Determining Factors Affecting the Protective Behavior of Filipinos in Urban Areas for Natural Calamities Using an Integration of Protection Motivation Theory, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Ergonomic Appraisal: A Sustainable Disaster Preparedness Approach

Abstract

The Philippines is considered one of the most vulnerable and susceptible countries to the effects of natural disasters due to its location. Therefore, the country needs to be resilient to the natural calamities it faces yearly. The research aimed to determine the factors that affect the protective behavior of Filipinos during natural disasters by integrating protective motivation theory, the theory of planned behaviors, and ergonomic appraisals, and by adding variables such as knowledge and geographical perspectives. PLS-SEM was used to determine the significant factors that affect protective behavior. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to 302 Filipinos in the Philippines through a digital survey using Google forms. The analysis showed that the intention to prepare is the most significant factor affecting their protective behavior, followed by macro and physical ergonomics. Aside from this, attitudes, perceived severity, self-efficacy, response efficacy, response cost, and subjective norms were found to influence their intention to prepare significantly. Furthermore, understanding natural calamities significantly influences an individual’s perceived severity. However, the geographical perspective, perceived vulnerability, perceived behavioral control, and cognitive ergonomics were found to have an insignificant influence on protective behavior for natural calamities. The study findings could be used as a basis for household units or the national government to build disaster management plans and resilience programs. Aside from this, it can also be used by researchers as a basis for exploring other areas that may affect the protective behavior of individuals to prepare for natural calamities worldwide.

1. Introduction

Natural calamities are one of the major problems humans have faced throughout the years. According to Asio [1], natural calamities or disasters are natural phenomena caused by nature, ranging from hurricane storms to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. It is also a form of destroying and rebuilding our ecosystem, which is why it is considered a necessity to adapt to the changes happening in the environment. Furthermore, it was also stated that one of the key drivers in the increasing occurrence of natural disasters is climate change. Warner et al. [2] provided supporting evidence by arguing that climate change is responsible for natural disasters including typhoons, floods, and landslides, which pose a serious risk to human life and economic stability.

Recent research has also confirmed the negative impacts of climate change. Research undertaken by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found that there has been a significant increase in the occurrence of natural disasters in the last 50 years, all of which are driven by climate change [3]. Other studies have also stated that natural calamities are predicted to increase in severity and magnitude due to the expected population movement in the coming years and climate change [4,5,6]. Thus, the situation of climate change currently poses huge global threats.

Natural disasters cause a loss of human lives and a great deal of damage to the livelihoods of communities and, subsequently, the country’s economy. These occurrences are deemed “disasters” when they affect an entire population and result in severe human, material, economic, or environmental losses. Population increases and unsustainable economic expansion have contributed to population growth in high-risk areas, heightening vulnerability [7]. The vulnerability of individuals cannot be attributed solely to the occurrence of more intense physical events. Social, economic, and political circumstances influence vulnerabilities. Hence, natural disasters are more accurately described as “socio-natural” [8], as slow or sudden processes that occur at the intersection of nature and society, resulting from the interaction between a destructive agent (such as a typhoon, tsunami, hurricane, or flood) and the socio-cultural and environmental context on which it has an effect [9].

Recently, seeing disasters as phenomena caused by human activity and socioeconomic vulnerability has become more accepted. Promoting the adoption and application of the vulnerability concept within disaster management systems is generally regarded as one of the most significant consequences of disaster preparation activities. This involves highlighting the need for social action and assisting in the development of disaster-reduction policies [10]. Even though substantial progress has been made in comprehending the causes and processes underlying the aforementioned natural phenomena and their occurrence probabilities, additional efforts are required for disaster preparations to reduce the damages caused by natural hazards with the assistance of society [11]. Hence, mitigation measures should be based on an understanding of natural processes and consider cultural, environmental, social, and economic aspects, which are vital for guiding actions that effectively reduce disaster risks [12]. Therefore, the term socio-disaster reflects the recognition that disasters are not just physical events, but also have significant social and societal impacts that require comprehensive mitigation measures [13].

Mitigation measures in disaster preparedness are expected to effectively prepare a population to mitigate the damage associated with calamities [14]. According to Cox et al. [15], disaster preparedness “entails a set of practical measures that are very effective and save many lives and minimize property damage.” Furthermore, disaster preparedness is developed by institutions (i.e., government bodies) and local communities and individuals for them to efficiently respond to and recover from the impact of natural calamities [16]. Das [17] stated that preparedness actions should ultimately enable social units to respond actively when a disaster strikes. Disaster preparedness can eventually lead to building up the resilience of a country against natural calamities. Resilience, as defined by UNDP [18], is “the ability of individuals, households, communities, cities, institutions, systems, and societies to prevent, resist, absorb, adapt, respond, and recover positively, efficiently, and effectively when faced with a wide range of risks, while maintaining an acceptable level of functioning without compromising long-term prospects for sustainable development, peace and security, human rights, and wellbeing for all” [19]. The study conducted by Heinkel et al. [19] has found that the concept of resilience is an important factor and has become a guiding principle in developing several international frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. In addition, the United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) provides guidelines for integrating disaster risk reduction into the implementation of the SDGs. It emphasizes the significance of disaster risk reduction in achieving sustainable development and offers guidance on how to integrate disaster risk reduction into policy, planning, and programming [20]. Thus, it is seen that sustainable disaster preparedness is also vital to building resilience in a country against natural and socio-natural calamities.

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Sustainable Disaster Preparedness

Sustainability is essential in disaster preparation because it ensures that the response to a disaster is both effective and durable [21]. A sustainable approach to disaster preparedness considers the environmental, economic, and social effects of disasters and seeks to mitigate them through proactive measures [22]. According to Seeliger and Turok [23], sustainability is a crucial aspect of disaster preparedness because natural disasters have profound effects on the environment, social systems, and economic structures. By incorporating sustainability into disaster preparedness planning, communities can better mitigate the environmental effects of disasters and create more resilient systems that can withstand their effects [24]. According to the United Nations for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), for the 2030 agenda for sustainable development to be realized, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) must be incorporated into the policy and practice of local governments worldwide [20]. The SDGs recognize that disaster risk reduction is critical to achieving sustainable development and call for a multi-sectoral approach that involves governments, civil society, the private sector, and communities. By reducing disaster risk and building resilience, countries can ensure that progress towards the SDGs is not undermined by disasters and that development gains are sustained over time [20]. As stated by Titko and Ristvej [25], the sustainability of disaster risk reduction is a goal that will ensure that disaster risk can be implemented and expanded not only under current conditions, but also under conditions that are likely to change in the near future. It is assumed that the frequency and severity of climate-related disasters and negative effects will increase [26,27]. In addition, it is assumed that the costs associated with natural disasters resulting from loss of life and damage to social, economic, and environmental activities will increase [28]. Thus, disaster risk reduction should be so flexible that it is as independent as possible from the conditions in which it is implemented. A vigilant approach to the specified change would involve a vast array of early adaptation interventions against the emergence of the disasters [29].

2.2. Protective Behavior Theories

According to Wang and Tsai [30], human behavior, reducing man-made impacts, and enhancing an individual’s capability to cope with the consequences of a disaster are vital in reducing disaster risks. Hence, various behavioral theories, particularly theoretical models of protective behaviors, have been developed and utilized to determine an individual’s behavioral intention for disaster preparedness [31]. Several studies have used different behavioral theories, such as the protection motivation theory (PMT) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB). In a study by Kurata et al. [32], the perceived effectiveness of the flood disaster response among Filipinos during typhoon Vamco (Ulysses) was determined by integrating the PMT and TPB models. The studies found that geographical perspective, typhoon flood experience, and knowledge affect their perceived severity and vulnerability, affecting their perceived behavioral control, attitude, and subjective norms. The three factors (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) have been found to directly affect their intention to follow, which then leads to affecting their perceived effectiveness and behaviors from the Typhoon Vamco (Ulysses) risk response. Similarly, the study by Gumasing et al. [31] also utilized the PMT to determine the factors that affected Filipino response efficacy during Typhoon Conson (Jolina). The authors found that self-efficacy and perceived severity are significant factors that affect the response efficacy of Filipinos. Aside from this, the study by Wang and Tsai [30] used TPB to determine factors affecting teachers’ behavioral intentions towards school disaster preparedness. In this case, attitude is seen to be the significant factor affecting teachers’ ability to take action through behavioral intentions. At the same time, their perceived control directly affects their engagement in disaster preparedness behavior.

