National disaster Risk Reduction Management Council

NDRRMC. Is a working group of various government, non-government, civil sector and private
sector organizations of the government of the Republic of the Philippines established by republic act
10121 of 2010.

Operationally, refers to the organization that secures and protect the people in times of
calamities.

Assessment. Conceptually, it refers to the wide variety of methods or tools that educators use to
evaluate, measure, and documents the academic readiness, learning progress, skill acquisition, or
educational needs of students. (http:// www.edglosary.org)

Operationally, refers to the evaluation of the readiness and effectiveness of every community
during calamities in Bacolod City.

Natural Disaster. Is the effect of a natural hazard-earthquake, or landslide) that affects the
environment, and leads to financial, environment and/or human losses. (http:// www.aquafind.com)

Operationally, it is a natural threat that destroy the environment

This study which focuses on the assessment or the readiness of Bacolod City in times of natural disasters.
In analyzing feedback of the community aims to provide significant information and insights which may
be essential to the following:

Resident. This studies will broaden their knowledge about on the readiness or Bacolod City in
times of natural calamities and how to be prepared when natural calamities occur.

NDDRMC. The findings of this study will assist it, in monitoring and evaluating effectiveness of the
assessment of the readiness of Bacolod City in times of natural disasters.

Other Government Agencies. This study will broaden their knowledge and understanding on the
government, standards and policies in the readiness of a community in times of disasters and guide them
in assessing their own system practices.

Academe. The findings of this study will serve as reference to those who will conduct similar
studies in this area.
Scope. The focus of the study was on assessment on the readiness of Bacolod city in times natural
calamities as perceived by Bacolod City Risk Reduction Management Office. The aspects coincidence in
this study were limited to the specific statement of the problem, the hypothesis and conceptual
framework
This study aims at understanding the role of education in promoting disaster preparedness.
Strengthening resilience to climate-related hazards is an urgent target of Goal 13 of the
Sustainable Development Goals. Preparing for a disaster such as stockpiling of emergency
supplies or having a family evacuation plan can substantially minimize loss and damages from
natural hazards. However, the levels of household disaster preparedness are often low even in
disaster-prone areas. Focusing on determinants of personal disaster preparedness, this paper
investigates: (1) pathways through which education enhances preparedness; and (2) the
interplay between education and experience in shaping preparedness actions. Data analysis is
based on face-to-face surveys of adults aged ≥15 years in Thailand (N = 1,310) and the
Philippines (N = 889, female only). Controlling for socio-demographic and contextual
characteristics, we find that formal education raises the propensity to prepare against disasters.
Using the KHB method to further decompose the education effects, we find that the effect of
education on disaster preparedness is mainly mediated through social capital and disaster risk
perception in Thailand whereas there is no evidence that education is mediated through
observable channels in the Philippines. This suggests that the underlying mechanisms
explaining the education effects are highly context-specific. Controlling for the interplay between
education and disaster experience, we show that education raises disaster preparedness only
for those households that have not been affected by a disaster in the past. Education improves
abstract reasoning and anticipation skills such that the better educated undertake preventive
measures without needing to first experience the harmful event and then learn later. In line with
recent efforts of various UN agencies in promoting education for sustainable development, this
study provides a solid empirical evidence showing positive externalities of education in disaster
risk reduction.

1. Introduction
In the past years the world has witnessed a significant global increase in the intensity
and frequency of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and tropical storms,
which are expected to increase even further in a future warmer climate (Field et al.,
2012). Since 1975, the number of reported disaster incidents has risen more than
threefold: from 65 reported incidents in 1975 to 344 in 2014. In the year 2014 alone,
disasters caused a worldwide damage of US$ 98.43 billion with more than 140 million
persons affected (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, 2015, EM-
DAT, 2015). Heavily exposed low- and middle-income countries, in particular, carry a
large share of the human and economic burden. Undoubtedly, disaster risk reduction is
a fundamental component of social and economic development, especially in order to
ensure sustainability of development in the future. Accordingly, one of the urgent targets
of Goal 13 of the newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is to
strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards, which
essentially include reducing disaster risks (UNISDR, 2015).
There has recently been improvements in national disaster risk reduction efforts
especially after major disaster events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
(Birkmann et al., 2008) or the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Indeed,
governments’ investments in structural mitigation for large buildings or infrastructure,
implementation of early warning systems, planned evacuation routes and shelters are
effective in preventing loss of life (Andrews & Quintana, 2015). Nevertheless, disaster
risk reduction measures at the national level alone are not sufficient to protect
households from the devastating impacts of a disaster. In fact, in time of emergencies—
be natural disasters or terrorist attacks—experts recommend the “72 Hour Rule” in
which individuals are required to be self-sufficient for at least three days following a
disaster (Russell, Goltz, & Bourque, 1995). This is because it takes some time for local
government and disaster-relief organizations to mobilize resources to an affected area.
Therefore, individual preparedness measures such as stockpiling of food and water,
having a first aid kit in the home, or having a family evacuation plan can ensure a proper
response to natural hazards. Particularly in low- and middle-income countries where
public disaster risk management is relatively underdeveloped, precautionary measures
taken by households before a disaster occurs can reduce the risk of loss of life and
injuries as well as minimize damage to the property (Shreve and Kelman, 2014, van der
Keur et al., 2016).
Despite the importance of individual preparedness, several studies report relatively low
levels of disaster preparedness even in disaster prone areas (Adiyoso and Kanegae,
2014, Kohn et al., 2012). How people can be motivated to take precautionary actions
when they have little prior disaster experience has been a fundamental question raised
by scholars of risk analysis and risk communication (Harvatt, Petts, & Chilvers, 2011).
Accordingly, in many disaster-prone areas local and national governments and NGOs
have put efforts in providing disaster educational programs and emergency trainings in
order to raise awareness, promote self-reliance and household preparedness actions.
While such educational activities can boost disaster preparedness in some cases
(Mishra and Suar, 2007, Wood et al., 2012), many studies have documented the failure
of these campaigns in initiating protective actions (Baker, 1980, Paton and Johnston,
2001, Sims and Baumann, 1983, Sorensen, 1983). In order to promote household
disaster resilience, it is thus crucial to understand underlying factors explaining the
adoption of preparedness measures. There are nevertheless relatively few empirical
studies on the determinants of disaster preparedness in developing countries (Muttarak
& Pothisiri, 2013).
To this end, this study focuses on examining individual determinants of disaster
preparedness in low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Asia, namely, the
Philippines and Thailand, which have been affected by major disaster incidents in the
past decade. According to the most recent Climate Risk Index, both countries ranked
among the top ten of countries worldwide most affected by extreme weather conditions
from 1995 to 2014 (Kreft, Eckstein, Dorsch, & Fischer, 2015). Such disaster experience
may raise public awareness and preparedness accordingly. In this paper, we aim to: (1)
analyze the role of formal education in shaping an individual’s propensity to prepare
against disasters and identify mediating channels through which education may
influence disaster preparedness; and (2) investigate the importance of past disaster
experience and its interplay with education. Theoretically, both factors may determine
preparedness through similar mechanisms such as increasing risk perception or
knowledge about the devastating consequences of a disaster. Formal education, as a
channel through which individuals can “learn” about disaster risks and preventive
strategies, may consequently replace disaster experience in promoting preparedness
actions.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes determinants of
disaster preparedness, presents a conceptual framework for our empirical analysis and
discusses the previous literature on education and preparedness behavior.
Section 3 introduces the case studies and presents the data and measurement used
including the estimation strategy. The descriptive and multivariate results are presented
and discussed in Section 4. Section 5 concludes with a summary of the findings and
implications of our research.
2. Conceptual framework and previous literature
(a). Overview of determinants of individual disaster preparedness

The previous literature has identified various determinants of personal/household

disaster preparedness. These can be broadly divided into socio-demographic
characteristics, structural/geographical variables and psychosocial factors. In terms of
demographic characteristics, generally being married (Reininger et al., 2013, Russell et
al., 1995) in middle-age groups (Baker, 2011, Boscarino et al., 2006, Sattler et al.,
2000) and having children living in the home (Basolo et al., 2009, Eisenman et al.,
2009) are associated with higher preparedness actions. Likewise, having household
members with a disability or health conditions that require special equipment also
increase the likelihood of preparedness (Ablah et al., 2009, Eisenman et al.,
2009, Muttarak and Pothisiri, 2013).
While demographic characteristics determine necessities to prepare (e.g., having
dependent members in the home), socioeconomic factors influence a household’s
capability to undertake preparedness actions, among other things. Some preparedness
measures such as purchasing disaster insurance or the technical or structural building
retrofitting require financial investment. Thus, higher income is associated with higher
preparedness levels partly because it enables households to afford to take such actions
(Mishra and Suar, 2007, Murphy et al., 2009, Phillips et al., 2005). Also, homeowners
are more likely to be prepared than renters (Burby et al., 2003, Siegel et al.,
2003, Spittal et al., 2008). Having invested more time and money in constructing their
homes and household goods, homeowners have stronger ties with the property and
place of residence while those who rent are more mobile and less focused on the long-
term horizon (Harvatt et al., 2011). Socioeconomic constraints thus partially explain the
adoption of preparedness actions.
Structural/geographical variables have also been identified to be crucial determinants of
disaster preparedness. Longer residence in the community enhances local knowledge
about the neighborhood, natural environment, and hazard risks. This in turn increases
disaster awareness and promotes the undertaking of preparatory activities (Tanaka,
2005). Similarly, living in or close to the hazard area implies better knowledge about
hazard risks and consequently increases preparedness actions (Baker, 2011, Lindell
and Hwang, 2008).
Apart from demographic, socioeconomic and structural/geographical characteristics
determining the need and capacity to be prepared, disaster preparedness has also
been found to be associated with psychosocial factors including hazard awareness, risk
perception, self-efficacy and knowledge. In order for preparedness actions to take
place, first people need to be aware of the hazards and consequently perceive them as
critical or salient issues within their community. Accordingly, some studies reported that
higher levels of perceived risk are associated with increases in preparedness behavior
(Martin et al., 2009, McNeill et al., 2013, Paul and Bhuiyan, 2010). On the other hand,
lack of self-efficacy i.e. beliefs regarding personal capacity to act effectively can inhibit
individuals to take actions (Lindell and Whitney, 2000, Paton et al., 2001). Recognizing
the role of psychosocial factors is thus fundamental in public campaigns to promote
personal disaster preparedness.

(b). Conceptual framework: the role of education in promoting preparedness

Apart from the above mentioned factors, in this study, we contend that formal education
can play a key role in promoting preparedness behavior. Formal education here refers
to classroom-based education normally delivered in a systematic way by trained
teachers in a structured environment such as a school, college, or university. In this
context, formal education is measured as years of schooling assuming that the higher
the number of years an individual spent in a formal education setting, the more
educated she/he is.

While we focus on the influence of formal education in this study, it is worth noting that
other forms of education, which take place outside the classroom, can also play a
crucial role in reducing vulnerability to disasters. Whereas formal education is obtained
in the hierarchically structured public education system, non-formal education refers to
any organized education activity that takes place outside the established formal system
such as community education or alternative learning programs (Coombs, Prosser, &
Ahmed, 1973). Examples for such non-formal education initiatives include community-
based disaster trainings and drills, which have been shown to be an effective mean in
building local capacities and in raising awareness and resilience of communities (Allen,
2006, Karanci et al., 2005). Likewise, informal education, which includes learning from
daily experience and the educative influences and resources in the environment, can
also play a role in promoting disaster risk reduction (Richardson & Wolfe, 2001). For
instance, informal education obtained during childhood through parents or other
community members may influence preparedness behavior. At the same time, it has
been found that living in a community with a higher level of education significantly
increases preparedness actions (Muttarak & Pothisiri, 2013) suggesting that there is
knowledge and skills exchange among community members. Although both non-formal
and informal education is relevant to disaster risk reduction, it is beyond the scope of
this study to empirically test the impacts of these types of education. Thus, in this paper,
we focus primarily on formal education.
In fact, various studies have analyzed the link between formal education and disaster
preparedness with mixed results. On the one hand, many studies reported that higher
educational attainment enhances preparedness including being prepared for
earthquakes (Russell et al., 1995), hurricanes (Baker et al., 2011, Norris et al.,
1999, Reininger et al., 2013), floods (Lave and Lave, 1991, Thieken et al., 2007),
tsunami (Muttarak & Pothisiri, 2013), terrorism (Bourque et al., 2012, Eisenman et al.,
2009, Lee and Lemyre, 2009) and general emergency preparedness (Al-Rousan et al.,
2014, Smith and Notaro, 2009). On the other hand, a considerable number of studies
reported no association between education and preparedness (Faupel et al.,
1992, Hausman et al., 2007, Heller et al., 2005, Jackson, 1981, Kim and Kang,
2010, Lee and Lemyre, 2009, Lindell and Hwang, 2008, Miceli et al., 2008, Siegel et al.,
2003, Spittal et al., 2008). The discrepancy in the findings can be due to different
measurements of preparedness, disaster types, research designs and geographical
contexts. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge, none of the previous studies has
empirically examined the underlying mechanisms through which education influences
preparedness behaviors. In this study, we do not only investigate whether formal
education plays a role in promoting preparedness actions, but also how, i.e. through
which channels.

(c). Education effects: Exploring the pathways

Education can increase preparedness behavior through direct and indirect channels.
Building upon previous studies on the returns to education, in particular for health and
well-being (Brunello et al., 2015, Gathmann et al., 2014, Grossman, 2006), we draw the
schematic diagram depicting different mechanisms (box i) as shown in Figure 1. In
addition, Figure 1 also illustrates the relationship between preparedness and disaster
experience (box ii), another key driver of preparedness actions.

1. Download high-res image (110KB)

2. Download full-size image
Figure 1. Flowchart explaining how education influences disaster preparedness and its
interplay with disaster experience.

Education, which in itself is influenced by different antecedent factors such as family

background, genetic traits and abilities, can contribute to preparedness actions in direct
and indirect manners. First, directly formal schooling is a primary way individuals
acquire knowledge, skills, and competencies that can influence their preparatory efforts.
There is established scientific evidence showing that cognitive activities during
schooling such as solving mathematical problems can have long-lasting effects on
neurological functioning (Eslinger et al., 2009, Quartz and Sejnowski, 1997). As
students move to higher grades, cognitive skills required in school become more
progressively demanding and involve meta-cognitive skills such as categorization,
logical deduction and knowledge transfers (Blair et al., 2005, Ceci, 1991, Nisbett, 2010).
This abstract cognitive exercise alters the way educated individuals think, reason and
solve problems (Baker et al., 2011). Indeed, experimental studies have shown that
higher-order cognition improves risk assessment and decision-making skills (de Bruin et
al., 2007, Peters et al., 2006). These are relevant components of reasoning related to
risk perception and making choices about preparedness actions.
Furthermore, education can enhance the acquisition of knowledge, values and priorities
as well as the capacity to plan for the future and to allocate resources efficiently (Cutler
and Lleras-Muney, 2010, Kenkel, 1991). Schooling can help individuals adopt
preparatory measures by improving their knowledge of the relationship between
preparedness and disaster risk reduction. Moreover, educated individuals may have
better understanding of what preparedness measures to take. Recent evidence also
shows that education may change time preferences such that more educated people
are more patient and goal-oriented, and thus make more investments in their health and
education for their future (Chew et al., 2010, Oreopoulos and Salvanes, 2011, Pérez-
Arce, 2011). Accordingly, this could influence adoption of such precautionary measures
which require long term investments as purchasing disaster insurance.
In addition, indirectly the effect of education on preparedness behavior can be
mediated by other factors including income, access to information and social capital.
Needless to say, the prospect of receiving a higher income is one of the major returns to
education (Card, 1999). The increased income afforded by high levels of education
enables individuals to undertake costly preparatory measures such as purchasing
disaster insurance or flood protection devices accordingly. Moreover, many empirical
studies have shown that people with more years of formal education have access to
more sources and types of information (Cotten and Gupta, 2004, Neuenschwander et
al., 2012, Wen et al., 2011). The more educated are found to be better informed and
subsequently more likely to make use of new information such as on the danger of
smoking or HIV/AIDS (de Walque, 2007, de Walque, 2010). The level of education is
not only highly correlated with access to weather forecasts and warnings but the highly
educated are also able to better understand more complex environmental issues such
as climate change (Rodriguez et al., 2007, Xiao and McCright, 2007). Subsequently,
access to forecasts and early warnings allow individuals to respond and prepare for the
hazards appropriately.
Another important channel through which education may increase preparedness
activities is via social capital (broadly defined here as social networks, reciprocal ties
and social participation), given that educated individuals are commonly found to have
higher social capital (Huang et al., 2009, Lake and Huckfeldt, 1998). The perception of
risk and motivations to take preventive action can be transferred via social networks.
Likewise, individuals who participate regularly in social activities can benefit from an
exchange of useful information and warnings. Indeed, there is evidence that social
participation, strong family and community networks and high level of trust are positively
associated with preparedness behavior (Kirschenbaum, 2006, Solberg et al.,
2010, Witvorapong et al., 2015).

