).

In addition to focusing attention on adapting intervention strategies to align them to this

developmental trajectory, the application of the TTM makes it easier to appreciate a need to

consider preparedness as an iterative process. That is, it is a process that needs to be sustained

and possibly redeveloped over time against a backdrop of changing community membership,



needs, interests and capabilities and the waxing and waning of interest in hazard events over

time. A need to see preparedness as an iterative process adds weight to it being driven by

community development and engagement and behaviour change processes and not just seen as

the province of risk management initiatives (Paton, 2017).

Another issue deserving more critical appraisal concerns how preparedness outcomes are

conceptualized. In Figure 1, preparedness is depicted as comprising several (e.g., structural,

survival, psychological etc.) independent, but related, functional categories. At present,

preparedness research tends to treat preparedness as homogenous; questions covering the several

functions are combined and presented as one dependent variable. This may obscure important

and diverse relationships between predictor variables and each preparedness function. If so, this

could diminish the ability of theory-based interventions to secure improvements in

comprehensive preparedness. More searching analyses of predictor-preparedness relationships is

called for.

For example, adopting survival items (e.g., storing food/water) places low demands on skill

and time (e.g., purchasing water containers and filling them). In contrast, developing

psychological and livelihood preparedness requires analysing one’s personal and occupational

circumstances, discussing sensitive and challenging issues with others and with employers, and

planning how to respond should disaster occur. Developing community response plans requires

community members to possess several social competencies and to make commitments to

preparedness activities (e.g., committing time to meet, managing conflict, reconciling diverse

needs etc.). A consequence of thinking about preparedness in this way is appreciating that each

category may have its own respective antecedents. Qualified support for this has been found for

earthquake (Paton et al., 2014; Paton et al., 2015) and bushfire (McLennan et al., 2014)

preparedness. Future work is needed to explore this in more detail. Additional work is also

required to explore new sources of predictor variables.

The SFA goal of reconciling environmental and social contributions to DRR (UNISDR, 2015)

makes it pertinent to consider social-environmental relationships as a source of predictor

variables. In the theories discussed above, the predominant approach to doing so involves

inquiring into people’s interpretation of environmental threat (e.g., risk perception). The cross-

cultural analyses discussed above offer the possibility of exploring influences on preparedness

based on appreciation of one’s social-environment interdependence or co-existence. While this

kind of thinking is not generally endorsed in western settings, evidence of the existence of

culturally-embedded social-environmental relationships was evident in Taiwan (Confucianism),

Indonesia (Tri Hita Karana) and Japan (Machizukiri). Exploring how this kind of fundamental

thinking might be developed more widely could be accomplished using transformative education

and leadership (Paton & Buergelt, 2017). Doing so would shift preparedness research more

towards the SFA goal of reconciling social and environmental contributions to DRR (UNISDR,

2015). The potential for this is summarized in Figure 1 by placing the Figure within an

environmental setting and alluding to how transforming anthropocentric thinking into more

ecocentric thinking could support the UNISDR goal of reconciling social and environmental



inputs into DRR. Similarly, place-related variables are depicted in way that straddles the social

and environmental contexts in which DRR is situated. Processes such as place attachment could

be targeted for their potential to explore ways of developing social-environmental

interdependence.

In conclusion, psychology has a rich history of contributing to the advancement of

understanding hazard preparedness. Psychological constructs and theories can inform how the

preparedness component of DRR strategy is developed and implemented. In an era in which

climate change and societal development are creating ever-increasing social, psychological,

economic and environmental risks, psychology can play important roles in supporting the

attainment of UNISDR (2015) preparedness goals and assist Australia to meet its Sendai

obligations. It can do so by developing strategies that function to reduce risk and enhance

resilience and adaptive capacities in people, families, communities and societies.

