A means-end chain theory analysis of hazard cognitions and preparedness

Abstract

Recognition of the importance of proactively developing people’s capacity to cope with, adapt to, and recovery from natural hazard consequences has stimulated a need to understand the factors that influence household and community hazard preparedness. Building on the findings of EQC report 1371/project 01/479 (Paton, Smith and Johnston, 2005) in which three issues requiring additional research were identified, the overall objectives of this project were to:

1. Examine how people interpret preparedness scale items;
2. Clarify the relationships between predictor variables and decisions whether to prepare or to not prepare; and
3. Conduct an exploratory investigation of the cognitions that underpin people’s preparedness decisions.

Factor analysis of preparation scale items revealed that people do not perceive items as forming an homogenous list. People classified items according to function. While some consistency was evident between people’s classification (of items into six factors) and those of experts, several significant differences were noted. The implications of these differences, particularly with regard to the possible conflation of routine and emergency actions and the need for additional investigation of the predictors of each functional category, was discussed, as were the consequent implications for research and for the development of effective public education and risk communication.

With respect to the second major issue identified in EQC report 1371/project 01/479, this project developed a model that clarified the earlier finding that the same variable (Critical Awareness) predicted both preparing and not preparing outcomes. The current project identified how differences in people’s beliefs regarding the amenability of hazard consequences to mitigation through personal efforts could account for this difference. Clarification of the mechanisms that predict “preparing” versus “not preparing” outcomes provides clearer guidelines for developing public education programmes.

An earthquake scenario was selected to test a generic model that comprised individual, community and institutional indicators. A generic model was selected to accommodate the social and hazard diversity that underpins New Zealand’s complex natural hazardscape. Structural equation modelling analysis produced a model that comprised two individual-level (positive outcome expectancy, negative outcome expectancy), two community-level (community participation, ability to articulate community problems), and two community-agency relationship factors (empowerment, trust). At a practical level, this work demonstrated that, if they are to be effective, public education programmes must accommodate the interdependency between individual, community and agency factors.

The development of a reliable model means that it can be used to assess current levels of preparedness and its predictors, assist the formulation, planning and delivery of strategies to facilitate household preparedness, and provide a framework for evaluating intervention. A generic model facilitates the performance of these tasks irrespective of the hazard or community of interest. Prevailing levels of predictor factors were generally present at moderate levels, indicating considerable scope for their development. These data can serve as baseline data for community monitoring and programme development and evaluation.

The final issue addressed involved an exploratory analysis of people’s accounts of their preparedness decisions. This was accomplished using an interview protocol developed using means-end chain theory principles. This analysis identified the attribute, consequence and value cognitions that underpin people’s preparation decision making. The implications of these findings for understanding preparedness decisions are discussed.