(d). Disaster experience and its interplay with education

Besides education, prior disaster experience is another key factor determining

preparedness behavior. Based on our conceptual framework shown in Figure 1,
disaster preparedness is promoted through education and disaster experience.
Education raises disaster preparedness which in turn reduces the likelihood of being
affected by a disaster. Similarly, the households which have experienced loss and
damages from disasters in the past learnt about their potential harmful impacts and
consequently can become better prepared for future disaster events. Many studies have
shown that people who have experienced floods (Bubeck et al., 2013, Lawrence et al.,
2014, Lindell and Hwang, 2008, Siegrist and Gutscher, 2008), earthquakes (Mileti et al.,
1992, Tekeli-Yeşil et al., 2010), hurricanes (Horney et al., 2008, Sattler et al., 2000) and
wildfires (McGee & Russell, 2003) are more likely to prepare for a future event.
Theoretically, previous disaster experience may influence preparedness behavior
through channels similar to education. Hazard awareness and risk perception, for
example, are closely related to prior disaster experience. Having been affected by and
surviving a disaster may increase awareness about the potential for destruction,
demonstrate benefits of preparation and evacuation, and enhance knowledge on how to
recover in its aftermath as well as how to cope with subsequent disaster threats
(Sattler et al., 2000). This in turn increases preparedness behavior likewise.
While disaster experience appears to be a key driver of disaster preparedness behavior,
certainly it is not an ideal way to promote household/individual adoption of precautionary
measures. The fundamental question hence is how to increase risk awareness for
people who have not been affected by disasters so far. Here we argue that education
can substitute disaster experience such that highly educated individuals can understand
the disaster risks and anticipate the impacts without first-hand experience. If this
argument holds, we expect to find an interplay between disaster experience and
education in shaping preparedness behavior.

3. Research design and methods

(a). Study areas: The Philippines and Thailand

(i). Survey designs

Data from two Southeast Asian Countries, the Philippines (PH) and Thailand (TH), are
employed for the analysis (Figure 2). With diverse socio-economic backgrounds of the
populations and different exposure to disaster risk, the two countries represent well-
suited cases for this study. The survey data used in both countries were collected by the
authors which allowed us to tailor the research instruments to our research questions
and to reach a high degree of comparability between the cases.

1. Download high-res image (384KB)

2. Download full-size image
Figure 2. Map of study areas in the Philippines and Thailand.

The data for the Philippines were collected in Masinag, Batasan, and Montalban, three
low-income districts in Metro Manila and the nearby province of Rizal with a rural, peri-
urban population. The data collection was part of a research project on health
vulnerabilities in impoverished neighborhoods and the role of community-based health
programs in improving the living condition of poor households. Interviews were
conducted with female members of a social development organization, the Kasagana-
Ka Development Center Inc. (KDCI), which offers various health services to its
members as part of a community health program. In most cases, the respondents were
female household heads. A two-stage cluster sampling was employed: First, a sample
of neighborhoods was randomly selected as primary sampling units. The target
population consisted of people who lived in neighborhoods where our partner
organization was active and who did not have access to the health program at the time
of the survey. In the second step, respondents were randomly drawn from the group of
KDCI members in the selected neighborhoods.
The data were collected using face-to-face interviews in February 2014. In total, 889
respondents (aged 20–75 years) were interviewed using standardized questionnaires.
Although the data are based on a probability sampling approach, its generalizability is
restricted to the members of our partner organization who lived in the neighborhoods
which fulfilled the specified criteria. Still, we believe that the sample selected for this
study is meaningful and represents an interesting case which is informative to test our
central hypotheses. The three study areas in the Philippines have been frequently
affected by natural calamities in the past with devastating consequences for the local
communities. Primarily, these areas are exposed to risks of floods, landslides and storm
damages caused by the numerous typhoons that hit the country with an average of 20
tropical storms per year (Brower, Magno, & Dilling, 2014). Furthermore, all three areas
have a significant earthquake hazard as they are located at close range of the Marikina
Valley Fault System.
The Thai data were obtained from a representative household survey of three
provinces, namely, Phang Nga, Kalasin, and Ayutthaya. The survey purposively
selected the three provinces with different hazard exposure in order to investigate
household responses to climate change and natural disasters. The province of Phang
Nga, located along the Indian Ocean coastline, was strongly affected by the 2004 Asian
Tsunami with 4,224 deaths, accounting for 78% of the death toll from the 2004 tsunami
in the country. The interior province of Ayutthaya is situated on the low-lying area in the
central plains and is exposed to frequent flooding. Kalasin is located in the northeast
and is particularly prone to drought but floods and windstorms are also not uncommon.
The survey was conducted based on a stratified two-stage sampling design with villages
and housing blocks as primary sampling units. In stage two, a random sample of 25% of
districts in the selected provinces, 25% of villages in the selected districts and 25% of
households in the selected villages was drawn for interview. Interviews were conducted
face-to-face with one male or female member aged 15 or above from each household.
The survey was carried out between May—August 2013 with 1,310 respondents
participating in the study. Further information about the survey can be found in Basten,
Muttarak, and Pothisiri (2014).

(ii). Education systems in the Philippines and Thailand

The schooling systems in the Philippines and in Thailand share some similarities. In
Thailand, formal education consists of at least 12 years of basic education which is
divided into six years of elementary and six years of secondary education. Students
typically enter elementary school at the age of six. In the past decades, there were
major reforms in the schooling system such as changes in the national curricula and
compulsory school age, which was extended to 15 years of age (Chankrajang &
Muttarak, 2017). In the Philippines, the last major schooling reform took place in 2011,
when the number of years of basic education was raised from 10 to 13 years (or from 6
to 13 years of compulsory schooling). Prior to that, basic education consisted of six
years of elementary school starting at the age of six and four years of high school
education. While the educational expansion led to a sharp increase in the primary
school net enrollment rates from 76% to 92% during 1973–2014 in Thailand, the rates
fluctuated around a high average of 90% in the Philippines, where early school reforms
led to improved access to basic education for large parts of the population.
In the Philippines, disaster preparedness lessons and trainings were only recently
integrated into primary and high school curricula. Educational institutions were
mandated by the country’s Disaster Risk Management Act of 2010 to hold regular flood,
typhoon, and earthquake drills (Republic of the Philippines, 2011). Despite this, many
schools have not yet started to fully implement disaster preparedness modules in their
educational program. In Thailand, to our knowledge, disaster education has not yet
been incorporated into the formal school curriculum. While disaster education programs
may increase disaster risk awareness and knowledge and consequently preparedness
actions, there is limited empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of such
initiatives (Barakat, Bengtsson, Muttarak, & Kebede, 2016).

(b). Measurement

The paper aims to explore the role of education, disaster experience and a set of
potential mediating factors in explaining a person’s tendency to undertake preparedness
measures. The variables used in the analysis and their measurement are described
below.

(i). Dependent variables

Disaster preparedness is measured in two steps. The first outcome is a binary variable
coded one if the household has taken any preparedness measures against disasters
and zero otherwise. If so, secondly, the respondents were asked to identify all
precautionary measures that were undertaken. The answers are categorized into five
categories (none, one, two, three, four, and five or more preparedness measures). The
resulting ordinal variable—the number of preparedness measures taken—allows us to
consider not only whether a household was prepared at the time of the surveys, but also
to what extent.

(ii). Explanatory variables

Education is measured as years of schooling up to tertiary education (college,
university, vocational training, etc.) in the Philippines. In Thailand, detailed categories of
the respondents’ highest level of education are used to construct the variable year of
schooling. Note that this variable is based on a quantifiable notion of formal education
and does not consider softer aspects of education e.g., informal education which may
as well play a key role.
Disaster experience is measured as a dummy variable which takes the value one if the
household has been affected by a natural disaster in the past three years. Those who
experienced housing damages, damages to livelihoods and/or injuries or loss of
household members are defined as being affected by a disaster. We chose to confine
disaster experience to people who directly experienced loss and damages because
preparedness behavior is largely determined by the severity of exposure (Norris et al.,
1999). In our measurement of disaster experience, three years were chosen as a
reference period to minimize recall biases. Also, since it has been shown that the
duration of people’s memory of specific disaster events is limited (Kirkby, 1974), we
expect disasters that occurred in the near past to be more influential for household
decision making.
We also experimented with other measures capturing disaster affectedness such as the
total number of disasters experienced, the number of injured or killed household
members and the total damage encountered. We found that the binary variable whether
a household experienced a disaster had the strongest predictive power in our models
compared to other measures, which are strongly influenced by outliers (i.e. few
households experienced many major disaster events). Therefore, in our analysis, we
focus on the binary measure which captures both damage to material values and
personal losses.

(iii). Mediating factors

Household income per capita, measured in local currency and divided by 1,000 serves
as an indicator of economic resources. Cognitive skills are measured using a word
recall test where respondents were read a list of 10 simple nouns and asked to promptly
repeat as many of those words as possible in any order. Although word recall is
designed to estimate episodic memory abilities, it has been shown to be strongly
correlated with cognitive abilities (Oberauer, Süß, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2000).
In the Philippines, we additionally test for future orientation (time preference) based on a
hypothetical choice set. Respondents were asked a series of questions in which they
had to choose between receiving a fix amount of 10,000PHP (∼220$) in one year or a
gradually decreasing amount immediately (Benzion et al., 1989, Shelley, 1993). A
person’s future orientation is approximated based on his/her willingness to wait for the
larger amount. Taking preparedness actions involve immediate costs and delayed
benefits. People with future-oriented time preferences thus should be more likely to
adopt preparedness measures since they value future outcomes more than immediate
ones. In addition, we measure risk preference using a self-assessment test of a
person’s general willingness to take risks (Dohmen, Falk, Huffman, Sunde, Schupp, &
Wagner, 2011). Attitudes toward risk can potentially be related to adoption of preventive
measures such as purchasing of disaster insurance to insure against catastrophic
events.
In Thailand, we assess disaster risk perception by asking the respondents to estimate
the possibility of major disasters in their community in the next five years given the
choices: very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, somewhat likely and very likely. Moreover,
the respondents were also asked about climate change perception i.e. how they
perceive the impact of climate change on their family (very weak, weak, moderate,
strong and very strong).
Finally, we consider the role of social capital in both countries. Note that the
measurement of social capital differs in the two countries due to different questions
used in the surveys. Social capital is measured as access to help in the neighborhood in
the Philippines and voluntary participation in community activities in Thailand. The
former denotes social support available while the latter represents civic engagement
and social participation. Although the measurements in the two countries capture
different dimensions of social capital, broadly speaking they both depict the strength of
embeddedness within the social networks in the community (Coleman, 1988). While it is
not possible to directly compare the level of social capital between the two countries, we
assume that individuals with greater social support and who are more engaged in
community activities also have better access to information, expertise and material
resources through their social networks. These are assets which in turn are useful in
preparations against disasters (Witvorapong et al., 2015).
The summary statistics of all variables used in the analysis including additional
information on their measurement are presented in Table 5 in the Appendix.

(iv). Control variables

Furthermore, a set of additional variables that have been shown to be relevant in the
literature are accounted for. We control for socio-demographic and household
characteristics including age, sex (Thailand only), years of residence in the
neighborhood (the Philippines only) or in the household (Thailand only), marital status,
employment status, self-rated health, household size, proportion of preschool children
aged ≤5 and proportion of older persons aged ≥65 in the household and proportion of
household members with at least secondary education. To account for geographical
characteristics potentially related to exposure to natural hazards, we control for
community dummies and information about whether the household is located near a
river (<200 m), near the sea (<1 km) or near a mountain (<200 m).

In the Philippines, there is additional information on early work experience (before age
12) as a proxy for family wealth in childhood. Parental education background is
measured with two dummy variables that indicate whether the mother and/or the father
have obtained some secondary education. In addition, dummies that take the value one
if the mother or father died early or was unknown to the child are added. In Thailand,
controls for whether the household owns the house and land where the family lives are
also included.

(c). Estimation strategy

Two different outcome measures: (1) being prepared (binary); and (2) number of
preparedness measures undertaken (ordinal) are used in the statistical analysis. The
probability of taking preparedness actions (a binary outcome) is estimated using logit
models while the ordinal outcome is analyzed using ordered logit estimation. All
standard errors are clustered at the neighborhood (the Philippines, m = 72) and village
level (Thailand, m = 35). We check for the robustness of our results using different
functional specification (poisson and tobit for the non-categorized, continuous outcome)
and estimation procedures (multilevel modeling). All reported results are robust to the
use of different procedures, lending support to the reliability of our findings.
For the empirical analysis, first, we estimate a baseline model with education E, disaster
experience X, and a set of control variables C on the right-hand side of the equation to
test for the effects of education and experience on disaster preparedness. The baseline
model is then gradually extended by including a set of mediating variables Z that have
been identified as potentially relevant to disaster preparedness in the literature. Each
mediating variable is expected to: (1) have an effect on preparedness levels; and (2)
explain part of the education effects. In general form, the baseline and extended models
can be written as follows:
(1)Y=f(E,X,C)

(2)Y=f(E,X,Z,C)

The estimation procedure allows us to: (1) investigate the association between
education and disaster preparedness; and (2) test whether and to what degree the
relationship between education and disaster preparedness is explained by the
mediating factors Z.
Following the principles of path analysis, the effect of education on disaster
preparedness is decomposed into two parts: (1) an indirect effect (the part mediated
by Z); and (2) a direct effect (the part unmediated by Z). Unlike in linear models,
decomposing direct and indirect education effects, which are mediated through another
factor, is not straightforward in models with a non-linear functional form such as logit or
ordered logit. In these models, gradual inclusion of additional mediating factors leads to
rescaling due to variation in the included variables. This makes a direct comparison of
the effects between the baseline and extended model as in linear estimation impossible.
Here we employ the KHB method developed by Karlson, Holm, and Breen (2012) which
offers a way to handle rescaling problems and to consistently compare coefficients of
non-linear nested models.
The KHB method follows a two-step procedure. First, the mediating factor Z is
regressed on the original explanatory variable E, i.e. years of education in our case.
From this estimation the residual R is derived. R captures the share in variation in the
mediator that is not related to the explanatory variable, but caused by another factor. In
the second step, the residual is included in the reduced baseline model in which the
outcome is regressed on the explanatory variable not controlling for the mediator. The
inclusion of the residual does not change the coefficient of the explanatory variable
as R is, by construction, unrelated to E (only marginal changes may occur). However,
by including R in the model, we capture both the variation in Z that is explained
by E(contained in the coefficient of E) and the variation unexplained by E (contained in
the coefficient of R). The underlying functional scale of the model, which would have
changed if we had simply extended the reduced model by Z, is thus harmonized
between the baseline and extended model making a direct comparison of the effects
possible. The KHB method further tests if the occurring difference in effect sizes
between the baseline and extended models is significantly different from zero i.e. if the
mediating factor significantly explains part of the education effects.
4. Results
(a). Descriptive results

Figure 3 displays the distribution of preparedness actions taken by type of measure and
country. These elicit important differences between the two countries. Overall, disaster
preparedness is higher in the Philippine sample: 76% reported undertaking disaster
preparedness actions as compared to only 32% in Thailand. Similar to overall disaster
preparedness, the Philippine sample shows a higher degree of activities carried out for
most preparedness measures, except for setting up of a family evacuation plan. For
example, more than 50% of the respondents in the Philippines reported having
stockpiled food at home in order to be self-reliant in case a disaster strikes as compared
to only 14.4% in Thailand. It is also noticeable that while food storage, emergency kit
preparation, structural upgrades and setting of a family emergency plan are common in
both countries, very few respondents—6.3% in the Philippines and 1.4% in Thailand—
reported to have a disaster insurance.
1. Download high-res image (140KB)
2. Download full-size image
Figure 3. Disaster preparedness measures by country.

(b). Results from baseline models

Table 1 reports the results of the baseline specification from the logit and ordered logit
models for the Philippines and Thailand with coefficients presented in odds ratios.
Table 1. Baseline specification: logit and ordered logit models of disaster preparedness

Philippines Thailand
Preparedness No. of measures Preparedness No. of measures
Years of education 1.063+ [0.034] 1.054∗ [0.027] 1.041+ [0.025] 1.046∗ [0.023]
Disaster experience 2.838∗∗∗ [0.759] 1.880∗∗∗ [0.330] 2.664∗∗ [0.844] 2.458∗∗ [0.752]
Age group 30–39 0.687 [0.244] 0.906 [0.249] 1.628∗ [0.344] 1.388 [0.329]
Age group 40–49 0.917 [0.319] 1.035 [0.250] 1.344 [0.324] 1.230 [0.260]
Age group 50–59 0.854 [0.325] 0.774 [0.210] 0.927 [0.244] 0.870 [0.202]
Age group ≥ 60 0.615 [0.310] 0.54 [0.203] 1.148 [0.281] 1.063 [0.239]
Health status 1.048 [0.037] 1.064∗ [0.032] 1.086 [0.199] 1.109 [0.198]
Married/Cohabiting 1.094 [0.181] 1.068 [0.110] 1.220 [0.270] 1.251 [0.264]
Currently working 0.993 [0.292] 1.156 [0.240] 0.784 [0.170] 0.864 [0.164]
Female – – – – 1.284 [0.200] 1.308∗ [0.162]
Mother has secondary education 1.086 [0.293] 0.948 [0.178] – – – –
 Philippines Thailand
Preparedness No. of measures Preparedness No. of measures
Father has secondary education 1.166 [0.244] 1.440∗ [0.251] – – – –
Started working at age ≤ 12 0.573∗ [0.138] 0.705 [0.164] – – – –
Household size 0.879∗∗ [0.041] 0.921∗ [0.034] 0.945 [0.043] 0.945 [0.044]
% children (aged ≤ 5) in hh 1.017∗∗ [0.006] 1.007+ [0.004] 0.999 [0.006] 0.999 [0.005]
% older people (aged ≥ 65) in hh 0.998 [0.011] 0.995 [0.010] 1.000 [0.006] 0.998 [0.005]
% with secondary education in hh 1.008 [0.005] 1.004 [0.004] 0.999 [0.002] 0.999 [0.002]
Years of residence 1.024∗ [0.011] 1.008 [0.008] 0.994 [0.005] 0.996 [0.005]
Own house – – – – 1.142 [0.319] 1.173 [0.330]
Own land – – – – 1.301 [0.267] 1.213 [0.226]
House located near coast – – – – 4.133∗∗∗ [1.768] 2.532∗∗ [0.759]
House located near river 0.965 [0.219] 0.933 [0.195] 0.988 [0.215] 1.015 [0.200]
House located near mountain 0.692+ [0.147] 0.862 [0.155] 1.347 [0.686] 1.526 [0.821]
Area 2 1.779∗ [0.507] 2.041∗∗ [0.469] 0.390∗ [0.179] 0.404∗ [0.178]
Area 3 1.320 [0.321] 1.340 [0.262] 0.965 [0.373] 1.026 [0.389]

Observations 872 872 1,152 1,152

Pseudo R2 0.066 0.033 0.112 0.058
AIC 942.8 2,606.6 1,326.2 2,361.5
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the neighborhood level (PH) or village level (TH). Dummy variables of whether mother and/or
father are unknown (PH) are not displayed.

