Understanding Preparedness for Natural Hazards: Cross cultural comparison
Open accessAbstract
A key element in risk management in countries susceptible to experiencing natural hazards is facilitating preparedness. While several theories of preparedness have been developed, they have emerged in countries that are culturally individualistic. Recognition of the fact that the majority of disasters occur in countries that are predominantly collectivistic has identified a need to test the cross cultural applicability of theories of preparedness. This paper discusses some preliminary work on the cross cultural applicability of Paton’s (2008) community engagement theory. Following a discussion of the cross cultural face validity of the content of this theory, the paper discusses evidence of cross cultural applicability of the theory using data from New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia and Taiwan. The results suggest that, irrespective of culture, the more citizens are able to collectively formulate their risk management needs and strategies and the more they perceive their needs as having been met through their relationship with civic agencies, the more likely they are to trust them and the information they provide, and to use information to decide to adopt hazard preparation measures.
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?
The level of individual preparedness is influenced by personal perceptions of individual risks and circumstances.
“However, studies revealed that the level of individual preparedness is influenced by personal perceptions of individual risks and circumstances (Paton et al. 2013).”
From Disaster preparedness and resilience at household level in Yangon, Myanmar (2022) · cites this paper as Paton et al. 2013
People can increase their ability to cope with, adapt to, and recover from hazard impacts by preparedness.
“People can increase their ability to cope with, adapt to, and recover from hazard impacts by preparedness (Paton 2006; Paton et al. 2013).”
From Disaster preparedness and resilience at household level in Yangon, Myanmar (2022) · cites this paper as Paton et al. 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Paton, D., Okada, N., & Sagala, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Kumamoto University (JP)
- Bandung Institute of Technology (ID)
- Venue
- Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management
- Published
- 2013-06-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-35
- ISSN
- 2185-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115807670
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 7.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- IDRiM Journal (publishedVersion)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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
- disaster preparedness, natural hazards, cross-cultural comparison, collectivism, individualism, risk management, civic trust, disaster information, New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan
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