CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Disaster Management and ResilienceDisaster Response and ManagementPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

Residents’ disaster preparedness after the Meinong Taiwan earthquake: A test of protection motivation theory

Open access
Tang, Jing-Shia, Feng, Jui-Ying·2018·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph15071434PMC PMC6069216
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Because effective preparations are required to mitigate disaster impacts before implementing effective interventions, it is important to understand why people do or do not act on disaster preparedness. This study explores factors influencing residents’ intentions and actual behaviors following the 2016 Kaohsiung Meinong earthquake in southern Taiwan. Protection Motivation Theory was used to develop a hypothesized model to test hypotheses regarding residents’ disaster preparedness, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the model. Data were comprised of 286 valid responses from seven major administration areas in Tainan, Taiwan. Self-efficacy, response-efficacy, and obstacles were significantly correlated with behavioral intentions and actual disaster preparedness behaviors. SEM results revealed that (a) the model fit the data well, (b) the relationship between risk perception and response-efficacy was fully mediated by behavioral intention, and (c) self-efficacy and obstacles were partially mediated by behavioral intention. Behavioral intent and actual disaster preparedness behavior are related but not equal. The main factors affecting actual disaster preparedness behavior are self-efficacy and obstacles. Therefore, strategies like drills or workshops can improve disaster-preparedness knowledge and capabilities and reduce difficulties of implementing disaster preparedness. To improve health and well-being, healthcare providers should promote disaster preparedness by interventions to increase self-efficacy during disasters.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph15071434

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Earthquake response self-efficacy is not fully explained by preparedness education; self-efficacy influences preparedness through pathways that are partly independent of formal education and risk knowledge.

    “Previous research supports the broader argument that earthquake response self-efficacy is not fully explained by preparedness education, indicating that self-efficacy influences preparedness through pathways that are partly independent of formal education and risk knowledge.”

    From A comparative study on Earthquake Preparedness of Japanese and International Students in a Nankai Trough Earthquake-threatened Area in Shikoku, Japan (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Results (§3.3; page not provided) report a direct association between self-efficacy and actual disaster preparedness, as well as an indirect association through behavioral intention. The paper discusses education and risk perception separately, but does not establish that self-efficacy is not fully explained by preparedness education or that its association with preparedness is independent of formal education and risk knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Self-efficacy is positively associated with preparedness intentions and preparedness actions, often emerging as an important predictor alongside or beyond risk perception and knowledge-based factors.

    “Studies across earthquake and disaster contexts show that self-efficacy is positively associated with preparedness intentions and preparedness actions, often emerging as an important predictor alongside or beyond risk perception and knowledge-based factors [43][44][45].”