In line with the previous studies, we find that education and disaster experience
positively influence the propensity to undertake precautionary actions in both countries
and for both outcome measures. According to the logit models, an additional year of
schooling raises the odds of undertaking preparedness measures by 6.3% in the
Philippines and by 4.1% in Thailand. Likewise, disaster experience exhibits a strongly
significant effect on disaster preparedness in all estimations. Based on the logit models,
having been affected by a disaster in the past 3 years raises the odds of being prepared
2.8 and 2.7 times in the Philippines and Thailand, respectively. Similarly, the effects of
disaster experience are mirrored in the ordered logit regressions.
Apart from education and disaster experience as main explanatory variables, other
factors also influence the preparedness level. In the Philippines, households with
greater share of children are more likely to undertake preparedness measures. An
increase of 10% in the proportion of household members aged ≤5 leads to an increase
in the odds of preparedness by 17% in the logit and 7% in the ordered logit models.
Households with a larger number of household members, on the other hand, have a
smaller probability of taking preparedness actions, which might reflect wealth or social
background effects. Furthermore, based on the ordered logit estimation, we find weak
evidence in the Philippines that father’s education level has a positive effect on
respondent’s tendency to be prepared. Moreover, respondents who started working at
early age, those who have only recently moved to a neighborhood, and those with poor
health express a lower level of disaster preparedness. The first two effects are only
statistically significant in the logit models while the latter effect is only significant in the
ordered logit model. Disaster preparedness also varies considerably with geographical
locations. The respondents from Montalban, the peri-urban area at the outskirts of
Metro Manila, are significantly more likely to undertake preparedness measures than
the respondents from Batasan, a neighborhood rarely affected by natural disasters.

In Thailand, among the control variables, the geographical location seems to matter
most. Living close range to the shoreline (<1 km) is positively related with disaster
preparedness. At the same time, the respondents from Kalasin, one of the internal
regions, express a significantly lower degree of preparedness as compared to the
respondents from Phang Nga, the region most strongly affected by the 2004 Tsunami.
Besides, there is some evidence for a gender effect in the ordered logistic regressions,
with women being more likely to carry out higher number of preparedness measures
than men.

(c). Decomposing education effects

Both in the Philippines and Thailand, we find that education positively influences
whether people undertake preparedness actions. In this section, we empirically test for
different direct and indirect underlying mechanisms that might explain the observed
relationships. First, the effects of potentially relevant mediating factors on disaster
preparedness are estimated using the standard logit and ordered logit specification. In a
second step, we consider changes in education effects between the reduced baseline
and extended models to determine the explanatory power of the mediators using the
KHB method designed for non-linear nested models.
In Table 2, the baseline model is gradually extended by various potentially relevant
mediators: household income, cognitive ability, future orientation, risk attitude, and
social capital in the Philippines; and household income, cognitive ability, risk perception,
felt impact of climate change and social capital in Thailand. For brevity, only the findings
from the ordered logit estimation are reported in Table 2. The estimates for the control
variables are not included and the full models are presented in the Appendix (Table
6, Table 7). The logit model results, which widely confirm the ordered logit findings, are
available upon request.
Table 2. Extended ordered logit models: Exploring the impacts of mediators on disaster preparedness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Philippines
Years of education 1.054∗ 1.053∗ 1.053∗ 1.055∗ 1.053∗ 1.058∗ 1.055∗
[0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027]
Disaster experience 1.880∗∗∗ 1.881∗∗∗ 1.879∗∗∗ 1.869∗∗∗ 1.898∗∗∗ 1.912∗∗∗ 1.921∗∗∗
[0.330] [0.329] [0.329] [0.327] [0.336] [0.328] [0.328]
Income 1.000 1.000
[0.001] [0.001]
Word recall 1.066 1.053
[0.052] [0.051]
Future orientation 1.017 1.013
[0.019] [0.018]
Risk attitude 0.979 0.981
[0.026] [0.027]
Social capital 1.865∗∗∗ 1.862∗∗∗
[0.290] [0.292]

N 872 872 872 872 872 872 872

Pseudo R2 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.04 0.042
AIC 2,606.6 2,607.6 2,606.6 2,607.8 2,607.9 2,590.8 2,594.6

Thailand
Years of education 1.046∗ 1.052∗ 1.048+ 1.043∗ 1.042+ 1.037+ 1.041∗
[0.023] [0.021] [0.025] [0.022] [0.022] [0.021] [0.019]
Disaster experience 2.458∗∗ 2.470∗∗ 2.468∗∗ 2.257∗∗ 2.249∗∗ 2.335∗∗ 2.048∗
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[0.752] [0.755] [0.750] [0.685] [0.675] [0.692] [0.594]
Income 0.994 0.995
[0.006] [0.006]
Word recall 0.978 0.956
[0.054] [0.049]
Moderate risk of disaster 2.411∗∗∗ 2.306∗∗
[0.638] [0.639]
High risk of disaster 2.622∗∗∗ 2.423∗∗
[0.755] [0.713]
Felt climate change impact 1.806∗∗ 1.655∗∗
[0.343] [0.315]
Social capital 2.078∗∗∗ 2.060∗∗∗
[0.357] [0.353]

N 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152

Pseudo R2 0.058 0.059 0.058 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.080
AIC 2,361.5 2,362.5 2,363.2 2,346.4 2,345.5 2,344.2 2,316.9
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the neighborhood level (PH) or village level (TH). All control variables included in the models,
but not displayed.

Household income per capita and word recall are included in the models as first
potential mediating factors. Both for the Philippine and Thai data, neither income nor
word recall exhibits a significant effect on disaster preparedness. Furthermore, future
orientation, included in model 3 for the Philippines does not show a significant effect on
disaster preparedness either.

In the subsequent models, variables that measure concepts related to risk attitudes and
perception are considered. While risk attitudes in the Philippines do not explain
differences in preparedness behavior, we find a strongly significant positive effect of risk
perception in Thailand. Compared to the reference group who perceives disaster risks
to be very low, the respondents who perceive a moderate or high disaster risk are 2.4
and 2.6 times more likely to undertake preparedness measures, respectively. Similarly,
perceiving that climate change has substantial impact on the family increases the odds
of being in the group undertaking most preparedness measures by 1.8 times.

Next, variables that capture dimensions of social capital (measured as social support in
the Philippines and social participation in Thailand) are included. Having higher social
capital leads to a significant 86.5% and 107.8% increase in the odds of taking
preparedness actions in the Philippines and Thailand, respectively. Indeed, besides the
perception of disaster risks, social capital is a strong determinant of disaster
preparedness in both countries.

In a final step, a full set of mediating variables is controlled for. The reported effects of
all mediators remain robust in the full models. Across all models, education coefficients
remain significant although for the Thai data, the size of education coefficients
decreases when some of the mediators are included. In the Philippines, on the other
hand, the education effects remain relatively stable. The differences in the effect sizes
form the basis of the KHB analysis, which is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. KHB models: Decomposing education effects on disaster preparedness (based on ordinal
outcome: number of preparedness measures taken)

Income Word Future orientation Risk attitude Social

recall capital
Philippines
Total effect 1.054∗ 1.055∗ 1.054∗ 1.054∗ 1.052∗
[0.027] [0.026] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027]
Direct effect 1.053∗ 1.053∗ 1.055∗ 1.053∗ 1.058∗
[0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027]
Indirect effect 1.001 1.002 0.999 1.001 0.995
[0.001] [0.002] [0.001] [0.001] [0.004]

Effect change 1.86% 3.21% −1.30% 1.58% −9.89%

in%
N 872 872 872 872 872

Income Word recall Disaster risk Felt climate change Social capital
perception impact
Thailand
Total effect 1.046∗ 1.046∗ 1.048∗ 1.047∗ 1.048∗
 Income Word Future orientation Risk attitude Social
recall capital
[0.023] [0.023] [0.023] [0.023] [0.023]
Direct effect 1.052∗ 1.048+ 1.043∗ 1.042+ 1.037+
[0.021] [0.025] [0.022] [0.022] [0.021]
Indirect effect 0.994 0.998 1.005+ 1.005+ 1.011∗∗
[0.006] [0.006] [0.003] [0.003] [0.004]

Effect change −13.65% −5.32% 11.13% 10.96% 23.28%

in%
N 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152
+ p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the neighborhood level (PH) or village level (TH). The total effect refers to the education
effect in the reduced model; the direct effect refers to the effect in the extended model. The indirect effect,
which is due to changes in the mediating factor, is the difference between the total and direct effects.
Effect change in% reports the percentage change in the education coefficient after controlling for the
relevant mediator. Each model estimates the indirect effects separately for each mediator. All control
variables are included in the models, but not displayed.

Table 3 presents the results from the KHB models where the effects of education on
disaster preparedness are disentangled. The first two rows report the total and direct
effects of education for the reduced model without and the extended model with the
considered mediating factor, respectively. The last row reporting indirect effects shows
the difference between the coefficient in the reduced and extended model. Note that the
estimates slightly differ between the standard ordered logit models and the KHB
estimation. The delta method applied in the KHB procedure tests if the change in
coefficients is significantly different from zero i.e. whether the mediating factor
confounds education.
In the Philippines, the inclusion of additional factors does not lead to a significant
change in the education coefficients. None of the considered theoretically relevant
mediators can explain the reported education effects. In Thailand, on the other hand,
three of our mediators explain part of the reported education effects. Based on the KHB
estimates, disaster risk perception explains 11.1%, perception of the impacts of climate
change explains 11.0% and the social capital indicator explains 23.3% of the previously
found education effects on disaster preparedness.
(d). Interplay between education and experience

Both education and disaster experience can trigger learning processes that lead to
increased preparedness levels. If this argument holds, the effects of both variables are
expected to depend on each other. We test for the interplay between the two variables
in a model which includes an interaction term of education (continuous) and previous
disaster experience (binary). Table 4 presents the results from the logit and ordered
logit models investigating the interplay between education and disaster experience.
Here only the coefficients of the main variables of interest are displayed (Full results are
shown in the Appendix in Table 8).
Table 4. Exploring the interplay between education and disaster experience

Preparedness Number of preparedness measures

Philippines
Years of education 1.063+ 1.087∗ 1.054∗ 1.085∗∗
[0.034] [0.038] [0.027] [0.031]
Disaster experience 2.838∗∗∗ 8.154∗∗ 1.880∗∗∗ 4.803∗∗
[0.759] [5.624] [0.330] [2.573]
Interaction 0.890+ 0.905+
[0.063] [0.047]

N 872 872 872 872

Pseudo R2 0.066 0.068 0.033 0.035
AIC 942.8 942.6 2,606.6 2,604.7

Thailand
Years of education 1.041+ 1.095∗∗ 1.046∗ 1.109∗∗∗
[0.025] [0.035] [0.023] [0.034]
Disaster experience 2.664∗∗ 4.797∗∗∗ 2.458∗∗ 4.807∗∗∗
[0.844] [2.105] [0.752] [2.071]
Interaction 0.933∗ 0.924∗
[0.033] [0.031]

N 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152

Pseudo R2 0.112 0.115 0.058 0.06
AIC 1,326.2 1,324.7 2,361.5 2,358.6
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the neighborhood level (PH) or village level (TH). All control variables are included in the
models, but not displayed.

Interestingly, when the interaction term between education and experience is included
in the model, both the main effects of education and experience increase. The
interaction term itself is negative and statistically significant revealing an important
interplay between the two factors. Similar to the results in Table 1, respondents with
prior disaster experience have higher levels of disaster preparedness. For education,
however, we find that the effect differs significantly by disaster experience. The
significant and negative interaction term implies that education has a positive influence
on disaster preparedness only for those who have not yet experienced a disaster in the
past. For the group with disaster experience, on the other hand, we find that the
education effect almost cancels out suggesting that disaster affectedness boosts
preparedness for the more and less educated to a similar level. The interplay between
the two variables is illustrated for both countries in the plot of marginal effects in Figure
4.
1. Download high-res image (413KB)
2. Download full-size image
Figure 4. Plots of marginal effects from logit models displaying the probability of taking
preparedness measure by years of education in the Philippines and Thailand.

Note that controlling for relevant demographic and socio-economic factors, the average
preparedness level in the Philippines remains about 40% higher than in Thailand.
Despite these differences in preparedness levels, we can observe the same systematic
pattern with respect to the interplay between education and experience on disaster
preparedness. Education significantly raises preparedness actions for those who have
not been affected by a disaster in both countries. For the group with disaster
experience, however, there seems to be no particular relationship between education
and preparedness behavior as depicted by a flat line in both countries. Interestingly,
education seems to allow the non-affected individuals to reach a preparedness level
almost as high as their counterparts with previous disaster experience. Indeed, this
suggests that education can be an effective mean to supplement disaster experience in
raising preparedness actions. Once being affected by a disaster, both the highly
educated and less educated alike achieve a similar level of disaster preparedness.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Analyzing original survey data from the Philippines and Thailand, we have shown that
education promotes preparedness behavior particularly for people who have not been
affected by a disaster in the recent past. The results are consistent for both countries
and for different model specifications i.e. (1) different measurements of disaster
preparedness actions; and (2) estimation strategies. This ensures the robustness of our
findings.

As expected, having experienced loss and damages from previous disasters increases
disaster preparedness. In fact, prior disaster experience, which is influenced by
geographical location of the home, is one of the key predictors of the adoption of
precautionary measures. Once being affected by a disaster, it seems that people
acquired understanding of the devastation that disasters can create and hence obtained
knowledge of what they can do to minimize the risk of harm (Sattler et al., 2000). In this
regard, education does not seem to play a significant role since anyone who was
affected by a disaster had a chance to learn about the risks of natural hazards.
Interestingly though, among those who have not previously been affected by a disaster,
educational attainment becomes a key determinant of adoption of preparedness
measures. Since more years of schooling is related to improved abstract reasoning and
anticipation skills (Baker et al., 2011, Blair et al., 2005, Ceci, 1991, Nisbett, 2010),
highly educated individuals do not need to experience a disaster to understand that
disasters can be devastating. Indeed, this finding is in line with previous studies on the
relationship between education and health behaviors. For instance, people with higher
years of education can anticipate the harm of smoking without needing to first light up
many cigarettes, become ill, and later quit smoking (de Walque, 2007). Thus, education
seems to provide a protective effect against natural disaster threats.
Taking a broader perspective on education, there is another interesting notion to our
findings. Since disaster shocks are likely to be correlated among neighboring
households, the effect of having experienced a disaster could not only be driven by
individual learning about disaster risks and mitigation, but also by non-formal or social
learning in the affected communities. If several households in an area are affected by a
disaster, there may be a stronger tendency to exchange experiences and to undertake
effective joint actions to prepare against future disaster events. These sort of
complementarities and spill-overs may lead to an amplification of the observed
experience effects. In fact, based on the Philippine data, we also find evidence that
parental education matters for the adoption of precautionary measures which might as
well speak for the importance of informal education in this context. Although we cannot
trace back the exact mechanisms underlying the effects in this paper, our main
argument holds: in the absence of previous disaster experiences and hence without
possibilities for individual or social learning, formal education is an effective way in
raising personal and household disaster preparedness.

