An Gie Yong Ph.D.(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc. Louise Lemyre, Celine Pinsent, Tim Dugas, & Daniel Krewski GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences

An Gie Yong Ph.D.(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc.

Louise Lemyre, Celine Pinsent, Tim Dugas, & Daniel Krewski

GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa

Canada

World Weather Open Science Conference 2014, Montreal, QC – 18 August 2014

Psychological dimensions of risk perception and disaster preparedness

for natural disasters in Canada

© Lemyre et al., 20141

Context


How individuals understand and

evaluate hazards

How individuals understand and

evaluate hazards

Targeted approachTargeted approach

What does ‘psychosocial’ mean?

• Descriptive term for all human processes involving both psychological and social components.

• It relates to the way we think, feel, and behave.(cognitive, affective, behavioral)

• It includes risk perception and preparedness.

• Psychosocial applies to both individual and collective processes. (It drives behaviour)


The social environment

Social Environment)

individualindividualindividualindividual

Socio-political Context

Social Inequities

Preparedness Policies

Socio-political Context

Social Inequities

Preparedness Policies

External Information Sources

Access to Emergency Services

External Information Sources

Access to Emergency Services

Neighbourhood Organization

Neighbourhood Relations

Neighbourhood Organization

Neighbourhood Relations

Social Networks

Social Support

Social Norms

Social Networks

Social Support

Social Norms

HousingHealth

Socio-demo

Previous Experience

HousingHealth

Socio-demo

Previous Experience

Gibson & Lemyre (2012)

Individual preparednessIndividual preparedness

Collective preparednessCollective preparedness


Canada and extreme environmental events


Flash Flood Toronto (2013)

Slave Lake Wildfire (2011)

Alberta Flood (2013)Goderich Tornado (2011)

Research questions

What are the psychological dimensions underlying the Canadian public’s risk perceptions for natural disasters and extreme weather events?

How do these psychological dimensions relate to…

socio-demographic characteristics?

disaster preparedness behaviours?

the level of perceived risk for natural hazards?


MethodNational Study on Risk Perception in Canada 2012


Belief System World Views

Personal EpistemologyAnecdotal/science baseOther knowingScience base

Belief System World Views

Personal EpistemologyAnecdotal/science baseOther knowingScience base

E

Information SourcesExpertsFriends and familyGovernmentTraditional mediaSocial mediaOfficial internet webpages

Information SourcesExpertsFriends and familyGovernmentTraditional mediaSocial mediaOfficial internet webpages

S

TrustBest-benevolence governmentTruth governmentExpertsFriends and familyGovernmentTraditional mediaSocial mediaOfficial internet webpages

TrustBest-benevolence governmentTruth governmentExpertsFriends and familyGovernmentTraditional mediaSocial mediaOfficial internet webpages

T

KnowledgeCause-effect and preventionUnderstanding hazardTechnical knowledge

KnowledgeCause-effect and preventionUnderstanding hazardTechnical knowledge

Attitude BeliefHopeless randomnessValue systemScience-tech enthusiasm

Attitude BeliefHopeless randomnessValue systemScience-tech enthusiasm

ControlChance-fateGovernmentalInternal-choice

ControlChance-fateGovernmentalInternal-choice

UncertaintyComplexityPredictabilityUnderstood by science

UncertaintyComplexityPredictabilityUnderstood by science

Risk PerceptionLikelihood / probabilitySusceptibility

Risk PerceptionLikelihood / probabilitySusceptibility

Tolerance AcceptanceComplianceThresholdTrade-off or risk-benefit

Tolerance AcceptanceComplianceThresholdTrade-off or risk-benefit

BehaviourAvoidance or absencePlanned, thought, or intentObservable

BehaviourAvoidance or absencePlanned, thought, or intentObservable

K

A

C

U

P

O

B

Socio-DemographicsSocio-Demographics

DOther

StressCPR / First aid trainingCommunity engagementAwareness of CCS

OtherStressCPR / First aid trainingCommunity engagementAwareness of CCS

Z

Social NormPeople in general

Social NormPeople in general

N

MethodNational Study on Risk Perception in Canada 2012

• Representative of the Canadian public (N = 3,263)• Merged online (n = 1,569) and telephone samples (n =

1,694)

• ≈ 30 minutes• Nested design with generic core section plus

3 topical case studies: Natural disaster, radiation, vaccine

• Natural disaster case study (n = 1,089)• 18 statements on natural disaster risks and issues• 5 items on disaster preparedness behaviours• 3 items on level of perceived risk for natural hazards


MethodData analysis


Results: Phase 1

What are the psychological dimensions underlying the Canadian public’s risk perceptions for natural disasters and

extreme weather event?


