Modelling community preparation for natural hazards: Understanding hazardudcognitions

摘要

The present study adopts a mixed methods approach, integrating data fromudquantitative and qualitative studies, to examine the all-hazards validity of a modeluddeveloped to predict adoption of hazard preparedness measures and to systematicallyudelicit information regarding factors that influence decisions to adopt preparationudactivities to minimise the effects of natural hazards. The research focuses on howudsocial and societal factors interact to influence the adoption of protective measuresudagainst the effects of natural hazards. The premise upon which the model is basedudargues that that it is not information per se that determines action, but how peopleudinterpret it in the context of experiences, beliefs and expectations that are developedudand enacted in a social context.udThe quantitative analysis involves testing the Social Predictor Model ofudIntentions to Prepare for Natural Hazards (Paton, 2006) to assess the underlying socialudinfluences of intentions to prepare for both earthquakes and floods. Participants forudthis component of the study were from locations in New Zealand (Napier) andudAustralia (Benalla, Launceston, Ingham and Longford) that face high risk of exposureudto earthquake and flooding hazards respectively. Findings demonstrated that theudindividual, community and institutional components of the model interact to influenceudpeople’s intentions concerning the efficacy of adopting hazard mitigation strategies.udThese findings also support the applicability of the model for multiple hazards andudacross diverse locationsudThe qualitative component of the study used means-end chain theory (Gutman,ud1982, 1997) to elicit more detailed information from participants regarding theiruddecision making process regarding the adoption of preparation activities to minimise the effects of natural hazards. Interviewees were recruited from locations at risk ofudflooding and earthquakes in both New Zealand (Napier) and Australia (Benalla,udVictoria and Launceston Tasmania). A major finding arising from the qualitative dataudwas the distinction people made in the trust and distrust of civic emergencyudmanagement authorities. These decisions were based on the relevance that peopleudattached to information provided by these authorities. A further important finding wasudthe motivating role of the responsibility that individuals felt towards the wellbeing ofudothers. Individuals felt that it was an obligation on their part to render assistance toudothers.udOverall, the findings indicate that facilitating sustained preparedness involvesudunderstanding how people construe the relationship between themselves, the hazardudand the protective measures available to them and assisting their protective decisionudmaking within this socio-ecological context. Delivering hazard mitigation strategiesudthus involves engaging with community members in order to understand their needsudand to render meaningful assistance in their decisions. It is when people believe thatudinformation relating to hazard mitigation is meaningful that these strategies will beudattended to and adopted.