Factors Influencing Public Participation in Community Disaster Mitigation Activities: A Comparison of Model and Nonmodel Disaster Mitigation Communities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Basis
2.1. Community-Based Disaster Risk Management
2.2. Factors Affecting Public Participation in Disaster Mitigation Activities
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Sample Collection and Interviews
3.3. Measurement Tools
3.4. Data Processing Methods
4. Results
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
- (1)
- There were more women than men in the sample size;
- (2)
- The age level of the respondents was concentrated in the 46–60 age group;
- (3)
- The educational level of respondents in nonmodel communities was significantly lower than that in model communities;
- (4)
- In terms of occupation, most respondents in the nonmodel communities were farmers, while respondents in the model communities were mainly farmers and self-employed individuals;
- (5)
- The monthly income of respondents in nonmodel communities was generally low, with 65.54% earning less than RMB 1500 per month, while 47.33% of respondents in model communities earn more than RMB 3000 per month.
4.2. Status of Public Participation in Disaster Mitigation Activities
4.3. Factor Dimensionality Reduction
4.4. Different Community Types Impact Public Participation in Disaster Mitigation
4.5. Binary Logistic Regression and Marginal Effects Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Current Status of Public Participation in Disaster Mitigation Activities
5.2. Influencing Factors on Public Participation in Disaster Mitigation Activities
- (1)
- Factors influencing the “evacuation drill”
- (2)
- Factors influencing “self-help skills training”
- (3)
- Factors influencing the “opinion expression”
5.3. Suggested Countermeasures for Building Disaster-Mitigating Communities
- (1)
- Increasing the publicity of disaster mitigation and disaster mitigation activities to strengthen the awareness of residents to participate in risk reduction.
- (2)
- Reasonable allocation of community resources for disaster mitigation, strengthening the construction of disaster mitigation environments.
- (3)
- Carrying out “one leads many” community exchange activities and allowing model communities to play a leading role.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lanxin, D.; Xu, Q.; Fan, X.; Chang, M.; Yang, Q.; Yang, F.; Ren, J. A preliminary study on the spatial distribution patterns of landslides triggered by the Jiuzhaigou earthquake in Sichuan on August 8th, 2017 and their susceptibility assessment. J. Eng. Geol. 2017, 25, 1151–1164. [Google Scholar]
- Jun, G.; Kong, F.; Wang, P.; Lu, L. Frontiers and prospects of regional comprehensive disaster prevention and mitigation: Review and reflection on the three Domestic and International Conferences on disaster reduction in 2018. J. Catast R Ophol. 2019, 34, 152–156. [Google Scholar]
- Pearce, L. Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: How to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat. Hazards 2003, 28, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, L.; Tan, J.; Lin, L.; Xu, D. Understanding sustainable disaster mitigation of stakeholder engagement: Risk perception, trust in public institutions, and disaster insurance. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 885–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, S.-Y.; Yu, M.; Que, T.; Fan, G.; Xing, H.-G. Individual willingness to prepare for disasters in a geological hazard risk area: An empirical study based on the protection motivation theory. Nat. Hazards 2022, 110, 2087–2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samaddar, S.; Okada, N.; Choi, J.; Tatano, H. What constitutes successful participatory disaster risk management? Insights from post-earthquake reconstruction work in rural Gujarat, India. Nat. Hazards 2017, 85, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Mendonca, M.B.; Valois, A.S. Disaster education for landslide risk reduction: An experience in a public school in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Nat. Hazards 2017, 89, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitagawa, K. Disaster risk reduction activities as learning. Nat. Hazards 2021, 105, 3099–3118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, P. On the role of government in integrated disaster risk governance—Based on practices in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2012, 3, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, H.; Zhang, W. A comparative study of community disaster risk management models—A case study of chinese comprehensive disaster reduction model communities and foreign communities. J. Catastrophol. 