the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Feb 2023
The Role of Response Efficacy and Self-efficacy in Disaster Preparedness Actions for Vulnerable Households
Abstract. The effects of response efficacy and self-efficacy on disaster preparedness have been widely reported. However, most studies only prove their relationship to disaster preparedness in general terms without ascertaining whether they also variously impact the disaster preparedness of diverse vulnerable families (i.e., caring for older/disabled adults (COD), caring for a child (CC), and low capacity (LC)). In this study, disaster preparedness is divided into two dependent variables: adequate and minimal preparedness. A quantitative analysis was conducted using 4559 samples drawn from the 2021 National Household Survey to investigate the relationship between response efficacy and self-efficacy with preparedness measures adopted by vulnerable households. Binary logistic regression results indicated that households with vulnerable groups are generally more likely to report lower disaster preparedness. Response efficacy is more critical to LC and COD families, while self-efficacy is more important to LC and CC families. Based on these findings, interventions can be tailored to suit different family types and help vulnerable families better prepare for disasters.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(554 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(554 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Revisions', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2023
all in all, good research paper.
to revise:
mainly for the literature review chapter aim to give more details as some sections are not too clear.
Line 23
1.7 people around the world were ...
Line 124.
Change In contrast, to Additionally,
Line 180
Three Hypotheses not Four
Line 233
taking steps to prepare to help you get through a disaster in your area?" remove second to.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
We sincerely thank you for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing constructive comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. The responses to the comments are given below.
Point 1: Line 23 1.7 people around the world were ...
Response 1: We have accepted your suggestion and revised the statement of this sentence. The revised part is as follows: “ According to a survey by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, in the ten years from 2005 to 2014 alone, about 1.7 billion people around the world were affected by various disasters, among which the Chinese people suffered the most disasters, while the United States sustained the most losses”
Point 2: Line 124. Change In contrast, to Additionally.
Response 2: We have accepted your suggestion to change In contrast to Additionally. The revised part is as follows: “Additionally, people with disabilities usually experience the highest risk levels.”
Point 3: Line 180 Three Hypotheses not Four.
Response 3: We have corrected the error. The revised part is as follows: “Based on the above discussion, we developed three hypotheses; each hypothesis covers the three conceptualizations of preparedness”
Point 4: Line 233 taking steps to prepare to help you get through a disaster in your area?" remove second to.
Response 4: Thanks for your advice, we have cited your recommended and remove the second “to” in the Line 233. The revised part is as follows: "How much would taking steps to prepare help you get through a disaster in your area?"
Finally, we would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript, and we hope our correction can get your approval.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1349-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1349', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Sep 2023
The authors present a study on the role of response efficacy and self-efficacy in disaster preparedness actions for vulnerable households. While there is already a lot of work available on this topic, the manuscript is well-written and sheds light on some results from regions that were so far under-represented in research. As such, the manuscript is suitable for the target journal and will be a valuable resource to increase our insights into this topic.
There are only some minor issues which are mainly related to the overall background literature together with the string of argumentation. In the introduction I identified two items that should be elaborated in a revised version:
Page 1, L 21 f.: “…and the possibility of climate and weather disasters has increased exponentially” – the possibility of disasters (how defined?), or the losses increased? Or is it the magnitudes and frequencies? – Please specify, as this is a bit too simple. It makes a difference in disaster preparedness if we focus on increasing frequencies or magnitudes, or both (and this is of course also hazard-dependent.
Page 2, L 1 ff.: “…preparedness of households is one of the most effective ways of mitigating the impact of disasters (Gargano et al., 2015; Keim, 2008), and previous studies unmistakably confirm that the emergency preparedness of households significantly reduces the negative effects of disasters and ensures that people adequately support themselves and their families…” – other studies, however, conclude that there are some limitations and constraints, see as an example the works by Attems et al. (2020a; 2020b). – Please differentiate your statements here a bit. There are various trigger mechanisms that might (or not) encourage individual risk behaviour (Bamberg et al., 2017; Van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019).
Overall, the setting of the work is clear, the methods are well-described and the results shown underpin the discussion section. Page 6, L 180: As already indicated by referee #1 there are only three hypotheses in this manuscript.
References mentioned:
Attems, M.-S., Thaler, T., Genovese, E., and Fuchs, S.: Implementation of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures: choices and decisions, WIREs Water, 7, e1404, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1404, 2020a.
Attems, M.-S., Thaler, T., Snel, K., Davids, P., Hartmann, T., and Fuchs, S.: The influence of tailored risk communication on individual adaptive behaviour, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 49, 101618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101618, 2020b.
