109
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Community preparedness for emergency: a cross-sectional survey of residents in Heilongjiang of China

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This article aims to identify factors that shape the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of community residents in China's Heilongjiang province towards emergency preparedness. Findings of such a study may provide evidence to support the development of effective public risk communication strategies and education campaigns.

          Design

          A cross-sectional household questionnaire survey was conducted in Heilongjiang province in 2014. A stratified cluster sampling strategy was employed to select study participants. The questionnaires were administered using face-to-face interviews. 2800 questionnaires were completed, among which 2686 (95.9%) were considered valid for data analyses. A multivariate logistic regression model was adopted to identify the extent to which the independent variables were associated with emergency preparedness.

          Results

          Fewer than 5% respondents were well prepared for emergency. Over half (52%) of poorly prepared respondents did not know what to do in emergency; women (OR=1.691), higher household income (OR ranging from 1.666 to 2.117), previous experience with emergency (OR=1.552), higher levels of knowledge about emergency (OR=2.192), risk awareness (OR=1.531), self-efficacy (OR=1.796), as well as positive attitudes towards emergency preparedness (OR=2.265) were significant predictors for emergency preparedness. Neither educational attainment nor exposure to awareness-raising entered into the logic regression model as a significant predictor for emergency preparedness.

          Conclusions

          The level of emergency preparedness in Heilongjiang residents is very low, which is linked with poor knowledge and attitudes of the residents towards emergency preparedness. Future emergency awareness campaigns should be more focused and tailored to the needs of intended audience, taking into consideration of their usual source of information and knowledge in relation to emergency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards.

          This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust--or lack of trust--in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions. © 2012 Society for Risk Analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            'It'll never happen to me': understanding public awareness of local flood risk.

            Following the severe flood events of 1998 and 2000, the United Kingdom's Environment Agency prioritised the need to increase public flood risk awareness. Drawing on data collected during research undertaken for the Environment Agency, this paper contributes to understanding of one aspect of flood awareness: people's recognition that their property is in an area that is potentially at risk of flooding. Quantitative analyses indicate that class is the most influential factor in predicting flood risk awareness, followed by flood experience and length of time in residence. There are also significant area differences. Our qualitative work explores how those defined as 'at risk' account for their lack of awareness or concern about their risk status. We conclude that the problem is often not simply a lack of awareness, but rather, assessments of local risk based on experience that underestimate the impact of rare or extreme events. We underline the importance of engaging with local perspectives on risk and making local people part of 'awareness-raising' processes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study.

              People's risk perceptions are generally regarded as an important determinant of their decisions to adjust to natural hazards. However, few studies have evaluated how risk communication programs affect these risk perceptions. This study evaluates the effects of a small-scale flood risk communication program in the Netherlands, consisting of workshops and focus group discussions. The effects on the workshop participants' (n = 24) and focus group participants' (n = 16) flood risk perceptions were evaluated in a pretest-posttest control group (n = 40) design that focused on two mechanisms of attitude change-direct personal experience and attitude polarization. We expected that (H1) workshop participants would show greater shifts in their flood risk perceptions compared with control group participants and that (H2) focus groups would rather produce the conditions for attitude polarization (shifts toward more extreme attitudinal positions after group discussion). However, the results provide only modest support for these hypotheses, perhaps because of a mismatch between the sessions' contents and the risk perception measures. An important contribution of this study is that it examined risk perception data by both conventional tests of the mean differences and tests for attitude polarization. Moreover, the possibility that attitude polarization could cause people to confirm their preexisting (hazard) beliefs could have important implications for risk communication.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2015
                09 November 2015
                : 5
                : 11
                : e008479
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University , Harbin, Heilongjiang, China
                [2 ]Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health , China
                [3 ]School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ]Fudan University , Shanghai, China
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Yanhua Hao; hyhyjw@ 123456126.com and Professor Qunhong Wu, wuqunhong@ 123456163.com

                WX, NN and JY contributed equally.

                Article
                bmjopen-2015-008479
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008479
                4654344
                26553829
                439cca5a-e1b9-4b3d-af1b-1361c982baaa
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 13 April 2015
                : 16 September 2015
                : 13 October 2015
                Categories
                Public Health
                Research
                1506
                1724
                1724

                Medicine
                public health
                Medicine
                public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article