2013, 28, 120–126. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Ni, W.; Yang, S. The development and effectiveness assessment of comprehensive disaster reduction demonstration community in China. J. Catastrophol. 2019, 34, 184–188. [Google Scholar]
- Yongzhong, S.; Liu, H. US disaster relief community construction and its effect on Chinese emergency management. J. Lanzhou Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2010, 38, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
- Roopnarine, R.; Eudoxie, G.; Wuddivira, M.N.; Saunders, S.; Lewis, S.; Spencer, R.; Jeffers, C.; Haynes-Bobb, T.; Roberts, C. Capacity building in participatory approaches for hydro-climatic Disaster Risk Management in the Caribbean. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 66, 102592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yi, L.; Zhao, D. Community-based disaster management: A review of progress in China. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 2215–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, M.; Yuan, Y. China’s comprehensive disaster reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2010, 1, 24–32. [Google Scholar]
- Magis, K. Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melendez, A.; Caballero-Russi, D.; Soto, M.G.; Giraldo, L.F. Computational models of community resilience. Nat. Hazards 2022, 111, 1121–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidayat, B.; Rasadi, A. Disaster-based participatory development planning. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 156, 01010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gero, A.; Meheux, K.; Dominey-Howes, D. Integrating community based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Examples from the Pacific. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zubir, S.S.; Amirrol, H. Disaster risk reduction through community participation. In Management of Natural Resources, Sustainable Development and Ecological Hazards III; WIT Press: Sounthamton, UK, 2012; pp. 195–206. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Yin, K.; Chen, L.; Wang, W.; Liu, Y. A community-based disaster risk reduction system in Wanzhou, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 19, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Liu, J.; Xu, N.; Fan, C.; Fan, Y.; He, S.; Jiao, L.; Ma, N. The role of indigenous knowledge in integrating scientific and indigenous knowledge for community-based disaster risk reduction: A case of Haikou Village in Ningxia, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 41, 101309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, J. The role of communities in coping with natural disasters: Lessons from the 2010 Chile Earthquake and Tsunami. Procedia Eng. 2018, 212, 1040–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-C.; Ferng, J.-W.; Wang, Y.-T.; Wu, T.-Y.; Wang, J.-J. Assessment of disaster resilience capacity of hillslope communities with high risk for geological hazards. Eng. Geol. 2008, 98, 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, P.R.; Kaye-Blake, W.H.; Kelsey, A.; Brown, M.; Niles, M.T. Measuring rural community resilience: Case studies in New Zealand and Vermont, USA. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapaport, C.; Hornik-Lurie, T.; Cohen, O.; Lahad, M.; Leykin, D.; Aharonson-Daniel, L. The relationship between community type and community resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchezini, V.; Horita, F.E.A.; Matsuo, P.M.; Trajber, R.; Trejo-Rangel, M.A.; Olivato, D. A review of studies on participatory early warning systems (P-EWS): Pathways to support citizen science initiatives. Front. Earth Sci. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Witvorapong, N.; Muttarak, R.; Pothisiri, W. Social participation and disaster risk reduction behaviors in tsunami prone areas. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130862. [Google Scholar]