Bamberg, S., Masson, T., Brewitt, K., and Nemetschek, N.: Threat, coping and flood prevention – A meta-analysis, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 116-126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.08.001, 2017.
Van Valkengoed, A., and Steg, L.: Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour, Nature Climate Change, 9, 158-163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y, 2019.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1349-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
We sincerely thank you for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing constructive comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. The responses to the comments are given below.
Point 1: Page 1, L 21 f.: “…and the possibility of climate and weather disasters has increased exponentially” – the possibility of disasters (how defined?), or the losses increased? Or is it the magnitudes and frequencies? – Please specify, as this is a bit too simple. It makes a difference in disaster preparedness if we focus on increasing frequencies or magnitudes, or both (and this is of course also hazard-dependent.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the expression of this sentence according to your suggestion. The revised part is as follows: “Global climate change has led to an exponential increase in the frequency and loss of natural disasters such as floods, droughts, tsunami, wildfires, thunderstorms, and hurricanes (Rao et al., 2022). According to a survey by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, in the ten years from 2005 to 2014 alone, about 1.7 billion people around the world were affected by various disasters, among which the Chinese people suffered the most disasters, while the United States sustained the most losses (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015)”
Point 2: Page 2, L 1 ff.: “…preparedness of households is one of the most effective ways of mitigating the impact of disasters (Gargano et al., 2015; Keim, 2008), and previous studies unmistakably confirm that the emergency preparedness of households significantly reduces the negative effects of disasters and ensures that people adequately support themselves and their families…” – other studies, however, conclude that there are some limitations and constraints, see as an example the works by Attems et al. (2020a; 2020b). – Please differentiate your statements here a bit. There are various trigger mechanisms that might (or not) encourage individual risk behaviour (Bamberg et al., 2017; Van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019).
Response 2: The expression of this sentence is indeed inappropriate. We have accepted your suggestion and revised the sentence. The revised part is as follows: “Adequate emergency preparedness of households is one of the most effective ways of mitigating the impact of disasters (Gargano et al., 2015; Keim, 2008), and previous studies have also shown that fully effective disaster preparedness measures can reduce the negative effects of disasters and ensures that people adequately support themselves and their families within 72 h after a disaster (Levac et al., 2012; Malmin, 2021; Rao et al., 2022).”
Point 3: Page 6, L 180: As already indicated by referee #1 there are only three hypotheses in this manuscript.
Response 3: We have corrected the error. The revised part is as follows: “Based on the above discussion, we developed three hypotheses; each hypothesis covers the three conceptualizations of preparedness”
Finally, we would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript, and we hope our correction can get your approval.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1349-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Revisions', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2023
all in all, good research paper.
to revise:
mainly for the literature review chapter aim to give more details as some sections are not too clear.
Line 23
1.7 people around the world were ...
Line 124.
Change In contrast, to Additionally,
Line 180
Three Hypotheses not Four
Line 233
taking steps to prepare to help you get through a disaster in your area?" remove second to.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
We sincerely thank you for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing constructive comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. The responses to the comments are given below.
Point 1: Line 23 1.7 people around the world were ...
Response 1: We have accepted your suggestion and revised the statement of this sentence. The revised part is as follows: “ According to a survey by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, in the ten years from 2005 to 2014 alone, about 1.7 billion people around the world were affected by various disasters, among which the Chinese people suffered the most disasters, while the United States sustained the most losses”
Point 2: Line 124. Change In contrast, to Additionally.
Response 2: We have accepted your suggestion to change In contrast to Additionally. The revised part is as follows: “Additionally, people with disabilities usually experience the highest risk levels.”
Point 3: Line 180 Three Hypotheses not Four.
Response 3: We have corrected the error. The revised part is as follows: “Based on the above discussion, we developed three hypotheses; each hypothesis covers the three conceptualizations of preparedness”
Point 4: Line 233 taking steps to prepare to help you get through a disaster in your area?" remove second to.
Response 4: Thanks for your advice, we have cited your recommended and remove the second “to” in the Line 233. The revised part is as follows: "How much would taking steps to prepare help you get through a disaster in your area?"
Finally, we would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript, and we hope our correction can get your approval.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1349-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1349', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Sep 2023
The authors present a study on the role of response efficacy and self-efficacy in disaster preparedness actions for vulnerable households. While there is already a lot of work available on this topic, the manuscript is well-written and sheds light on some results from regions that were so far under-represented in research. As such, the manuscript is suitable for the target journal and will be a valuable resource to increase our insights into this topic.