Another method that explores the importance of protection against natural calamities in the Philippines is through the means of investigating vulnerability. The study by Prasetyo et al. [33] has given a new light to vulnerability by exploring its difference from natural hazards, including analyzing the interrelationship between exposure, sensitivity, and resilience by utilizing a confirmatory factor analysis. They found that resilience is affected mainly by educational attainment, communication access, vehicles, and portable water as significant indicators for building resilience. Moreover, Robielos et al. [34] analyzed the Philippines’ vulnerability to natural disasters and formulated a vulnerability assessment framework for disaster risk reduction, in which the authors utilized the vulnerability scoping diagram and the vulnerability assessment model to compose the framework, which is grounded by the IPCC model and integrates community-based monitoring systems, expert inputs, and several community-based activities. The authors found that understanding vulnerability towards natural calamities improves a community’s competency regarding disaster risk reduction. Thus, it is evident that several models and analytical methods are already being utilized to discuss the importance of protection against natural calamities; however, there is still a need to evaluate Filipinos’ behavioral intentions and protective behavior against several natural hazards.

While most of the studies regarding behavioral intentions toward natural disaster preparedness have utilized different behavioral theories, as well as integrated or extended further applications [35,36,37,38], most of these studies tend to focus on only one disaster type when it comes to the investigations of natural disasters in the Philippines. They tend to focus on evaluating behavioral intentions in typhoon preparedness and efficacy [31,32,39,40]. Thus, there is little knowledge regarding behavioral intentions towards natural disasters or calamities in general. Moreover, there has been limited academic research on the use of ergonomic-based indicators to investigate the preparedness of individuals for natural disasters.

2.3. Role of Ergonomics in Disaster Preparedness

With a focus on disaster preparedness, ergonomics can help at the system, organizational, community, and individual levels [41]. Recent research has also demonstrated the value of ergonomic methodologies in enabling proactive risk assessment and improving response preparedness. Gurses et al. [42] evaluated numerous system aspects to discover failure modes and hazards connected to tasks, physical environments, and tools and technologies to identify ambiguities in guidelines, protocols, and processes during disasters using ergonomics.

Ergonomics is the science of designing and arranging things to optimize human performance and safety. Disaster preparedness involves planning and preparation for natural disasters or other emergencies to minimize the impact on people and property. As hazards interact with physical, social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities to produce these risks, the role of ergonomics in disaster preparedness is deemed critical [43].

In disaster preparedness, ergonomics is essential in designing equipment, evacuation plans, and training programs that minimize physical stress and fatigue on rescue personnel and affected individuals. Hence, ergonomic principles can help ensure the safe and efficient movement of people during emergencies and provide psychological support to those affected [44].

Despite the significant progress made in disaster preparation research, there are still several research gaps that need to be addressed. One of the key research gaps in this area includes insufficient academic research on the significance of ergonomics and its domains in typhoon preparedness. The role of ergonomics in disaster preparedness is deemed essential in mitigating and reducing the impacts of natural calamities, and one must start with themselves. Given this, the study aimed to provide a multivariate analysis of the protective behavior of Filipinos during natural disasters by integrating the models of PMT, TPB, and ergonomic domains to determine the behavioral intentions of Filipinos for the protection against natural calamities. The study’s findings shall provide an overview of the natural disaster preparedness of Filipinos, which government bodies (national government and local government units) can utilize further to improve the government’s response to calamities. Thus, the study can be applied to create disaster and risk management plans from a household to a national level. Aside from this, it can also be utilized by the government to design and implement resilience initiative programs against natural calamities.

The study’s primary focus was assessing the behavioral intentions of Filipinos, specifically those young generations living in urban areas, to prepare for the different natural calamities that occur in the Philippines (i.e., storms, earthquakes, floods, and landslides) and the development of their protective behavior against natural disasters. In the Philippines, rural areas are more susceptible to natural disasters such as typhoons, floods, landslides, and droughts since many are in low-lying or soil-eroding regions, as shown in Figure 1 below.

However, urban areas are more susceptible and vulnerable to the effects of disasters such as flooding and landslides, especially in regions with inadequate drainage systems and improper waste disposal methods. Urban areas are also more susceptible to disaster risks due to their population density and insufficient infrastructure, including the presence of buildings that may need to be designed to withstand strong earthquakes [46]. While natural disasters can occur in both rural and urban areas of the Philippines, urban areas may face unique challenges and risks due to their unique characteristics. Thus, communities need to be aware of these risks and take steps to prepare for and mitigate the potential impact of disasters. This can lead to greater levels of preparedness and resilience.

3. Methodology

3.1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework in which the study will be grounded. It showcases the integration of PMT and TPB as well as ergonomic factors. According to Bubeck et al. [47], the PMT is one of the most popular theories to identify and explain an individual’s risk-reducing behavior against natural calamities. Aside from this, PMT also provides a more comprehensive approach to natural hazard management, significantly contributing to risk reduction. On the other hand, TPB is considered one of the most commonly used theories when exploring individual behaviors [48].

TPB is considered a valuable framework for predicting and identifying an individual’s behavior [49]. Considering this, the integration of 2 models can holistically measure the behavioral intentions of Filipinos to have a protective behavior against natural calamities [50]. Moreover, the integration of ergonomic factors was also included in the model in which these appraisals play a significant role when it comes to identifying resilient performance as well as the capability of risk assessments, which leads to an improvement in response preparedness [51,52].

3.2. Determinants of Perceived Severity

Understanding natural calamities refers to the knowledge of different natural disasters. According to Setiawan et al. [50], knowledge is an essential factor in disaster management and preparedness for natural calamities. De Coninck et al. [51] also found that awareness of the risks and damage that a natural disaster could cause ultimately increase a person’s knowledge and understanding of when a natural calamity occurs, Thus, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H1). 

Understanding natural calamities (UT) positively and significantly influences the perceived severity (PS).

A geographical perspective is defined as the individual’s location and condition, increasing their susceptibility to hazards [31]. According to Shi et al. [52], geographical location affects an individual’s exposure, the intensity of disasters, and hazard complexity. It plays a significant role in the occurrence of disaster events. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H2). 

Geographical perspective (GP) positively and significantly influences the perceived severity (PS).

3.3. Determinants of Intention to Prepare Using the Protective Motivation Theory

Perceived severity refers to the unfavorable impact of an event on a person and the adverse effects of natural disasters [31]. Inal et al. [53] found that perceived severity significantly influences an individual’s general disaster preparedness. In addition, Wirtz and Rohrbeck’s [54] study also found that perceived severity independently influences an individual’s preparedness behaviors. Hence, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H3). 

Perceived severity (PS) positively and significantly influences behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

According to Tanner and Árvai [55], perceived vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to a hazard, such as exposure to a natural hazard. Abunyewah et al. [56] found that risk perception, particularly perceived vulnerability, is considered a motivating factor for an individual to adhere to recommended actions when it comes to natural disaster preparedness. Thus, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H4). 

Perceived vulnerability (PV) positively and significantly influences behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

Response efficacy refers to the belief that a specific action or behavior will be effective in reducing or mitigating the impact of a disaster [57]. Tang and Feng [58] found that response efficacy is a significant factor correlated with the behavioral intention to prepare for natural calamities. Babcicky and Seebauer [59] also found that the higher the response efficacy of the individual, the more likely they will develop protective behaviors against natural calamities. Hence, the higher the response efficacy, the more likely individuals or communities are to take action to prepare for a disaster. Considering this, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H5). 