Regarding the channels through which education influences disaster preparedness in

both the Philippines and Thailand, rather surprisingly, income does not play a
particularly important role in determining preparedness actions. We expected that
specifically in the considered low- and middle-income country contexts where
government investment in disaster mitigation and risk management is relatively low (Jha
& Stanton-Geddes, 2013), individuals and households have to rely on their own
financial resources in implementing preparedness actions. Thus, income should be an
important determinant of disaster preparedness. One explanation for this finding is
possibly that most preparedness actions undertaken by our respondents in the
Philippines and Thailand such as storing food or having a family emergency plan do not
require much financial investment. Therefore, in such context, income does not
necessarily influence disaster preparedness.
An alternative explanation is that income truly plays a minor role in disaster risk
reduction. While the previous literature commonly highlighted the role of income on
natural disaster risk and impacts (Kahn, 2005, Kellenberg and Mobarak, 2008), a series
of new empirical evidence has shown that education has a stronger effect than income
on reducing vulnerability to natural disasters (Muttarak & Lutz, 2014). Toya and
Skidmore (2007), for instance, find that educational attainment has stronger effects than
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in determining life and economic losses due
to natural disasters in a macro analysis of 151 countries. Consistently, decomposing the
Human Development Index (HDI) impact on mortality from natural disasters, Striessnig,
Lutz, and Patt (2013) were able to pinpoint that it was female education that explains
lower disaster mortality rather than GDP. Similarly, at the micro level, it was found that
community, household and individual education levels are the main factors explaining
disaster preparedness, responses and losses while income does not have any
significant effect (KC, 2013, Muttarak and Pothisiri, 2013, Sharma et al., 2013). Our
results also point to a similar direction. Here education plays a greater role in reducing
vulnerability than income possibly because education is key in enhancing abstract
reasoning and anticipation skills which are important both for obtaining better income
and improving resilience.
Furthermore, we find that how education promotes disaster preparedness is context-
specific. In the Philippines, it appears that none of the possible mediating factors explain
the effect of education on preparedness behavior. In Thailand, we found that the highly
educated have higher perceptions of disaster risks that can occur in a community as
well as higher social capital which in turn increase disaster preparedness. These
discrepancies between the two countries may have to do with different sampling
designs of the two surveys. While respondents in the Philippines are based in the
capital, Manila, the Thai sample comes from more rural settings. It has been shown that
social capital has stronger influence on life outcomes in a rural context than in an urban
environment (Hofferth & Iceland, 1998). Therefore, particularly in Thailand, social capital
as measured by social participation plays an important role in explaining education
effects on disaster preparedness since this may provide a platform for community
members to exchange information including disaster-related knowledge.
Like many other studies which rely on cross-sectional survey data, this study has four
main limitations. First, the study relies on self-reported measures of preparedness
actions which may be overstated by the respondents due to social desirability bias. It is
possible that individuals with higher level of education over-report their preparedness
behavior in order to present themselves in a positive way following socially accepted
standards. A different type of research design such as an observational study is thus
required to assess patterns in reporting bias. Second, due to the cross-sectional nature
of our data, we are unable to make causal claims on the relationship between
education, disaster experience, and preparedness actions. Longitudinal and quasi-
experimental data can contribute to the identification of causal effects and to a better
understanding of the underlying processes leading to disaster preparedness. Third, not
all variables used in the analysis are measured in the same way in the two samples. In
particular, different dimensions of social capital are captured, which may explain the
diverse effect of social capital on disaster preparedness in the two countries.
Nevertheless, we argue that the variable social support in the Philippines and civic
engagement in Thailand both represent embeddedness in social networks, which can
be useful in promoting disaster preparedness. Fourth, as mentioned above, the two
cases and samples used in this study may not be perfectly comparable with the survey
in the Philippines focusing on a sample of women living in an urban area while the Thai
survey includes both men and women covering three provinces in different parts of
Thailand. Likewise, the two countries are also exposed to different natural disaster risks
which can influence both the necessity to take individual preparedness measures and
the type of actions taken. Nevertheless, the main aim of this study is not to compare
between the two countries but to scrutinize the effects of education on preparedness
behavior, which have been shown to be highly relevant in both settings.

Although our findings on the mechanisms underlying the role of education on disaster
preparedness may not be generalizable, we have empirically shown the possible
pathways through which education can influence preparedness actions. Further
investigations using better data sources (e.g., longitudinal data and nationally
representative surveys) or alternative techniques (e.g., natural experiments such as
educational reforms) would make a more rigorous identification of the causal pathways
between education and preventive behavior possible. Likewise, more refined
measurement of education including quality of schooling and curriculums would be
useful to pinpoint which dimension of education matters most in promoting desirable
behavior.

Despite the limitations, this study contributes to research on disaster risk reduction in
three important ways. First, we provide new insights into the role of education in
improving abstract reasoning and anticipation skills. By examining the interplay between
formal schooling and disaster experience, we have shown that education can substitute
disaster experience in promoting the take-up of precautionary measures. In other
words, educated individuals can anticipate disaster risks without having to be affected
by a disaster first. Second, we extend beyond the current literature which has found that
education can reduce vulnerability through reducing disaster mortality (Lutz et al.,
2014, Striessnig et al., 2013), injury (Frankenberg, Sikoki, Sumantri, Suriastini, &
Thomas, 2013), and asset and income lost (KC, 2013), as well as improving coping
capacity after a disaster (Garbero and Muttarak, 2013, Helgeson et al., 2013). Not only
that our study shows that education increases preparedness actions but also identifies
the underlying mechanisms through which education contributes to disaster
preparedness. To our knowledge, this has not yet been done at least in the vulnerability
literature. Third, not only there are relatively few studies on disaster preparedness
focusing on low- and middle-income countries, comparative studies are even scarcer.
This study thus provides new empirical evidence comparing disaster preparedness in
two disaster-prone countries in Southeast Asia.
In this study, we have empirically shown that in the absence of disaster experience,
formal education plays a key role in promoting preparedness actions. This is an
example of positive externalities of investing in human capital which extends to the
aspect of vulnerability reduction. Certainly, it remains important for national
governments to invest in disaster risk reduction measures such as early warning
systems or evacuation centers. However, it seems evident that public funding in
universal education will also benefit precautionary behavior at the personal and
household level. Indeed, recent documents and statements from UN agencies such as
the UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) and the UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) have put forward the
role of education in promoting sustainable development and in building resilience, in
particular (UNESCO Bangkok, 2007, UNESCO, 2016, UNISDR, 2015). Our study has
provided solid empirical evidence confirming the important role education plays in
reducing disaster risk as well as added to the understanding of the mechanisms through
which education contributes to increasing household disaster resilience.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this work was made possible by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): Z171-
G11, an Advanced Grant of the European Research Council, “Forecasting Societies
Adaptive Capacities to Climate Change” (grant agreement ERC-2008-AdG 230195
FutureSoc) and the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund of Chulalongkorn
University for the project “Understanding Social Barriers to Coping with and Adapting to
Extreme Climate Events” (Grant agreement number: RES560530150-CC). The project
in the Philippines was funded with a research grant from the Vienna University of
Economics and Business. The authors would like to gratefully thank their partners in the
Philippines and Thailand, most notably the Kasagana-Ka Development Center Inc. (PH)
represented by Ms. Maria Anna de Rosas-Ignacio and the College of Population
Studies, Chulalongkorn University in particular Dr.Wiraporn Pothisiri (TH), who
supported us with the data collection.

Appendix A
Table 5. Measurement and summary statistics for dependent and independent variables

Philippines Thailand
Range Mean SD Range Mean SD
Outcome variables
Has taken preparedness action 0/1 0.76 (0.43) 0/1 0.32 (0.46)
Number of preparedness measures taken 0–9 2.28 (1.75) 0–9 0.88 (1.64)

Explanatory variables
Years of education 0–18 9.65 (2.79) 0–18 7.34 (4.07)
Disaster experience 0/1 0.23 (0.42) 0/1 0.67 (0.47)
Age group < 30 0/1 0.09 (0.28) 0/1 0.09 (0.29)
Age group 30–39 0/1 0.27 (0.44) 0/1 0.19 (0.39)
Age group 40–49 0/1 0.34 (0.47) 0/1 0.24 (0.43)
Age group 50–59 0/1 0.26 (0.44) 0/1 0.25 (0.43)
Age group ≥ 60 0/1 0.05 (0.22) 0/1 0.23 (0.42)
Health status 1–11 7.70 (2.00) 0/1 0.61 (0.49)
Married/Cohabiting 0/1 0.67 (0.47) 0/1 0.75 (0.43)
Currently working 0/1 0.90 (0.30) 0/1 0.83 (0.38)
Female – – – 0/1 0.53 (0.50)
Mother has secondary education 0/1 0.24 (0.43) – – –
Father has secondary education 0/1 0.22 (0.41) – – –
Started working at age ≤ 12 0/1 0.13 (0.33) – – –
Household size 1–13 5.27 (2.04) 1–14 3.85 (1.83)
% children (aged ≤ 5) in household 0–100 35.88 (22.49) 0–100 2.96 (10.13)
 Philippines Thailand
Range Mean SD Range Mean SD
% older people (aged ≥ 65) in household 0–100 1.56 (6.26) 0–100 3.43 (14.76)
% with secondary education in hh 0–100 35.44 (22.78) 0–100 20.29 (29.74)
Years of residence 0–75 18.29 (10.74) 0–81 25.11 (18.03)
Own house – – – 0/1 0.88 (0.32)
Own land – – – 0/1 0.62 (0.49)
House located near coast (<1 km) – – – 0/1 0.09 (0.29)
House located near river (<200 m) 0/1 0.45 (0.50) 0/1 0.23 (0.42)
House located near mountain (<200 m) 0/1 0.09 (0.29) 0/1 0.08 (0.27)
Area 1 (PH: Batasan, TH: Phang Nga) 0/1 0.30 (0.46) 0/1 0.36 (0.48)
Area 2 (PH: Montalban, TH: Ayutthaya) 0/1 0.36 (0.48) 0/1 0.3 (0.46)
Area 3 (PH: Masinag, TH: Kalasin) 0/1 0.34 (0.47) 0/1 0.34 (0.47)

Mediating factors
Income 0–15,300 1,224.18 (1,269.23) 0/250,000 11,327.2 (12,905.5)
Word recall 0–10 4.13 (1.45) 0–10 4.88 (1.91)
Social capital 0/1 0.77 (0.42) 0/1 0.17 (0.38)
Future orientation 0–10 5.3 (3.30) – – –
Risk attitude 0–10 6.78 (2.49) – – –
Low risk of disaster in community – – – 0/1 0.15 (0.35)
Moderate risk of disaster in community – – – 0/1 0.33 (0.47)
High risk of disaster in community – – – 0/1 0.52 (0.50)
Felt impact of climate change on family – – – 0/1 0.57 (0.50)

Table 6. Extended ordered logit models for Philippine data (effects of controls reported)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Philippines
Years of education 1.054∗ 1.053∗ 1.053∗ 1.055∗ 1.053∗ 1.058∗ 1.055∗
[0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027] [0.027]
Disaster experience 1.880∗∗∗ 1.881∗∗∗ 1.879∗∗∗ 1.869∗∗∗ 1.898∗∗∗ 1.912∗∗∗ 1.921∗∗∗
[0.330] [0.329] [0.329] [0.327] [0.336] [0.328] [0.328]

Income 1.000 1.000

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[0.001] [0.001]
Word recall 1.066 1.053
[0.052] [0.051]
Future orientation 1.017 1.013
[0.019] [0.018]
Risk attitude 0.979 0.981
[0.026] [0.027]
Social capital 1.865∗∗∗ 1.862∗∗∗
[0.290] [0.292]

Age group 30–39 0.906 0.896 0.912 0.912 0.915 0.922 0.929
[0.249] [0.247] [0.249] [0.251] [0.254] [0.252] [0.255]
Age group 40–49 1.035 1.025 1.049 1.052 1.045 1.084 1.103
[0.250] [0.246] [0.251] [0.255] [0.255] [0.249] [0.256]
Age group 50–59 0.774 0.766 0.798 0.787 0.779 0.828 0.85
[0.210] [0.207] [0.215] [0.213] [0.213] [0.214] [0.220]
Age group ≥ 60 0.54 0.541 0.578 0.547 0.546 0.544 0.591
[0.203] [0.204] [0.218] [0.206] [0.208] [0.205] [0.227]
Health status 1.064∗ 1.061+ 1.065∗ 1.062∗ 1.066∗ 1.072∗ 1.071∗
[0.032] [0.032] [0.032] [0.032] [0.031] [0.032] [0.032]
Married/Cohabiting 1.068 1.067 1.063 1.068 1.063 1.051 1.039
[0.110] [0.109] [0.111] [0.111] [0.109] [0.110] [0.110]
Currently working 1.156 1.124 1.176 1.169 1.158 1.098 1.085
[0.240] [0.239] [0.238] [0.242] [0.241] [0.228] [0.225]
Mother has secondary education 0.948 0.946 0.928 0.944 0.942 0.902 0.874
[0.178] [0.179] [0.172] [0.177] [0.177] [0.169] [0.163]
Father has secondary education 1.440∗ 1.433∗ 1.437∗ 1.446∗ 1.449∗ 1.490∗ 1.496∗
[0.251] [0.251] [0.253] [0.253] [0.253] [0.249] [0.258]
Started working at age ≤ 12 0.705 0.703 0.703 0.706 0.0.704 0.722 0.719
[0.2164] [0.164] [0.164] [0.164] [0.165] [0.169] [0.169]
Household size 0.921* 0.926* 0.920* 0.923* 0.921* 0.923* 0.932+
[0.0.034] [0.0.035] [0.0.034] [0.0.034] [0.034] [0.033] [0.036]
% children (aged ≤ 5) in hh 1.007+ 1.008+ 1.007+ 1.007+ 1.007+ 1.008+ 1.008*
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004]
% older people (aged ≥ 65) in hh 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995
[0.010] [0.010] [0.010] [0.010] [0.010] [0.010] [0.010]
% with secondary education in hh 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.005 1.005
[0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004] [0.004]
Years of residence 1.008 1.008 1.007 1.007 1.008 1.006 1.007
[0.008] [0.008] [0.008] [0.008] [0.008] [0.008] [0.008]
House located near river 0.933 0.939 0.932 0.936 0.932 0.931 0.937
[0.195] [0.195] [0.194] [0.193] [0.194] [0.189] [0.188]
House located near mountain 0.862 0.862 0.861 0.860 0.866 0.861 0.86
[0.155] [0.155] [0.155] [0.153] [0.156] [0.159] [0.157]
Area 2 2.041∗∗ 2.059∗∗ 2.042∗∗ 2.030∗∗ 2.018∗∗ 2.139∗∗∗ 2.132∗∗∗
[0.469] [0.472] [0.467] [0.467] [0.468] [0.476] [0.477]
Area 3 1.34 1.326 1.353 1.344 1.337 1.369 1.363
[0.262] [0.260] [0.266] [0.264] [0.261] [0.267] [0.268]

N 872 872 872 872 872 872 872

Pseudo R2 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.04 0.042
AIC 2,606.6 2,607.6 2,606.6 2,607.8 2,607.9 2,590.8 2,594.6
+ p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the neighborhood level.

Table 7. Extended ordered logit models for Thai data (effects of controls reported)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thailand
Years of education 1.046∗ 1.052∗ 1.048+ 1.043∗ 1.042+ 1.037+ 1.041∗
[0.023] [0.021] [0.025] [0.022] [0.022] [0.021] [0.019]
Disaster experience 2.458∗∗ 2.470∗∗ 2.468∗∗ 2.257∗∗ 2.249∗∗ 2.335∗∗ 2.048∗
[0.752] [0.755] [0.750] [0.685] [0.675] [0.692] [0.594]
Income 0.994 0.995
[0.006] [0.006]
Word recall 0.978 0.956
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[0.054] [0.049]
Moderate disaster risk 2.411∗∗∗ 2.306∗∗
[0.638] [0.639]
High disaster risk 2.622∗∗∗ 2.423∗∗
[0.755] [0.713]
Felt climate change impact 1.806∗∗ 1.655∗∗
[0.343] [0.315]
Social capital 2.078∗∗∗ 2.060∗∗∗
[0.357] [0.353]

Age group 30–39 1.388 1.375 1.388 1.406 1.342 1.369 1.332
[0.329] [0.319] [0.328] [0.333] [0.308] [0.330] [0.308]
Age group 40–49 1.23 1.206 1.22 1.27 1.191 1.133 1.1
[0.260] [0.248] [0.260] [0.278] [0.251] [0.231] [0.225]
Age group 50–59 0.87 0.869 0.854 0.893 0.826 0.754 0.704
[0.202] [0.199] [0.203] [0.214] [0.191] [0.163] [0.157]
Age group ≥ 60 1.063 1.054 1.034 1.104 1.003 1.006 0.918
[0.239] [0.237] [0.245] [0.260] [0.220] [0.245] [0.225]
Health status 1.109 1.103 1.112 1.132 1.135 1.054 1.095
[0.198] [0.200] [0.197] [0.205] [0.210] [0.195] [0.210]
Married/Cohabiting 1.251 1.234 1.252 1.242 1.205 1.22 1.164
[0.264] [0.264] [0.264] [0.248] [0.240] [0.258] [0.228]
Currently working 0.864 0.878 0.861 0.866 0.816 0.88 0.844
[0.164] [0.167] [0.166] [0.168] [0.142] [0.166] [0.153]
Female 1.308∗ 1.312∗ 1.316∗ 1.281∗ 1.314∗ 1.325∗ 1.321∗
[0.162] [0.160] [0.159] [0.159] [0.170] [0.176] [0.171]
Household size 0.945 0.947 0.946 0.945 0.949 0.936 0.944
[0.044] [0.043] [0.044] [0.043] [0.044] [0.043] [0.042]
% children (aged ≤ 5) in hh 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 1 0.999
[0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005]
% older people (aged ≥ 65) in hh 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.999 0.999 0.998
[0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005]
% with secondary education in hh 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002]
Years of residence 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.996
[0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005] [0.005]
Own house 1.173 1.159 1.175 1.242 1.241 1.099 1.217
[0.330] [0.325] [0.330] [0.352] [0.348] [0.308] [0.341]
Own land 1.213 1.223 1.213 1.159 1.208 1.253 1.209
[0.226] [0.224] [0.226] [0.206] [0.238] [0.227] [0.214]
House located near coast 2.532∗∗ 2.540∗∗ 2.540∗∗ 2.486∗∗ 2.680∗∗∗ 2.538∗∗ 2.617∗∗
[0.759] [0.756] [0.773] [0.767] [0.769] [0.765] [0.777]
House located near river 1.015 1.02 1.011 1.049 1.042 1.014 1.063
[0.200] [0.202] [0.202] [0.220] [0.219] [0.213] [0.246]
House located near mountain 1.526 1.562 1.52 1.692 1.461 1.36 1.428
[0.821] [0.802] [0.816] [0.904] [0.800] [0.663] [0.6665]
Area 2 0.404∗ 0.385∗ 0.398∗ 0.406∗ 0.352∗ 0.386∗ 0.323∗
[0.178] [0.173] [0.170] [0.184] [0.157] [0.166] [0.142]
Area 3 1.026 1.014 1.016 1.071 0.907 1.051 0.949
[0.389] [0.382] [0.384] [0.406] [0.314] [0.398] [0.331]

N 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152 1,152

Pseudo R2 0.058 0.059 0.058 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.080
AIC 2,361.5 2,362.5 2,363.2 2,346.4 2,345.5 2,344.2 2,316.9
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the village level.

