Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 1 Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, International Campus (IUMS-IC), Iran University of Medical Sciences Department of Operating Room and Anesthesia, School of Paramedic Sciences, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Khorasan Razavi, Iran
2 Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,
3 Department of Health Services Management, School of Health Management and Medical Information, Tehran, Iran,
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Perception the risk of disasters, is mainly of universal and theoretical nature
and is a means of achieving risk understanding/knowledge. In Sendai Framework, the focus is on
increasing risk understanding plans in order to achieve community resilience. Therefore, to achieve
greater public participation in planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR), this study was conducted
primarily to clarify people’s expectations from disaster risk management authorities in order to
approach managers’ and experts’ views to people’s views.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted through semi‑structured
interviews with 22 participants, who were selected using a purposive sampling technique, in three
provinces of Iran. Data analysis was performed by qualitative content analysis using open coding,
classifying, and abstracting.
RESULTS: By constant, comparison of data, classes, and subcategories were defined. Knowledge,
beliefs, practical obligation, respect for human beings, endeavoring for systemic actions in terms
of planning, implementation, and evaluation classes. In three more abstract categories, personal,
interpersonal, and social commitments were defined.
CONCLUSION: At the preparatory stage, disaster managers need the maximum participation of
people in DRR programs. They, in addition to understanding the importance of their managerial
positions at individual levels and social interactions, are committed to reducing risk.
Keywords
Review 2014: The Numbers and Trends. Centre for Research on
the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED); 2015.
2. Database, E.‑D.T.I.D. Available from: http://www.emdat.
be/. [Last accessed on 2017 Apr 13].
3. Allen J, O’toole W, Harris R, McDonnell I. Festival and Special
Event Management, Google eBook. Australia; John Wiley and
Sons; 2012.
4. Wachinger G, Renn O, Bianchizza C, Coates T, De Marchi B,
Domènech L, et al. Risk Perception and Natural Hazards.
CapHaz‑Net WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non‑Profit Communication
and Cooperative Research, Stuttgart; 2010. (Available at:
http://caphaz‑net.org/outcomes‑results/CapHaz‑Net_WP3_
Risk‑Perception.pdf).
5. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis
and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and
rationality. Risk Anal 2004;24(3):11‑22.
6. Anderson‑Berry L, Iroi C, Rangi A. The Environmental and
Societal Impacts of Cyclone Zoë and the Effectiveness of the
Tropical Cyclone Warning Systems in Tikopia and Anuta. James
Cook University Centre for Disaster Studies; 2003.
7. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C. The risk perception
paradox – implications for governance and communication of
natural hazards. Risk Anal 2013;33(10):49‑65.
8. Sjoberg L. Risk perception by the public and by experts:
A dilemma in risk management. Hum Ecol Rev 1999;6(2):1‑9.
9. Aitsi‑Selmi A, Egawa S, Sasaki H, Wannous C, Murray V. The
Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: Renewing the global
commitment to people’s resilience, health, and well‑being. Int J
Disaster Risk Sci 2015;6(1):64‑76.
10. KellensW, TerpstraT, De MaeyerP. Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal
2013;33(1):24‑49.
11. Sjöberg L. Risk Perception and Credibility of Risk Communication.
Stockholm School of Economics (Sweden). Center for Risk
Research; 1992.
12. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social
trust and knowledge Risk Anal 2000;20(7):13‑9.
13. Buchecker M, Salvini G, Baldassarre GD, Semenzin E, Maidl E,
Marcomini A. The role of risk perception in making flood
risk management more effective. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
2013;13:3013‑30.
14. Alshehri SA, Rezgui Y, Li H. Public perceptions and attitudes to
biological risks: Saudi Arabia and regional perspectives. Disasters
2016;40:799‑815.
15. Assarroudi A, Heshmati Nabavi F, Armat MR, Ebadi A,
Vaismoradi M. Directed qualitative content analysis: The
description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and
data analysis process. J Res Nurs 2018;23(1):42‑55.
16. Yang K. Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A missing link in
citizen involvement efforts. Public Adm Rev 2005;65(2):73‑85.
17. Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The commitment‑trust theory of
relationship marketing. J Mark 1994;58(3):20‑38.
18. Asgarizadeh Z, Rafieyan M, Dadashipoor H, Empirical model
of household’s earthquake risk mitigation behaviors using path
analysis method. Geogr Environ Hazard 2015;15:9‑14.
19. Sjöberg L, Moen BE, Rundmo T. Explaining risk perception.
An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception
research. Norway: The Research Council’s RISIT (Risk and Safety
in Transport) 2004;10:665‑12.
20. Goddard S. Disaster Preparedness Knowledge, Beliefs,
Risk‑Perceptions, and Mitigating Factors of Disaster Preparedness
Behaviors of Undergraduate Students at a Large Midwest
University. AT Still University of Health Sciences; 2017.
21. Seyedin H, Samadipour E, Salmani Nodushan I, editors.
Interventional Strategies for Disaster Risk Perception
Improvement: All‑Hazard Approach, in Disaster Risk Perception,
Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies; 2018.
22. Seyedin SH, Jamali HR. Health information and communication
system for emergency management in a developing country, Iran.
J Med Syst 2011;35:591‑7.
)