Communication, neighbourhood belonging and ... - Wiley Online Library

doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2009.01138.x

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness Yong-Chan Kim, PhD Assistant Professor, Department of Community and Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, United States, and Jinae Kang Visiting Professor, Department of Communication, University of Central Missouri, United States

This paper reports on an examination of data on how local residents in Tuscaloosa, a mid-sized city in the state of Alabama, United States, responded to Hurricane Ivan of September 2004. The evaluation revealed that an integrated connection to community-level communication resources— comprising local media, community organisations and interpersonal networks—has a direct impact on the likelihood of engaging in pre-hurricane preparedness activities and an indirect effect on during-hurricane preparedness activities. Neighbourhood belonging mediated the relation between an integrated connection to community-level communication resources and during-hurricane preparedness activities. Neighbourhood belonging was determined to increase the likelihood of taking preparedness actions during Hurricane Ivan, but not prior to it. In addition, we discovered an interesting pattern for two different types of risk perceptions: social and personal risk perceptions. Social risk perceptions increase the likelihood of taking preventative steps before a hurricane while personal risk perceptions are positively related to engaging in preventative action during a hurricane. Keywords: communication resources, disaster preparedness, Hurricane Ivan, neighbourhood belonging

Introduction In response to the large-scale natural (such as Hurricane Katrina of August 2005), political (such as the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001) or health- or food-related (such as Avian Influenza or Mad Cow Disease) disasters of recent years, ‘disaster pre­ paredness’ has become a popular term among policymakers, government officials, private organisations, the mass media and researchers in the United States. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a guide­ book entitled Are You Ready? An In-depth Guide to Citizen Preparedness—its goal: to help citizens prepare for natural and man-made disasters (FEMA, 2004). The National Hurricane Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Red Cross also have employed the phrase ‘hurricane preparedness’. At different levels of institutions, ranging from federal and local government to private and non-profit organisations and individual households, various types of preparedness activities have been recommended to save innocent lives and to protect valuable property. Disasters, 2010, 34(2): 470−488. © 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation © Overseas Development Institute, 2010 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

  Yet, despite the numerous efforts of government agencies at different levels, con­ vincing individuals and households to prepare for disasters (including hurricanes) remains a difficult task. Local governments must do their best to protect their resi­ dents and properties during a natural disaster by, for example, checking vulnerable community facilities in their areas, educating residents on what to do before and during a natural disaster, working with the local media to share important disaster information, and, when necessary, persuading residents to take specific steps, such as evacuation. Even in life-threatening situations, however, it is still up to individuals or households to make the final decision on whether to follow the local government’s recommendations. This makes research on household-level disaster preparedness very important.   This study examines communication and social factors in household preparedness for a hurricane. Communication infrastructure theory (CIT) provides theoretical guidance for the inquiry (Ball-Rokeach, Kim and Matei, 2001; Kim and BallRokeach, 2006a, 2006b). CIT claims that communications infrastructure, comprising area-level resources that allow residents to share community stories, is critical if residents are to live in a sustainable local community and that it is a prerequisite for access to the means of survival and for growth in their social environments. This study applies the CIT approach to disaster preparedness, assuming that having a connection to a communications infrastructure is an important condition for being able and willing to take preparedness action for natural disasters, such as hurricanes. We tested the effects of two community-level factors in disaster preparedness: • living in a communications environment where different community storytellers (community organisations, local media and residents) reinforce one another and thus connect individuals to an integrated network of community storytelling; and • living in a social environment where individuals are affectively and behaviour­ ally connected to their neighbours.   Data for this study were gathered from telephone interviews conducted some three weeks after Hurricane Ivan made landfall at Gulf Shores, Alabama, on 16 September 2004. Ivan is the ninth most intense Atlantic Ocean hurricane on record, claiming the lives of 60 people in the Caribbean and 25 in the US and causing more than USD 15.6 billion of damage in the US. The southern part of Alabama experienced extensive damage. For example, the Alabama Power Company reported that 489,000 subscribers had lost electrical power, approximately one-half of its subscriber base. When Ivan passed through Baldwin County, Alabama, the most-affected area, it was a Category 3 hurricane with a wind speed of 130 miles per hour (210 kilometres per hour). When Ivan passed through the study area, Tuscaloosa, situated approxi­ mately 250 miles from Baldwin County, its wind speed had decreased to 60–70 miles per hour and it was reclassified as a tropical storm. During the hurricane, the police department in Tuscaloosa took 88 calls about downed trees and 26 calls about downed power lines (DeWitt, 2004). Tuscaloosa city officials received reports about damage to a few traffic signs and polls after Ivan passed (Beadle, 2004). Nonetheless, there was neither a mandatory nor a voluntary evacuation announcement.