Table 8. Exploring the interplay between education and disaster experience (effects of controls reported)

Philippines Thailand
Preparedness No. of measures Preparedness No. of measures
Years of education 1.087∗ [0.038] 1.085∗∗ [0.031] 1.095∗∗ [0.035] 1.109∗∗∗ [0.034]
Disaster experience 8.154∗∗ [5.624] 4.803∗∗ [2.573] 0.933∗ [0.033] 0.924∗ [0.031]
Interaction 0.890+ [0.063] 0.905+ [0.047] 4.797∗∗∗ [2.105] 4.807∗∗∗ [2.071]

Age group 30–39 0.686 [0.243] 0.904 [0.248] 1.628∗ [0.339] 1.384 [0.332]
 Philippines Thailand
Preparedness No. of measures Preparedness No. of measures
Age group 40–49 0.914 [0.316] 1.038 [0.250] 1.353 [0.317] 1.23 [0.263]
Age group 50–59 0.856 [0.325] 0.783 [0.214] 0.93 [0.242] 0.868 [0.207]
Age group ≥ 60 0.623 [0.318] 0.549 [0.212] 1.16 [0.283] 1.068 [0.243]
Health status 1.046 [0.038] 1.061∗ [0.032] 1.082 [0.200] 1.1 [0.198]
Married/Cohabiting 1.095 [0.184] 1.063 [0.109] 1.231 [0.273] 1.264 [0.270]
Currently working 0.998 [0.295] 1.165 [0.248] 0.769 [0.166] 0.845 [0.160]
Female 1.291+ [0.199] 1.315∗ [0.162]
Mother has secondary education 1.073 [0.287] 0.945 [0.176]
Father has secondary education 1.159 [0.242] 1.427∗ [0.247]
Started working at age ≤ 12 0.571∗ [0.139] 0.703 [0.164]
Household size 0.880∗∗ [0.041] 0.925∗ [0.034] 0.943 [0.043] 0.941 [0.044]
% children (aged ≤ 5) in hh 1.017∗∗ [0.006] 1.008+ [0.004] 0.999 [0.006] 0.999 [0.005]
% older people (aged ≥ 65) in hh 0.997 [0.011] 0.994 [0.010] 1.000 [0.006] 0.998 [0.005]
% with secondary education in hh 1.008 [0.005] 1.004 [0.004] 0.999 [0.002] 0.999 [0.002]
Years of residence 1.024∗ [0.011] 1.008 [0.009] 0.994 [0.005] 0.996 [0.005]
Own house 1.174 [0.313] 1.206 [0.320]
Own land 1.309 [0.273] 1.219 [0.228]
House located near coast 4.234∗∗∗ [1.807] 2.593∗∗ [0.772]
House located near river 0.975 [0.222] 0.941 [0.198] 0.985 [0.217] 1.000 [0.202]
House located near mountain 0.685+ [0.147] 0.847 [0.152] 1.439 [0.737] 1.657 [0.890]
Area 2 1.789* [0.511] 2.042** [0.469] 0.391∗ [0.177] 0.405∗ [0.177]
Area 3 1.337 [0.326] 1.36 [0.267] 0.979 [0.373] 1.047 [0.388]

Observations 872 872 1,152 1,152

Pseudo R2 0.068 0.035 0.115 0.06
AIC 942.6 2,604.7 1,324.7 2,358.6
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are odds ratios with robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are
clustered at the neighborhood level (PH) or village level (TH). Dummy variables of whether mother and/or
father are unknown (PH) are not displayed.

References
Ablah et al., 2009
E. Ablah, K. Konda, C.L. KelleyFactors predicting individual emergency preparedness: A multi-state
analysis of 2006 BRFSS data
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 7 (3) (2009), pp. 317-330, 10.1089/bsp.2009.0022
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Adiyoso and Kanegae, 2014
W. Adiyoso, H. KanegaeThe role of Islamic teachings in encouraging people to take tsunami
preparedness in Aceh and Yogyakarta Indonesia
R. Shaw (Ed.), Recovery from the Indian Ocean Tsunami: A Ten-Year Journey, Springer
Japan, Tokyo (2014), pp. 259-278
View Record in Scopus
Allen, 2006
K.M. AllenCommunity-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: Local capacity-building
in the Philippines
Disasters, 30 (1) (2006), pp. 81-101, 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00308.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Al-Rousan et al., 2014
T.M. Al-Rousan, L.M. Rubenstein, R.B. WallacePreparedness for natural disasters among older US
adults: A nationwide survey
American Journal of Public Health, 104 (3) (2014), pp. 506-511, 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301559
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Andrews and Quintana, 2015
R.J. Andrews, L.M. QuintanaUnpredictable, unpreventable and impersonal medicine: Global disaster
response in the 21st century
The EPMA Journal, 6 (1) (2015), p. 2, 10.1186/s13167-014-0024-9
View Record in Scopus
Baker, 1980
E.J. BakerCoping with hurricane evacuation difficulties
Florida Sea Grant College Conference Report No. 33: Hurricane and Coastal Storms, Gainesville,
Florida (1980)
Baker, 2011
E.J. BakerHousehold preparedness for the aftermath of Hurricanes in Florida
Applied Geography, 31 (1) (2011), pp. 46-52, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.002
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
Baker et al., 2011
D.P. Baker, J. Leon, E.G. Smith Greenaway, J. Collins, M. MovitThe education effect on population
health: A reassessment
Population and Development Review, 37 (2) (2011), pp. 307-332, 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00412.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
 UNESCO Bangkok, 2007
U.N.E.S.C.O. BangkokNatural disaster preparedness and education for sustainable development
UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Bangkok (2007)
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001504/150454e.pdf
Barakat et al., 2016
B. Barakat, S. Bengtsson, R. Muttarak, E.B. KebedeEducation & the sustainable development goals
(background paper prepared for the 2016 global education monitoring report)
UNESCO, Paris (2016)
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245580E.pdf
Basolo et al., 2009
V. Basolo, L.J. Steinberg, R.J. Burby, J. Levine, A.M. Cruz, C. HuangThe effects of confidence in
government and information on perceived and actual preparedness for disasters
Environment and Behavior, 41 (3) (2009), pp. 338-364, 10.1177/0013916508317222
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Basten et al.,
2014
S. Basten, R. Muttarak, W. Pothisiri“The persistence of parent repayment” and the anticipation of filial
obligations of care in two thai provinces
Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 8 (2) (2014), pp. 109-122, 10.1111/aswp.12028
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Benzion
et al.,
1989
U. Benzion, A. Rapoport, J. YagilDiscount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study
Management Science, 35 (1989), pp. 270-284, 10.1287/mnsc.35.3.270
CrossRef
B
i
r
k
m
a
n
n
e
t
a
l
.
 ,
2
0
0
8
J. Birkmann, P. Buckle, J. Jaeger, M. Pelling, N. Setiadi, M. Garschagen, ..., J.KroppExtreme events and
disasters: A window of opportunity for change? Analysis of organizational, institutional and political
changes, formal and informal responses after mega-disasters
Natural Hazards, 55 (3) (2008), pp. 637-655, 10.1007/s11069-008-9319-2
View Record in Scopus
B
l
a
i
r
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
0
5
C. Blair, D. Gamson, S. Thorne, D. BakerRising mean IQ: Cognitive demand of mathematics education
for young children, population exposure to formal schooling, and the neurobiology of the prefrontal
cortex
Intelligence, 33 (1) (2005), pp. 93-106, 10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.008
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
J.A. Boscarino, R.E. Adams, C.R. Figley, S. Galea, E.B. FoaFear of terrorism and preparedness in New
York City 2 years after the attacks: Implications for disaster planning and research
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice : JPHMP, 12 (6) (2006), pp. 505-513
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

L.B. Bourque, D.S. Mileti, M. Kano, M.M. WoodWho prepares for terrorism?
Environment and Behavior, 44 (3) (2012), pp. 374-409, 10.1177/0013916510390318
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
R.S. Brower, F.A. Magno, J. DillingEvolving and implementing a new disaster management paradigm:
The case of the Philippines
N. Kapucu, K.T. Liou (Eds.), Disaster and development, Springer International Publishing (2014), pp. 289-
313
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

G. Brunello, M. Fort, N. Schneeweis, R. Winter-EbmerThe causal effect of education on health: What is

the role of health behaviors?
Health Economics (2015), 10.1002/hec.3141
P. Bubeck, W.J.W. Botzen, H. Kreibich, J.C.J.H. AertsDetailed insights into the influence of flood-
coping appraisals on mitigation behaviour
Global Environmental Change, 23 (5) (2013), pp. 1327-1338, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.009
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

R.J. Burby, L.J. Steinberg, V. BasoloThe tenure trap: The vulnerability of renters to joint natural and
technological disasters
Urban Affairs Review, 39 (1) (2003), pp. 32-58, 10.1177/1078087403253053
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
D. CardThe causal effect of education on earnings
O.C.A. Card, David (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics, Vol. 3, Part A, Elsevier (1999), pp. 1801-1863
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

S.J. CeciHow much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A
reassessment of the evidence
Developmental Psychology, 27 (5) (1991), pp. 703-722, 10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.703
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of DisastersAnnual disaster statistical review 2014: The
numbers and trends
(2015)
T. Chankrajang, R. MuttarakGreen returns to education: Does schooling contribute to pro-
environmental behaviours? Evidence from Thailand
Ecological Economics, 131 (2017), pp. 434-448, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.015
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
Chew, S. H., Heckman, J., Yi, J., Zhang, J., & Zhong, S. (2010). Education and preferences: Experimental
evidence from Chinese adult twins. Chicago, USA.

J.S. ColemanSocial capital in the creation of human capital

American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988), pp. S95-S120
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

P.H. Coombs, R. Prosser, M. AhmedNew paths to learning for rural children and youth
International Council for Educational Development (1973)
S.R. Cotten, S.S. GuptaCharacteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors
that discriminate between them
Social Science & Medicine, 59 (9) (2004), pp. 1795-1806, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.020
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
D.M. Cutler, A. Lleras-MuneyUnderstanding differences in health behaviors by education
Journal of Health Economics, 29 (1) (2010), pp. 1-28, 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

W. de Bruin, A.M. Parker, B. FischhoffIndividual differences in adult decision-making competence

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (5) (2007), pp. 938-956, 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938
View Record in Scopus
D. de WalqueDoes education affect smoking behaviors? Evidence using the Vietnam draft as an
instrument for college education
Journal of Health Economics, 26 (5) (2007), pp. 877-895, 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.12.005
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

D. de WalqueEducation, information, and smoking decisions evidence from smoking histories in the
United States, 1940–2000
Journal of Human Resources, 45 (3) (2010), pp. 682-717, 10.3368/jhr.45.3.682
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
T. Dohmen, A. Falk, D. Huffman, U. Sunde, J. Schupp, G.G. WagnerIndividual risk attitudes:
Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences
Journal of the European Economic Association, 9 (2011), pp. 522-550, 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

D.P. Eisenman, Q. Zhou, M. Ong, S. Asch, D. Glik, A. LongVariations in disaster preparedness by

mental health, perceived general health, and disability status
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 3 (1) (2009), pp. 33-
41, 10.1097/DMP.0b013e318193be89
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
EM-DATEM-DAT database
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters – CRED (2015)
Retrieved November 10, 2015, from <www.emdat.be/database>

P.J. Eslinger, C. Blair, J. Wang, B. Lipovsky, J. Realmuto, D. Baker, ..., Q.X. YangDevelopmental shifts
in FMRI activations during visuospatial relational reasoning
Brain and Cognition, 69 (1) (2009), pp. 1-10, 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.04.010
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
C.E. Faupel, S.P. Kelly, T. PeteeThe impact of disaster education on household preparedness for
Hurricane Hugo
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 10 (1) (1992), pp. 5-
24, 10.1177/0013916593252004
View Record in Scopus

C.B. Field, V. Barros, T. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. MastrandreaManaging the risks
of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation
Cambridge University Press, New York (2012)
E. Frankenberg, B. Sikoki, C. Sumantri, W. Suriastini, D. ThomasEducation, vulnerability, and
resilience after a natural disaster
Ecology and Society, 18 (2) (2013), 10.5751/ES-05377-180216

A. Garbero, R. MuttarakImpacts of the 2010 droughts and floods on community welfare in rural
Thailand: Differential effects of village educational attainment
Ecology and Society, 18 (4) (2013), p. 27, 10.5751/ES-05871-180427

C. Gathmann, H. Jürges, S. ReinholdCompulsory schooling reforms, education and mortality in

twentieth century Europe
Social Science & Medicine, 127 (2014), pp. 74-82, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.037

M. GrossmanEducation and nonmarket outcomes

E. Hanushek, F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education, Vol. 1 (2006)
J. Harvatt, J. Petts, J. ChilversUnderstanding householder responses to natural hazards: Flooding and
sea-level rise comparisons
Journal of Risk Research, 14 (1) (2011), pp. 63-83, 10.1080/13669877.2010.503935
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

A.J. Hausman, A. Hanlon, B. SealsSocial capital as a mediating factor in emergency preparedness and
concerns about terrorism
Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (8) (2007), pp. 1073-1083, 10.1002/jcop.20203
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

J.F. Helgeson, S. Dietz, S. Hochrainer-StiglerVulnerability to weather disasters: The choice of coping

strategies in rural Uganda
Ecology and Society, 18 (2) (2013), p. 2, 10.5751/ES-05390-180202

K. Heller, D.B. Alexander, M. Gatz, B.G. Knight, T. RoseSocial and personal factors as predictors of
earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and
education
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (2) (2005), pp. 399-422
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

S.L. Hofferth, J. IcelandSocial capital in rural and urban communities

Rural Sociology, 63 (4) (1998), pp. 574-598, 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00693.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

J. Horney, C. Snider, S. Malone, L. Gammons, S. RamseyFactors associated with hurricane

preparedness: Results of a pre-hurricane assessment
Journal of Disaster Research, 3 (2) (2008), pp. 143-149
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

J. Huang, H. van den Brink, W. GrootA meta-analysis of the effect of education on social capital
Economics of Education Review, 28 (4) (2009), pp. 454-464, 10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.03.004
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

E.L. JacksonResponse to earthquake hazard: The West Coast of North America

Environment and Behavior, 13 (4) (1981), pp. 387-416, 10.1177/0013916581134001
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

A.K. Jha, Z. Stanton-Geddes (Eds.), Strong, safe, and resilient: A strategic policy guide for disaster risk
management in East Asia and the Pacific, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC (2013)

M.E. KahnThe death toll from natural disasters: The role of income, geography, and institutions
Review of Economics and Statistics, 87 (2) (2005), pp. 271-284, 10.1162/0034653053970339
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

A.N. Karanci, B. Aksit, G. DirikImpact of a community disaster awareness training program in

Turkey: Does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33 (3) (2005), pp. 243-
258, 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.243
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

K.B. Karlson, A. Holm, R. BreenComparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested

models using logit and probit a new method
Sociological Methodology, 42 (1) (2012), pp. 286-313, 10.1177/0081175012444861
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

S. KCCommunity vulnerability to floods and landslides in Nepal

Ecology and Society, 18 (1) (2013), 10.5751/ES-05095-180108

D.K. Kellenberg, A.M. MobarakDoes rising income increase or decrease damage risk from natural
disasters?
Journal of Urban Economics, 63 (3) (2008), pp. 788-802, 10.1016/j.jue.2007.05.003
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

D.S. KenkelHealth behavior, health knowledge, and schooling

Journal of Political Economy, 99 (2) (1991), p. 287, 10.1086/261751
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

Y.-C. Kim, J. KangCommunication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