Response efficacy (RE) positively and significantly influences behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

In disaster preparedness, self-efficacy is an individual’s ability to plan and prepare for a disaster [60]. A study by Al-Hunaishi et al. [61] proved that self-efficacy is an essential factor associated with an individual’s willingness to prepare for a disaster. Heidenreich et al. [62] confirmed that self-efficacy is a significant predictor of flood protective behavior. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H6). 

Self-efficacy (SE) positively and significantly influences behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

Response cost is defined as the individuals’ estimate of how much or how costly it would be to implement the risk reduction measure [63]. In the context of disaster preparation, a high response cost can refer to the significant effort and resources required to respond to a disaster [31]. The financial burden of providing a response is an important consideration when crafting disaster policies. Human vulnerability and risk can be reduced, and adaptive capacity for disasters can be improved through risk reduction measures [64]. However, there are costs associated with disaster relief and response, as well as other measures and actions taken to prevent existing and new disaster risks [65]. When the response cost of a disaster is high, it can motivate individuals and organizations to take steps to prepare for the possibility of a disaster [66]. This is because the potential consequences of not being prepared are also high, and could result in significant loss of life, property damage, and economic disruption. Kusonwattana et al. [67] revealed that response costs have a significant direct effect on disaster preparedness intentions. Thus, a higher response cost was noted to encourage more proactive adoption of a given preventative behavior. From this, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H7). 

Response cost (RC) positively and significantly influences behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

3.4. Determinants of Behavioral Intention to Prepare Using the Theory of Planned Behavior

According to Wang and Tsai [30], attitudes are derived from individuals’ assessments of the advantages or disadvantages of a particular behavior. An individual believes that engaging in the behavior, if satisfactory or not, ultimately generates a positive or negative attitude, affecting their overall behavioral intentions. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H8). 

Positive attitude (AT) positively and significantly influences behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

Santana et al. [68] define subjective norms as predictive behavioral intentions often due to the behavioral expectations that are important to other people, mainly from intimate social groups (such as family and friends). Luu et al. [69] found that subjective norms significantly affect adaptive intentions and behavior. In that context, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H9). 

Positive subjective norms (SN) positively and significantly influence behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

Perceived behavioral control is determined by combining the beliefs concerning supporting or inhibiting factors from carrying out the behavior. A study by Zaman et al. [70] has proven that behavioral control significantly affects disaster management. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H10). 

Perceived positive behavioral control (BC) has a positive and significant influence on behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities.

3.5. Determinants of Protective Behavior for Natural Calamities

Arendt et al. [71] defined behavioral intention as a motivational component for an individual to engage in a particular behavior. In natural disaster preparedness, it is seen that behavioral intention is a significant indicator of an individual’s ability to show actual disaster behaviors [72]. Thus, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H11). 

Behavioral intention (BI) to prepare for natural calamities positively and significantly influences protective behavior (PB) for natural disasters.

3.6. Determinants of Protective Behavior Using Ergonomic Factors

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) defines physical ergonomics as a scientific discipline concerned with several human characteristics related to an individual’s physical activity [73]. Thus, physical ergonomics significantly contribute to developing one’s protective behavior. With that, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H12). 

Favorable physical ergonomics (PE) positively and significantly influence protective behavior (PB) for natural calamities.

Colovic [74] defined cognitive ergonomics as a body of ergonomics focused on an individual’s mental processes (such as memory, thinking, mobility, and perception) and how they are affected when it comes to the interaction of the observed system. Gomes et al. [75] stated that with the current situation or effects of natural disasters, communication has become essential to effective disaster mitigation. Given this context, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H13). 

Favorable cognitive ergonomics (CE) positively and significantly influence protective behavior (PB) for natural calamities.

Macro-ergonomics is the study of the design and optimization of large-scale systems, such as organizations, communities, and societies. Macro-ergonomic approaches aim to improve system performance by focusing on the interaction between the system elements and the people who use them [76]. According to Gumasing et al. [77], macro-ergonomics can increase disaster preparation by improving the overall design of the systems that are involved in disaster management and response. For instance, macro-ergonomic approaches can be used to design effective disaster response plans, improve communication and coordination among disaster management agencies, and enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure. Research has shown that macro-ergonomic approaches can lead to significant improvements in disaster response and preparedness. For example, a study conducted in Japan found that the use of macro-ergonomic principles in the design of a disaster response system improved coordination and communication among emergency responders, leading to more efficient and effective disaster response efforts [78]. Thus, it was hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (H14). 

Favorable macro-ergonomics (ME) positively and significantly influence protective behavior (PB) for natural calamities.

3.7. Respondents of the Study

The target respondents of the study were Filipinos living in urban areas who had experience or knowledge of preparing for different types of calamities. In addition, the target respondents were at least 18 years old or older, which is considered an early stage of adulthood. The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine [79] supports this, which states that young adulthood starts from age 18 to 25. This is because they are capable of handling decision-making tasks themselves. Moreover, the data was obtained using convenience sampling under the non-probability sampling method, which distributed questionnaires across social media platforms and posted publicly to a representative sample of the general population and specific interest groups, such as environmental activists or political groups, to gather information on their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors related to disaster preparation. The author gathered 302 participants for the study, which is considered an acceptable sample size for the study, as Adam [80] established that for a population size of greater than 100,000 and with a margin error of 3%, the minimum sample size should be set at 271.

3.8. Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire consisted of 76 questions. Part 1 focused on the respondent’s demographic profile. It used 8-item questions, including age, gender, educational attainment, number of elderly (60 and above) and children (14 and below) in their household, total monthly income, residential area, regional location, and residential type.

The second part of the questionnaire consisted of indicators to measure behavioral intention to prepare for natural calamities based on PMT, TPB, and ergonomic appraisal. Fourteen (14) latent variables were used in the survey, which included the following: knowledge (5 constructs), geographical perspective (5 constructs), perceived severity (5 constructs), perceived vulnerability (5 constructs), response efficacy (6 constructs), self-efficacy (6 constructs), and response cost (5 constructs) for PMT; attitude (5 constructs), behavioral control (5 constructs), and subjective norms (5 constructs) for TPB; and physical ergonomic appraisal (5 constructs), macro-ergonomic appraisal (5 constructs), and cognitive ergonomic appraisal (5 constructs) for the ergonomic appraisal. The third part of the survey consisted of 5 questions regarding the intention to prepare for natural calamities. The last part of the survey also consisted of 5 questions pertaining to protective behaviors towards natural calamities. The survey utilized a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Table 1. Summary of constructs.