    From A comparative study on Earthquake Preparedness of Japanese and International Students in a Nankai Trough Earthquake-threatened Area in Shikoku, Japan (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. [1]Levac J. Toal-Sullivan D. O’Sullivan T.L. Household emergency preparedness: A literature review J. Community Health 2012 37 725 733 10.1007/s10900-011-9488-x 21984406 · DOI
  2. [2]Diekman S.T. Kearney S.P. O’Neil M.E. Mack K.A. Qualitative study of homeowners’ emergency preparedness: Experiences, perceptions, and practices Prehosp. Disaster Med. 2007 22 494 501 10.1017/S1049023X00005318 18709937 · DOI
  3. [3]Hoffmann R. Muttarak R. Learn from the past, prepare for the future: Impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand World Dev. 2017 96 32 51 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.016 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Onuma H. Shin K.J. Managi S. Household preparedness for natural disasters: Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017 21 148 158 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.11.004 · DOI
  5. [6]Almedom A.M. Tumwine J.K. Resilience to disasters: A paradigm shift from vulnerability to strength Afr. Health Sci. 2008 8 S1 S4 21448364 PMC3060724
  6. [7]Heagele T.N. Lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of disaster supply kits Am. J. Public Health 2016 106 979 982 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303148 27077362 PMC4880243 · DOI
  7. [8]Rogers R.W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1 J. Psychol. 1975 91 93 114 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 28136248 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Grothmann T. Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005 15 199 213 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002 · DOI
  9. [10]Becker J.S. Paton D. Johnston D.M. Ronan K.R. Salient beliefs about earthquake hazards and household preparedness Risk Anal. 2013 33 1710 1726 10.1111/risa.12014 23339741 · DOI
  10. [11]Grothmann T. Reusswig F. People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not Nat. Hazards 2006 38 101 120 10.1007/s11069-005-8604-6 · DOI
  11. [12]Maddux J.E. Rogers R.W. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1983 19 469 479 10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13]Bubeck P. Botzen W.J. Aerts J.C. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior Risk Anal. 2012 32 1481 1495 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x 22394258 · DOI
  13. [14]Miller C.H. Adame B.J. Moore S.D. Vested interest theory and disaster preparedness Disasters 2013 37 1 27 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01290.x 23050780 · DOI
  14. [15]Chen T.L. Chang H.S. The effects of zoning regulations along fault zone areas on land development and property values after the 921 Chi-Chi Earthquake in Taiwan Sustainability 2018 10 1175 10.3390/su10041175 · DOI
  15. [16]Hong L.L. Hwang W.L. Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2000 29 327 337 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(200003)29:3<327::AID-EQE907>3.0.CO;2-0 · DOI
  16. [17]Kelson K.I. Kang K.H. Page W.D. Lee C.T. Cluff L.S. Representative styles of deformation along the Chelungpu fault from the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake: Geomorphic characteristics and responses of man-made structures Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2001 91 930 952 10.1785/0120000741 · DOI
  17. [19]Lindell M.K. Prater C.S. Wu H.C. Huang S.K. Johnston D.M. Becker J.S. Shiroshita H. Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan Disasters 2016 40 85 111 10.1111/disa.12133 26271626 · DOI
  18. [20]Ozdemir O. Yilmaz C. Factors affecting risk mitigation revisited: The case of earthquake in Turkey J. Risk Res. 2011 14 17 46 10.1080/13669871003782751 · DOI
  19. [21]Spittal M.J. McClure J. Siegert R.J. Walkey F.H. Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: Survival activities and mitigation activities Environ. Behav. 2008 40 798 817 10.1177/0013916507309864 · DOI
  20. [22]Eisenman D.P. Wold C. Fielding J. Long A. Setodji C. Hickey S. Gelberg L. Differences in individual-level terrorism preparedness in Los Angeles County Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006 30 1 6 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.001 16414417 · DOI
  21. [23]Takao K. Motoyoshi T. Sato T. Fukuzondo T. Seo K. Ikeda S. Factors determining residents’ preparedness for floods in modern megalopolises: The case of the Tokai flood disaster in Japan J. Risk Res. 2004 7 775 787 10.1080/1366987031000075996 · DOI
  22. [25]Paton D. Johnston D. The Christchurch earthquake: Integrating perspectives from diverse disciplines Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015 14 1 5 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.02.003 · DOI
  23. [26]Paton D. Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective Disaster Prev. Manag. 2003 12 210 216 10.1108/09653560310480686 · DOI
  24. [27]Lindell M.K. Perry R.W. Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research Environ. Behav. 2000 32 461 501 10.1177/00139160021972621 · DOI
  25. [28]Bourque L.B. Regan R. Kelley M.M. Wood M.M. Kano M. Mileti D.S. An examination of the effect of perceived risk on preparedness behavior Environ. Behav. 2013 45 615 649 10.1177/0013916512437596 · DOI
  26. [29]Poussin J.K. Botzen W.W. Aerts J.C. Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households Environ. Sci. Policy 2014 40 69 77 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.013 · DOI
  27. [33]Doll W.J. Xia W. Torkzadeh G. A Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument MIS Q. 1994 18 453 461 10.2307/249524 · DOI