References

Adhikari, M., Paton, D., Johnston, D., Prasanna, R. & McColl, S.T. (2018) Modelling predictors

of earthquake preparedness in Nepal. Procedia Engineering, 212, 910-917. DOI

10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.117

Andreason, A.R. (2007) Social Marketing. In G.T. Gundlach, L.T. Block & W.L. Wilkie (Eds)

Explorations of Marketing in Society (pp. 664-678). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.

Aldrich, D.P. & Meyer, A. (2015) Social Capital and Community Resilience. American

Behavioral Scientist, 59, 254-269. DOI: 10.1177/0002764214550299

Armaş, I, Cretu, R.Z. & Ionescua, R. (2017) Self-efficacy, stress, and locus of control: The

psychology of earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. International Journal of

Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 71-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.018

Attorney General's Department (2017). Emergency Management Australia Canberra:

Commonwealth of Australia. [Available from:

https://www.ag.gov.au/EmergencyManagement/Emergency-Management-

Australia/Pages/default.aspx

Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., Burby, R. J., Levine, J., Cruz, A. M., & Huang, C. (2009). The

effects of confidence in government and information on perceived and actual preparedness for

disasters. Environment and Behavior, 41, 338-364. doi 10.1177/0013916508317222

Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & Ronan, K. R. (2012). A model of household

preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and

how this influences preparedness. Natural Hazards, 64, 107-137. DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-

0238-x

Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & McClure, J. (2017). The role of prior

experience in informing and motivating earthquake preparedness. International Journal of

Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.006

Bočkarjova, M., van der Veen, A., & Geurts, P. A. T. M. (2009). A PMT-TTM model of

protective motivation for flood danger in the Netherlands. ITC Working Papers Series – Paper

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.117

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.018

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.006



3. Enschede, Netherlands: International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth

Observation.

Buergelt, P. T., & Paton, D. (2014). An ecological risk management and capacity building model.

Human Ecology, 42, 591-603. DOI 10.1007/s10745-014-9676-2

Cottrell, A. (2006) Weathering the Storm: Women’s preparedness as a form of resilience to

weather hazards in northern Australia. In D. Paton & D. Johnston (Eds.), Disaster resilience:

An integrated approach (pp. 128-142). USA: Charles C Thomas Publishers Ltd

Daniel, T. C. (2007a). Managing individual response: Lessons from public health risk behavioral

research. In Martin, W. E., Raish, C., & Kent, B. (Eds.), Wildfire risk: Human perceptions and

management implications (pp. 103-116). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Daniel, T. C. (2007b), Perceptions of wildfire risk. In Daniel, T. C., Carroll, M. S., & Moseley, C.

(Eds.), People, fire, and forests: A Synthesis of Wildfire Social Science (pp. 9-36). Oregon

State University Press.

De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Cancellieri, U.G., Twigger-Ross, C. & Bonaiuto, M. (2015) We

are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive

coping behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 66-78.

Dooley, D. Catalano, R., Mishra, S., & Serxner, S. (1992). Earthquake preparedness: Predictors

in a community survey. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,22, 451–470.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00984.x.

Dow, K., & Cutter, S. L. (2000). Public orders and personal opinions: Household strategies for

hurricane risk assessment. Environmental Hazards, 2, 143-155.

Drury, J. (2012). Collective resilience in mass emergencies and disasters: A social identity model.

In J. Jetten, C. Haslam & S. H. Alexander (Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health and well-

being (pp. 137-150). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Duval, T. S., & Mulilis, J.-P. (1999). A person-relative-to-event (PrE) approach to negative threat

appeals and earthquake preparedness: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,

495-516. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01398.x

Eng, E., & Parker, E. (1994). Measuring community competence in the Mississippi Delta: The

interface between program evaluation and empowerment. Health Education Quarterly, 21,

199-220

Ejeta, L.T., Ardalan, A., Paton, D. & Yaseri, M (2016) Predictors of community preparedness for

flood in Dire-Dawa town, Eastern Ethiopia: Applying adapted version of Health Belief

Model. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 341–354.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.005

Elliott, J., Haney, T., & Sams-Abiodun, P. (2010) Limits to social capital: Comparing network

assistance in two New Orleans neighbors devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Sociological

Quarterly, 51, 624-648

Etkin, D. (1999). Risk transference and related trends: Driving forces towards more mega-

disasters. Environmental Hazards, 1, 69-75.