Construct	Items	Measure	Supporting Reference
Understanding Natural Calamities	UT1	I know what to do when there is a natural calamity.	Gumasing et al. [31]; Prasetyo et al. [33]; Ong et al. [40]
	UT2	I am aware of the different kinds of danger that natural calamities will cause.
	UT3	I understand the protocols that need to be undertaken during a natural calamity.
	UT4	I understand the precautionary measures to undertake in an unexpected natural calamity.
	UT5	I know the evacuation areas and plans for my family and local government for the different natural calamities.
Geographical Perspective	GP1	I live near disaster prone areas.	Gumasing [31]; Kurata [32]
	GP2	I think my location is often affected by natural calamities.
	GP3	I know that I live in a community where houses are well-built.
	GP4	I reside in a highly developed and urbanized area.
	GP5	I reside in a heavily populated area.
Perceived Severity	SV1	I believe there is a severe outcome for natural calamities.	Ong et al. [40]; Puzyreva et al. [64]; Schwaller [81]; Parvin et al. [82]; Cosgrave [83]
	SV2	I believe the severity of natural calamities has increased in recent years.
	SV3	I believe natural calamities may lead to death of people.
	SV4	I believe natural calamities in my area are more severe than other areas.
	SV5	I believe natural calamities may affect our livelihood.
Perceived Vulnerability	SC1	I believe I am vulnerable to natural calamities.	Ong et al. [40]; Puzyreva et al. [63]; Schwaller [81]; Parvin et al. [82];
	SC2	I believe my community is vulnerable to natural calamities.
	SC3	I believe the intensity of natural calamities has increased in recent years.
	SC4	I believe the frequency of natural calamities has increased in recent years.
	SC5	I believe the impact of natural calamities in our area has increased in recent years.
Self-efficacy	SE1	I believe that I can prepare and secure my property ahead of time for a natural calamity.	Ong et al. [40]; Stewart [84]; Yang et al. [85]; Ansari [86]; Benight and Harper [87]
	SE2	I have a safety plan on how to deal with a natural calamity.
	SE3	I can prepare emergency kit ahead of a natural calamity.
	SE4	I can secure food and water ahead of a natural calamity.
	SE5	I can protect myself against a natural calamity.
	SE6	I can evacuate when necessary ahead of a natural calamity.
Response Efficacy	RE1	Evacuating ahead of time will protect me from a natural calamity.	Babcicky and Seebauer [59]; Nygaard et al. [88]; Newnham et al. [89]; Wong-Parodi and Feygina [90]
	RE2	Securing our property ahead of time will protect our assets from damage caused by a natural calamity.
	RE3	Distribution of relief goods and rescue supplies will help me during a natural calamity.
	RE4	Deploying emergency teams and emergency responders will help me during a natural calamity.
	RE5	Broadcasting information and emergency information will help me during a natural calamity.
	RE6	Suspension of work and classes during a typhoon will protect people from a natural calamity.
Response Cost	RC1	Installation of warning information systems in our area is costly.	Babcicky and Seebauer [59]; Nygaard et al. [88]; Newnham et al. [89]; Wong-Parodi and Feygina [90]
	RC2	Buying emergency kits and rescue equipment is costly.
	RC3	Distributing relief goods and rescue supplies during a natural calamity is risky.
	RC4	Moving out of our property during a natural calamity is risky.
	RC5	Securing our property ahead of a natural calamity is time consuming.
Attitude	AT1	My attitude towards preparation for any natural calamities is effective.	Kurata et al. [32]; Ong et al. [40]; Najafi et al. [91]; Tan et al. [92]
	AT2	My attitude toward preparation for any natural calamities is beneficial.
	AT3	I am familiar with my community’s guidelines on different natural calamities (flood warning system, evacuation procedures and locations, etc.).
	AT4	I make sure that my family is familiar with the guidelines on different natural calamities (flood warning system, evacuation procedures and locations. etc.).
	AT5	I think that preparing for natural calamity is a responsibility.
Subjective Norm	SN1	Most people that I know are following preventive measures for natural calamities given by the local government units.	Kurata et al. [32]; Najafi et al. [91]; Tan et al. [92]
	SN2	Most people I know prepare emergency items and supplies when there is a natural calamity (passports, ID, money, water, food, etc.).
	SN3	Most people I know practice safety measurements or procedures when there is a natural calamity.
	SN4	People important to me think that I should make preparations for natural calamities.
	SN5	I feel social pressure when it comes to preparation for natural calamities.
Perceived Behavioral Control	BC1	I believe that preparations for natural calamities is entirely up to me.	Kurata et al. [32]; Najafi et al. [91]; Tan et al. [92]
	BC2	I am confident that I can make preparations for natural calamities if I want to.
	BC3	I believe that I have enough knowledge in responding to different natural calamities.
	BC4	Making preparations for natural calamities is easy for me.
	BC5	I am confident that I can prevent experiencing natural calamities.
Behavioral Intention to Prepare for a Natural Calamity	IP1	I intend to seek information about how to prepare for a natural calamity.	Bronfman et al. [14]; Ong et al. [40]; Najafi et al. [91]
	IP2	I intend to find information about the potential risk of natural calamity.
	IP3	I intend to prepare emergency kits for a natural calamity.
	IP4	I intend to prepare food, water, and medicine for a natural calamity.
	IP5	I intend to secure and protect our property and assets for a natural calamity.
Physical Ergonomic Appraisal	PE1	I have a disaster supply kit at home for emergencies.	Wang et al. [16]
	PE2	I have an early-warning device at home for natural calamities.
	PE3	I have the means of transportation to go to evacuation centers.
	PE4	My house is well designed to withstand natural calamities.
	PE5	The facilities in the evacuation center in our area are properly designed.
Macro-ergonomic Appraisal	ME1	Our LGU has enough emergency responders for natural calamities.	Stewart [84]; Yang et al. [85]; Matunhay [93]; Tizon and Comighud [94];
	ME2	Our LGU is prepared to respond to natural calamities.
	ME3	Our LGU can properly allocate relief goods during natural calamities.
	ME4	I will receive financial support from the government during natural calamities.
	ME5	I will have access to healthcare services (hospitals, clinics) during natural calamities.
Cognitive Ergonomic Appraisal	CE1	I participate in and perform drills for emergency situations.	Mamon et al. [95]; Tuladhar et al. [96]; Henning et al. [97]; Tanaka [98]
	CE2	I have a way to communicate with my family in case there is a natural calamity.
	CE3	I have access to the media and other sources of information for natural calamities.
	CE4	I can easily shut off my appliances and utilities at home in case of natural calamities.
	CE5	I have a family communication plan for emergencies.
Protective Behavior for Natural Calamity	PB1	I protect myself from the impact of natural calamities by sharing knowledge and experiences from past calamities.	.Mamon et al. [95]; Tuladhar et al. [96]
	PB2	I protect myself from the impact of natural calamities by participating in awareness campaigns for natural calamities.
	PB3	I protect myself from the impact of natural calamities by recognizing the importance of preparation for natural calamities with others.
	PB4	I protect myself from the impact of natural calamities by knowing disaster-prone areas in my community
	PB5	I protect myself from the impact of natural calamities by preparing emergency kits at home.

presents the summary of constructs and the supporting references.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of respondents (n = 302).

Respondent Profiles	Category	n	%
Age	20 and below	50	17%
	21–40	191	63%
	41–60	61	20%
	61–80	-	-
	81 and above	-	-
Gender	Female	177	59%
	Male	125	41%
Educational attainment	Finished college or has graduate degree	70	23%
	Attended college	207	69%
	Attended high school	25	8%
	Attended grade school-level	-	-
	Did not attend school	-	-
No. of elderly (60 and above) and children (14 and below) in the household	0	84	28%
	1	99	33%
	2	78	26%
	3	11	4%
	4 or more	30	10%
Total monthly household income	Less than 40,000	79	26%
	40,001–70,000	146	48%
	70,001–100,000	23	8%
	100,001–130,000	30	10%
	More than 130,000	24	8%
Residential area	Urban (town, city)	239	79%
	Rural (province)	63	21%
Residential type	Single detached home	166	55%
	Condominium	28	9%
	Apartment	39	13%
	Living with relatives	68	23%
	Informal settlement	-	-
Regional location	Region I (Ilocos Region)	1	0.3%
	Region II (Cagayan Valley)	2	0.7%
	Region III (Central Luzon)	47	15%
	Region IV-A (CALABARZON)	82	28%
	Region IV-B (MIMAROPA)	6	2%
	Region V (Bicol Region)	6	2%
	Region VI (Western Visayas)	4	1%
	Region VII (Central Visayas)	4	1%
	Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)	2	0.7%
	Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula)	2	0.7%
	Region X (Northern Mindanao)	1	0.3%
	Region XI (Davao Region)	-	-
	Region XII (SOCCSARGEN)	2	0.7%
	Region XIII (CARAGA Region)	-	-
	ARMM (Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)	-	-
	CAR (Cordillera Administrative Region)	2	0.7%
	NCR (National Capital Region)	141	46%

describe statistics of respondents.

