Making sense of natural hazard mitigation

Personal, social and cultural influences

Douglas Paton, Saut Sagala, Norio Okada, Li Ju Jang, Petra T. Bürgelt, Chris E. Gregg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Worldwide, recognition of the growing risk faced by communities in many countries from natural hazard events has stimulated interest in promoting people's capacity to co-exist with often beneficial, but occasionally hazardous, natural processes by encouraging the adoption of preparedness measures. Starting from recognition that levels of hazard preparedness are generally low, this paper examines how people's decisions about hazard mitigation derive from how they interpret the hazards, their relationship with the hazards and the sources of information about hazards. It describes how interpretive processes at the person (outcome expectancy), community (community participation and collective efficacy) and societal (empowerment and trust) level interact to predict levels of hazard preparedness. The data support the argument that the effectiveness of public hazard education strategies community preparedness can be increased by integrating risk management activities with community development strategies. The cross-cultural validity of the model is discussed using data from communities in New Zealand, Indonesia and Japan. Testing the model across countries and hazards (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic hazards) supports its all-hazards and cross-cultural applicability. The theoretical (e.g. identifying the degree to which the processes that underpin how people respond to hazard threats are culturally equivalent) and practical (e.g. providing a common basis for collaborative learning and research between countries and providing risk management agencies in different cultures with access to a wider range of risk management options) implications of the cross-cultural equivalence of the model are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)183-196
Number of pages14
JournalEnvironmental Hazards
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

cultural influence
natural hazard
mitigation
hazard
risk management
community
public education
equivalence
community development
development strategy
source of information
Indonesia
empowerment
natural disaster
New Zealand
Japan
volcanic earthquake
threat
participation
human being

Cite this

Paton, Douglas ; Sagala, Saut ; Okada, Norio ; Jang, Li Ju ; Bürgelt, Petra T. ; Gregg, Chris E. / Making sense of natural hazard mitigation : Personal, social and cultural influences. In: Environmental Hazards. 2010 ; Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 183-196.
@article{f19f1dd8302a44a4b9d0686a153eb93f,
title = "Making sense of natural hazard mitigation: Personal, social and cultural influences",
abstract = "Worldwide, recognition of the growing risk faced by communities in many countries from natural hazard events has stimulated interest in promoting people's capacity to co-exist with often beneficial, but occasionally hazardous, natural processes by encouraging the adoption of preparedness measures. Starting from recognition that levels of hazard preparedness are generally low, this paper examines how people's decisions about hazard mitigation derive from how they interpret the hazards, their relationship with the hazards and the sources of information about hazards. It describes how interpretive processes at the person (outcome expectancy), community (community participation and collective efficacy) and societal (empowerment and trust) level interact to predict levels of hazard preparedness. The data support the argument that the effectiveness of public hazard education strategies community preparedness can be increased by integrating risk management activities with community development strategies. The cross-cultural validity of the model is discussed using data from communities in New Zealand, Indonesia and Japan. Testing the model across countries and hazards (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic hazards) supports its all-hazards and cross-cultural applicability. The theoretical (e.g. identifying the degree to which the processes that underpin how people respond to hazard threats are culturally equivalent) and practical (e.g. providing a common basis for collaborative learning and research between countries and providing risk management agencies in different cultures with access to a wider range of risk management options) implications of the cross-cultural equivalence of the model are discussed.",
keywords = "Culture, Natural hazards, Resilience, Sustainability",
author = "Douglas Paton and Saut Sagala and Norio Okada and Jang, {Li Ju} and B{\"u}rgelt, {Petra T.} and Gregg, {Chris E.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.3763/ehaz.2010.0039",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "183--196",
journal = "Environmental Hazards",
issn = "1464-2867",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Making sense of natural hazard mitigation : Personal, social and cultural influences. / Paton, Douglas; Sagala, Saut; Okada, Norio; Jang, Li Ju; Bürgelt, Petra T.; Gregg, Chris E.

In: Environmental Hazards, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010, p. 183-196.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Making sense of natural hazard mitigation

T2 - Personal, social and cultural influences

AU - Paton, Douglas

AU - Sagala, Saut

AU - Okada, Norio

AU - Jang, Li Ju

AU - Bürgelt, Petra T.

AU - Gregg, Chris E.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Worldwide, recognition of the growing risk faced by communities in many countries from natural hazard events has stimulated interest in promoting people's capacity to co-exist with often beneficial, but occasionally hazardous, natural processes by encouraging the adoption of preparedness measures. Starting from recognition that levels of hazard preparedness are generally low, this paper examines how people's decisions about hazard mitigation derive from how they interpret the hazards, their relationship with the hazards and the sources of information about hazards. It describes how interpretive processes at the person (outcome expectancy), community (community participation and collective efficacy) and societal (empowerment and trust) level interact to predict levels of hazard preparedness. The data support the argument that the effectiveness of public hazard education strategies community preparedness can be increased by integrating risk management activities with community development strategies. The cross-cultural validity of the model is discussed using data from communities in New Zealand, Indonesia and Japan. Testing the model across countries and hazards (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic hazards) supports its all-hazards and cross-cultural applicability. The theoretical (e.g. identifying the degree to which the processes that underpin how people respond to hazard threats are culturally equivalent) and practical (e.g. providing a common basis for collaborative learning and research between countries and providing risk management agencies in different cultures with access to a wider range of risk management options) implications of the cross-cultural equivalence of the model are discussed.

AB - Worldwide, recognition of the growing risk faced by communities in many countries from natural hazard events has stimulated interest in promoting people's capacity to co-exist with often beneficial, but occasionally hazardous, natural processes by encouraging the adoption of preparedness measures. Starting from recognition that levels of hazard preparedness are generally low, this paper examines how people's decisions about hazard mitigation derive from how they interpret the hazards, their relationship with the hazards and the sources of information about hazards. It describes how interpretive processes at the person (outcome expectancy), community (community participation and collective efficacy) and societal (empowerment and trust) level interact to predict levels of hazard preparedness. The data support the argument that the effectiveness of public hazard education strategies community preparedness can be increased by integrating risk management activities with community development strategies. The cross-cultural validity of the model is discussed using data from communities in New Zealand, Indonesia and Japan. Testing the model across countries and hazards (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic hazards) supports its all-hazards and cross-cultural applicability. The theoretical (e.g. identifying the degree to which the processes that underpin how people respond to hazard threats are culturally equivalent) and practical (e.g. providing a common basis for collaborative learning and research between countries and providing risk management agencies in different cultures with access to a wider range of risk management options) implications of the cross-cultural equivalence of the model are discussed.

KW - Culture

KW - Natural hazards

KW - Resilience

KW - Sustainability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052600841&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3763/ehaz.2010.0039

DO - 10.3763/ehaz.2010.0039

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 183

EP - 196

JO - Environmental Hazards

JF - Environmental Hazards

SN - 1464-2867

IS - 2

ER -