风险意识、效率和备灾:残疾人与非残疾人的比较

IF 2.6 3区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1111/1468-5973.12597
Yingxiang Li, Yung-Fang Chen, Ziyi Wang, Ziqiang Han
{"title":"风险意识、效率和备灾:残疾人与非残疾人的比较","authors":"Yingxiang Li,&nbsp;Yung-Fang Chen,&nbsp;Ziyi Wang,&nbsp;Ziqiang Han","doi":"10.1111/1468-5973.12597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Persons with disabilities (PwDs) face a disproportionately high risk due to their physical or mental limitations and socioeconomic barriers during emergencies. To better understand and empower PwDs for disaster preparedness, this study used an updated national representative survey (2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Household Survey) from the United States to examine the differences between PwDs and their counterparts concerning disaster preparedness with the guidance of the protection motivation theory. The results of the Tobit regression models indicated that being disabled was negatively correlated with the level of preparedness. Furthermore, disability status significantly and negatively modified the relationship between risk perception and disaster preparedness. Likewise, self-efficacy was less strongly correlated with preparedness activities if people self-reported themselves as having a disability. Moreover, for people with disabilities, their beliefs about the effectiveness of preventive behaviours (response efficacy) predicted decreased adoption of preparedness measures. Promoting disaster risk reduction education, strengthening self-efficacy and developing more inclusive and targeted intervention strategies for PwDs can be used to improve their preparedness degree and capacity for disaster prevention.</p>","PeriodicalId":47674,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk perception, efficacies and disaster preparedness: A comparison between people with and without disability\",\"authors\":\"Yingxiang Li,&nbsp;Yung-Fang Chen,&nbsp;Ziyi Wang,&nbsp;Ziqiang Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-5973.12597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Persons with disabilities (PwDs) face a disproportionately high risk due to their physical or mental limitations and socioeconomic barriers during emergencies. To better understand and empower PwDs for disaster preparedness, this study used an updated national representative survey (2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Household Survey) from the United States to examine the differences between PwDs and their counterparts concerning disaster preparedness with the guidance of the protection motivation theory. The results of the Tobit regression models indicated that being disabled was negatively correlated with the level of preparedness. Furthermore, disability status significantly and negatively modified the relationship between risk perception and disaster preparedness. Likewise, self-efficacy was less strongly correlated with preparedness activities if people self-reported themselves as having a disability. Moreover, for people with disabilities, their beliefs about the effectiveness of preventive behaviours (response efficacy) predicted decreased adoption of preparedness measures. Promoting disaster risk reduction education, strengthening self-efficacy and developing more inclusive and targeted intervention strategies for PwDs can be used to improve their preparedness degree and capacity for disaster prevention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47674,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5973.12597\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5973.12597","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于身体或精神上的限制以及社会经济方面的障碍,残疾人(PwDs)在紧急情况下面临着不成比例的高风险。为了更好地了解残疾人并增强他们的备灾能力,本研究利用美国最新的全国代表性调查(2021 年联邦紧急事务管理局全国家庭调查),在保护动机理论的指导下,研究了残疾人与同龄人在备灾方面的差异。Tobit 回归模型的结果表明,残疾与备灾水平呈负相关。此外,残疾状况对风险感知与备灾之间的关系有明显的负向调节作用。同样,如果人们自称有残疾,则自我效能与备灾活动的相关性较低。此外,对于残疾人来说,他们对预防行为有效性的信念(反应效能)预示着备灾措施采用率的下降。促进减少灾害风险教育、加强自我效能以及为残疾人制定更具包容性和针对性的干预策略,可用于提高他们的备灾程度和防灾能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Risk perception, efficacies and disaster preparedness: A comparison between people with and without disability

Persons with disabilities (PwDs) face a disproportionately high risk due to their physical or mental limitations and socioeconomic barriers during emergencies. To better understand and empower PwDs for disaster preparedness, this study used an updated national representative survey (2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Household Survey) from the United States to examine the differences between PwDs and their counterparts concerning disaster preparedness with the guidance of the protection motivation theory. The results of the Tobit regression models indicated that being disabled was negatively correlated with the level of preparedness. Furthermore, disability status significantly and negatively modified the relationship between risk perception and disaster preparedness. Likewise, self-efficacy was less strongly correlated with preparedness activities if people self-reported themselves as having a disability. Moreover, for people with disabilities, their beliefs about the effectiveness of preventive behaviours (response efficacy) predicted decreased adoption of preparedness measures. Promoting disaster risk reduction education, strengthening self-efficacy and developing more inclusive and targeted intervention strategies for PwDs can be used to improve their preparedness degree and capacity for disaster prevention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
12.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management is an invaluable source of information on all aspects of contingency planning, scenario analysis and crisis management in both corporate and public sectors. It focuses on the opportunities and threats facing organizations and presents analysis and case studies of crisis prevention, crisis planning, recovery and turnaround management. With contributions from world-wide sources including corporations, governmental agencies, think tanks and influential academics, this publication provides a vital platform for the exchange of strategic and operational experience, information and knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Permanently on standby: Practitioner perspectives on the complexities of crisis planning Defining public warning failure Should the CEO be the “face” of crisis response? Examining types of visuals on social media in corporate crisis communication Risk perception, efficacies and disaster preparedness: A comparison between people with and without disability How do nondisaster missioned organizations extend their roles to respond to disasters?: The formation conditions, evolution processes, and limitations of the extending organization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1