Cited by 38Disaster Management and ResilienceRisk Perception and ManagementEarthquake and Disaster Impact Studies

Getting ready for mega disasters: the role of past experience in changing disaster consciousness

Guo, Yu, Li, Yiwei·2016·Disaster Prevention and Management

Abstract

Purpose: – Attempting to explore the role of direct experience in influencing disaster consciousness and public opinion, the purpose of this paper is to carry out comparative analyses of Japanese people’s knowledge, risk perception, and policy preference about large-scale earthquake disaster before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake. More importantly, aiming to provide implications regarding the application of past experience, the predictive power of direct experience on disaster consciousness is also examined. Design/methodology/approach: – This study analyzed parts of the data collected from two nationwide public opinion surveys among Japanese conducted by the Japanese Government. Analyses of variance were performed to examine changes in disaster consciousness. A path model was developed to examine the predicted effects of direct experience. χ 2 tests were performed to examine changes in strategy preference. Findings: – This study found significant changes in Japanese people’s knowledge of natural hazards and perception of mega disaster risk. Tests of the path model suggested significant positive effect of societal level impact on disaster consciousness and strong predictive power of knowledge on risk perception. Significant changes in strategy preference were also found. Practical implications: – Results supported the predictive power of direct experience, highlighting the significance of recalling past experience as well as creating indirect experience to raise public consciousness and motivate appropriate actions. Originality/value: – This is one of the few studies that investigate changes in public opinion among Japanese before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/dpm-01-2016-0008

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies have shown that experience of disasters increases the chances of better preparedness.

    “Several studies have also shown that experience of disasters increases the chances of better preparedness (Guo and Li 2016; Roder et al. 2016; Deng et al. 2017; Hoffmann and Muttarak 2017).”

    From Disaster preparedness and resilience at household level in Yangon, Myanmar (2022) · cites this paper as Guo and Li 2016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, Y., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • Macau University of Science and Technology (MO)
  • Keio University (JP)
Venue
Disaster Prevention and Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2016-08-01
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
492-505
ISSN
0965-3562 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2475079172
Cited by
38
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Tokyo
  • Universidade de Macau
  • Macau University of Science and Technology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Earthquake and Disaster Impact Studies
Keywords
Great East Japan Earthquake, direct experience, risk perception, public opinion, disaster preparedness, policy preferences, large-scale disasters, seismic risk, Japan

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review