Disasters, 34 (2) (2010), pp. 470-488, 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01138.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

A.V. KirkbyIndividual and community responses to rainfall variability in Oaxaca, Mexico

G.F. White (Ed.), Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global, Wiley, New York (1974), pp. 119-128

A. KirschenbaumFamilies and disaster behavior: A reassessment of family preparedness

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24 (1) (2006), pp. 111-143

S. Kohn, J.L. Eaton, S. Feroz, A.A. Bainbridge, J. Hoolachan, D.J. BarnettPersonal disaster
preparedness: An integrative review of the literature
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 6 (3) (2012), pp. 217-231, 10.1001/dmp.2012.47
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

S. Kreft, D. Eckstein, L. Dorsch, L. Fischerglobal climate risk index 2016: Who suffers most from
extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2014 and 1995 to 2014
Germanwatch, Bonn (2015)
Retrieved from https://germanwatch.org/fr/download/13503.pdf

R.L.D. Lake, R. HuckfeldtSocial capital, social networks, and political participation

Political Psychology, 19 (3) (1998), pp. 567-584

T.R. Lave, L.B. LavePublic perception of the risks of floods: Implications for communication
Risk Analysis, 11 (2) (1991), pp. 255-267
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

J. Lawrence, D. Quade, J. BeckerIntegrating the effects of flood experience on risk perception with
responses to changing climate risk
Natural Hazards, 74 (3) (2014), pp. 1773-1794, 10.1007/s11069-014-1288-z
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

J.E.C. Lee, L. LemyreA social-cognitive perspective of terrorism risk perception and individual
response in Canada
Risk Analysis, 29 (9) (2009), pp. 1265-1280, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01264.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

M.K. Lindell, S.N. HwangHouseholds’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard
environment
Risk Analysis, 28 (2) (2008), pp. 539-556, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01032.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

M.K. Lindell, D.J. WhitneyCorrelates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption

Risk Analysis, 20 (1) (2000), pp. 13-26, 10.1111/0272-4332.00002
View Record in Scopus

W. Lutz, R. Muttarak, E. StriessnigUniversal education is key to enhanced climate adaptation

Science, 346 (6213) (2014), pp. 1061-1062, 10.1126/science.1257975
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

W.E. Martin, I.M. Martin, B. KentThe role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: The case
of wildfire in high risk communities
Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (2) (2009), pp. 489-498, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.007
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

T.K. McGee, S. Russell“It’s just a natural way of lifeellipsis” an investigation of wildfire preparedness
in rural Australia
Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5 (1–2) (2003), pp. 1-
12, 10.1016/j.hazards.2003.04.001
ArticleDownload PDFCrossRefView Record in Scopus

I.M. McNeill, P.D. Dunlop, J.B. Heath, T.C. Skinner, D.L. MorrisonExpecting the unexpected:
Predicting physiological and psychological wildfire preparedness from perceived risk, responsibility,
and obstacles
Risk Analysis, 33 (10) (2013), pp. 1829-1843, 10.1111/risa.12037
View Record in Scopus

R. Miceli, I. Sotgiu, M. SettanniDisaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an

alpine valley in Italy
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (2) (2008), pp. 164-173, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.006
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

D.S. Mileti, C. Fitzpatrick, B.C. FarharFostering public preparations for natural hazards: Lessons
from the Parkfield earthquake prediction
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 34 (3) (1992), pp. 16-
39, 10.1080/00139157.1992.9931434
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

S. Mishra, D. SuarDo lessons people learn determine disaster cognition and preparedness?
Psychology & Developing Societies, 19 (2) (2007), pp. 143-159, 10.1177/097133360701900201
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

S.T. Murphy, M. Cody, L.B. Frank, D. Glik, A. AngPredictors of emergency preparedness and
compliance
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (2009), 10.1097/DMP.0b013e3181a9c6c5

R. Muttarak, W. LutzIs education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and hence
unavoidable climate change?
Ecology and Society, 19 (1) (2014), p. 42, 10.5751/ES-06476-190142

R. Muttarak, W. PothisiriThe role of education on disaster preparedness: Case study of 2012 Indian
Ocean earthquakes on Thailand’s Andaman coast
Ecology and Society, 18 (4) (2013), p. 51, 10.5751/ES-06101-180451

L.M. Neuenschwander, A. Abbott, A.R. MobleyAssessment of low-income adults’ access to technology:

Implications for nutrition education
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44 (1) (2012), pp. 60-65, 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.01.004
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

R.E. NisbettIntelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count
W. W. Norton & Company, New York (2010)

F.H. Norris, T. Smith, K. KaniastyRevisiting the experience–behavior hypothesis: The effects of

Hurricane Hugo on hazard preparedness and other self-protective acts
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21 (1) (1999), pp. 37-47, 10.1207/s15324834basp2101_4
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

K. Oberauer, H.-M. Süß, R. Schulze, O. Wilhelm, W.W. WittmannWorking memory capacity—Facets of

a cognitive ability construct
Personality and Individual Differences (2000), 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00251-2

P. Oreopoulos, K.G. SalvanesPriceless: The nonpecuniary benefits of schooling

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25 (1) (2011), pp. 159-184, 10.1257/jep.25.1.159
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

D. Paton, D. JohnstonDisasters and communities: Vulnerability, resilience and preparedness

Disaster Prevention and Management, 10 (4) (2001), pp. 270-277, 10.1108/EUM0000000005930
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
 D. Paton, M. Millar, D. JohnstonCommunity resilience to volcanic hazard consequences
Natural Hazards, 24 (2) (2001), pp. 157-169, 10.1023/A:1011882106373
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

B.K. Paul, R.H. BhuiyanUrban earthquake hazard: Perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka
City
Bangladesh. Disasters, 34 (2) (2010), pp. 337-359, 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01132.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

F. Pérez-ArceThe effect of education on time preferences

Rochester, NY (2011)
al., 2006
E. Peters, D. Västfjäll, P. Slovic, C.K. Mertz, K. Mazzocco, S. DickertNumeracy and decision making
Psychological Science, 17 (5) (2006), pp. 407-413, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Phillips et al., 2005
B.D. Phillips, W.C. Metz, L.A. NievesDisaster threat: Preparedness and potential response of the
lowest income quartile
Environmental Hazards, 6 (3) (2005), pp. 123-133, 10.1016/j.hazards.2006.05.001
ArticleDownload PDFCrossRefView Record in Scopus
Quartz and Sejnowski, 1997
S.R. Quartz, T.J. SejnowskiThe neural basis of cognitive development: A constructivist manifesto
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20 (4) (1997), pp. 537-596
View Record in Scopus
Reininger et al., 2013
B.M. Reininger, M.H. Rahbar, M. Lee, Z. Chen, S.R. Alam, J. Pope, B. AdamsSocial capital and disaster
preparedness among low income Mexican Americans in a disaster prone area
Social Science & Medicine, 83 (2013), pp. 50-60, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.037
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
Republic of the Philippines, 2011
Republic of the PhilippinesThe National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP)
Retrieved from
http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports_resources/DILG-Resources-2012116-420ac59e31.pdf(2011)
Richardson and Wolfe, 2001
L.D. Richardson, M. Wolfe (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Informal Education, Routledge, London; New
York (2001)

Rodriguez et al., 2007

H. Rodriguez, W. Diaz, J.M. Santos, B.E. AguirreCommunicating risk and uncertainty: Science,
technology, and disasters at the crossroads
Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer, New York (2007), pp. 476-488
CrossRef
Russell et al., 1995
L.A. Russell, J.D. Goltz, L.B. BourquePreparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after
two earthquakes
Environment and Behavior, 27 (6) (1995), pp. 744-770, 10.1177/0013916595276002
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Sattler et al., 2000
D.N. Sattler, C.F. Kaiser, J.B. HittnerDisaster preparedness: Relationships among prior experience,
personal characteristics, and distress
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30 (7) (2000), pp. 1396-1420, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02527.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Sharma et al., 2013
U. Sharma, A. Patwardhan, A.G. PattEducation as a determinant of response to cyclone warnings:
Evidence from coastal zones in India
Ecology and Society, 18 (2) (2013), 10.5751/ES-05439-180218
Shelley, 1993
M.K. ShelleyOutcome signs, question frames and discount rates
Management Science (1993), 10.1287/mnsc.39.7.806
Shreve and Kelman, 2014
C.M. Shreve, I. KelmanDoes mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk
reduction
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10 (Part A) (2014), pp. 213-
235, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
Siegel et al., 2003
J.M. Siegel, K.I. Shoaf, A.A. Afifi, L.B. BourqueSurviving two disasters: Does reaction to the first
predict response to the second?
Environment and Behavior, 35 (5) (2003), pp. 637-654, 10.1177/0013916503254754
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Siegrist and Gutscher,
2008
M. Siegrist, H. GutscherNatural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior: People cannot
predict the affect evoked by a severe flood
Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 28 (3) (2008), pp. 771-
778, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01049.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
 Sims and
Baumann, 1983
J.H. Sims, D.D. BaumannEducational programs and human response to natural hazards
Environment and Behavior, 15 (2) (1983), pp. 165-189, 10.1177/0013916583152003
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
Smith
and
Notaro,
2009
D.L. Smith, S.J. NotaroPersonal emergency preparedness for people with disabilities from the 2006–
2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Disability and Health Journal, 2 (2) (2009), pp. 86-94, 10.1016/j.dhjo.2009.01.001
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
S
o
l
b
e
r
g
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
1
0
C. Solberg, T. Rossetto, H. JoffeThe social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: Re-evaluating the
international literature
Natural hazards and earth system sciences Journal, 10 (8) (2010), pp. 1663-1677, 10.5194/nhess-10-1663-
2010
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
S
o
r
e
 n
s
e
n
,
1
9
8
3
J.H. SorensenKnowing how to behave under the threat of disaster can it be explained?
Environment and Behavior, 15 (4) (1983), pp. 438-457, 10.1177/0013916583154003
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
S
p
i
t
t
a
l
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
0
8
M.J. Spittal, J. McClure, R.J. Siegert, F.H. WalkeyPredictors of two types of earthquake preparation:
Survival activities and mitigation activities
Environment and Behavior, 40 (6) (2008), pp. 798-817, 10.1177/0013916507309864
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
E. Striessnig, W. Lutz, A.G. PattEffects of educational attainment on climate risk vulnerability
Ecology and Society, 18 (1) (2013), 10.5751/ES-05252-180116

K. TanakaThe impact of disaster education on public preparation and mitigation for earthquakes: A
cross-country comparison between Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California
USA. Applied Geography, 25 (3) (2005), pp. 201-225, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2005.07.001
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
S. Tekeli-Yeşil, N. Dedeoǧlu, M. Tanner, C. Braun-Fahrlaender, B. ObristIndividual preparedness and
mitigation actions for a predicted earthquake in Istanbul
Disasters, 34 (4) (2010), pp. 910-930, 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01175.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus

A.H. Thieken, H. Kriebich, M. Müller, B. MerzCoping with floods: Preparedness, response and
recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 52 (5) (2007), pp. 1016-1037, 10.1623/hysj.52.5.1016
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
H. Toya, M. SkidmoreEconomic development and the impacts of natural disasters
Economics Letters, 94 (1) (2007), pp. 20-25, 10.1016/j.econlet.2006.06.020
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

UNESCOEducation for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all (Global Education
Monitoring Report 2016)
United Nations, Paris, France (2016)
UNISDRDisaster risk reduction and resilience in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland (2015)
Retrieved from <http://www.unisdr.org/files/46052_disasterriskreductioninthe2030agend.pdf>

P. van der Keur, C. van

Bers, H.J. Henriksen, H.K. Nibanupudi, S. Yadav, R.Wijaya, ..., F. JaspersIdentification and analysis of
uncertainty in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in South and Southeast Asia
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16 (2016), pp. 208-214, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.03.002
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus
L.M. Wen, C. Rissel, L.A. Baur, E. Lee, J.M. SimpsonWho is NOT likely to access the Internet for
health information? Findings from first-time mothers in southwest Sydney
Australia. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80 (6) (2011), pp. 406-
411, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.001
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

N. Witvorapong, R. Muttarak, W. Pothisirisocial participation and disaster risk reduction behaviors in

tsunami prone areas
PLoS One, 10 (7) (2015), p. e0130862, 10.1371/journal.pone.0130862
CrossRef

M.M. Wood, D.S. Mileti, M. Kano, M.M. Kelley, R. Regan, L.B. BourqueCommunicating actionable
risk for terrorism and other hazards
Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 32 (4) (2012), pp. 601-
615, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01645.x
CrossRefView Record in Scopus
 C. Xiao, A.M. McCrightEnvironmental concern and sociodemographic variables: A study of statistical
models
The Journal of Environmental Education, 38 (2) (2007), pp. 3-14, 10.3200/JOEE.38.1.3-14
CrossRef

Abstract
Objective

To assess the state of community disaster preparedness of Hong Kong residents and to
identify factors associated with adequate preparedness behaviors.

Design

A cross-sectional survey using random Global Positioning System (GPS) spatial

sampling conducted from the 8 August 2015 to 6 September 2015.
Participants
 Hong Kong residents aged 18 years or more.

Method

A 19-item questionnaire was developed to assess respondents’ preparedness

information acquisition, communication plan, evacuation strategies, first-aid and disaster
knowledge, financial resilience, and preparedness behaviors. In total, 1023 residents
were interviewed at 516 GPS locations. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify
factors associated with preparedness behaviors, defined as having an evacuation kit in
our study.

Results

Television remains the key information source, both before and during disaster, with
young respondents also favoring social media and the internet and elder residents
preferring television and radio. Many respondents did not have adequate first-aid
knowledge and few showed correct responses to a typhoon warning signal. Only 39.4%
had an evacuation kit. In logistic regression, correct responses to first aid questions and
a typhoon warning signal were significantly associated with kit preparation (OR 2.023,
95% CI 1.233−3.318, p=0.005). Residents with elderly household member(s) were
significantly less likely to do so (OR 0.554, 95% CI 0.333−0.922, p=0.023).

Conclusions

Community resilience-building programs should tailor information provision to different

age groups with a focus on the family caregivers of elderly residents. There is a need to
promulgate first-aid training and disaster education in the community.

 Previous article in issue

 Next article in issue

Keywords
Cross-sectional studies

Disasters

Emergency preparedness

Community

GPS spatial sampling

1. Introduction
Hong Kong is regarded as one of the safest metropolises in the world.[1] Compared
with many other major cities, the number of people killed or affected by disasters has
remained low [2] but historical figures do not always offer a guide to the future.[3] Hong
Kong continues to be under the threat of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases
as exemplified by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003.[4] Given its
location in the Pearl River Delta, Hong Kong is particularly at risk of climate-related
changes including more frequent or stronger storms and floods.[5] And finally, growing
political tensions have resulted in mass protest (the Occupy Central movement) in
2014 [6] and violent civil unrest in 2016.[7] Technical failures and terrorist attacks in
places such as New York, [8] London,[9] Madrid [10] and Tokyo [11] demonstrate that
even the most advanced cities in the world remain vulnerable.
Despite these threats, the citizens of Hong Kong have been found not to be particularly
worried about disasters. The SARS outbreak is now over 12 years ago, and the last
major storm, Typhoon Wanda, was in 1962. A local telephone survey showed that the
majority of the respondents (n=940; 87.2%) did not think Hong Kong was vulnerable to
disasters [12]and almost half of them regarded the city as having a lower level
of disaster preparednesswhen compared with other cities.[13] Among elderly people
who had installed emergency call service at home, only 22.4% were prepared for
disaster.[14] In families with young children, only 9.1% considered themselves
adequately prepared.[15].
These local surveys, however, were either telephone surveys or surveys based upon a
convenience sample. Telephone surveys are marked by a relatively low response
rate [16]and surveys on a convenience sample have limited generalizability.
Probabilistic spatial sampling, on the other hand, allows for a representative, random
sample to be drawn from the study population. This method is a variant of cluster
sampling in which the population is divided into several groups based upon
geographical locations and a simple random sample is drawn from each group. This
method of sampling can be accomplished using the Global Positioning System (GPS)-
based methodology, which has been increasingly used around the
world.[17], [18], [19] When accompanied by high response rates, surveys conducted at
randomly selected GPS locations are likely to be more generalizable than telephone
surveys or surveys on a convenience sample.
Apart from the methodological limitations of previous studies, severe knowledge gaps
exist in our understanding of Hong Kong's community disaster preparedness. For Hong
Kong residents confronting disasters, little is known about their information acquisition;
their communication plans; their evacuation strategies; their first-aid and disaster
knowledge; their financial resilience; and their preparedness behaviors on a territory-
wide basis. Our study addressed these knowledge gaps, and aimed to study the current
state of community disaster preparedness and factors associated with preparedness
behaviors.
Currently there is no universal definition of personal disaster preparedness, but in the
literature, there are two operational constituents of personal preparedness: preparation
of an emergency kit and creation of a family emergency plan.[20] The
national Ready campaign launched by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in 2003 in the United States encourages the public to “get a kit, make a plan,
and be informed”, [21] and many studies used preparation of an emergency kit and/or
plan as an indicator of personal disaster preparedness.[22], [23] To our knowledge,
having a written household emergency plan is very uncommon in families in Hong
Kong. We use the presence of an evacuation kit as one surrogate for community
preparedness behavior.
This study was a part of a multi-component scoping study on disaster preparedness in
Hong Kong that also included in-person interviews of senior government officials and
healthcare administrators, and online surveys administered to frontline responders and
health care professionals. We report here the findings of the community preparedness
component of this larger, three-part scoping study.
2. Method
This was a cross-sectional, population-based survey using GPS random spatial
sampling conducted from 8 August 2015 to 6 September 2015. The study was approved
by the Institution Review Board of Harvard University and the Institutional Review Board
of The University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (HKU/ HA
HKW IRB).