3.9. Structural Equation Modelling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a multivariate statistical tool commonly utilized in the social and behavioral sciences [99]. SEM is a research method examining a series of interrelated relationships between a set of constructs, usually represented by multiple variables [100]. It provides flexibility in constructing a framework for analyzing and developing relationships among numerous variables, as it allows the researchers to examine the validity of the considered theory [101]. It is a reliable tool for the study as it can explore the direct and indirect effects of the pre-assumed causal relationships [31]. The partial least square SEM (PLS-SEM) will be utilized in this study, commonly used in social and behavioral sciences studies [102]. PLS-SEM is a multivariate analysis method used to calculate variance-based structural equation models [103]. It is believed to have a prediction-oriented approach to SEM because it focuses on explaining the various variations [99]. It is also considered one of the preferred analysis tools as it has a minimum observation and measurement requirement and can suggest non-existing relationships that can be further explored in other experimentations or studies [104].

PLS-SEM is seen to be utilized in various research areas, including fields such as the hospitality industry [105], business management [106], information systems [107], disaster mitigation [108], and disaster vulnerability studies [109]. Given this, PLS-SEM is a suitable tool for this study and was applied to explore the relationship between TPB and PMT indicators and the behavioral intentions of Filipinos that can ultimately lead to developing their protection behavior from natural calamities. Aside from this, it also explores the relationship between ergonomic appraisal and the protective behavior of Filipinos against natural calamities [31].

4. Results

4.1. Respondent Profiles

The respondents’ demographic information is shown in

Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity result.

Construct	Items	Mean	S.D.	FL (≥0.7)	α (≥0.7)	CR (≥0.7)	AVE (≥0.5)
Understanding of the Calamity	UC1	4.28	0.71	0.74	0.802	0.870	0.627
	UC2	4.55	0.57	0.82
	UC3	4.36	0.76	0.85
	UC4	4.30	0.71	0.76
	UC5	4.52	0.50	-
Geographical Perspective	GP1	3.31	1.21	0.84	0.801	0.861	0.655
	GP2	3.39	1.27	0.81
	GP3	3.93	0.93	0.80
	GP4	3.88	1.08	0.72
	GP5	3.68	1.17	0.86
Perceived Severity	PS1	4.56	0.58	0.79	0.884	0.915	0.682
	PS2	4.63	0.57	0.82
	PS3	4.51	0.68	0.86
	PS4	3.33	1.26	0.85
	PS5	4.48	0.75	0.80
Perceived Vulnerability	PV1	4.08	1.02	-	0.862	0.901	0.645
	PV2	4.03	1.05	0.78
	PV3	4.62	0.60	0.77
	PV4	4.57	0.65	0.76
	PV5	4.24	0.86	0.74
Response Efficacy	RE1	4.55	0.66	0.80	0.868	0.873	0.656
	RE2	4.28	0.80	0.87
	RE3	4.51	0.65	-
	RE4	4.58	0.59	0.82
	RE5	4.72	0.52	0.79
	RE6	4.76	0.50	0.76
Self-Efficacy	SE1	4.03	0.82	0.81	0.823	0.876	0.678
	SE2	3.57	0.97	-
	SE3	4.11	0.83	0.77
	SE4	4.27	0.75	0.77
	SE5	4.01	0.83	0.75
	SE6	4.27	0.76	0.82
Response Cost	RC1	4.76	0.50	0.86	0.884	0.915	0.684
	RC2	4.09	0.90	0.84
	RC3	3.45	1.12	0.84
	RC4	3.77	1.04	0.81
	RC5	4.11	0.95	0.78
	RC6	3.46	1.07	-
Attitude	AT1	4.27	0.78	0.81	0.879	0.912	0.674
	AT2	4.40	0.70	0.82
	AT3	3.80	1.02	0.85
	AT4	3.78	0.97	0.84
	AT5	4.54	0.58	-
Subjective Norm	SN1	3.87	1.00	0.79	0.896	0.920	0.657
	SN2	3.95	0.97	0.84
	SN3	3.97	0.92	0.79
	SN4	4.17	0.86	0.80
	SN5	3.14	1.16	0.84
Behavioral Control	BC1	4.30	0.84	0.81	0.823	0.883	0.654
	BC2	4.46	0.66	-
	BC3	4.25	0.84	0.80
	BC4	3.87	1.03	0.76
	BC5	3.46	1.21	0.86
Intention to Prepare	IP1	4.53	0.68	0.80	0.815	0.871	0.574
	IP2	4.47	0.68	0.76
	IP3	4.48	0.71	0.75
	IP4	4.54	0.69	0.75
	IP5	4.43	0.72	0.73
Physical Ergonomics	PE1	3.51	1.18	0.75
	PE2	2.54	1.33	0.80
	PE3	3.78	1.03	0.71	0.817	0.815	0.659
	PE4	3.83	0.90	0.72
	PE5	3.70	1.08	-
Cognitive Ergonomics	CE1	3.98	0.90	0.71	0.829	0.879	0.593
	CE2	4.18	0.88	0.79
	CE3	4.39	0.77	0.80
	CE4	4.33	0.738	0.74
	CE5	3.54	1.087	0.80
Macro ergonomics	ME1	3.88	0.957	-
	ME2	3.93	0.947	0.85
	ME3	3.90	1.02	0.86	0.801	0.812	0.655
	ME4	2.77	1.295	0.79
	ME5	3.70	0.959	0.75
Protective Behavior	PB1	4.44	0.751	0.76	0.802	0.870	0.621
	PB2	4.19	0.888	0.85
	PB3	4.30	0.813	0.81
	PB4	4.46	0.761	0.74
	PB5	4.45	0.791	-

. There was a total of 302 respondents, in which 58.16% identified as female and 41.40% identified as male. The majority of the respondents were aged from 21 to 40 years old (63.25%) and attended college (68.53%). In addition, the target respondents were Filipinos residing in the Philippines, in which the majority of the respondents were from Luzon, particularly Central Luzon (15.60%), Calabarzon (27.20%), and NCR (46.70%). Furthermore, the majority of the respondents resided in urban areas (79.10%), in single detached homes (55%), or were living with their relatives (22.50%). Aside from this, 32.80% of the respondents had at least one (1) elderly person or child in their household. In terms of their monthly household income, most respondents had a monthly household income of PHP 40,001 to PHP 70,000 (48.34%).

4.2. Result of Initial SEM

Figure 3 shows the initial SEM in determining the factors affecting the protective behavior of Filipinos during natural calamities. It can be seen that the model was initially comprised of 14 latent and 77 indicators.

Table 3 shows the model’s reliability and the validity of the indicators. It can be seen that all indicators that yielded a factor loading of less than 0.7 were removed in the final model. This is because those indicators had an insufficient variance from the variable [100]. Afterwards, the composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and the average variance extracted (AVE) were analyzed, in which all latent were able to surpass the threshold. Thus, all constructs are seen to be valid and reliable.

After the reliability and convergent validity, the discriminant validity test was performed using two criteria—the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait—monotrait ratio, presented in

Table 4. Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion.

