Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, International Campus (IUMS-IC), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Candidate in Health in Disasters and Emergencies, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Health in Disaster and Emergency, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Today, the role of people in crisis management plans is of particular importance due
to the prepared community approach. It is difficult or impossible to attract public involvement due
to the low level of public perception of risk. Therefore, it is necessary to discover the status of risk
perception and its affecting factors. This study was conducted to investigate factors affecting the
strategies of disaster risk perception improvement.
Materials and Methods: This systematic review study was conducted in 2017 using extensive
electronic and library literature searches in the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed electronic
databases. The preliminary findings included 1030 studies. Out of 941 retrieved references, 925
references were excluded because they did not meet the objectives of this review or did not focus
directly on general population. Finally, 16 articles were selected for further investigation.
Results: The extracted variables were divided into four general domains: personal, psychological,
socioeconomic, and cultural factors. Personal characteristics included sex, age, marriage, level of
education, personal knowledge, and disaster personal experience. Psychological factors comprised
emotions (fear and insecurity), mental images (beliefs, attitudes), and internal and external control.
Cultural factors such as, belief, values, norms, faith, religious, and protective spirit were effective in
general perception of disasters risk. Socioeconomic factors such as, income, livelihood, insurance
coverage, trust, and fair access to land and resources were also influential. The strategies to improve
public disaster risk perception were educational, participatory, incentive, confidence building,
supportive, managerial and cultural ones. A family‑centered approach is recommended for the better
implementation of strategies.
Conclusion: The improvement of risk perception requires government planning in different fields
such as education, research, health, and culture, with an emphasis on social groups especially family.
Keywords
Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: Renewing the global
commitment to people’s resilience, health, and well‑being. Int J
Disaster Risk Sci 2015;6:164‑76.
2. Guha‑Sapir D, Hoyois P, Below R. Annual Disaster Statistical
Review 2014: The Numbers and Trends. Brussels, Belgium. Centre
for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED); 2015.
3. Assembly UG. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015‑2030. Resolution A/Res/69/283. Available from: https://
www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.
pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 Sep 2].
4. Jegillos S. Fundamentals of disaster risk management: How are
Southeast Asian countries addressing these? In: Risk Sustainable
Development and Disasters Southern Perspectives. Cape Town:
Periperi Publications; 1999.
5. de Guzman EM. Towards Total Disaster Risk Management
Approach. Kobe: United National Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, Asian Disaster Response Unit; 2003.
6. Malizia M, Vargas K. Connecting public libraries with community
emergency responders. Public Libr 2012;51:32‑6.
7. UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. Sendai
Framework for Disaster Rrisk Reduction (2015‑2030). In: Third UN
World Conference, on March 18, 2015, U.N.S.R. of and t.S.G.f.D.R.
Reduction, Editors. Sendai, Japan: United Nations; 2015. p. 50.
8. Samadipour E, Seyedin HS, Ravaghi H. Roles, responsibilities, and
strategies for enhancing disaster risk perception: A quantitative
study. J Edu Health Promot. 2018;[In Press].
9. Williams G. Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization
and Political Economy. Background Paper; 2011.
10. Birkholz S, Muro M, Jeffrey P, Smith HM. Rethinking the
relationship between flood risk perception and flood management.
Sci Total Environ 2014;478:12‑20.
11. Armaş I, Avram E. Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta,
Romania. Nat Hazards 2009;50:269‑87.
12. Alshehri SA, Rezgui Y, Li H. Public perceptions and attitudes to
biological risks: Saudi Arabia and regional perspectives. Disasters
2016;40:799‑815.
13. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C. The risk perception
paradox – Implications for governance and communication of
natural hazards. Risk Anal 2013;33:1049‑65.
14. Armaş I. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case
study: The historic center of the Bucharest municipality/Romania.
Nat Hazards 2008;47:397‑410.
15. Jones EC, Faas AJ, Murphy AD, Tobin GA, Whiteford LM,
McCarty C, et al. Cross‑cultural and site‑based influences on
demographic, well‑being, and social network predictors of risk
perception in hazard and disaster settings in Ecuador and Mexico:
Predictors of risk perception in hazard and disaster settings in
Ecuador and Mexico. Hum Nat 2013;24:5‑32.