- Nakaya, N.; Nemoto, H.; Yi, C.; Sato, A.; Shingu, K.; Shoji, T.; Sato, S.; Tsuchiya, N.; Nakamura, T.; Narita, A.; et al. Effect of tsunami drill experience on evacuation behavior after the onset of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 28, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, M.C.; Xi, W.J. Effect analysis of community first aid training mode based on popular science on improving first aid knowledge and skills of community residents. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2019, 12, 5087–5095. [Google Scholar]
- Kano, M.; Siegel, J.M.; Bourque, L.B. First-aid training and capabilities of the lay public: A potential alternative source of emergency medical assistance following a natural disaster. Disasters 2005, 29, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Cao, H.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, R. Empowerment through emotional connection and capacity building: Public participation through environmental non-governmental organizations. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 80, 106319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, L.; Han, Q.; de Vries, B.; Wang, Y. Exploring key determinants of willingness to participate in EIA decision-making on urban infrastructure projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, G.; Tun, A.M.; Okazaki, K.; Zaw, S.H.; Kyaw, K. Factors influencing fire, earthquake, and cyclone risk perception in Yangon, Myanmar. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 28, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grothmann, T.; Reusswig, F. People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat. Hazards 2006, 38, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cahyanto, I.; Pennington-Gray, L.; Thapa, B.; Srinivasan, S.; Villegas, J.; Matyas, C.; Kiousis, S. An empirical evaluation of the determinants of tourist’s hurricane evacuation decision making. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2014, 2, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-Y.; Guo, J.; Kuo, M.-F. The building of social resilience in Sichuan after the Wenchuan earthquake: A perspective of the socio-government interactions. Saf. Sci. 2020, 126, 104662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lian, P.; Zhuo, Z.; Qi, Y.; Xu, D.; Deng, X. The impacts of training on farmers’ preparedness behaviors of earthquake disaster-evidence from earthquake-prone settlements in rural China. Agriculture 2021, 11, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lechowska, E. What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements. Nat. Hazards 2018, 94, 1341–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Botzen, W.J.W.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bubeck, P.; Botzen, W.J.W.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. A Review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1481–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wachinger, G.; Renn, O.; Begg, C.; Kuhlicke, C. The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal. 2013, 33, 1049–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matyas, C.; Srinivasan, S.; Cahyanto, I.; Thapa, B.; Pennington-Gray, L.; Villegas, J. Risk perception and evacuation decisions of Florida tourists under hurricane threats: A stated preference analysis. Nat. Hazards 2011, 59, 871–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffmann, R.; Muttarak, R. Learn from the past, prepare for the future: Impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand. World Dev. 2017, 96, 32–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ink, D. An analysis of the house select committee and White House reports on Hurricane Katrina. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 800–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Han, Z.; Xu, W.; Gong, Y. Mapping individuals’ earthquake preparedness in China. