Ready or Not? How Citizens and Public Officials Perceive Risk and Preparedness
Abstract
The more prepared people are, the less harm they will suffer when disaster strikes. Yet anecdotal and empirical evidence shows that people overestimate their preparedness and are underprepared. While a robust literature has matured around hazards, risk, and vulnerability, and disaster policy, politics, and management, the literature about individual preparedness is much more limited and inconsistent. We know little about why people prepare (or why they do not), and what would make them prepare more. As a result, public managers are at a loss about how to design effective preparedness programs. In this paper, we survey the literature on preparedness to crystallize the gaps in our understanding of when and how citizens react to the threat of disaster. We then examine and compare the views of risk and preparedness held by individuals and government officials drawing on insights from a 4-year study that involved three national surveys and intensive studies in two communities. We use this analysis to address two questions: What do citizens think and do about risks and preparedness, and why? How do local government officials understand what citizens think and do about risks and preparedness?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Individual resilience on the household level and community resilience contribute substantially to mitigation in the early stages of disasters.
“Therefore, individual resilience on the household level and community resilience contribute substantially to mitigation in the early stages of disasters (Donahue et al. 2014; UNOCHA 2017a).”
From Disaster preparedness and resilience at household level in Yangon, Myanmar (2022) · cites this paper as Donahue et al. 2014
Cites
Bechtel, M. M., & Hainmueller, J. (2011) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x · Cited by 63 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Abney and Hill (1966) and Chen (2013) show that there are clear short-term electoral gains for providing relief post-disaster, and Bechtel and Hainmueller (2011) provide evidence from the 2002 Elbe River flood in Germany that electoral benefits to incumbents persist through several elections.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
James, L. E., Welton-Mitchell, C., Noel, J. R., & James, A. S. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719000163 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Disaster preparedness and resilience at household level in Yangon, Myanmar
Heinkel, S.-B., Thiebes, B., Than, Z. M., Aung, T., Kyi, T. T., Mar, W. L., Oo, S. S., Miller, C., Willkomm, M., Maung, W., et al. (2022) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-022-05226-w · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- Authors
- Donahue, A. K., Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Rice University (US)
- Venue
- The American Review of Public Administration
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-10-28
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4_suppl
- Pages
- 89S-111S
- ISSN
- 0275-0740 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3357
- OpenAlex
- W2329799823
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Review of Public Administration (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
- Keywords
- disaster preparedness, risk perception, citizen preparedness, public officials, local government, disaster risk
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