471

472 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

Disaster preparedness factors Household disaster preparedness Scholars, policymakers and government agencies have defined disaster preparedness in various ways since the early 1990s. For example, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2000, p. 6) defines disaster preparedness as any measures ‘to predict and—where possible—prevent them, mitigate their impact on vulnerable populations, and respond to and effectively cope with their conse­ quences’. Similarly, Tierney, Lindell and Perry (2001, p. 27) define preparedness as activities ‘to enhance the ability of social units when a disaster occurs’. More spe­ cifically, household-level disaster preparedness has been viewed as a way to reduce directly and rapidly the risk of injury and damage at the household level (Paton, 2003). Faupel, Kelley and Petee (1992) conceptualise household preparedness as planning and engaging in activities based on general knowledge and information that enable individual households to implement appropriate disaster responses.   Household-level disaster preparedness covers the broad range of preventive activi­ ties pursued not only before a disaster, but also during and even after it. FEMA’s Are You Ready? guidebook, discusses three periods of preparedness: before, during, and after a disaster (FEMA, 2004). Recommended pre-disaster preparedness activi­ ties include ‘know the risks and danger signs’, ‘purchase insurance’, ‘develop plans for what to do’, ‘assemble a disaster supplies kit’ and ‘volunteer to help others’. As to what individual households should do during a disaster, FEMA suggests: ‘put your plan into action’, ‘help others’ and ‘follow the advice and guidance of officials in charge of the event’. As a during-emergency preparedness activity, readers are advised to ‘get ready to evacuate the home’. In addition, FEMA recommends post-disaster preparedness activities such as ‘repairing damaged property’ and ‘taking steps to prevent or reduce future loss’ (FEMA, 2004, p. 8). The NOAA National Hurricane Center and the American Red Cross also provide lists of what individuals and households should do before and during a hurricane disaster on their websites.1   There have been scholarly and administrative efforts to standardise the measure of household disaster preparedness. However, different concepts of preparedness have been employed in different studies (Tierney, Lindell and Perry, 2001), primarily because different activities are considered as preventative actions for different dis­ asters and in different social, cultural or geographical contexts. At least tentatively for this study, we define household-level hurricane preparedness as any preventative action taken by individual households before and during a hurricane disaster, including seeking, processing and sharing hurricane-related information and paying monetary, temporal and psychological costs to minimise possible harm. We consider hurricane preparedness activi­ ties at two different stages: before and during a hurricane. Pre-hurricane preparedness may include such activities as: • meeting in person; • e-mailing; • making a telephone call to talk with others about the event;

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

• • • • •

searching for more information on the hurricane; helping neighbours or friends prepare for the hurricane; shopping for emergency foods or materials; protecting the house from wind; and getting ready for evacuation (such as filling a car with fuel, reserving a hotel, acquiring cash and obtaining information on nearby shelters).

  During-hurricane preparedness may include such activities as: • reducing the level of uncertainty about one’s own safety and that of others by, for instance, telephoning or e-mailing friends and relatives; • connecting electronically, if possible, to local media sources or websites to find out what is happening; and • staying with neighbours or friends. Individual disaster preparedness Previous research has identified factors that determine whether individual residents willingly take preventative action to prepare for an impending disaster. First, research­ ers have examined socioeconomic variables such as income (Fothergill and Peek, 2004; King, 2000), education (Anderson-Berry, 2004; Ecevit and Kasapoglu, 2002; Rustemli and Karanci, 1999; Turner et al., 1986), age (King, 2000), gender (Morrow and Enarson, 1996), and race/ethnicity (Dooley et al., 1992) as factors in disaster preparedness. In general, these studies suggested that the more educated, the richer, the older, females and whites are more likely to take preventative action than the less educated, the poorer, the younger, males and minority groups.   Second, previous studies have investigated the effects of individuals’ knowledge of a disaster and direct or indirect disaster experience on preparedness. They found that levels of awareness of prediction (Showalter, 1993), past experience (Jackson, 1977; Mileti and O’Brien, 1992; Perry, Lindell and Greene, 1981) and hazard awareness (Perry and Lindell, 1990) have positive influences on the likelihood of taking prepar­ edness steps.   Third, past research has tested several socio-psychological factors in disaster pre­ paredness, such as self-efficacy (general and disaster-specific) (Kallmen, 2000; Schwarzer, 1994), perception of one’s own level of knowledge of disasters (Mulilis and Duval, 1995) and perceived risk (Drabek, 1999; Perry and Hirose, 1991; Perry and Lindell, 1990; Van der Pligt, 1998; Snyder and Rouse, 1995; Zimet, Liau and Fortenberry, 1997). These previous studies suggest that the higher the level of these socio-psychological factors, the higher the probability of preparedness action.   Fourth, previous studies have discussed structural variables such as homeowner­ ship (Mulilis, Duval and Bovalino, 2000) and years in neighbourhood (Marsh and Buckle, 2001) as factors in disaster preparedness. In general, homeowners and those who have lived longer in their current neighbourhood are more likely to take pre­ paredness action.