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 1315–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.C.K. Barriers to evidence-based disaster management in Nepal: A qualitative study. Public Health 2016, 133, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, J.; Moser, S.C. Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: Insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 547–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, V.; Weiler, B.; Reis, A.; Dimmock, K.; Scherrer, P. ‘Doing the right thing’: How social science can help foster pro-environmental behaviour change in marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tikir, A.; Lehmann, B. Climate change, theory of planned behavior and values: A structural equation model with mediation analysis. Clim. Chang. 2011, 104, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Liang, J.; Yang, J.; Ma, X.; Li, X.; Wu, J.; Yang, G.; Ren, G.; Feng, Y. Analysis of the environmental behavior of farmers for non-point source pollution control and management: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deng, Y.; Wang, M.; Yousefpour, R. How do people’s perceptions and climatic disaster experiences influence their daily behaviors regarding adaptation to climate change?—A case study among young generations. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 581–582, 840–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najafi, M.; Ardalan, A.; Akbarisari, A.; Noorbala, A.A.; Elmi, H. The theory of planned behavior and disaster preparedness. PLoS Curr. 2017, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dasgupta, R.; Basu, M.; Kumar, P.; Johnson, B.A.; Mitra, B.K.; Avtar, R.; Shaw, R. A rapid indicator-based assessment of foreign resident preparedness in Japan during Typhoon Hagibis. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Ruiz-Menjivar, J.; Luo, B.; Liang, Z.; Swisher, M.E. Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurata, Y.B.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Ong, A.K.S.; Nadlifatin, R.; Chuenyindee, T. Factors affecting perceived effectiveness of Typhoon Vamco (Ulysses) flood disaster response among Filipinos in Luzon, Philippines: An integration of protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 67, 102670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaremohzzabieh, Z.; Abu Samah, A.; Roslan, S.; Shaffril, H.A.M.; D’Silva, J.L.; Kamarudin, S.; Ahrari, S. Household preparedness for future earthquake disaster risk using an extended theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 65, 102533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Levi, A.E. Factors influencing willingness to participate in disaster reduction. Nat. Hazards 2013, 66, 1243–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junnan, X.; Liu, Z.; Su, P.; Gong, Y.; Ye, C.; Zhu, J. Research on debris flow gully spatial distribution characteristics in Jinchuan County based on GF-1 satellite image. J. Nat. Disasters 2019, 28, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.; Aguilar, F.; Yang, J.; Qin, Y.; Wen, Y. Predicting citizens’ participatory behavior in urban green space governance: Application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Zhang, Z. Analysis of Influencing Factors of Resident Participation in Community Governance Based on Theory of Planned Behavior—A Case Study of Tianjin. J. Tianjin Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2015, 17, 523–528. [Google Scholar]
- Ru, X.; Qin, H.; Wang, S. Young people’s behaviour intentions towards reducing PM2.5 in China: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, C.; Yan, F. Study on the Willingness of Farmers to Participate in Disaster Reduction Public Goods Supply:Multiple Mediating Role of Risk Perception and Self-efficacy. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. 2019, 40, 64–71. [Google Scholar]