Results: EFA-CFA3 main factors


Self-preparedness

belief(F1)

Illusiveness of preparedness

(F2)

External responsibility for disaster

management(F3)

It is an individual's responsibility to be prepared for a major natural disaster.

E1

The negative consequences of natural disasters can be decreased by being well prepared.

E2

The main thing that determines my exposure to natural disaster risks is what I myself do.

E3

The benefits of preparing for a natural disaster outweigh the costs. E4

.43

.53

.23

.56

If a natural disaster has recently occurred, it is less likely to happen again soon.

E5

Preparation is useless to protect oneself from natural disasters. E6

Fate will decide if I am in a natural disaster. E7

It is unlikely that I will be a victim of a natural disaster. E8

Information about natural disasters is confusing. E9

It is the government’s responsibility to plan effectively for natural disasters. E10

Even if I didn’t understand why, I would likely follow the recommendations from government authorities during a natural disaster.

E11

Organizations should help people learn about disaster preparedness. E12

.56

.35

.39

.43

.33

.50

.47

.52

.35

.75***

-.04

.04

S-Bχ2 (44) = 58.49, p = .07, *CFI = .97, *RMSEA = .025 [90% C.I. (.000, .040)]

Results: Phase 2

How do these 3 psychological dimensions relate to socio-demographic

characteristics?


Age

Education

Household income

Gender

Region

Parental status

Results: ANOVAsSelf-preparedness belief by socio-demographics

Age (n.s.) Education (n.s.) Household income (n.s.)

Parental status (n.s.) Region Gender (n.s.)


p < .001

* *

Results: ANOVAsIllusiveness of preparedness by socio-demographics

Age Education Household income

Parental status Region (n.s.) Gender (n.s.)


p < .001p < .001 p < .001

p < .01

* * * *

* *

****** ***

Results: ANOVAsExternal responsibility for disaster management by socio-demographics

Age Education (n.s.) Income

Parental status Region (n.s.) Gender


p < .001

p < .05

p < .05

**

p < .001

* ** *

Results: Phase 3 Disaster preparedness

How do these 3 psychological dimensions relate to disaster preparedness behaviours?


Results: Regressions“Discuss preparedness information with others”


Self-preparedness belief (β = .28***)


Discuss preparedness information with others

Externalresponsibilityfor disaster

management (β = .16***)




R2 = .13***

Results: Regressions“Have an emergency supply kit”




Have an emergency supply kit



management R2 = .07***

Results: Regressions“Have an evacuation plan”




Have an evacuation plan



management R2 = .10***


(β = -.08***)


(β = -.08***)

Results: Regressions“Discuss with others to search for me”




Discuss with others to search for me within 48-

hours post-disaster




management (β = .14***) R2 = .06***


(β = -.09***)


(β = -.09***)

Results: Regressions“Intend to comply with evacuation recommendations”




Intend to comply with evacuation

recommendations




management (β = .48***) R2 = .25***

Results: Phase 3Perceived risk for natural hazards

How do these psychological dimensions relate to the level of perceived risk for

natural hazards?



management (β = .09**)


management (β = .09**)

Results: RegressionsPerceived risk for natural hazards



Self-preparedness belief

Major flooding

R2 = .09***

Future directions

• Subpopulation analyses – e.g., immigrants compared to Canadian-born individuals • My doctoral dissertation

• Multilevel analyses – e.g., community engagement and social capital

• Qualitative interviews

• Spatial analyses using GIS• Poster UAS-POM3010


Implications

• Perceptions of natural hazards are multifaceted(more consequence-driven than hazard-driven)

• Different social groups look at the same hazard differently

• Beliefs affect behavioural response and risk perception


More risk communication on preparedness behaviours should move towards to:

People and their communityPeople and their community

‘‘Process’ in addition to ‘the hazard’Process’ in addition to ‘the hazard’

Capacity buildingCapacity building

Implications3 main messages



An Gie Yong Ph.D(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc.

GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa

Canada

[email protected]

www.gapsante.uottawa.ca

27

Documents

An Gie Yong Ph.D.(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc. Louise Lemyre, Celine Pinsent, Tim Dugas, & Daniel Krewski GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences