Developing a model to predict the adoption of natural hazard risk reduction and prepatory adjustments

Abstract

Despite considerable effort and expenditure on public hazard education, levels of disaster preparedness remain low. By integrating and expanding on natural hazards and health research on protective behaviour, this research project developed and tested a social cognitive model of disaster preparedness. This model provides insights into the complexity of the preparedness process and identifies a need for risk communication and risk reduction strategies undertaken to facilitate earthquake preparedness to address a wider range of variables than has previously been the norm.

Following their critical appraisal, variables implicated at each stage are identified and their role in the preparedness process described. The model describes a developmental process that commences with factors that motivate people to prepare, progresses through the formation of intentions, and culminates in decisions to prepare. The model describes how three factors, critical awareness of earthquake issues, risk perception, and earthquake anxiety, motivate people to think about earthquake preparedness. If these variables are present at adequate levels, a person will progress to the next phase, forming intentions to adopt. The formation of intentions to prepare is influenced by the prevailing levels of a different set of variables. These are outcome expectancy, self-efficacy and action coping.

An unexpected outcome of the research was the finding of two intention factors, “intention to prepare” and “intention to seek information”. Only the former predicted actual adjustment adoption. Two moderator variables were identified. The perceived timing of the next damaging earthquake moderated the intention to prepare – adoption link. Perceived trust moderated the intention to seek information – adoption link.

The discrete nature of the intention variables suggests that a) preparing versus not preparing do not lie at opposite ends of a continuum and b) people’s reasoning about preparedness and their reasoning about not preparing must be conceptualised and managed separately. The implications of the model for the conceptualisation and assessment of preparedness is discussed, as is its implications for risk reduction and communication strategies.