- Najafi, M.; Ardalan, A.; Akbarisari, A.; Noorbala, A.A.; Elmi, H. Salient Public Beliefs Underlying Disaster Preparedness Behaviors: A Theory-Based Qualitative Study. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2017, 32, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, L. A review of the application of logistic regression in educational research: Common issues, implications, and suggestions. Educ. Rev. 2020, 72, 41–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frontczak, M.J.; Schiavon, S.; Goins, J.; Arens, E.; Zhang, H.; Wargocki, P. Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air. 2012, 22, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diriye, A.W.; Jama, O.M.; Diriye, J.W.; Abdi, A.M. Public preference for sustainable land use policies—Empirical results from multinomial logit model analysis. Land Use Policy 2022, 114, 105975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, D.A. Logistic Regression Using SAS: Theory and Application; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Menard, S. Six Approaches to Calculating Standardized Logistic Regression Coefficients. Am. Stat. 2004, 58, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabachnick, G.; Fidell, L. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Ao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yang, L.; Wang, Y.; Martek, I.; Wang, G. Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Nat. Hazards 2021, 107, 1287–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.D.P.; Fowler, J. The evolution of overconfidence. Nature 2011, 477, 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Asare, M. Using the theory of planned behavior to determine the condom use behavior among college students. Am. J. Health Stud. 2015, 30, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oishi, S.; Komiya, A. Natural disaster risk and collectivism. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2017, 48, 1263–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, J.-S.; Feng, J.-Y. Residents’ disaster preparedness after the Meinong Taiwan Earthquake: A test of protection motivation theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karanci, A.; Aksit, B.; Dirik, G. Impact of a community disaster awareness training program in Turkey: Does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2005, 33, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oktari, R.S.; Shiwaku, K.; Munadi, K.; Syamsidik; Shaw, R. Enhancing community resilience towards disaster: The contributing factors of school-community collaborative network in the tsunami affected area in Aceh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 29, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | Category | Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | ||
Gender | Male | 44 | 39.29% | 69 | 46.62% |
Female | 68 | 60.71% | 79 | 53.38% | |
Age | <18 | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 1.35% |
18–30 | 10 | 8.93% | 17 | 11.49% | |
31–45 | 13 | 11.61% | 36 | 24.32% | |
46–60 | 43 | 38.39% | 64 | 43.24% | |
60–80 | 46 | 41.07% | 29 | 19.59% | |
Educational level | Primary school or below | 20 | 17.86% | 56 | 37.84% |
Junior high school | 34 | 30.36% | 46 | 31.08% | |
Senior high/vocational high school | 21 | 18.75% | 17 | 11.49% | |
Technical school | 22 | 19.64% | 19 | 12.84% | |
Undergraduate degree or above | 15 | 13.39% | 10 | 6.76% | |
Occupation | Student | 5 | 4.46% | 5 | 3.38% |
Farmer | 34 | 30.36% | 103 | 69.59% | |
Civil servant | 10 | 8.93% | 13 | 8.78% | |
Surveyor | 10 | 8.93% | 6 | 4.05% | |
Staff | 2 | 1.79% | 6 | 4.05% | |
Teacher | 8 | 7.14% | 6 | 4.05% | |
Self-employed | 34 | 30.36% | 8 | 5.41% | |
Retirement | 9 | 8.04% | 1 | 0.68% | |
Monthly income | <500 RMB | 26 | 23.21% | 60 | 40.54% |
500–1500 RMB | 16 | 14.29% | 37 | 25.00% | |
1500–3000 RMB | 17 | 15.18% | 22 | 14.86% | |
3000–4000 RMB | 16 | 14.29% | 11 | 7.43% | |
>4000 RMB | 37 | 33.04% | 18 | 12.16% |
Independent Variable | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes | Subjective Norm | Perceived Behavioral Control | Risk Perception | Disaster Experience | Participatory Cognition | |
Q11 | 0.824 | 0.128 | 0.088 | 0.157 | −0.082 | 0.162 |
Q12 | 0.617 | 0.386 | 0.067 | −0.133 | 0.026 | 0.094 |
Q13 | 0.822 | 0.200 | 0.066 | 0.115 | 0.068 | 0.144 |
Q21 | 0.321 | 0.642 | 0.125 | 0.006 | −0.029 | 0.099 |
Q22 | 0.095 | 0.851 | 0.092 | −0.017 | 0.014 | 0.149 |
Q23 | 0.196 | 0.806 | 0.075 | −0.032 | −0.028 | 0.129 |
Q24 | 0.094 | 0.789 | 0.025 | 0.032 | −0.021 | 0.152 |
Q31 | 0.177 | 0.002 | 0.786 | 0.048 | 0.034 | −0.020 |
Q32 | −0.023 | 0.103 | 0.745 | 0.025 | −0.011 | 0.129 |
Q33 | 0.017 | 0.038 | 0.807 | −0.020 | −0.066 | 0.204 |
Q34 | 0.064 | 0.145 | 0.820 | −0.011 | −0.048 | −0.023 |