  28. [34]MacCallum R.C. Hong S. Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI Multivar. Behav. Res. 1997 32 193 210 10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5 26788758 · DOI
  29. [35]Kline R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 2nd ed. Guilford Press New York, NY, USA 2004 133 145 978-1593850753
  30. [36]Bollen K.A. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models Sociol. Methods Res. 1989 17 303 316 10.1177/0049124189017003004 · DOI
  31. [38]Hu L.T. Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives Struct. Equ. Model. 2009 6 1 55 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [39]Preacher K.J. Hayes A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models Behav. Res. Methods 2008 40 879 891 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 18697684 · DOI · Paper page
  33. [40]Mausbach B.T. Roepke S.K. Chattillion E.A. Harmell A.L. Moore R. Romero-Moreno R. Bowie C.R. Grant I. Multiple mediators of the relations between caregiving stress and depressive symptoms Aging Ment. Health 2012 16 27 38 10.1080/13607863.2011.615738 22224706 PMC3266948 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [43]Kung Y.W. Chen S.H. Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: Effects of gender and past earthquake experience Risk Anal. 2012 32 1535 1546 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01760.x 22300232 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [44]Armaş I. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania Risk Anal. 2006 26 1223 1234 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x 17054527 · DOI
  36. [45]Shapira S. Aharonson-Daniel L. Bar-Dayan Y. Anticipated behavioral response patterns to an earthquake: The role of personal and household characteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018 31 1 8 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.001 · DOI
  37. [46]Muttarak R. Pothisiri W. The role of education on disaster preparedness: Case study of 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes on Thailand’s Andaman Coast Ecol. Soc. 2013 18 1 16 10.5751/ES-06101-180451 · DOI
  38. [49]Russo F. Rindone C. Trecozzi M.R. The role of training in evacuation WIT Trans. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2012 44 491 502 10.2495/RISK120411 · DOI
  39. [50]Russo F. Rindone C. Civil risk manager at European level WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013 173 765 778 10.2495/SDP130641 · DOI
  40. [51]Russo F. Rindone C. Urban exposure: Training activities and risk reduction WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2014 191 991 1001 10.2495/SC140842 · DOI
  41. [53]Loke A.Y. Lai C.K. Fung O.W.M. At-home disaster preparedness of elderly people in Hong Kong Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2012 12 524 531 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00778.x 22122609 · DOI
  42. [54]Mishra S. Suar D. Effects of anxiety, disaster education, and resources on disaster preparedness behavior J. Appl. Soci. Psychol. 2012 42 1069 1087 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00853.x · DOI
  43. [55]Paek H.J. Hilyard K. Freimuth V. Barge J.K. Mindlin M. Theory-based approaches to understanding public emergency preparedness: Implications for effective health and risk communication J. Health Commun. 2010 15 428 444 10.1080/10810731003753083 20574880 · DOI
  44. [59]Lazo J.K. Bostrom A. Morss R.E. Demuth J.L. Lazrus H. Factors affecting hurricane evacuation intentions Risk Anal. 2015 35 1837 1857 10.1111/risa.12407 26299597 · DOI
  45. [60]Solberg C. Rossetto T. Joffe H. The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: Re-evaluating the international literature Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2010 10 1663 1677 10.5194/nhess-10-1663-2010 · DOI
  46. [61]Lindell M.K. Hwang S.N. Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment Risk Anal. 2008 28 539 556 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01032.x 18419668 · DOI
  47. [62]Paton D. Bajek R. Okada N. McIvor D. Predicting community earthquake preparedness: A cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand Nat. Hazards 2010 54 765 781 10.1007/s11069-010-9500-2 · DOI
  48. [63]Mulilis J.P. Duval T.S. Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A person-relative-to-event (PrE) model of coping with threat 1 J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995 25 1319 1339 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02620.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, J.-S., & Feng, J.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology (TW)
  • National Cheng Kung University Hospital (TW)
Corresponding author
Feng, Jui-Ying
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-07-07
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
1434
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph15071434
PMC
PMC6069216
OpenAlex
W2820210585
Cited by
131
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
11.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Disaster Response and Management
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
disaster preparedness, 2016 Meinong earthquake, protection motivation theory, self-efficacy, response efficacy, perceived barriers, risk perception, behavioral intention, earthquake preparedness, disaster drills, health promotion
MeSH terms
Adult, Disaster Planning, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Perception, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk, Taiwan, Self Efficacy, Earthquakes

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