Cited by 43Disaster Management and ResiliencePublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationRisk Perception and Management

Understanding Preparedness for Natural Hazards: Cross cultural comparison

Open access
Paton, Douglas, Okada, Norio, Sagala, Saut·2013·Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.5595/idrim.2013.0051

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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
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