2.1. Target population

Hong Kong residents aged 18 years or more were eligible to participate. Exclusion
criteria included: 1) overseas visitors holding tourist visas to Hong Kong; and 2) holders
of “2-way Exit Permit” (an exit-entry permit for traveling to and from Hong Kong and
Macau) from Mainland China. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. All
participants provided informed consent prior to administration of the questionnaire.

2.2. Data collection

GPS software was used to randomly generate sample locations across Hong Kong's 18
districts, with oversampling by 300% to accommodate inaccessible or unusable
locations. The number of GPS points surveyed in each district was proportional to the
district population, based upon the 2014 data of the Census and Statistics Department
(Table 1).[24] The GPS coordinates were then mapped to produce street addresses or
locations using a website program called “Find Latitude and Longitude.” [25] The
addresses were then cross-checked manually for accuracy and accessibility. To avoid
systemic bias from surveying all points in a district at similar time periods (e.g.,
surveying the downtown area during working hours would systemically bias against
office workers who are not on the street), the GPS points within each district were
randomly allocated to different time slots that covered weekdays and weekend days.
Table 1. Distribution of GPS Points by District.
Number of
Percentage of Adjusted Number of
Oversample GPS
Region District Population the total number of respondents
300% location
population points interviewed
visited

Central &
248,600 3% 18 54 18 37
Western

Hong Kong Wan Chai 150,400 2% 11 33 10 21

Island
Eastern 579,400 8% 41 123 41 82

Southern 270,500 4% 19 57 22 39

Yau Tsim
313,600 4% 22 66 23 42
Mong

Sham Shui
388,300 5% 28 84 32 58
Po
Kowloon
Kowloon
402,300 6% 29 87 33 62
City

Wong Tai
424,500 6% 30 90 31 62
Sin
 Number of
Percentage of Adjusted Number of
Oversample GPS
Region District Population the total number of respondents
300% location
population points interviewed
visited

Kwun
639,900 9% 45 135 45 86
Tong

Kwai Tsing 501,900 7% 36 108 36 70

Tsuen
301,600 4% 22 66 24 46
Wan

Tuen Mun 489,000 7% 35 105 37 68

Yuen Long 595,100 8% 42 126 48 83

New
Territories North 303,300 4% 22 66 28 44

Tai Po 302,300 4% 22 66 24 44

Sha Tin 648,200 9% 46 138 48 92

Sai Kung 448,600 6% 32 96 34 65

Islands 144,500 2% 11 33 11 22

Total 7,152,000 100% 511 1533 545 1023

Ten trained teams, comprised of two university student interviewers, were deployed to
randomly selected GPS locations. They were fluent in both English and Chinese, and
proficient in operating the tablet computers for data collection. The students were
instructed to approach every passerby they first saw on the street at each GPS location
without “cherry-picking”. The first two willing residents were interviewed at each
location. There was a time limit for each GPS location. If no eligible participants could
be recruited after waiting for an hour or if only one could be recruited after two hours,
the students were instructed to move to the next GPS location and revisit the location
later.
After obtaining consent, the participants were invited to fill in the electronic
questionnaire by themselves, or provided help by the interviewers. The participants
were permitted to decline answering a particular question or terminate the survey at any
time. Participants were informed that they would receive a HK $50 (USD $6.45)
supermarket coupon for their time.

Data were collected via tablet computers on an online data collection tool, KoBo
Toolbox. A GPS tracking application was installed in each tablet to cross-check the
GPS locations of data collection.

2.3. Study instrument

The 19-item study questionnaire was designed based on literature review and expert
input from our study team which composed of scholars from the François-Xavier
Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights of Harvard University and The University
of Hong Kong. It was made available in both Chinese and English. The questionnaire
was first written in English by native speakers in our study team. Translation and back
translation, undertaken by two bilingual university research staff not directly involved in
the survey, were performed. The back-translated version was then cross-checked by
native English speakers in our team to ensure accurate translation.

The instrument collected data on responder demographics; information acquisition

before and during disasters; communication plans; evacuation strategies; first-
aid knowledge; understanding of Honk Kong Observatory's typhoon warning signals;
financial resilience; and evacuation kit preparation. Participants’ perceptions about the
city's disaster preparedness were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale.
The instrument was tested for its clarity and face validity in a small pilot study on 20
Hong Kong residents randomly met one the street in two districts before
commencement of the full study. The early feedback resulted in minor syntax
amendments.

2.4. Sample size calculation and data analysis

Sample size calculation was based on the assumption of a 50% response distribution, a
3% margin of error, and a 95% confidence interval. The calculated sample size was
1067. The distribution of the responses was described in percentages. Univariate
analysis was first conducted to identify factors associated with preparedness behavior.
A multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent predictors
of kit preparation. Variables that had demonstrated significant association with
evacuation kit preparation (a surrogate for individual disaster preparedness) in the prior
univariate analyses (p<0.1) were then entered into the regression model. Odds Ratio
(OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of each variable in the final
model are reported. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Window
version 23.0 was used for data analysis. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically
significant.
3. Results
Interviewers were dispatched to 545 random GPS locations over a period of 17 days.
No eligible participants could be recruited in 19 locations within the pre-set time limits
and 10 locations were inaccessible (most were private properties). Amongst the 1032
eligible residents invited, nine refused to participate. In total, 1023 residents at 516 GPS
locations were interviewed, 554 responses on weekdays and 469 during weekends. The
distribution of the GPS locations is shown in Fig. 1 and the distribution of responses in
different timeslots is shown in Supplemental Table 1.

1. Download high-res image (1MB)

2. Download full-size image
Fig. 1. Map of GPS coordinates visited for the community survey.
The demographic characteristics of the respondents, compared with the corresponding
2011 Census data,[26] are shown in Table 2. Direct comparison was difficult since
some respondents declined to disclose their exact age (apart from being older than 18
years) and income. Men were slightly over-represented in the sample, and residents
that lived alone were under-represented. (Table 3).
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and the general population of Hong Kong
based on 2011 census data.
Sample (n=1023)
Demographics Hong Kong population 2011 [26]
n %

Age

15–24 (18–24 in the sample) 191 18.7% 12.4%

25–34 193 18.9% 15.4%

35–44 158 15.4% 16.1%

45–54 147 14.4% 18.2%

55–64 119 11.6% 13.1%

≥65 93 9.1% 13.3%

Decline to answer 122 11.9%

Gender

Male 547 53.5% 46.6%

Female 476 46.5% 53.4%

Household size

1 66 6.5% 17.1%

2 170 16.6% 25.2%

 Sample (n=1023)
Demographics Hong Kong population 2011 [26]
n %

3 309 30.2% 24.3%

4 319 31.2% 21.2%

5 107 10.5% 9.0%

≥6 51 5.0% 3.3%

Decline to answer 1 0.1%

Monthly household income

<$10,000 94 9.2% 23.8%

$10,000–29,999 290 28.3% 41.7%

≥$30,000 389 38.0% 34.9%

I don’t know 88 8.6%

Decline to answer 162 15.8%

Table 3. Multiple logistic regression of factors associated with having an evacuation kit.
Factors Odds ratio 95% Confidence interval P value

Correct responses to first-aid questions and typhoon signal 2.023 1.233–3.318 0.005*

Having elderly household member(s) 0.554 0.333–0.922 0.023*

Age > 65 years old 0.903 0.440–1.851 0.780

Wan Chai 2.289 0.776–6.751 0.133

Eastern 0.443 0.128–1.534 0.199

Southern 1.349 0.388–4.696 0.638

 Factors Odds ratio 95% Confidence interval P value

Yau Tsim Mong 1.301 0.489–3.463 0.598

Sham Shui Po 0.829 0.295–2.326 0.721

Kowloon City 0.528 0.171–1.626 0.266

Wong Tai Sin 1.744 0.628–4.844 0.286

Kwun Tong 0.519 0.109–2.467 0.410

Kwai Tsing 1.922 0.691–5.343 0.211

Tsuen Wan 0.532 0.185–1.532 0.243

Tuen Mun 1.146 0.426–3.084 0.787

Yuen Long (Reference) 1 N/A N/A

North 1.033 0.351–3.040 0.953

Tai Po 0.703 0.237–2.087 0.526

Sha Tin 0.628 0.230–1.711 0.363

Sai Kung 1.744 0.589–5.163 0.316

Islands 1.071 0.361–3.176 0.902

Financial resilience

< 3 months (Reference) 1 N/A N/A

3 months − 1 year 0.973 0.636–1.489 0.900

>1 year 0.706 0.497–1.005 0.053

No barrier to evacuate 0.732 0.532–1.007 0.055

Footnote
 *

statistically significant association

3.1. Information acquisition

3.1.1. Disaster preparedness information

We asked participants if and how they would wish to receive information on disaster
preparedness. Almost all respondents (99.1%) indicated interest in receiving further
information about disaster preparedness. The internet and television were the two most
popular information channels, chosen by 47.8% and 40.5% of all respondents,
respectively. Respondents aged 65 years or more preferred radio or television to the
internet. More respondents preferred accessing online information via their mobile
devices (36%) compared to their computers (11.8%). Only a minority (3.4%) reported
that they would attend disaster preparedness courses or in-person training. The most
cited barrier to better preparedness was not knowing where to seek additional
information (34.3%); 24.6% regarded further training as unnecessary because they
believed Hong Kong was relatively safe from disasters; and 20.3% said they lacked the
time to get themselves prepared.

3.1.2. Information during disasters

In the event of a disaster, more than half of the respondents said they would seek
information via television (52%), followed by Facebook (18.9%), WhatsApp messages
(9.6%), radio (8.2%), and news agency websites (6.1%). Only 2.9% would visit
government websites for information. There were no significant differences across
gender. As expected, respondents aged 65 years or more were more likely to seek
information via television and radio, while younger respondents were more likely to use
social media (Fig. 2). Respondents were asked what information they considered
important. Responses were ranked in the following order: 1) where to seek medical
assistance (92.2%); 2) evacuation routes (85.2%); 3) shelter information (84.8%); 4)
details of the disaster (67.4%); 5) missing persons (65.2%); and 6) casualties (45.2%).
1. Download high-res image (204KB)
2. Download full-size image
Fig. 2. Information source of different age groups of the respondents if a disaster
happens.

3.2. Communication methods

More than half the respondents (65%) had emergency contact numbers in their mobile
phones, but 73.1% of them had password protected phones. Emergency numbers could
be accessed in only 22.6% of those phones through the lock-screen. In case the mobile
phone network broke down, 37.4% of the respondents stated they would use a landline
telephone to contact their family, 32.5% said they would return home, and 4% reported
that they had a pre-planned place to meet their family members during a disaster.

3.3. Evacuation strategies

Respondents were asked how they would evacuate Hong Kong in multiple hypothetical
scenarios. When asked to leave the city in a major flood caused by a typhoon, most
respondents preferred Mainland China as their destination (44.0%), followed by Taiwan
(14.6%), and Singapore (7.0%). In the event of a nuclear accident leading to a city
evacuation order, most respondents (57.8%) stated they would choose to evacuate by
air, followed by train (9.9%), but 12.2% did not know how to evacuate from the city.
When the respondents were asked what would prevent them/their families from leaving
if asked to evacuate, more than half (58.1%) perceived no barriers to evacuation; 21.6%
indicated that they did not know where to go; 13.6% described personal or family
disability or mobility problems which would hinder evacuation; and 4.3% stated that they
would not evacuate.

3.4. First-aid knowledge and response to warning signal

We employed basic first-aid questions as proxies to useable first-aid knowledge. When

asked how to staunch bleeding from a wound in the leg, 31.3% chose to hold direct
pressure over the wound (correct answer). When asked how to respond to a family
member who was unconscious at home, 54.9% chose to call an ambulance and then
check for a pulse (correct answer). In both scenarios, about 25% of the respondents
chose to do nothing apart from calling an ambulance.
Respondents were tested on their knowledge of Tropical Cyclone Warnings routinely
issued by the Honk Kong Observatory. When major warnings were in force (the Tropical
Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8, issued when the wind speed of an approaching storm is
63–117 km/h; [27] and the Black Rainstorm Warning, issued when very heavy rain,
70 mm in an hour, has fallen or is expected to fall generally over Hong Kong [28]), only
20.6% of the respondents chose the correct action to take, i.e. staying in a safe place
until the heavy rain has passed.
In total, only 10.0% of the respondents gave correct answers to all three questions.

3.5. Financial resilience

The financial resilience of the respondents were assessed by asking them how many
weeks their savings would allow them to support their household in case they were
unable to return to work due to a disaster. It is noteworthy that 5% had no savings and
5.2% had savings just enough for one to two weeks to support their household, implying
that 10.2% would require immediate financial assistance in such a scenario. Financial
resilience was significantly associated with household income (Spearman's r 0.34,
p<0.001) but not with gender. Older age was associated with a lower household income
(Spearman's r −0.11, p=0.004) but a higher financial resilience (Spearman's r 0.23,
p<0.001).

3.6. Perceived city disaster preparedness

When asked to rate Hong Kong's current level of preparedness for dealing a disaster,
28.8% of the respondents rated the level as “adequate” or “very adequate”, and an
equal proportion thought that Hong Kong was “inadequately” or “very inadequately”
prepared (Fig. 3).
1. Download high-res image (138KB)
2. Download full-size image
Fig. 3. Respondents’ rating of the level of disaster preparedness of Hong Kong.

3.7. Disaster preparedness behaviors

In our study, only 39.4% of the respondents had an evacuation kit. Commonly reported
kit items included copies of important documents (68.5%), set-aside money (63.5%),
first-aid equipment (57.9%), usual medications (55.2%), mobile phone charger (43.5%),
and a flashlight (34.9%). Univariate analysis showed that those aged >65 years; having
elderly (>65 years) household member(s); residence in certain geographic districts;
correct responses to the first aid questions and typhoon warning signal; financial
resilience; no barrier to evacuate were associated with preparation of an evacuation kit.
In multiple logistic regression, correct responses to the first aid questions and typhoon
warning signal was significantly associated with preparation of an evacuation kit (OR
2.023, 95% CI 1.233−3.318, p=0.005). Residents with elderly household member(s)
were significantly less likely to have a kit (OR 0.554, 95% CI 0.333−0.922, p=0.023).

4. Discussion
This is the first territory-wide face-to-face survey using GPS spatial sampling
methodology to assess disaster preparedness knowledge and preparedness among the
residents of Hong Kong. The results shed important light on a wide range of issues
including residents’ communication preferences during disasters, evacuation
strategies, first-aid and disaster knowledge, financial resilience, and their preparedness
behaviors.
Our study showed that most residents indicated interest in receiving additional
information about disaster preparedness from the internet using mobile devices and
television. Not knowing where to seek information was the most commonly cited barrier
to becoming better prepared for a disaster. These findings suggest that in the
preparedness phase of the disaster cycle, public education should be delivered from
credible sources with high visibility in the community. An example is the Hong Kong
Observatory mobile app MyObservatory, which currently has more than 100 million
page views per day.[29] Hong Kong has one of the highest mobile phone penetration
rates in the world (228.3%).[30] Mobile phone applications have the potential of offering
“just-in-time” disaster training to a large population, as demonstrated by the dramatic
increase in downloads and usage of the American Red Cross Hurricane Application
during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.[31] The success of this Hurricane app indicates that
real-time information release oriented to specific impact might have a role in helping
community members better prepared for disaster.
During disasters, different age groups had different preferences regarding the sources
of information, with elder residents preferring television and radio and younger people
favoring social media. This finding indicates a need to tailor the way information is
disseminated to different age groups in the response phase of the disaster cycle. Social
media, which enables real-time updates and information exchange between different
response agencies and the community, [32], [33], [34] has consistently been identified
as a popular way of obtaining information among city dwellers in similar
surveys.[35] However, its misuse can result in the dissemination of incorrect
information.[36], [37] Abandoning traditional sources of information dissemination such
as television and radio may preclude the authorities from reaching vulnerable
populations including the elderly and disenfranchised.
Over-reliance on mobile phone networks for information acquisition and communication
will be an impediment in the face of cellular network failure. For instance, prolonged
power outages after Hurricane Sandy paralyzed mobile phone and internet networks in
New Jersey.[38] It is therefore important to maintain redundancies across a variety of
communication channels. This would be particularly important in case of the most
vulnerable - the elderly, and those in remote locations. Continuing to maintain public
fixed line phones, as also required by the Telecommunications Ordinance, is highly
advisable despite their decreasing use.[39].
In our study, only a few respondents reported having agreed on pre-planned meeting
places to contact their family members in case of a disaster. Clearly, there is a need to
educate the public on developing family communication plans for emergencies, taking
into account possible power outages and mobile phone network breakdown. One of the
lessons from the London Bombings in 2005 is that having difficulty contacting loved
ones by mobile phones was associated with substantial emotional stress.[40] A family
communication plan is considered an essential part of the “Basic Preparedness”
advocated by FEMA, [41] and should be emphasized in future disaster education.
Several deficits in community disaster preparedness identified in the present study
should be factored into the government's disaster planning. First, a sizable portion
(13.6%) of Hong Kong residents reported mobility or disability problems of their own or
family members as barriers to evacuation. While evacuating the entire city may not be a
realistic contingency plan, these numbers draw attention to the needs of the frail, the
elderly or the disabled while planning temporary shelters or targeted evacuations.
Second, 5% of the respondents had no savings at all and 5.2% had savings only
enough to support their family for a period of one to two weeks. In the event of a
devastating disaster that puts everyone out of a job, the government should be
prepared to provide immediate financial assistance to approximately 10% of the
residents. Third, the likely lack of first-aid competence and familiarity with warning
signals warrants further community-focused disaster preparedness education and
impact-based warning.
Our study showed that 39.4% of the respondents had prepared an evacuation kit.
Residents with correct responses to first aid questions and typhoon warning signal were
more likely to have a kit. This finding is consistent with that reported from other studies
that persons with more preparedness knowledge are more likely to have assembled an
emergency kit.[42]Community disaster education programs may improve disaster
knowledge, which in turn may influence preparedness behaviors. The UK Government
distributed the Preparing for Emergencies booklet to each household in 2004. A survey
conducted after the London Bombings in 2005 showed that those who recalled having
received the booklet were more likely to have gathered emergency supplies, but the
association was not significant for those who recalled reading it.[43] Only less than half
of the respondents recalled having read the booklet, indicating the difficulty in delivering
disaster education to the public. Therefore, multiple means of disaster education and
repeated education are needed.
It is noteworthy in our study that respondents with elderly household member(s) at
home were less likely to have an evacuation kit. The elderly population is vulnerable to
disasters with a disproportionally high morbidity and mortality rate.[44], [45], [46] A
decline in physical and cognitive functions, and chronic disease burden limit their
mobility and accessibility to resources for emergency preparedness and
recovery.[47] Many elderly residents are not able or willing to evacuate during
emergencies.[48] Elder adults may also have multiple medical and non-medical needs,
such as medication, medical equipment that require electricity, and help with activities of
daily living during evacuation.[49], [50] It has been shown that their family caregivers
are often not well prepared for disasters.[51] Hence, future community preparedness
effort should focus upon the family caregivers of the elderly population.
Based on the gaps in community disaster preparedness identified in the current study,
we make the following recommendations to disaster response planners in the region:

1.