	AT	BC	CE	GP	IP	ME	PS	PV	PE	PB	RC	RE	SE	SN	UC
AT	0.649
BC	0.556	0.705
CE	0.502	0.495	0.663
GP	0.314	0.381	0.318	0.700
IP	0.483	0.418	0.485	0.267	0.826
ME	0.423	0.479	0.424	0.374	0.417	0.746
PS	0.379	0.382	0.279	0.243	0.365	0.237	0.585
PV	0.359	0.438	0.209	0.451	0.316	0.296	0.564	0.725
PE	0.449	0.400	0.452	0.323	0.354	0.451	0.171	0.120	0.631
PB	0.529	0.403	0.473	0.282	0.685	0.445	0.328	0.296	0.412	0.814
RC	0.334	0.401	0.217	0.38	0.366	0.334	0.321	0.409	0.215	0.284	0.565
RE	0.307	0.282	0.267	0.061	0.357	0.173	0.44	0.409	0.095	0.301	0.202	0.704
SE	0.629	0.517	0.547	0.295	0.489	0.360	0.294	0.267	0.574	0.502	0.268	0.328	0.695
SN	0.528	0.497	0.432	0.344	0.406	0.370	0.235	0.294	0.454	0.409	0.255	0.142	0.512	0.734
UC	0.547	0.479	0.398	0.235	0.379	0.325	0.321	0.312	0.344	0.437	0.199	0.279	0.552	0.396	0.696

and

Table 5. Discriminant validity: heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).

	AT	BC	CE	GP	IP	ME	PS	PV	PE	PB	RC	RE	SE	SN
BC	0.712
CE	0.706	0.665
GP	0.523	0.563	0.504
IP	0.546	0.464	0.628	0.341
ME	0.596	0.642	0.624	0.504	0.484
PS	0.679	0.589	0.472	0.482	0.458	0.462
PV	0.479	0.554	0.344	0.559	0.367	0.438	0.811
PE	0.747	0.596	0.668	0.515	0.417	0.652	0.431	0.270
PB	0.682	0.465	0.586	0.370	0.769	0.518	0.434	0.350	0.485
RC	0.391	0.480	0.290	0.510	0.322	0.353	0.524	0.472	0.401	0.254
RE	0.447	0.364	0.422	0.134	0.403	0.294	0.726	0.475	0.224	0.350	0.257
SE	0.602	0.624	0.716	0.450	0.542	0.470	0.435	0.344	0.772	0.590	0.265	0.405
SN	0.740	0.619	0.596	0.478	0.462	0.476	0.420	0.389	0.616	0.490	0.385	0.202	0.653
UC	0.739	0.607	0.586	0.418	0.490	0.443	0.470	0.412	0.525	0.557	0.237	0.372	0.753	0.562

. It was established that the use of the HTMT ratio was required in the discriminant validity as the Fornell–Larcker criterion was not sufficient to establish the discriminant validity among the different measures [110]. It was also stated that when using the HTMT ratio, the value of the constructs should not be greater than the threshold of 0.85. On the other hand, the Fornell–Larcker criterion states that the assigned constructs should have a higher value than the loadings of the other constructs [111,112]. It can be observed that the values of the model are within the acceptable range, which further indicates that the constructs are reliable and valid.

4.3. Model Fit Analysis

In order to show the validity of the proposed model, a model fit analysis was conducted as shown in

Table 6. Model fit.

Model Fit for SEM	Parameter Estimates	Minimum Cut-Off	Recommended by
SRMR	0.068	<0.08	Hu and Bentler [115]
(Adjusted) Chi-square/dF	3.80	<5.0	Hooper [116]
Normal Fit Index (NFI)	0.913	>0.90	Baumgartner [117]

. It can be seen that the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), adjusted Chi-square, and the normal fit index (NFI) of the model satisfied the minimum threshold that was adapted from previous studies [113,114,115]. Therefore, the proposed model is acceptable.

4.4. Results of Final SEM

Table 7. Structural model analysis.

No	Relationship	Beta Coefficient	p-Value	Result	Significance	Hypothesis
1	UT → PS	0.279	<0.001	Positive	Significant	Accept
2	GP → PS	0.178	0.282	Positive	Not Significant	Reject
3	PS → IP	0.199	0.004	Positive	Significant	Accept
4	PV → IP	0.033	0.642	Positive	Not Significant	Reject
5	RE → IP	0.154	0.009	Positive	Significant	Accept
6	SE → IP	0.196	0.007	Positive	Significant	Accept
7	RC → IP	0.167	0.026	Positive	Significant	Accept
8	AT → IP	0.216	<0.001	Positive	Significant	Accept
9	SN → IP	0.139	0.003	Positive	Significant	Accept
10	BC → IP	0.040	0.590	Positive	Not Significant	Reject
11	IP → PB	0.542	<0.001	Positive	Significant	Accept
12	PE → PB	0.118	0.008	Positive	Significant	Accept
13	CE → PB	0.105	0.077	Positive	Not Significant	Reject
14	ME → PB	0.121	0.024	Positive	Significant	Accept

shows the result of the SEM analysis of the study which tests the hypothesized factors and determines which among them has a significant effect on Filipinos’ protective behavior for natural calamities. While all factors can be seen to have a positive relationship, it is observed that Filipinos’ intention to prepare (β = 0.542, p = 0.001), physical ergonomics (β = 0.118, p = 0.008), and macro-ergonomics (β = 0.121, p = 0.024) are the significant factors affecting Filipinos’ protective behavior for natural calamities. Subsequently, it has also been found that Filipinos’ intention to prepare for natural calamities is heavily influenced by perceived severity (β = 0.199, p = 0.004), response efficacy (β = 0.154, p = 0.009), self-efficacy (β = 0.196, p = 0.007), response cost (β = 0.167, p = 0.026), attitude (β = 0.216, p = 0.001), and subjective norms (β = 0.139, p = 0.003). In addition, perceived severity is also seen to be influenced by the understanding of the calamity (β = 0.279, p = 0.001).

Figure 4 shows the final SEM model, including the latent variables’ beta coefficients and the determined R². The final R² represents the predictive ability of the exogenous latent variables and their combined impact on the endogenous variables [116]. It can be seen that the model allocates 52.4% of the variation to the protective behavior, 37.6% to the intention to prepare, and 13.3% to perceived severity. In addition, it was also established that an R-value of 20% or higher is considered to be increased when it comes to behavioral intention studies [111]. Thus, the values indicate that the proposed model can explain or predict Filipinos’ protective behavior against natural calamities.

5. Discussions

Climate change has an extreme impact on powerful weather phenomena, which experts have deemed to be more frequent in the near future [117]. Living in the Philippines implies that residents frequently deal with extreme weather incidents, hence proving why there is a need to increase Filipinos’ protective behavior against natural calamities. This study investigated the different factors that can affect the protective behavior of Filipinos during natural disasters by integrating the understanding of the calamities, geographical perspective, PMT, TPB, and ergonomic factors. Subsequently, PLS-SEM was utilized to determine the significant factors affecting the protective behavior of Filipinos during natural calamities.

Based on the results, it can be seen that the intention to prepare is the most significant factor with a positive effect on the protective behavior (β = 0.542, p = 0.001). It shows how an individual’s intention to prepare for natural calamities, which involves their willingness to participate in drills, prepare disaster kits and necessities, and seek information on how to prepare for natural calamities is crucial when it comes to developing disaster preparedness [118]. Moreover, the results further indicate that disaster preparedness can directly influence the development of protective behaviors for natural calamities. The following studies can further support the results. In the study conducted by Zaramezohzzabieh et al. [118], they found that an individual’s willingness to prepare for a natural calamity is crucial when it comes to disaster preparedness. This is also in line with the findings of Kievik and Gutteling [119], wherein they found that an individual’s willingness or intention to prepare for flooding has a significant and positive effect on the development of their self-protective behavior against flood risks. Moreover, Gonzáles-Riancho et al. [120] also confirmed this by analyzing the storm surge resilience of the communities along the German North Sea coast, where they found that the communities’ resilience and intention to collaborate when it comes to disaster preparedness is vital in increasing their resilience during a storm surge. Therefore, it can be presumed that the development of an individual’s protective behavior relies heavily upon their intention to prepare. In addition, attitude is shown to be positively significant and directly affects an individual’s intention to prepare for natural calamities (β = 0.216, p = 0.001). The result entails how a person’s attitude, such as their attitude when it comes to their knowledge of disaster preparedness and ensuring that their families have a basic knowledge of disaster preparedness, has a significant role when it comes to influencing an individual’s intention to prepare. Several other studies have also proven the indicated results; the study conducted by Wang et al. [121] confirmed that attitude has a direct effect on an individual’s behavioral intention. In this case, it was the intention of an individual to prepare for flood risks in China. Ranjbar et al. [122] also confirmed these findings, as they found that an individual’s attitude can positively or negatively affect their intention to prepare for natural calamities. Sujarwo et al. [123] found that attitude is crucial in increasing students’ disaster preparedness. Thus, attitude can be a critical factor in improving an individual’s disaster preparedness, which can help develop their protective behavior for natural calamities.