Evans, W. D. (2006). How social marketing works in healthcare. BMJ, 332, 1207-1210.



Farida, A. (2014). Reconstructing social identity for sustainable future of Lumpur Lapindo

victims. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 468-476.

Faulkner, H. & Ball, D. (2007). Environmental hazards and risk communication. Environmental

Hazards, 7, 71-78.

Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban

Studies, 38, 2125-2143.

Garrison, M. E. B., & Sasser, D. D. (2009). Families and disasters: Making meaning out of

adversity. In K. E. Cherry (Ed.), Lifespan perspectives on natural disasters: Coping with

Katrina, Rita, and other storms (pp. 113-130). New York, NY: Springer.

Gregg, C. & Houghton, B. (2006) Natural Hazards. In D. Paton & D. Johnston (Eds), Disaster

Resilience: An integrated approach. (pp 19-39). Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take

precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards, 38, 101-120.

Guion, D. T., Scammon, D. L., & Borders, A. L. (2007). Weathering the storm: A social

marketing perspective on disaster preparedness and response with lessons from Hurricane

Katrina. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26, 20–32.

Harries, T., (2008) Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself

against a natural hazard. Health, Risk and Society, 10, 479-490.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698570802381162.

Haslam, S. A. (2014). Making good theory practical: Five lessons for an Applied Social Identity

Approach to challenges of organizational, health, and clinical psychology. British Journal of

Social Psychology, 53(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12061

Hastings, G., & McDermott, L. (2006). Putting social marketing into practice. BMJ, 332, 1210-

1211.

Hastings, G. Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2002). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and

ethical reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 961–986

Hawkins, R. L., & Maurer, K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated

in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1777-1793.

Heller, K., Alexander, D. B., Gatz, M., Knight, B. G., & Rose, T. (2005). Social and personal

factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, negative affect,

age, and education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 399-422.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and

organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Houts, P., Lindell, M.K., Hu, T.W., Clerly, P.D., Tokuhata, G. & Flynn, C.B. (1984) The

Protective Action Decision Model Applied to Evacuation During the Three Mile Island Crisis.

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 2, 27-39.

Jang, L-J., Wang, J.J., Paton, D., Ning-Yu, T. (2016) Cross-cultural Comparisons between the

Earthquake Preparedness Models of Taiwan and New Zealand. Disasters. 40, 327−345.

doi:10.1111/disa.12144

Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Alexander, S. H. (2012). The social cure: Identity, health and well-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698570802381162



being. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A., Cruwys, T., Greenaway, K. H., Haslam, C., & Steffens, N. K. (2017).

Advancing the social identity approach to health and well-being: Progressing the social cure

research agenda. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(7), 789-802. doi:

10.1002/ejsp.2333

Johnson, B. B., & Nakayachi, K. (2017). Examining associations between citizens' beliefs and

attitudes about uncertainty and their earthquake risk judgments, preparedness intentions, and

mitigation policy support in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Disaster

Risk Reduction, 22, 37-45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.019

Kellezi, B., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Social cure or social curse?: The psychological impact of

extreme events during the Kosovo conflict. In J. Jetten, C. Haslam & S. H. Alexander (Eds.),

The social cure: Identity, health and well-being (pp. 151-161). Hove, England: Psychology

Press.

Kerstholt, J., Duijnhoven, H. & Paton, D. (2017) Flooding preparedness in The Netherlands:

Integrating factors at individual, social and institutional level. International Journal of


Kirschenbaum, A. (2006). Families and disaster behavior: A reassessment of family

preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24, 111.

