CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Disaster Management and ResilienceRisk Perception and ManagementPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

An Integrative Theoretical Model of Institutional Trust, Risk Communication and Credibility, Risk Perception, and Disaster Preparedness

Open access
Camargo, Jose Pablo, Guevara-Corzo, Jeffrey, Torres-Peña, Jairo A.·2026·Urban Science
DOI 10.3390/urbansci10100603
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Disaster preparedness depends not only on hazard awareness but also on how individuals relate to institutions, evaluate risk information, interpret threats, and translate those interpretations into protective action. This study develops an integrative theoretical model connecting Institutional Trust, Risk Communication and Credibility, Risk Perception, and Disaster Preparedness. The model is developed through the conceptual integration of established theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence across disaster risk, risk communication, risk perception, institutional trust, and preparedness research. A sequential theoretical pathway is proposed in which Institutional Trust influences Risk Communication and Credibility, which in turn influences Risk Perception and subsequently Disaster Preparedness. Direct pathways from Institutional Trust and Risk Communication and Credibility to Disaster Preparedness are also retained alongside the proposed indirect pathways. Age and gender are incorporated as observed sources of heterogeneity in Risk Perception, while contextual heterogeneity, the risk-perception paradox, and potential institutional substitution effects are recognized as boundary conditions. The resulting model integrates institutional, informational, cognitive, and behavioral processes within a common theoretical architecture and provides a basis for subsequent measurement development and empirical evaluation through structural equation and MIMIC modeling.

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/urbansci10100603

Cites

57 of 57 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

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: 2

  1. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power, Wiley.
  2. Fischer, D., Posegga, O., and Fischbach, K. (2016, January 12–15). Communication barriers in crisis management: A literature review. Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2016), Istanbul, Turkey.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Authors
Camargo, J. P., Guevara-Corzo, J., & Torres-Peña, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Facultad de Ingenierías y Tecnologías, Instituto de Investigaciones Xerira, Universidad de Santander, Bucaramanga 680003, Colombia
  • Universidad De Santander (CO)
ORCID
Venue
Urban Science
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2026-10-17
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
603
ISSN
2413-8851 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/urbansci10100603
OpenAlex
W7222942308
Semantic Scholar
a77f41d1ddc72865ad98b5bd975a0d4ab8963f41
Cited by
0
References
52
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Urban Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
institutional trust, risk communication, credibility, risk perception, disaster preparedness, theoretical model, age differences, gender differences, protective measures, hazard awareness

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