Perceived severity was also found to have a direct and positive effect on an individual’s intention to prepare (β = 0.199, p = 0.004). The result indicates the perceived severity of an individual toward natural calamities, which also involves the overall perception of the different effects that natural disasters may have on their community. Furthermore, perceived severity could be seen as an indicator for an individual to prepare for natural calamities. McCourt et al. [124] supported this finding, stating that perceived disaster severity has a direct and positive effect on pharmacists’ disaster preparedness and behavior. Furthermore, Amini et al. [125] found that perceived severity can increase earthquake preparedness in women, mainly when a health education intervention was established. Mideksa [39] has further supported these findings, claiming that perceived severity has a positive linear relationship with typhoon preparedness—particularly in planning, mitigation, and response. Based on the results of both previous and current studies, it can be inferred that perceived severity can influence an individual’s intention to prepare and develop their protective behavior for natural calamities.

Subsequently, it has also been found that understanding natural calamities has a significant and positive effect on the perceived severity (β = 0.279, p = 0.001). It indicates the importance of an individual’s knowledge of different natural calamities, contributing to their perceived severity. Aside from this, the finding further shows how knowledge of various natural calamities is vital to an individual’s intention to prepare. The result is confirmed by the study of Xu et al. [126], which found that information regarding natural disasters, as well as their credibility, has an indirect effect on an individual’s intention to prepare through their perceived severity. Furthermore, the study by Masud et al. [127] has also shown that an individual’s knowledge and experience when it comes to natural disasters increases their perception of severity and vulnerability, thus increasing their intention to prepare for it.

However, geographical perspective was found to have no significant influence on the perceived severity of an individual (β = 0.178, p = 0.282). This result contradicts the study of Kurata et al. [32], in which geographical perspective had a significant effect on the perceived severity and the perceived vulnerability of an individual regarding typhoons. It was found by Kamil et al. [128] that the importance of geographical literacy in the formation of the student’s geographical perspective can lead to building their interest in disaster preparedness. However, it is noticed that most of the respondents lived in the National Capital Region (NCR) in a single detached house and had a monthly income ranging from PHP 40,000 to PHP 70,000. This further supports the statement by Rodriguez-Oreggia et al. [129] that the socio-economic structure and the overall economic system strongly correlate with the impact of natural disasters. This means that people are less likely to consider the geographic perspective since they can prepare and respond to natural calamities as part of their highly capable salary bracket.

Aside from perceived severity, self-efficacy was also found to have a positive and direct effect on an individual’s intention to prepare (β = 0.196, p = 0.007). Self-efficacy could be seen as an individual’s actions or initial preparations for natural calamities, which include securing the property, having a disaster kit, acquiring food and medical supplies, creating a safety plan, etc. The results show that an individual’s initial preparatory activities influence their intention to prepare for natural calamities. The finding is confirmed by the study by Marceron and Rohrbeck [130], which found that self-efficacy motivates people with disabilities to engage in disaster and emergency preparedness. Furthermore, Yu et al. [131] have found that self-efficacy in a community is a crucial factor in enhancing disaster preparedness, which further influences the overall disaster resilience of the community. By decreasing their self-efficacy, the community is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural disasters. Hence, self-efficacy is essential in disaster preparedness and building the disaster resilience of a community or a country.

Additionally, response cost was also found to positively and significantly influence an individual’s intention to prepare. The findings show how an overall cost can affect an individual’s intention to prepare for natural calamities. It can be seen that preparing for natural calamities, such as acquiring warning systems and securing essential items such as foods and medicines, are seen to be an expense for an individual; thus, the findings indicate that their overall response cost is a significant factor when it comes to their intention to prepare for natural calamities. Kusonwattana et al. [67] previously established that response cost significantly influences an individual’s disaster preparedness and protective behavior, finding that the higher the response cost, the more initiative an individual tends to take to prepare for disasters. The result is further supported by the study of Grothmann and Reusswig [132]. Overall, high response cost can be an incentive to prepare for disasters, as it highlights the potential consequences of being unprepared and emphasizes the importance of being proactive to reduce risk and lessen the impact of disasters. Hence, there is a need to provide cost-effective precautionary measures and responses to natural disasters to increase an individual’s motivation for disaster preparedness and increase the community’s overall resilience.

Moreover, response efficacy has also been found to influence an individual’s intention to prepare significantly. It indicates how an individual’s preparedness, such as securing property, acquiring information, and following local government units, is deemed effective and efficient in responding to natural calamities. Moreover, it also indicates that the more the response is seen to be effective and efficient, the higher the probability that an individual will continue to engage with disaster preparedness activities, affecting their intention to prepare. Chen and Cong [133] have emphasized in their study that response efficacy is an essential factor in effective disaster mitigation and motivation for an individual to participate in disaster preparedness. In addition, they also stated that response efficacy is a crucial factor in improving a country’s resilience. Rao et al. [134] found that response efficacy is significantly associated with cumulative and adequate disaster preparedness. Furthermore, Rainear and Christensen [135] established that response efficacy is one of the significant factors contributing to an individual’s intention to adopt pro-environmental behaviors that can address the issues of climate change.

Furthermore, subjective norms were also found to influence an individual’s intention to prepare significantly. This is evident based on the result that an individual’s social circle, such as families and friends, as well as the society and the community that they belong to, has a significant influence when it comes to affecting their behavior, which in this case in their intention to prepare for natural calamities. It further indicates that society’s norms and the perception of their social circle towards preparing for natural calamities can undoubtedly impact their overall intention to prepare. The finding is supported by Paek et al. [136], who found that subjective norms are one of the strongest predictors regarding an individual’s intentions and participation in emergency preparedness. Subsequently, Ejeta et al. [137] also found that subjective norms are a key factor influencing an individual to engage in disaster and emergency health preparedness. Ng [118] found that among the three predictors of the TPB model, subjective norm was the only significant predictor of an individual’s intentions regarding disaster preparedness.

Surprisingly, perceived vulnerability was an insignificant factor regarding the intention to prepare (β = 0.033, p = 0.642). The finding suggests that perceived vulnerability of an individual when it comes to natural calamities does not affect their willingness and intention to prepare for natural calamities. This is supported by the study of Hajito et al. [138], wherein they could not establish any significant relationship between perceived vulnerability and an individual’s disaster preparedness, despite one third of their respondents being prone to natural disasters. Yet, these findings contradict more recent discoveries, such as the study of Abunyewah et al. [56], which established that perceived vulnerability is considered one of the motivation factors for an individual to prepare for natural disasters.

Additionally, perceived behavioral control was also found to have no significant influence on the intention to prepare (β = 0.040, p = 0.590). The study of Ng [118] proves this finding as it was stated that perceived behavioral control was deemed an insignificant factor when predicting an individual’s intention and willingness to participate in disaster preparations. Another study by Zaremohzzabieh et al. [38] also found that perceived behavioral control had no significant influence on an individual’s intention to participate in household preparedness for natural disasters. The findings further indicate that an individual’s perception of whether or not preparing for natural disasters is easy for them or their confidence in preparing for a natural calamity does not explain their intentions to prepare for natural calamities.