Kirschenbaum, A., Rapaport, C., & Canetti, D. (2017). The impact of information sources on

earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 99-109.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.018

Koh, H.K & Cadigan, R.O. (2008) Disaster Preparedness and Social Capital. In I. Kawachi,

S.VC. Subramanian and D. Kim (Eds) Social Capital and Health. (pp 273-285) Springer, New

York.

Kohn, S., Eaton, J. L., Feroz, S., Bainbridge, A. A., Hoolachan, J., & Barnett, D. J. (2012).

Personal disaster preparedness: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster Medicine and

Public Health Preparedness, 6, 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2012.47

Lamontaigne, M., & La Rochelle, S. (2000) Earth scientists can help people who fear

earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters, 70, 1-4.

Lau, D. & Murnighan, J.K. (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional

dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325-340.

Lau, D. & Murnighan, J.K. (2005) Interactions within groups and subgroups: The dynamic

effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645-650.

Levac, J., Toal-Sullivan, D., & OSullivan, T. L. (2012). Household emergency preparedness: a

literature review. Journal of Community Health, 37, 725-733. DOI 10.1007/s10900-011-9488-

x

Lichterman, J. D. (2000). A ‘community as resource’ strategy for disaster response. Public

Health Reports, 115, 262-265.

Lindell, M. K., Arlikatti, S., & Prater, C. S. (2009). Why people do what they do to protect

against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk analysis, 29, 1072-





1088.

Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of

research. Environment and behavior, 32, 461-501.

Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: theoretical

modifications and additional evidence. Risk analysis, 32, 616-632.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2000). Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment

adoption. Risk analysis, 20, 13-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00002.

Lion, R., Meertens, R. M., & Bot, I. (2002). Priorities in information desire about unknown risks.

Risk Analysis, 22, 765-776.

Marti, M., Stauffacher, M., Matthes, J. & Wiemer, S. (2018) Communicating Earthquake

Preparedness: The Influence of Induced Mood, Perceived Risk, and Gain or Loss Frames on

Homeowners’ Attitudes Toward General Precautionary Measures for Earthquakes. Risk

Analysis, 38, 710-723

Martin, I. M., Bender, H., & Raish, C. (2007). What motivates individuals to protect themselves

from risks: The case of wildland fires. Risk analysis, 27, 887-900.

McClean, D. (2017) Australia integrates climate and disaster risk Geneva: United Nations Office

for Disaster Risk Reduction; [Available from: https://www.unisdr.org/archive/52874.

McIvor, D., & Paton, D. (2007). Preparing for natural hazards: Normative and attitudinal

influences. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 16, 79-88.

McIvor, D., Paton, D., & Johnston, D. M. (2009). Modelling community preparation for natural

hazards: Understanding hazard cognitions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 3, 39-46.

https://doi.org/10.1375/prp.3.2.39

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social

marketing. American Psychologist, May, 531-537.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to

community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society.

McLennan, J., Cowlishaw, S., Paton, D., Beatson, R., & Elliott, G. (2014). Predictors of south-

eastern Australian householders' strengths of intentions to self-evacuate if a wildfire threatens:

Two theoretical models. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 23, 1176-1188.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF13219

Merrin-Davies, M. (2018) Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

in Australia. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 33, 5-6.

Mileti, D. S., & Darlington, J. D. (1997). The role of searching in shaping reactions to

earthquake risk information. Social problems, 44, 89-103.

Mishra, S. & Suar, D. (2012) Effects of Anxiety, Disaster Education, and Resources on Disaster

Preparedness Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1069-1087. DOI:

10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00853.x

Morgan, M. G., & Lave, L. (1990). Ethical considerations in risk communication practice and

research. Risk Analysis, 10(3), 355-358.

https://www.unisdr.org/archive/52874



Morrissey, S. & Reser, J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of psychological preparedness

advice in community cyclone preparedness materials. Australian Journal of Emergency

Management, 18, 46–61.

Mulilis, J. P. (1996). Social considerations of disaster‐resistant technology: the Person‐Relative‐

to‐Event (PrE) model of coping with threat. Journal of Urban Technology, 3, 59-70.