Be cognizant of the varying preferences for receiving or initiating communication

across different age groups;

2.

The elderly prefer receiving information about disasters via television or radio
while the rest are more likely to access a known and trusted source of
information on the internet (for news and updates) via their smartphones;

3.

Hong Kong citizens who voiced interest in receiving more information on disaster
preparedness often did not know where to get it, would like to access it via the
internet or television, and stated having little interest in any in-class or hands-on
training;

4.

Community focused disaster preparedness training in Hong Kong must include

basic disaster first-aid, impact-oriented warning messaging, and guidelines on
communication strategies during disasters;

5.
 The government must ensure substantial redundancy in communication
infrastructure including additional cellular phone towers and maintaining of fixed
phones lines, some in public spaces as well;

6.

While planning limited, targeted evacuation, be cognizant of the vulnerable, frail,

elderly and disenfranchised who may not receive messages on time, or who may
need help in moving far or fast;

7.

Provide early financial support to those in the lowest social economic strata as
they are likely to have no buffer savings in the event of being unable to work in
the event of a disaster.

This study has a number of important limitations. First, the sample was over-
represented by younger male residents despite efforts to randomize interview sites and
times. The lower representation of elderly and female residents, and those who lived
alone in the sample might indicate that they are less likely to appear on the street for
various reasons, including mobility problems and family roles. Also this study did not
reach institutionalized or homebound residents, who are more likely to be vulnerable to
disasters.[52] s, due to the limitations on survey length (designed to improve
accessibility and usability), this study could not include questions on ethnicity,
disabilities, burden of chronic diseases, educational attainment, previous disaster
experience, perceived disaster risk, financial protection by insurance, and social capital.
Further studies are warranted to investigate how these factors would affect community
disaster preparedness in Hong Kong. Third, survey data were self-reported and may not
accurately reflect actual preparedness behaviors.
Despite these limitations, the current study provides comprehensive information about
the state of community disaster preparedness in Hong Kong. This information has
important implications for disaster planning and future efforts in improving community
disaster preparedness.

5. Conclusion
Hong Kong is better prepared for emergencies than most cities of its size and density
elsewhere in Asia. Yet, its government recognizes the need for better community
engagement in mitigation, preparedness and response. Our study sheds light on the
knowledge gaps in disaster preparedness among Hong Kong's residents. It also draws
attention to the wide range of financial resilience among different sections of society, as
well as the varying modes of preferred communication and information dissemination
across different age groups. These variations must be considered while the Hong Kong
government (and others embarking on the same mission) plans its community
engagement initiatives. There is a need to promulgate first-aid training, disaster
education, and the development of family communication plans during emergencies in
the community. In particular, future effort should focus upon the family caregivers of the
elderly population.
Funding
This study was supported by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Disaster
Preparedness and Response Institute Research Grant. The grantor did not have any
role in study design; data collection, analysis and interpretation; in the writing of the
report; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Prof. Wallace Chak Sing. Lau for his guidance and help in the study;
Mr. Derek Lam and Ms. Agatha Lin for their effort in coordination and GPS sampling;
and Ms Shraddha Kashyap for her assistance with data analysis.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Download Word document (17KB)Help with docx files

Supplementary material

References

[1]

The Economist Intelligence Unit. The safe cities index 2015: assessing urban security in the digital age.
[Internet] 2015 [assessed April 24, 2015] Available from 〈http://safecities.economist.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/EIU_Safe_Cities_Index_2015_white_paper-1.pdf〉.

[2]
Internal Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. World disaster report 2014: focus on culture
and risk. France: Imprimerie Chirat;2014.

[3]

UNISDR, Making development sustainable: The future of disaster risk management. Global assessment
report on disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
[Internet][cited 31 October 2016] Available from 〈
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf〉, 2015.

[4]

W.K. Lam, N.S. Zhong, W.C. TanOverview on SARS in Asia and the world

Respirology, 8 (2003), pp. S2-S5

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

[5]

L. Sundermann, O. Schelske, P. Hausmann Mind the risk – a global ranking of cities under threat from
natural disasters. Swiss Re 2014. [internet][cited 3 June 2015] Available at 〈
http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/climate_and_natural_disaster_risk/Mind_the_risk.html〉.

[6]

What is Occupy Central? 10 key facts about Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. South China Morning
Post 2014 Sep 30 [Internet][updated 1 October 2014; cited 31 October 2016] Available from 〈
http://www.scmp.com/article/1604649/what-occupy-central-10-things-you-need-know〉.

[7]

S. Lau, J. Ngo, C. Lau, E. Kao, N. Sun Mong Kong riot: how Hong Kong’s first night in the year of the
Monkey descended into mayhem. South China Morning Post 2016 Feb 10 [internet][updated 10 February
2016; cited 31 October 2016] Available from 〈http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/article/1911341/mong-kok-riot-how-hong-kongs-first-night-year-monkey-descended-mayhem〉.

[8]

J. Dienst, B. Thompson, M. Sanita, R. Novini, Hoboken train crash kills 1 and injures over 100. The New
York Times 2016 Sep 29:A1. [Internet][cited 31] Available from 〈
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/nyregion/new-jersey-transit-train-crash-hoboken.html?_r=0〉,
October 2016.

[9]
C.J. Aylwin, T.C. Kӧnig, N.W. Brennan, P.J. Shirley, G. Davies, M.S. Walsh, et al.Reduction in critical
mortality in urban mass casualty incidents: analysis of triage, surge and resource use after the London
bombings on July 7, 2005

Lancet, 368 (9554) (2006), pp. 2219-2225

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus

[10]

F. Turégano-Fuentes, P. Caba-Doussoux, J.M. Jover-Navalón, E. Martin-Pérez, D. Fernández-

Luengas, L. Díez-Valladares, et al.Injury pattern from major urban terrorist bombings in trains: the
Madrid experience

World J. Surg., 32 (6) (2008), pp. 1168-1175

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

[11]

T. Okumura, K. Suzuki, A. Fukuda, A. Kohama, N. Takasu, S. Ischimatsu, et al.The Tokyo subway sarin
attack: disaster management, Part 1: community emergency response

Acad. Emerg. Med., 5 (6) (1998), pp. 613-617

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

[12]

E.E.Y. Chan, P.Y. Lee, J.S.K. Yue, K.S.D. Liu, Socio-demographic predictors for urban community disaster
health risk perception and household-based preparedness in Chinese urban city. in: Proceeedings of the
Paper presented at: 12th Asian Pacific Conference on Disaster Medicine (APCDM); 17-19; Tokyo, Japan,
Sept 2014.

[13]

E. Cheung Hong Kong people not ready to deal with natural disasters, experts say. South China Morning
Post 24 Mar, 2015. [internet] [cited 3 June 2015] Available at 〈http://www.scmp.com/print/news/hong-
kong/article/1745613/hong-kong-people-not-ready-deal-disaster-experts-say〉.

[
1
4
]

A.Y. Loke, C.K. Lai, O.W. FungAt-home disaster preparedness of elderly home in Hong Kong

Geriatr. Gerontol. Int., 12 (3) (2012), pp. 524-531

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

[
1
5
]

O.W. Fung, A.Y. LokeDisaster preparedness of families with young children in Hong Kong

Scand. J. Public Health, 38 (8) (2010), pp. 880-888

M. Boland, M.R. Sweeney, E. Scallan, M. Harrington, A. StainesEmerging advantages and drawbacks of

telephone surveying in public health research in Ireland and the UK

BMC Public Health, 6 (2006), p. 208, 10.1186/1471-2458-6-208

P. Vinck, P.N. PhamAssociation of exposure events with self-reported physical and mental health status
in the Central African Republic

JAMA, 304 (2010), p. 5, 10.1001/jama.2010.1065

P. Vinck, P.N. PhamAssociation of exposure to intimate-partner physical violence and potentially

traumatic war-related events with mental health in Liberia

Soc. Sci. Med. (2012), p. 77, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.026

L.E. Fletcher, P. Pham, E. Stover, P. VinckLatino workers and human rights in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. 28 Berkeley

J. Emp. Lab. (2007), p. 107

(Available at)

〈http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/639〉

View Record in Scopus

S. Kohn, J.L. Eaton, S. Feroz, A.A. Bainbridge, J. HoolachanBarnettDJ. Personal disaster preparedness: an
integrated review of the literature

Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 6 (2012), pp. 217-231

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Ready America. Federal Emergency Management Agency
website. [Internet][cited 18 August, 2016] Available from. 〈http://www.ready.gov/america/index.html〉
.

T.M. Al-Rousan, L.M. Rubenstein, R.B. WallacePreparedness for natural disasters among older US adults:
a national survey

Am. J. Public Health, 104 (3) (2014), pp. 506-511

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

D.P. Eisenman, Q. Zhou, M. Ong, S. Asch, D. Glik, A. LongVariation in disaster preparedness by mental
health, perceived general health, and disability status

Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 3 (2009), pp. 33-41

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The profile of Hong Kong
population analysed by District Council, 2014. [Internet] [cited December 8, 2015] Available from 〈
http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B71506FB2015XXXXB0100.pdf〉.

Get latitude and longitude. [Internet] Available from: 〈http://www.latlong.net/〉.

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government Population
Census Summary Results. [Internet] Feb 2012 [cited December 8, 2015] Available from 〈
http://www.census2011.gov.hk/pdf/summary-results.pdf〉, 2011.

Kong Hong, Observatory, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Reference for the issue
of No. 3 and No.8 signals. [Internet] [cited December 8] Available from 〈
http://www.hko.gov.hk/informtc/tcsignal3_ref.htm〉, 2015.
Kong Hong, Observatory, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Rainstorm warning system. [internet]
[cited December 31] Available from 〈http://www.hko.gov.hk/wservice/warning/rainstor.htm〉, 2015.

Kong Hong

Obs., Hong. Kong Spec. Adm. Reg. Hong. Kong Obs. - Sci. we serve. [Internet][cited Novemb. (2016), p. 5

(Available from)

〈http://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/hong-kong-observatory-through-science-we-serve〉
View Record in Scopus

Office of the Communication Authority, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Telecommunications. [internet](accessed 17 August 2016) Available from 〈
http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/telecommunications.pdf〉.

T.D. Kirsch, R. Circh, R.A. Bissell, M. Goldfeder“Just-in-time” personal preparedness: downloads and
usage patterns of the American Red Cross Hurricane Application during Hurricane Sandy

Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. (2016), pp. 1-6

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

M.E. Keim, E. NojiEmergent use of social media: a new age of opportunity for disaster resilience

Am. J. Disaster Med., 6 (1) (2011), pp. 47-54

View Record in Scopus

JuliaDaisy Fraustino, Brooke Liu, Yan Jin, Social Media Use during Disasters: A Review of the Knowledge
Base and Gaps, Final Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology
Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. College Park, MD: START, 2012.

C.M. Huang, E. Chan, A.A. HyderWeb 2.0 and internet social networking: a new tool for disaster
management? – lessons from Taiwan

BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., 10 (2010), p. 57, 10.1186/1472-6947-10-57

View Record in Scopus

K.M. Kurkjian, M. Winz, J. Yang, K. Corvese, A. Colón, S.J. Levine, et al.Assessing emergency preparedness
and response capacity using community assessment for public health emergency response
methodology: postsmouth, Virginia, 2013

Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 10 (2016), pp. 193-198

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

D.E. AlexanderSocial media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management

Sci. Eng. Ethics, 20 (3) (2014), pp. 717-733, 10.1007/s11948-013-9502-z

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

S. Rubin, N. Bouri, N. Jolani, K. MintonThe adoption of social media and mobile health technologies for
emergency preparedness by local health departments: a joint perspective from NACCHO and the UPMC
Center for Health Security

J. Public Health Manag. Pract., 20 (2) (2014), pp. 259-263

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, C. Jeitner, T. Pittfield, M. DonioTrusted information source used during and after
Superstorm Sandy: tv and radio were used more often than social media

J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A, 76 (20) (2013), pp. 1138-1150, 10.1080/15287394.2013.844087

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

N. Sun Hong Kong’s public payphones are dying but still hanging on. MTR stations are doing away with the
machines but by law, the city still has to keep some of them. South China Morning Post 3 January 2016
[internet][cited 7 Oct 2016] Available at 〈http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-
community/article/1897705/hong-kongs-payphones-are-dying-out-still-hanging〉.
G.J. Rubin, C.R. Brewin, N. Greenberg, J. Simpson, S. WesselyPsychological and behavioural reactions to
the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners

BMJ, 331 (2005), pp. 606-611

View Record in Scopus

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Basic Prep. [Internet][cited (, 2016), p. 18

(Available from)

〈https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1549-20490-2111/basic_preparedness.pdf〉
View Record in Scopus

T.N. Thomas, M. Leander-Griffith, V. Harp, J.P. CioffiInfluences of preparedness knowledge and beliefs on
household disaster

MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep., 64 (35) (2015), pp. 65-71

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

L. Page, J. Rubin, R. Amlȏt, J. Simpson, S. WesselyAre Londoners prepared for an emergency? A

longitudinal study following the London bombings

Biosecur. Bioterror., 6 (4) (2008), pp. 309-319

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

D. Hutton, Older people in emergencies: consideration for action and policy development: Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization 2008.

J. Brunkard, G. Namulanda, R. RatardHurricane Katrina deaths, Louisiana, 2005

Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 2 (4) (2008), pp. 215-223

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

H. Daito, M. Suzuki, J. Shiihara, P.E. Kilgore, H. Ohtomo, K. Morimoto, et al.Impact of the Tohoku
earthquake and tsunami on pneumonia hospitalisations and mortality among adults in northern Miyagi,
Japan: a multicenter observational study

Thorax, 68 (6) (2013), pp. 544-550

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

E.B. NgoWhen disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly

Nat. Hazards Rev., 2 (2) (2001), pp. 80-89, 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2001)2:2(80)

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

M.C. Bhalla, A. Burgess, J. Frey, W. HardyGeriatric disaster preparedness

Prehosp. Disaster Med., 30 (5) (2015), pp. 443-446

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

P.J. DostalVulnerability of urban homebound older adults in disasters: a survey of evacuation

preparedness

Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 9 (2015), pp. 301-306

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

M.M. Rosenkoetter, E.K. Covan, B.K. Cobb, S. Bunting, M. WeinrichPerceptions of older adults regarding
evacuation in the event of a natural disaster

Public Health Nurs., 24 (2) (2007), pp. 160-168

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

T. Wakui, E.M. Agree, T. Saito, I. KaiDisaster Preparedness Among Older Japanese Adults with Long-Term
Care Needs and Their Family Caregivers

Disaster Med Public Health Prep. (2016), pp. 1-8

CrossRefView Record in Scopus

D.M. Dosa, K. Hyer, L.M. Brown, A.W. Artenstein, L. Polivka-West, V. MorThe controversy inherent in
managing frail nursing home residents during complex hurricane emergencies

J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc., 9 (8) (2008), pp. 599-604

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in Scopus