16. Shenk D, Mahon J, Kalaw KJ, Ramos B, Tufan I. Understanding
the disaster experience of older adults by gender: The experience
of survivors of the 2007 Earthquake in Peru. Health Care Women
Int 2010;31:965‑80.
17. McIvor D, Paton D. Preparing for natural hazards: Normative
and attitudinal influences. Disaster Prev Manage 2007;16:79‑88.
18. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J. Enhancing
seismic risk mitigation decisions: A motivational approach. Constr
Manage Econ 2011;29:1003‑16.
19. Botzen WJ, Aerts JC, Van Den Bergh JC. Dependence of flood risk
perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water
Resour Res 2009;45:W10440‑W10455.
20. Gaillard JC, Pangilinan MR, Cadag JR, Le Masson V. Living with
increasing floods: Insights from a rural Philippine community.
Disaster Prev Manage 2008;17:383‑95.
21. Zagonari F. Implementing a trans‑boundary flood risk
management plan: A method for determining willingness to
cooperate and case study for the Scheldt estuary. Nat Hazards
2013;66:1101‑33.
22. Harries T. The anticipated emotional consequences of adaptive behaviour – Impacts on the take‑up of household flood‑protection
measures. Environ Plan A 2012;44:649‑68.
23. Parsizadeh F, Ibrion M, Mokhtari M, Lein H, Nadim F. Bam 2003
earthquake disaster: On the earthquake risk perception, resilience
and earthquake culture‑cultural beliefs and cultural landscape of
Qanats, gardens of Khorma trees and Argh‑e Bam. Int J Disaster
Risk Reduct 2015;14:457‑69.
24. Liu BF, Wood MM, Egnoto M, Bean H, Sutton J, Mileti D, et al. Is a
picture worth a thousand words? The effects of maps and warning
messages on how publics respond to disaster information. Public
Relat Rev 2017;43:493‑506.
25. Cutchin MP, Martin KR, Owen SV, Goodwin JS. Concern about
petrochemical health risk before and after a refinery explosion.
Risk Anal 2008;28:589‑601.
26. Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T, Vanneuville W, De Maeyer P.
An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian
coast. Risk Anal 2011;31:1055‑68.
27. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social
trust and knowledge. Risk Analy 2000;20:713‑20.
28. Burningham K, Fielding J, Thrush D. It’ll never happen to me:
Understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters
2008;32:216‑38.
29. Tekeli‑Yeşil S, Dedeoğlu N, Braun‑Fahrlaender C, Tanner M.
Factors motivating individuals to take precautionary action for
an expected Earthquake in Istanbul. Risk Anal 2010;30:1181‑95.
30. Jones AM. Use of fear and threat‑based messages to motivate
preparedness: Costs, consequences and other choices. Part two.
J Bus Contin Emer Plan 2013;6:198‑209.
31. Spiekermann R, Kienberger S, Norton J, Briones F,
WeichselgartnerJ. The disaster‑knowledge matrix‑reframing and
evaluating the knowledge challenges in disaster risk reduction.
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2015;13:96‑108.
32. Botzen W, Aerts J, Van den Bergh J. Individual preferences for
reducing flood risk to near zero through elevation. Mitig Adapt
Strateg Glob Change 2013;18:229‑44.
33. Blanchard‑BoehmR, BerryK, ShowalterPS. Should flood insurance
be mandatory? Insights in the wake of the 1997 New Year’s Day
flood in Reno–sparks, Nevada. Appl Geography 2001;21:199‑221.
34. Sjoberg L. Risk perception by the public and by experts:
A dilemma in risk management. Hum Ecol Rev 1999;6:1‑9.
35. Wachinger G, Renn O, Bianchizza C, Coates T ,
De Marchi B, Domènech L, et al. Risk Perception and Natural
Hazards. WP3‑Report of the CapHaz‑Net Projekt; 2010.
Available from: 2010/09 http://www.caphaz‑net.org.
SynergienzwischenNaturschutzundKlimaschutz–Wasser/
Gewässer(‑Management).
)