Mulilis, J. P., & Duval, T. S. (1995). Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: a

person‐relative‐to‐event (PrE) model of coping with Threat. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 25, 1319-1339.

Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., & Bovalino, K. (2000). Tornado preparedness of students, nonstudent

renters, and nonstudent owners: Issues of PrE theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

30, 1310-1329.

Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., & Rogers, R. (2003). The Effect of a Swarm of Local Tornados on

Tornado Preparedness: A Quasi‐Comparable Cohort Investigation. Journal of applied social

psychology, 33, 1716-1725.

Nakagawa, Y. & Shaw, R. (2004) Social Capital: A Missing Link to Disaster Recovery,

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22, 5-34

Onuma, H., Shin, K. J., & Managi, S. (2017). Household preparedness for natural disasters:

Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 148-158.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.11.004

Paton, D. (2008). Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: How trust influences its

effectiveness. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 8, 2-16.

doi:10.1504/ijgenvi.2008.017256

Paton, D. (2013) Disaster Resilient Communities: Developing and testing an all-hazards theory.

Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 3, 1-17. DOI 10.5595/idrim.2013.0050

Paton, D. (2017) Co-existing with Natural Hazards and their Consequences. In D. Paton and

D.M. Johnston (Eds). Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach (2nd Ed). (pp. 3-17)

Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas. 978-0-398-09169-9

Paton, D., Anderson, E., Becker, J. & Peterson, J. (2015) Developing a Comprehensive Model of

Earthquake Preparedness: Lessons from the Christchurch earthquake. International Journal of


Paton, D., Bajek, R., Okada, N., & McIvor, D. (2010). Predicting community earthquake

preparedness: a cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand. Natural Hazards, 54,

765-781. DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9500-2

Paton, D., & Buergelt, P. T. (2012). Community engagement and wildfire preparedness: The

influence of community diversity. In D. Paton and F. Tedim (Eds.), Wildfire and community:

Facilitating preparedness and resilience (pp. 241-259). Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas.

Paton, D., Bürgelt, P.T., & Prior, T. (2008) Living with Bushfire Risk: Social and environmental

influences on preparedness. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 23, 41-48.

Paton, D., Gregg, C.E., Houghton, B.F., Lachman, R., Lachman, J., Johnston, D.M., &


https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9500-2



Wongbusarakum, S. (2008). The impact of the December 26th 2004 tsunami on coastal Thai

communities: Assessing adaptive capacity. Disasters, 32, 106-119

Paton, D. & Irons, M. (2016) Communication, Sense of Community and Disaster Recovery: A

Facebook case study. Disaster Communications. Frontiers of Communication. 1:4. doi:

10.3389/fcomm.2016.00004

Paton, D., Jang, L.-j., & Irons, M. (2015). Building Capacity to Adapt to the Consequences of

Disasters: Linking Disaster Recovery and Disaster Risk Reduction. In D. Brown (Ed.),

Capacity Building: Planning, Programs and Prospects. (pp. 85-114). New York: Nova

Scientific Publishers.

Paton, D., Jang, L-J., Kitagawa, K., Mamula-Seadon, L. & Sun, Y. (2017) Coping with and

Adapting to Natural Hazard Consequences: Cross cultural perspectives. In D. Paton and D.M.

Johnston (Eds). Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach (2nd Ed). (pp. 236-254)

Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

Paton, D., Johnston, D., Mamula-Seadon, L & Kenney, C.M. (2014) Recovery and Development:

Perspectives from New Zealand and Australia. In Kapucu, N. & Liou, K. T. (Eds). Disaster &

development: Examining global issues and cases. (pp. 255-272) New York, NY: Springer.