In terms of the ergonomic factors, it was found that macro-ergonomics has a significant influence on protective behavior (β = 0.121, p = 0.024). This further implies the importance of the government’s role in building the country’s resilience and instilling protective behaviors among the Filipino community. It indicates that the government’s effort regarding natural calamities and their effects on the community plays a significant role in an individual developing a protective behavior toward natural calamities. This result was established by Wen and Chang [139], wherein the involvement of the government was an essential factor in the disaster resilience of a country, especially in developing policies and guidelines concerning mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. Additionally, DeYoung and Peters [140] found that a community’s disaster resilience and preparedness heavily rely on their confidence in the government. Furthermore, these findings are corroborated by the study of Choudhury et al. [141], which stated that disaster resilience and resilience-building initiatives are more effective when integrated with government structures. In a more recent study, it was found that the government itself plays an essential role in the enhancement of disaster resilience and mitigating the losses of a community during and after a natural disaster [142].

Physical ergonomics was also found to be a significant factor in influencing the protective behavior of Filipinos for natural calamities (β = 0.118, p = 0.008). The result further indicates the importance of acquiring emergency supply kits, or being able to obtain supply kits, and being knowledgeable on the necessary measures for any natural calamities. Aside from this, it also indicates how government warning systems play a vital role in the disaster preparedness of the community and the overall protective behavior or resilience. This is supported by the findings of Donahue et al. [143], who emphasized the importance of having an emergency supply for natural disasters as this ensures the family’s safety and acceptable living conditions during the post-disaster period. Moreover, Wamsler [144] highlighted the importance of urban planning when mitigating the risks and impacts of natural disasters. He stated that the planning of housing and its materials used could further eliminate the risks of natural disaster impacts. Comerio et al. [145] also stated that the development of a community, particularly its housing approaches, is a key factor in enhancing the community’s disaster resilience. There is an increase in the usage of new technology when it comes to disaster management. Erdelj et al. [146] found how the well-being of people can improve when wireless sensor networks (WSN) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are used in disaster management.

Comparatively, cognitive ergonomics was found to have no significant influence on protective behavior (β = 0.105, p = 0.077). This result contradicts the findings of Romo-Murphy et al. [147]. They found that access to relevant information, such as radio, news, and social networks, is essential for disaster preparedness and disaster management. A more recent study has shown that disaster journalism could be essential in disaster management, planning, response, and recovery [148]. Additionally, drills are also seen to be an integral part of building resilience by increasing disaster preparedness.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

The Philippines is regarded as one of the most vulnerable countries to extreme weather events due to its geographical location; thus, it is important to increase disaster preparedness and disaster resilience. This study investigated the different factors that can affect the protective behavior of Filipinos against natural and socio-natural calamities. The study has integrated behavioral theories with ergonomic factors and utilized disaster risk reduction knowledge to develop a sustainable disaster risk plan. Developing sustainable disaster management necessitates a multidimensional strategy that integrates sustainable practices throughout the entire disaster management cycle, from preparation to response and recovery. To achieve a sustainable disaster reduction plan, the study’s findings suggest the following: first, it is essential to know what possible risks and hazards are in the vulnerable area. This is necessary for making plans for disaster management. Thus, a risk assessment is needed to assist in identifying vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure requiring special attention. Second, sustainability objectives should be incorporated into disaster management plans. Plans for sustainable disaster management should include strategies for mitigating environmental impact, promoting social equity, and conserving resources. Disaster management necessitates a coordinated effort between government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector; therefore, partnerships with other stakeholders are essential. Developing partnerships can aid in integrating sustainable practices into all facets of disaster management. Lastly, sustainable infrastructure should be invested in. Sustainable infrastructure, such as renewable energy systems and green buildings, can aid in mitigating the carbon footprint of disaster relief and recovery efforts. Hence, investing in sustainable infrastructure can also contribute to disaster resilience.

Future researchers and government agencies can utilize the findings of this study by considering ergonomic factors when building the country’s sustainable disaster resilience. They can motivate Filipinos to develop protective behavior by enhancing their communication systems and programs for information dissemination and improving their response methods and disaster planning. The model can also be utilized by future research as a theoretical framework in disaster preparedness and protective behavior for worldwide studies.

5.2. Practical Implications

Climate change is a severe problem for our society today as it causes extreme weather conditions across the globe. The Philippines is geographically situated inside the Pacific Ring of Fire and typhoon belt, making the country one of the most vulnerable with a high probability of experiencing these extreme weather conditions, which can also significantly impact the country’s overall state. Filipinos need to be prepared for future weather incidents. There is also a need for the government to focus on providing resilience programs across the country. To efficiently and effectively address the natural calamities present in the country and for Filipinos to develop protective behavior against natural calamities, there is a need to explore what factors can influence Filipinos to build resilience against natural calamities.

The findings of the study indicate that Filipinos with an intention to prepare for natural calamities ultimately results in developing protective behaviors for natural calamities. The study highlights the different factors that can significantly influence Filipinos’ intentions to prepare and develop their protective behaviors. Furthermore, the response or efforts of the government and the ability of an individual to acquire the necessary supplies before natural calamities are both crucial in developing an individual’s protective behavior. Apart from this, their willingness to prepare for calamities, take part in drills, acquire and share information, take some precautionary measures in the household, and create emergency kits can affect their willingness to prepare. Furthermore, the study’s findings suggest that there is a need to increase government programs when it comes to educating Filipinos about natural disasters to increase their disaster preparedness. Local government units should devise a resilience program for their respective communities. Furthermore, the findings can also be utilized as a basis for developing risk reduction and policies by the government.

5.3. Limitation

Although the study obtained excellent results, a few things still need to be considered. First, the majority of the respondents belonged to the younger generation (21–40 years old); hence, it is suggested to focus on distributing the survey to older generations (41 years old and above) since they are more vulnerable and susceptible to the impacts of natural calamities. Second, this study considered a quantitative analysis that covers the behavioral, protective, and ergonomic factors through an online survey. Future researchers may consider using interviews to integrate the quantitative and qualitative results. Other factors may be discovered with the method employed. Furthermore, future research should include other factors, such as an individual’s experience with natural calamities, as this may also affect their overall protective behavior. Lastly, since most of the respondents resided in urban areas, mainly in Metro Manila, it is recommended that future studies shift their focus to evaluating the protective behavior of Filipinos that reside near coastal areas, mountain ranges, or volcanos. This study considered a new extended framework. Other analysis methodologies should be considered, such as machine learning algorithms, to justify the framework created and utilized in this study.

6. Conclusions

Climate change has significantly increased the frequency of natural disasters. The Philippines is considered one of the most vulnerable countries to extreme and intensifying natural disasters. With little information on determining factors that affect Filipinos’ intention to prepare for natural calamities in general, it is crucial to explore these factors to understand why Filipinos prepare for natural calamities. The present study has investigated the different factors that affect the protective behavior of Filipinos to prepare for natural calamities by utilizing the PMT and TPB models and adding ergonomic appraisal analyzed using PLS-SEM. A questionnaire was constructed that was disseminated through different social media platforms and successfully gathered 302 respondents.

The results conveyed that out of the 14 latent variables, 10 latent variables are the significant factors that affect the intention to prepare and protective behavior for natural calamities. To which, the intention to prepare and subjective norms are the most significant factors that affect protective behavior. Additionally, macro- and physical ergonomics have also been found to be a significant factor affecting protective behavior for natural calamities. Interestingly, it was also found that understanding natural calamities affects the perceived severity of an individual, which also affects their intention to prepare. Aside from this, response efficacy, self-efficacy, response cost, attitude, and subjective norms were found to be significant factors affecting an individual’s intention to prepare. Different government bodies can utilize the study to develop resilience programs that ultimately enhance and motivate Filipinos to prepare for natural calamities, thus increasing their protective behavior. In addition, the findings will raise awareness of the importance of disaster preparedness, especially for our society today, to successfully respond to and recover from upcoming natural disasters.