Preparing for bushfires

Understanding intentions

Douglas Paton, Gail Kelly, Petra T. Buergelt, Michael Doherty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose – To examine the relationship between behavioural intentions and preparing for bushfire hazards and to test the hypothesis that intentions can inform how people reason about their relationship with environmental hazards. Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 280 residents in high bushfire risk areas and analysed using multiple regression analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a theoretical sample drawn from those who completed the survey. Data were analysed using grounded theory analysis strategies using the ATLAS.ti data analysis programme following the procedures for open, axial, and selective coding. Findings – The analyses demonstrated that preparedness intentions reflect the outcomes of different ways of reasoning about their relationship with bushfire hazards and that “preparing” and “not preparing” represent discrete processes. Each outcome was supported by different attitudes towards preparing and by different predictor variables. Research limitations/implications – Preparing and not preparing for natural hazards should be conceptualised as separate processes and additional research into their origins and precursors is required. Practical implications – Separate risk communication strategies are needed to counter reasons for “not preparing” and facilitate “preparing”. Strategies should accommodate the attitudes and beliefs that underpin these outcomes. To facilitate sustained preparedness, strategies should assist people to negotiate issues required to arrive at a decision to adopt protective measures. Originality/value – Provides novel insights into the relationship between people and natural hazards. It identifies a need to re-think how risk communication strategies are developed and delivered.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)566-575
Number of pages10
JournalDisaster Prevention and Management: an international journal
Volume15
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Communication
risk communication
Research
Regression Analysis
Interviews
grounded theory
coding
regression analysis
data analysis
resident
methodology
Hazard
interview
Surveys and Questionnaires
Values
Natural hazards
Risk communication
Preparedness
Communication strategies
Grounded Theory

Cite this

Paton, Douglas ; Kelly, Gail ; Buergelt, Petra T. ; Doherty, Michael. / Preparing for bushfires : Understanding intentions. In: Disaster Prevention and Management: an international journal. 2006 ; Vol. 15, No. 4. pp. 566-575.
@article{c069c123dcac4ab8bf0c3fb575cd9a0a,
title = "Preparing for bushfires: Understanding intentions",
abstract = "Purpose – To examine the relationship between behavioural intentions and preparing for bushfire hazards and to test the hypothesis that intentions can inform how people reason about their relationship with environmental hazards. Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 280 residents in high bushfire risk areas and analysed using multiple regression analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a theoretical sample drawn from those who completed the survey. Data were analysed using grounded theory analysis strategies using the ATLAS.ti data analysis programme following the procedures for open, axial, and selective coding. Findings – The analyses demonstrated that preparedness intentions reflect the outcomes of different ways of reasoning about their relationship with bushfire hazards and that “preparing” and “not preparing” represent discrete processes. Each outcome was supported by different attitudes towards preparing and by different predictor variables. Research limitations/implications – Preparing and not preparing for natural hazards should be conceptualised as separate processes and additional research into their origins and precursors is required. Practical implications – Separate risk communication strategies are needed to counter reasons for “not preparing” and facilitate “preparing”. Strategies should accommodate the attitudes and beliefs that underpin these outcomes. To facilitate sustained preparedness, strategies should assist people to negotiate issues required to arrive at a decision to adopt protective measures. Originality/value – Provides novel insights into the relationship between people and natural hazards. It identifies a need to re-think how risk communication strategies are developed and delivered.",
keywords = "Behaviour, Fire, Hazards, Risk management",
author = "Douglas Paton and Gail Kelly and Buergelt, {Petra T.} and Michael Doherty",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1108/09653560610685893",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "566--575",
journal = "Disaster Prevention and Management",
issn = "0961-1428",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

Preparing for bushfires : Understanding intentions. / Paton, Douglas; Kelly, Gail; Buergelt, Petra T.; Doherty, Michael.

In: Disaster Prevention and Management: an international journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2006, p. 566-575.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preparing for bushfires

T2 - Understanding intentions

AU - Paton, Douglas

AU - Kelly, Gail

AU - Buergelt, Petra T.

AU - Doherty, Michael

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Purpose – To examine the relationship between behavioural intentions and preparing for bushfire hazards and to test the hypothesis that intentions can inform how people reason about their relationship with environmental hazards. Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 280 residents in high bushfire risk areas and analysed using multiple regression analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a theoretical sample drawn from those who completed the survey. Data were analysed using grounded theory analysis strategies using the ATLAS.ti data analysis programme following the procedures for open, axial, and selective coding. Findings – The analyses demonstrated that preparedness intentions reflect the outcomes of different ways of reasoning about their relationship with bushfire hazards and that “preparing” and “not preparing” represent discrete processes. Each outcome was supported by different attitudes towards preparing and by different predictor variables. Research limitations/implications – Preparing and not preparing for natural hazards should be conceptualised as separate processes and additional research into their origins and precursors is required. Practical implications – Separate risk communication strategies are needed to counter reasons for “not preparing” and facilitate “preparing”. Strategies should accommodate the attitudes and beliefs that underpin these outcomes. To facilitate sustained preparedness, strategies should assist people to negotiate issues required to arrive at a decision to adopt protective measures. Originality/value – Provides novel insights into the relationship between people and natural hazards. It identifies a need to re-think how risk communication strategies are developed and delivered.

AB - Purpose – To examine the relationship between behavioural intentions and preparing for bushfire hazards and to test the hypothesis that intentions can inform how people reason about their relationship with environmental hazards. Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 280 residents in high bushfire risk areas and analysed using multiple regression analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a theoretical sample drawn from those who completed the survey. Data were analysed using grounded theory analysis strategies using the ATLAS.ti data analysis programme following the procedures for open, axial, and selective coding. Findings – The analyses demonstrated that preparedness intentions reflect the outcomes of different ways of reasoning about their relationship with bushfire hazards and that “preparing” and “not preparing” represent discrete processes. Each outcome was supported by different attitudes towards preparing and by different predictor variables. Research limitations/implications – Preparing and not preparing for natural hazards should be conceptualised as separate processes and additional research into their origins and precursors is required. Practical implications – Separate risk communication strategies are needed to counter reasons for “not preparing” and facilitate “preparing”. Strategies should accommodate the attitudes and beliefs that underpin these outcomes. To facilitate sustained preparedness, strategies should assist people to negotiate issues required to arrive at a decision to adopt protective measures. Originality/value – Provides novel insights into the relationship between people and natural hazards. It identifies a need to re-think how risk communication strategies are developed and delivered.

KW - Behaviour

KW - Fire

KW - Hazards

KW - Risk management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33747461772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/09653560610685893

DO - 10.1108/09653560610685893

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 566

EP - 575

JO - Disaster Prevention and Management

JF - Disaster Prevention and Management

SN - 0961-1428

IS - 4

ER -