Paton, D., Kelly, G., Bürgelt, P. T., & Doherty, M. (2006). Preparing for bushfires: understanding

intentions. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 15, 566-575. Doi

10.1108/09653560610685893

Paton, D., Kerstholt, J. & Skinner, I (2017) Hazard Readiness and Resilience. In D. Paton and

D.M. Johnston (Eds). Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach (2nd Ed). (pp. 114-137)

Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

Paton, D. & McClure, J. (2013) Preparing for Disaster: Building household and community

capacity. Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

Paton, D., McClure, J & Bürgelt, P.T. (2006) Natural hazard resilience: The role of individual

and household preparedness. In D.Paton & D. Johnston (Eds), Disaster Resilience: An

integrated approach (pp. ) Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

Paton, D., Okada, N., & Sagala, S. (2013). Understanding Preparedness for Natural Hazards:

Cross cultural comparison. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 18-35.

DOI 10.5595/idrim.2013.0051

Paton, D. & Sagala, S. (2018) Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia. Springfield, Ill., Charles C.

Thomas.

Paton, D., Smith, L., & Johnston, D. (2005). When good intentions turn bad: Promoting natural

hazard preparedness. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 20, 25.

Paton, D., Smith, L., Daly, M., & Johnston, D. (2008). Risk perception and volcanic hazard

mitigation: Individual and social perspectives. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal

Research, 172, 179-188.

Paton, D. & Tedim, F. (2013) Enhancing forest fires preparedness in Portugal: Integrating

community engagement and risk management. Planet@Risk, 1, 44-52.

Portes, A. & Landolt, P. (1996) The Downside of Social Capital. The American Prospect, 26, 18-



21.

Raggio, R. D. & Folse, J.A.G. (2011) Expressions of Gratitude in Disaster Management: An

Economic, Social Marketing and Public Policy Perspective on Post-Katrina Campaigns.

Journal of Public Policy & Management, 30, 168-74.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.30.2.168.

Reininger, B.M., Rahbar, M. H., Lee, M., Chen, Z., Pope, J. and Adams, B. (2013). Social capital

and disaster preparedness among low income Mexican Americans in a disaster prone area,

Social Science & Medicine, 83, 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.037

Rippl, S. (2002). Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement.

Journal of Risk Research, 5, 147-165.

Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D., & Bourque, L. B. (1995). Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions

before and after two earthquakes. Environment and behavior, 27, 744-770.

Sadeka, S. Mohamad, M.S. Reza, M.I.H., Manap, J. & Sarkar, S.K. (2015) Social Capital and

Disaster Preparedness: Conceptual framework and linkage. E-Proceeding of the International

Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015 (e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9

June 2015, Meliá Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Seismology Research Centre (2018) Retrieved on 15th August, 2018 from

http://www.src.com.au/earthquakes/seismology-101/earthquakes-in-australia/

Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and

knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and

risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362. doi:doi:10.1111/0272-4332.203034

Solberg, C., Rossetto, T., & Joffe, H. (2010). The social psychology of seismic hazard

adjustment: Re-evaluating the international literature. Natural Hazards and Earth System

Sciences, 10, 1663-1677. doi:10.5194/nhess-10-1663-2010

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of

intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press.

Terpstra, T & Lindell, M.K. (2013) Citizens’ Perceptions of Flood Hazard Adjustments: An

Application of the Protective Action Decision Model. Environment and Behavior, 8, 993-

1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512452427

Tiernan, A., Drennan, L., Nalau, J., Onyango, E., Morrissey, L. & Mackey, B. (2018) A review of

themes in disaster resilience literature and international practice since 2012. Policy Design

and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2018.1507240

Twigg, J 2015, Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Overseas Development Institute.

UNISDR (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva,

Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

UNISDR (2016) Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators

and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations

Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Retrived from

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/50683_oiewgreportenglish.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.037

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916512452427

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/50683_oiewgreportenglish.pdf



UNISDR. (2017). What is Disaster Risk Reduction? Retrieved from https://www.unisdr.org/who-

we-are/what-is-drr

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.

Witte, K. (1992) Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model.

Communication Monogram, 59, 329-349.

Charles Darwin University Disaster risk reduction ...

Documents

Transcript of Charles Darwin University Disaster risk reduction ...