There are only some minor issues which are mainly related to the overall background literature together with the string of argumentation. In the introduction I identified two items that should be elaborated in a revised version:
Page 1, L 21 f.: “…and the possibility of climate and weather disasters has increased exponentially” – the possibility of disasters (how defined?), or the losses increased? Or is it the magnitudes and frequencies? – Please specify, as this is a bit too simple. It makes a difference in disaster preparedness if we focus on increasing frequencies or magnitudes, or both (and this is of course also hazard-dependent.
Page 2, L 1 ff.: “…preparedness of households is one of the most effective ways of mitigating the impact of disasters (Gargano et al., 2015; Keim, 2008), and previous studies unmistakably confirm that the emergency preparedness of households significantly reduces the negative effects of disasters and ensures that people adequately support themselves and their families…” – other studies, however, conclude that there are some limitations and constraints, see as an example the works by Attems et al. (2020a; 2020b). – Please differentiate your statements here a bit. There are various trigger mechanisms that might (or not) encourage individual risk behaviour (Bamberg et al., 2017; Van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019).
Overall, the setting of the work is clear, the methods are well-described and the results shown underpin the discussion section. Page 6, L 180: As already indicated by referee #1 there are only three hypotheses in this manuscript.
References mentioned:
Attems, M.-S., Thaler, T., Genovese, E., and Fuchs, S.: Implementation of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures: choices and decisions, WIREs Water, 7, e1404, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1404, 2020a.
Attems, M.-S., Thaler, T., Snel, K., Davids, P., Hartmann, T., and Fuchs, S.: The influence of tailored risk communication on individual adaptive behaviour, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 49, 101618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101618, 2020b.
Bamberg, S., Masson, T., Brewitt, K., and Nemetschek, N.: Threat, coping and flood prevention – A meta-analysis, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 116-126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.08.001, 2017.
Van Valkengoed, A., and Steg, L.: Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour, Nature Climate Change, 9, 158-163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y, 2019.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1349-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
We sincerely thank you for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing constructive comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. The responses to the comments are given below.
Point 1: Page 1, L 21 f.: “…and the possibility of climate and weather disasters has increased exponentially” – the possibility of disasters (how defined?), or the losses increased? Or is it the magnitudes and frequencies? – Please specify, as this is a bit too simple. It makes a difference in disaster preparedness if we focus on increasing frequencies or magnitudes, or both (and this is of course also hazard-dependent.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the expression of this sentence according to your suggestion. The revised part is as follows: “Global climate change has led to an exponential increase in the frequency and loss of natural disasters such as floods, droughts, tsunami, wildfires, thunderstorms, and hurricanes (Rao et al., 2022). According to a survey by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, in the ten years from 2005 to 2014 alone, about 1.7 billion people around the world were affected by various disasters, among which the Chinese people suffered the most disasters, while the United States sustained the most losses (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015)”
Point 2: Page 2, L 1 ff.: “…preparedness of households is one of the most effective ways of mitigating the impact of disasters (Gargano et al., 2015; Keim, 2008), and previous studies unmistakably confirm that the emergency preparedness of households significantly reduces the negative effects of disasters and ensures that people adequately support themselves and their families…” – other studies, however, conclude that there are some limitations and constraints, see as an example the works by Attems et al. (2020a; 2020b). – Please differentiate your statements here a bit. There are various trigger mechanisms that might (or not) encourage individual risk behaviour (Bamberg et al., 2017; Van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019).
Response 2: The expression of this sentence is indeed inappropriate. We have accepted your suggestion and revised the sentence. The revised part is as follows: “Adequate emergency preparedness of households is one of the most effective ways of mitigating the impact of disasters (Gargano et al., 2015; Keim, 2008), and previous studies have also shown that fully effective disaster preparedness measures can reduce the negative effects of disasters and ensures that people adequately support themselves and their families within 72 h after a disaster (Levac et al., 2012; Malmin, 2021; Rao et al., 2022).”
Point 3: Page 6, L 180: As already indicated by referee #1 there are only three hypotheses in this manuscript.
Response 3: We have corrected the error. The revised part is as follows: “Based on the above discussion, we developed three hypotheses; each hypothesis covers the three conceptualizations of preparedness”
Finally, we would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript, and we hope our correction can get your approval.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1349-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yuepeng Cui, 15 Sep 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 276 | 257 | 21 | 554 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 276
- PDF: 257
- XML: 21
- Total: 554
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Dong Qiu
Binglin Lv
Yuepeng Cui
Zexiong Zhan
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(554 KB) - Metadata XML