What drives feelings of responsibility for disaster preparedness? A case of power failures in Finland and New Zealand

Abstract

The division of responsibilities for disaster preparedness between individuals and society is rapidly evolving: national‐level preparedness has made way for networked disaster risk governance, and citizens are also expected to play their part. Preparedness is shaped by various individual and socioeconomic factors, including previous disaster experience and perceptions of risk. However, little is known about whom citizens perceive to be responsible for preparedness. This study examines the factors associated with an individual's perception of their own responsibility in preparing for a disaster—long power failures—and the factors related to preparedness measures taken. As societal disaster context may impact perceptions of responsibility, we investigate preparedness through large‐scale surveys (n = 2028) in two countries: Finland, where the frequency of disasters is low, and New Zealand, which experiences disasters relatively often. We find that self‐efficacy strongly predicts perception of responsibility and actual preparedness measures in both countries. However, we show that New Zealanders feel more responsible for their own preparedness than Finns. This may be influenced by New Zealand's recent experiences of severe disasters and active preparedness‐related communication. In addition, previous experience with power failures and risk perception are connected to preparedness in both countries, echoing past research. We conclude that surrounding historical and societal context seem to shape the individual's feelings of responsibility for disaster preparedness, while self‐efficacy remains the most salient factor in empowering individuals to take responsibility.

Designing understandable, action-oriented, and well-perceived earthquake risk maps—The Swiss case study

“…A question that often arises is who is responsible to take preparedness actions. People who do not experience disasters often tend to believe that (regional) authorities and civil protection are responsible to ensure that communities are resilient to earthquakes (Nikkanen et al, 2023). This is supported by our findings that people indicated that the risk map is especially useful for emergency services/authorities and not for themselves.…”

“…Further, the lowest label of the legend should not be "no risk" but rather "very low risk". Communicating that zero risk is impossible does not diminish the trust in risk management agencies, so there is no need to fear losing people's confidence in the information provided (Nakayachi, 1998).…”

A renewed awareness: Reinvigorating preparedness research for crisis and disaster management

“…Indeed, research into preparedness has documented that preparedness tends to increase after communities are affected by disaster (Kapucu, 2008). This is also what Nikkanen et al (2023) find in their contribution to this issue. The authors investigated what drives the feeling of responsibility for disaster preparedness between individuals and society in a large‐scale survey.…”

Adaptive Governance of Disaster Preparedness? The Case of Regional Networks in Finland

“…Integrating wider public participation could diversify perspectives and challenge the consensus, as well as contribute to the goal of whole-of-society vision of comprehensive security. In addition, strengthening the role of citizens could also boost their perception of responsibility regarding preparedness, and thus contribute to household preparedness [38].…”