Despite considerable effort and expenditure on public hazard education, levels of disaster preparedness remain low. By integrating and expanding on natural hazards and health research on protective behaviour, this paper proposes a social cognitive model of disaster preparedness. The model describes a developmental process that commences with factors that motivate people to prepare, progresses through the formation of intentions, and culminates in decisions to prepare. Following their critical appraisal, variables implicated at each stage are identified and their role in the preparedness process described. The implications of the model for the conceptualisation and assessment of preparedness is discussed, as is its implications for risk reduction and communication strategies.

Every year worldwide some extraordinary wildfires occur, overwhelming suppression capabilities, causing substantial damages, and often resulting in fatalities. Given their increasing frequency, there is a debate about how to address these wildfires with significant social impacts, but there is no agreement upon terminology to describe them. The concept of extreme wildfire event (EWE) has emerged to bring some coherence on this kind of events. It is increasingly used, often as a synonym of other terms related to wildfires of high intensity and size, but its definition remains elusive. The goal of this paper is to go beyond drawing on distinct disciplinary perspectives to develop a holistic view of EWE as a social-ecological phenomenon. Based on literature review and using a transdisciplinary approach, this paper proposes a definition of EWE as a process and an outcome. Considering the lack of a consistent "scale of gravity" to leverage extreme wildfire events such as in natural hazards (e.g., tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes) we present a proposal of wildfire classification with seven categories based on measurable fire spread and behavior parameters and suppression difficulty. The categories 5 to 7 are labeled as EWE.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Recent years have witnessed community disaster resilience becoming one of the most heavily supported and advocated approach to disaster risk management. However, its application has been influenced by the lack of assessment tools. This study reviews studies conducted using the resilience concept and examines the tools, models, and methods adopted. It examines the domains, indicators, and indices have been considered in the tools. It provides a critical analysis of the assessment tools available for evaluating community disaster resilience (CDR). Methods: We investigated international electronic databases including Scopus, MEDLINE through PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and Google Scholar with no limitation on date, and type of articles. The search terms and strategy were as follow: (Disaster* OR Emergenc*) AND (Resilience OR Resilient OR Resiliency) that were applied for titles, abstracts and keywords. Extracted data were analyzed in terms of studied hazards, types of methodology, domains, and indicators of CDR assessment. Results: Of 675 publications initially identified, the final analysis was conducted on 17 full text articles. These studies presented ten models, tools, or indices for CDR assessment. These evinced a diverse set of models with regard to the domains, indicators and the kind of hazard described. Considerable inter dependency between and among domains and indicators also emerged from this analysis. Conclusion: The disparity between the articles using the resilience concept and those that offer some approach to measurement (675 vs. 17) indicates the conceptual and measurement complexity in CDR and the fact that the concept may be being used without regard to how CDR should be operationalized and assessed. Of those that have attempted to assess CDR, the level of conceptual diversity indicates limited agreement about how to operationalize the concept. As a way forward we summarize the models identified in the literature and suggest that, as a starting point for the systematic operationalization of CDR, that existing indicators of community disaster resilience be classified in five domains. These are social, economic, institutional, physical and natural domains. A need to use appropriate and effective methods to quantify and weigh them with regard to their relative contributions to resilience is identified, as is a need to consider how these levels interrelate to influence resilience. Although assessment of disaster resilience especially at the community level will inform disaster risk reduction strategies, attempts to systematically do so are in preliminary phases. Further empirical investigation is needed to develop a operational and measurable CDR model.

This paper reports on a study investigating cross-cultural equivalence in predictors of earthquake preparedness. Data were collected from Napier (New Zealand) and Kyoto (Japan). These locations were selected because they face comparable levels of seismic risk but differ with respect to their cultural characteristics. This mix of hazard similarity and cultural differences provided an opportunity to assess the degree of crosscultural equivalence in predictors of earthquake preparedness. Cross-cultural equivalence was examined by assessing the degree to which individual hazard beliefs (outcome expectancies) and social characteristics (community participation, collective efficacy, empowerment, trust) could explain levels of hazard preparedness in each location. Structural equation modelling analyses revealed similarity in the pattern of relationships between predictor variables and intention prepare in the Napier and Kyoto data. It is argued that this provides support for the existence of some universal, cross-cultural equivalence in how hazard beliefs and social characteristics interact to predict the degree to which people adopt earthquake preparedness measures. Differences between the data sets are discussed in the context of the fundamental cultural differences between Japan and New Zealand. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.