Megacities and small towns: different perspectives on hazard vulnerability

Cross, John A.

doi:10.1016/s1464-2867(01)00020-1

Cited by 105 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study's findings of an overall high level of wildfire preparedness within the studied rural community contrast to those found elsewhere (e.g. Winter and Fried, 2000;Cross, 2001). These results indicate that characteristics of agricultural communities, including self-reliance, social networks, and experience with fires, encourage preparedness.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

“It's just a natural way of life…” an investigation of wildfire preparedness in rural Australia

McGee,

Russell

2003

Environmental Hazards

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the preparedness of residents living in a rural community in Victoria, Australia, for wildfires, and the factors influencing their preparedness. Overall, participants were well aware of wildfire risks and appeared well prepared for the event of a fire. However, residents involved in agriculture and with a long-standing association with the area appeared better prepared than were those on small properties and newcomers. Their social networks, previous experiences with wildfires and grassfires, and involvement with the local fire brigade influenced preparedness of long-term residents. Characteristics of agricultural communities, including a culture of self-reliance, experience with fires as part of farming, and social cohesion, appeared to contribute to wildfire preparedness within this community. Included are recommendations encouraging preparedness for wildfires. r

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

“It's just a natural way of life…” an investigation of wildfire preparedness in rural Australia

McGee,

Russell

2003

Environmental Hazards

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is, however, a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the factors which contribute to risk. Factors such as age, gender, education and ethnicity are the foundation for disparities in health across different regions and have been proposed as key elements in disaster risk [10,12,13,[22][23][24][25][26]. The Canadian Red Cross advances an approach to conceptualizing people's capabilities and susceptibilities to disaster based on the social determinants of health.…”

Section: High-risk Populations and Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Household Emergency Preparedness: A Literature Review

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global policies on disaster risk reduction have highlighted individual and community responsibilities and roles in reducing risk and promoting coping capacity. Strengthening local preparedness is viewed as an essential element in effective response and recovery. This paper presents a synthesis of available literature on household preparedness published over the past 15 years. It emphasizes the complexity of preparedness, involving personal and contextual factors such as health status, self-efficacy, community support, and the nature of the emergency. In addition, people require sufficient knowledge, motivation and resources to engage in preparedness activities. Social networks have been identified as one such resource which contributes to resilience. A predominant gap in the literature is the need for evidence-informed strategies to overcome the identified challenges to household preparedness. In particular, the construct of social capital and how it can be used to foster individual and community capacity in emergency situations requires further study.

show abstract

“…Variables measuring "sensitivity" and "adaptive capacity" are consistent with those discussed in the literature (Adger, 1999;Cross, 2001;Cutter et al, 2003;Cutter & Finch, 2008;Kelly & Adger, 2000;Wood, Burton, & Cutter, 2010). These data were acquired from the United States Census Bureau, American Medical Association, United States Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%