The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 95 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the concept of trust within the domain of natural disaster management. Trust can be defined as a state of vulnerability where one party relies on another party with the expectation that the latter will carry out entrusted responsibilities without exploiting this inherent vulnerability. This comprehensive literature review is dedicated to the examination of research concerning community and institutional trust in the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR). Particular emphasis is placed on elucidating the influence of trust throughout the distinct phases of natural disaster management, namely prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. The critical examination of the pertinent body of the literature demonstrates that trust plays a central role across the different phases of DRR, being positively associated with effective community responses and resilience. Hence, it becomes imperative to actively foster the development of trust at both institutional and community levels within the realm of DRR. This endeavor is essential for adequately preparing communities to confront natural disasters, crafting effective protocols to enhance community responsiveness and mitigate adverse consequences, and advancing strategies for successful reconstruction and recovery.
Checked 2026-11-15 · 2 references not checked yet
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
This critical review synthesizes 40 peer-reviewed studies on trust in disaster risk reduction (DRR), finding trust central across prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. It concludes that community and institutional trust are positively associated with effective community responses and resilience, warranting active trust-building at both levels.
Key findings
- The review included 40 studies: 23 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and 7 mixed-method or alternative designs. Trust was reported as playing a central role across all four DRR phases.
- In prevention and preparedness, high trust in public authorities and institutions was linked to heeding early warnings, greater individual preparedness, risk awareness, and community participation; low trust in warnings or local officials was linked to disregarding warnings and reduced preventive motivation.
- In response and recovery, communities with stronger community and institutional trust showed higher citizen participation, robust disaster response capacity, less anxiety during emergencies, and quicker recovery; trustful relationships among citizens, NGOs, and government agencies were described as essential for recovery and resilience.
- Across the review, trust and community resilience were described as reciprocally influenced and interdependent during disasters.
Methods
- Rapid review of literature on community and institutional trust in DRR, searched in PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS using keywords such as trust, disaster risk reduction, resilience, prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and community.
- Eligible empirical studies used cohort, case–control, cross-sectional, and/or experimental designs; non-original articles and studies not specifically focused on natural disasters were excluded. Reference lists were also checked for additional relevant articles.
- Findings from the 40 selected peer-reviewed journal articles were summarized and organized according to the four DRR phases: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery.
Limitations
- Stated: the review treats DRR phases independently, due partly to lack of longitudinal studies, which may obscure interconnections and interdependencies between phases.
- Stated: it considers only scientific literature, potentially missing gray literature; studies used varied ad hoc and validated trust instruments, limiting comparability; and it did not account for variations in trust levels/types between developed and underdeveloped countries.
- Stated/evident: absence of longitudinal evidence means causal relationships between trust and DRR attitudes/behaviors cannot be established; the paper explicitly says this should not be misconstrued as evidence of non-existence. Evident from the text: as a rapid review, it does not report a formal systematic quality appraisal or PRISMA-type search detail.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 2 Not valid · 88 Not checked · 43 Own results and interpretations
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, studies have primarily concentrated on specific types of trust (i.e., community or institutional).”
§ The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Trust and Disaster Risk Reduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Quantitative studies underscore a significant and positive relationship between trust in public authorities and the capacity of communities to effectively respond to disaster predictions.”
§ The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review > 3. Results > 3.2. Trust in the Prevention Phase
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Alves, P.B.R., Cordão, M.J.D.S., Djordjević, S., and Javadi, A.A. (2020). Place-Based Citizen Science for Assessing Risk Perception and Coping Capacity of Households Affected by Multiple Hazards. Sustainability, 13. source
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, there is a noticeable dearth of studies exploring trust dynamics within the MENA region and in Africa, Central Asia, and North Asia.”
§ The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review > 3. Results > 3.1. Selected Articles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The critical examination of the pertinent body of the literature demonstrates that trust plays a central role across the different phases of DRR, being positively associated with effective community responses and resilience.”
§ The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review > Abstract
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on 2 assumptions not shown here.
In the paper
“Such collaborations and partnerships in the prevention phase have indeed proven effective in tailoring disaster responses to the unique needs of specific communities and populations and addressing key challenges in DRR, including information gaps, service inadequacies, and resource limitations [34].”
§ The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review > 3. Results > 3.2. Trust in the Prevention Phase
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] Pollock, 2019, Preparedness and Community Resilience in Disaster-Prone Areas: Cross-Sectoral Collaborations in South Louisiana, 2018, Am. J. Public Health source
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
71 more claims
Create a free account to see all 133 claims and to verify the 95 references still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
Citations
Cites
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274
A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder
Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(99)00123-0 · Cited by 6,147
Social Capital and Community Resilience
Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764214550299 · Cited by 2,331
Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework
Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348 · Cited by 2,142
Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable.
Rotter, J. B. (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.45.4.489 · Cited by 1,256
Integrating Family Resilience and Family Stress Theory
Patterson, J. M. (2002) · Journal of Marriage and Family · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00349.x · Cited by 1,178
Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature
Siegrist, M. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13325 · Cited by 606
Institutional Trust and Subjective Well‐Being across the EU
Hudson, J. (2006) · Kyklos · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2006.00319.x · Cited by 517
Cited by
Ramadhani, G. W. A., Suhariadi, F., Suyanto, B., Aldhi, I. F., Supriharyanti, E., Hardaningtyas, D., & Abbas, A. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-00811-y · Cited by 23
Caporale, D., & Rinaldi, A. (2024) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103959 · Cited by 19
Self-citationMa, T., shen, L., Chen, Z., & Liang, D. (2026) · npj natural hazards. · doi:10.1038/s44304-026-00195-7 · Cited by 15
Multi-hazard risk assessment and management: pathways for the Sendai Framework and beyond
Tiggeloven, T., Raymond, C., de Ruiter, M., Sillmann, J., Thieken, A. H., Buijs, S., Ciurean, R. L., Cordier, E., Crummy, J. M., Cumiskey, L., et al. (2026) · Geoscience Communication · doi:10.5194/gc-9-185-2026 · Cited by 15
Bonfanti, R. C., Ruggieri, S. A., & Schimmenti, A. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16103984 · Cited by 13
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonfanti, R. C., Oberti, B., Ravazzoli, E., Rinaldi, A., Ruggieri, S., & Schimmenti, A.
- Affiliations
- Università degli Studi di Enna Kore (IT)
- Eurac Research (IT)
- University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Schimmenti, Adriano
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2023-12-24
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10815059
- OpenAlex
- W4390175353
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 13
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IRIS UniPA (University of Palermo) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Union—NextGenerationEU (National Recovery and Resilience Plan—NRRP, Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.3 (D.D. 1243 2/8/2022, PE0000005)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- trust, disaster risk reduction, natural disaster management, community trust, institutional trust, disaster preparedness, disaster response, disaster recovery, community resilience, disaster prevention, post-disaster reconstruction
- MeSH terms
- Natural Disasters, Disaster Planning, Disasters, Trust, Risk Reduction Behavior
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-15, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-15 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ijerph21010029
- The paper
- Bonfanti, R. C., Oberti, B., Ravazzoli, E., Rinaldi, A., Ruggieri, S., & Schimmenti, A. (2023). The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21010029
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