Q41 | 0.021 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.826 | 0.126 | −0.034 |
Q42 | −0.036 | 0.021 | 0.062 | 0.820 | 0.080 | −0.007 |
Q43 | 0.231 | −0.056 | −0.027 | 0.767 | 0.125 | 0.033 |
Q44 | 0.101 | −0.012 | −0.012 | 0.750 | 0.213 | −0.028 |
Q51 | 0.001 | −0.003 | 0.042 | 0.153 | 0.863 | −0.021 |
Q52 | 0.001 | −0.024 | −0.059 | 0.073 | 0.835 | 0.100 |
Q53 | −0.007 | −0.010 | −0.093 | 0.248 | 0.746 | 0.037 |
Q61 | 0.103 | 0.102 | 0.028 | 0.003 | 0.051 | 0.793 |
Q62 | 0.188 | 0.209 | 0.102 | −0.037 | 0.049 | 0.783 |
Q63 | 0.100 | 0.160 | 0.100 | −0.002 | 0.019 | 0.833 |
Community Type | N | M | S.D. | t | df | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | Model Communities | 112 | 4.740 | 0.498 | 2.737 | 258 | 0.007 |
Nonmodel Communities | 148 | 4.530 | 0.674 | ||||
Subjective norm | Model Communities | 112 | 4.768 | 0.433 | 2.213 | 258 | 0.028 |
Nonmodel Communities | 148 | 4.635 | 0.510 | ||||
Perceived behavioral control | Model Communities | 112 | 4.120 | 1.097 | −2.731 | 258 | 0.007 |
Nonmodel Communities | 148 | 4.450 | 0.851 | ||||
Risk perception | Model Communities | 112 | 3.815 | 0.857 | −4.079 | 258 | 0.000 |
Nonmodel Communities | 148 | 4.228 | 0.771 | ||||
Disaster experience | Model Communities | 112 | 1.790 | 0.902 | −2.017 | 258 | 0.045 |
Nonmodel Communities | 148 | 2.030 | 0.979 | ||||
Participatory cognition | Model Communities | 112 | 4.355 | 0.489 | 2.757 | 258 | 0.006 |
Nonmodel Communities | 148 | 4.184 | 0.499 |
Variable | Evacuation Drills (Odds Ratio) | Self-Rescue Skills Training (Odds Ratio) | Opinion Expression (Odds Ratio) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | |
Gender | 0.430 * | 0.584 | 3.015 *** | 1.550 | 1.481 | 0.449 * |
Age | 0.916 *** | 0.951 ** | 0.999 | 1.030 | 1.047 | 0.990 |
Education level | 0.980 | 1.886 * | 1.166 | 0.742 | 4.006 *** | 1.242 |
Career | 1.031 | 1.127 | 1.166 | 1.260 | 1.636 * | 1.459 ** |
Attitude | 1.393 * | 1.141 | 1.415 * | 1.732 * | 15.786 ** | 2.235 *** |
Subjective norm | 0.918 | 0.862 | 0.866 | 0.821 | 2.293 * | 0.649 * |
Perceptual behavior control | 1.423 * | 0.938 | 0.612 ** | 2.622 * | 0.947 | 2.928 *** |
Risk perception | 0.889 | 1.661 ** | 0.686 * | 1.451 | 1.136 | 1.231 |
Disaster experience | 0.867 | 2.060 *** | 1.040 | 0.872 | 1.585 | 0.691 * |
Participatory cognition | 1.243 | 1.759 ** | 1.058 | 1.852 ** | 2.888 * | 1.258 |
_cons | 19.776 | 159.435 ** | 0.056 | 0.001 ** | 0.000 ** | 2.716 |
McKelvey and Zavoina’s R2 | 0.224 | 0.247 | 0.109 | 0.211 | 0.361 | 0.241 |
Log-likelihood | −76.895 | −62.703 | −90.438 | −60.990 | −31.026 | −77.342 |
Variable | Evacuation Drills (dy/dx) | Self-Rescue Skills Training (dy/dx) | Opinion Expression (dy/dx) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | Model Communities | Nonmodel Communities | |
Gender | −0.146 ** | 0.234 *** | −0.141 ** | |||
Age | −0.015 *** | −0.007 ** | ||||
Education level | 0.087 ** | 0.087 *** | ||||
Career | 0.031 * | 0.066 ** | ||||
Attitude | 0.057 * | 0.074 * | 0.074 * | 0.173 ** | 0.142 *** | |
Subjective norm | 0.052 * | −0.076 ** | ||||
Perceptual behavior control | 0.061 * | −0.104 ** | 0.129 * | 0.189 *** | ||
Risk perception | 0.069 * | −0.080 * | ||||
Disaster experience | 0.099 *** | −0.065 * | ||||
Participatory cognition | 0.077 ** | 0.083 ** | 0.066 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Que, T.; Wu, Y.; Hu, S.; Cai, J.; Jiang, N.; Xing, H. Factors Influencing Public Participation in Community Disaster Mitigation Activities: A Comparison of Model and Nonmodel Disaster Mitigation Communities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912278
Que T, Wu Y, Hu S, Cai J, Jiang N, Xing H. Factors Influencing Public Participation in Community Disaster Mitigation Activities: A Comparison of Model and Nonmodel Disaster Mitigation Communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912278
Chicago/Turabian StyleQue, Ting, Yuxin Wu, Shiyu Hu, Jianmin Cai, Nan Jiang, and Huige Xing. 2022. "Factors Influencing Public Participation in Community Disaster Mitigation Activities: A Comparison of Model and Nonmodel Disaster Mitigation Communities" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12278. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912278