CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Disaster Management and ResilienceSafety and Risk ManagementPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Exploring the relationship between risk perception and public disaster mitigation behavior in geological hazard emergency management: a research study in Wenchuan county

Open access
Cai, Jianmin, Hu, Shiyu, Sun, Fei, Tang, Lan, Fan, Gang, Xing, Huige·2023·Disaster Prevention and Resilience
DOI 10.20517/dpr.2023.26
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Modern disaster emergency management emphasizes the collaborative participation of multiple parties. Exploring the relationship between risk perception and mitigation behaviors of the public is essential to develop the effectiveness of public disaster reduction and improve the performance of emergency management. Based on risk perception theory, a research framework on the relationship between risk perception and mitigation behaviors was constructed by selecting two phases of emergency management: pre-disaster preparation and mid-disaster emergency response. The results showed that self-efficacy positively influenced the pre-disaster mitigation behaviors and emergency evacuation behavior. Perceived severity only positively influenced the emergency evacuation behavior in mid-disaster. Additionally, pre-disaster evacuation drills positively influenced the emergency evacuation behavior and the behavior of asking for help from government departments in mid-disaster. The results indicate that pre-disaster mitigation behaviors can have a significant impact on mid-disaster behaviors only if pre-disaster mitigation behaviors provide clear guidance for the emergency phase of the disaster. Therefore, pre-disaster mitigation activities should be carried out strategically with the aim of improving the public’s emergency self-help capabilities in disasters, which provides theoretical and practical guidance for improving the effectiveness of public disaster mitigation and improving the government’s disaster emergency management system.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.20517/dpr.2023.26

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Risk perception acts as a bridge because it is the basis for students to assess how serious the threat of a disaster that might occur is.

    “Risk perception acts as a bridge because it is the basis for students to assess how serious the threat of a disaster that might occur is (Cai et al., 2023).”

    From The Mediating Role of Risk Perception in the Effect of Information Literacy on Students’ Disaster Preparedness (2026) · cites this paper as Cai et al., 2023

    The Introduction (Literature review; page unavailable) defines perceived severity as an individual’s judgment of how adverse a risk event’s consequences may be, supporting the assessment-of-seriousness part of the claim. The paper discusses the public in Wenchuan County, not students, and does not establish the claimed bridging role for students. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. 10.3969/j.issn.1000-811X.2019.02.027 · DOI
  2. 10.3969/j.issn.1000-811X.2019.01.036 · DOI
  3. 10.1023/A:1022917721797 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s10346-016-0787-2 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s10346-015-0572-7 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s10346-020-01389-4 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s11356-020-10233-0 · DOI
  8. 10.3990/1.9789036529549 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.006 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s11069-021-04918-z · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103247 · DOI
  12. 10.1126/science.3563507 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1007/s13753-017-0112-2 · DOI
  14. 10.3390/ijerph16224512 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101422 · DOI
  16. 10.19735/j.issn.1006-0863.2022.05.17 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s11069-021-05026-8 · DOI
  18. Li H, Fan C, Jia J, Wang S, Hao L. Public risk perception and emergency management in sudden disasters: the case of the May 12 Wenchuan earthquake. Managing World 2009;6:52-60. (In Chinese) Available from: http://www.doc88.com/p-2069508907679.html [Last accessed on 30 Oct 2023]
  19. 10.26914/c.cnkihy.2020.047287 · DOI
  20. Xu J, Lu Y. A comprehensive and integrated model for post-earthquake reconstruction system engineering. Syst Eng Theory Pract 2008;7:1-16. (In Chinese) Available from: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-XTLL200807001.htm [Last accessed on 30 Oct 2023]
  21. Chen B, Li H, Wu Y. A review of the theory of post-Wenchuan earthquake reconstruction. Urban Deve Res 2011;18:105-11. (In Chinese) Available from: http://www.doc88.com/p-7059820915196.html [Last accessed on 30 Oct 2023]
  22. Duan Z, Chen T, Yang Q. Behavioral framework and path analysis of public participation in post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction.J Tianjin Uni 2013;15:54-60. (In Chinese) Available from: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TDXS201301011.htm [Last accessed on 30 Oct 2023]
  23. 10.1016/s0143-6228(97)00044-1 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/s11069-020-04106-5 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01316.x · DOI
  26. 10.3390/ijerph18042106 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s11069-013-0958-6 · DOI
  28. 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2017.1118 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/risa.13526 · DOI
  30. 10.3390/ijerph15071319 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102646 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/0013916512437596 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.envres.2016.04.016 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.012 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.006 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.001 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/risa.14151 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.004 · DOI
  40. 10.1186/s13617-017-0055-8 · DOI
  41. 10.2298/ijgi1602237c · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1958.tb00292.x · DOI
  43. 10.1080/00131911.2018.1483892 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00745.x · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105975 · DOI
  46. 10.3390/ijerph191912278 · DOI
  47. 10.1001/jama.2019.1954 · DOI
  48. 10.1198/000313004x946 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x · DOI
  50. 10.11731/j.issn.1673-193x.2022.08.031 · DOI
  51. 10.1177/0013916583152003 · DOI
  52. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.31 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103546 · DOI
  54. 10.3390/su12135354 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cai, J., Hu, S., Sun, F., Tang, L., Fan, G., & Xing, H.
ORCID
Venue
Disaster Prevention and Resilience
Publisher
OAE Publishing Inc.
Published
2023-10-30
ISSN
2832-4056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.20517/dpr.2023.26
OpenAlex
W4388022643
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Disaster Prevention and Resilience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Safety and Risk Management
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
risk perception, geohazards, emergency management, self-efficacy, perceived severity, emergency evacuation, evacuation drills, Wenchuan County

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