473

474 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

  In sum, past research has evaluated the sources of three key conditions associated with disaster preparedness: knowledge, resources and motivation. First, individual res­ idents must have at least a basic level of knowledge about natural disasters. Education and experience provide them with basic knowledge of a disaster and of what they can do to minimise the risk of harm. Second, residents must enjoy easy access to various types of resources for disaster preparedness. Having knowledge is not a suffi­ cient condition; individuals also require a connection to basic resources—adminis­ trative, financial, informative, social and technological—to be able to take disaster preparedness steps. Income may be a proxy measure of connection to disaster resources. Yet, even with knowledge and access to resources, it is common for individuals to ignore crisis messages or to postpone what they should do before a disaster. As a third condition, therefore, residents should have enough motivation to take action based on disaster-related knowledge and resources. One may consider risk percep­ tion or self-efficacy as variables that increase motivation to engage in preparedness initiatives. Homeownership and having children also are structural factors in provid­ ing a higher level of motivation to take preventative action before and during a disaster.   In light of the above, we proposed the following hypotheses: • H1-1: a higher level of access to knowledge (education), resources (income) and motivation (homeownership and risk perception) will have a positive relation to the scope of preparedness activities before a hurricane disaster. • H1-2: the level of access to knowledge (education), resources (income) and moti­ vation (homeownership and risk perceptions) will have a positive relation to the scope of preparedness activities during a hurricane disaster. Connection to communication and social infrastructures and hurricane preparedness To satisfy the three conditions—knowledge, resources and motivation—for prepared­ ness behaviour, individual households must rely on the surrounding communication and social environments. However, previous studies on hurricane disaster prepar­ edness have focused almost exclusively on individual-level capability rather than on how households are connected to their communication and social infrastructures. Using the CIT approach, this paper concentrates on two interrelated communication and social environmental factors in household hurricane preparedness. Its basic claim is that individuals have to be: • in a communications environment where they can be connected to an integrated network of community storytellers (that is, local media, community organisa­ tions and neighbours that function primarily as important providers of knowledge and access to resources during an emergency); and • in a neighbourhood-level social network (primarily as a source of preparedness motivation).

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

Connection to community storytelling network Scholars and practitioners have discussed local media as one of the most critical sources of information on hazards and disasters. The mass media may educate the public about hazards, disseminate disaster-warning messages, report on disasters and their impacts or provide residents with information about where individuals can pro­ cure disaster assistance. Past disaster-related research on local media has focused on which media types are utilised during an emergency and whether particular forms of media use increase or decrease the perceived threat level (Loges, 1994; Nigg, 1982; Turner et al., 1986). Only a few studies address directly the relation between local media use and preparedness activities (Mileti and Darlington, 1995, 1997; Mileti and O’Brien, 1992). Mileti and his colleagues examined how newspaper inserts provid­ ing detailed information on the earthquake hazard in the San Francisco Bay area affected risk perceptions and preparedness action among households, governmental organisations and private businesses in that part of the world. They found that the inserts had a positive influence on residents’ knowledge of potential seismic ramifi­ cations and the likelihood of taking preventative steps.   Even though there are only a few empirical studies on the effect of communication variables (media use and interpersonal communication) on preparedness, one lesson from past disaster research is that ‘media messages that are not reinforced, confirmed, or corrected through discussion are probably less likely to have an impact on be­ haviour’ (Tierney, Lindell and Perry, 2001, p. 31). This is consistent with previous communication research that has found that risk communication should be an ‘intermedia process’: interpersonal talk reinforced by mass media intervention is the most effective way to alter the behaviour of individuals in a crisis (Rogers, 2002).   CIT offers an interesting perspective and useful measures to address the issue of how individuals are embedded in a communication environment where interpersonal and mediated communication reinforce each other, so that individuals can obtain important disaster information with which to make appropriate decisions before and during an emergency (Ball-Rokeach, Kim and Matei, 2001; Kim and BallRokeach, 2006a). Drawing on previous communication and community studies, CIT identifies three key community storytelling mechanisms—local media, community organisations and residents’ interpersonal talk—that are critical for residents to share important messages before and during a disaster (Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). Residents need to have a connection to each of these mechanisms to gain access to knowledge, resources and motivation for preventive action. CIT goes on to propose that individuals need to have an integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN), via which a connection to one community storytelling instrument (such as local media) reinforces links to others (such as participation in community organi­ sations). The most important premise derived from CIT regarding hurricane pre­ paredness activities is that individuals with a high level of ICSN are more likely to become involved in a disaster preparedness process. This is because, through an ICSN, individuals are situated in a better communications environment for procuring knowledge/information, access to resources and motivation. This leads to a second set of hypotheses:

475

476 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

• H2-1: individuals with a higher level of ICSN will be more likely to participate in preparedness activities before a hurricane disaster. • H2-2: individuals with a higher level of ICSN will be more likely to participate in preparedness activities during a hurricane disaster.

Neighbourhood belonging Scholars have found that community attachment or belonging produces positive psychological and behavioural outcomes (see McMillan and Chavis, 1986). For ex­ ample, Prezza and Constantini (1998) suggest that people are more likely to develop and follow through on solutions to their problems and to feel greater self-confidence if they have a strong tie to their community. Kim and Ball-Rokeach (2006b) also found that community belonging increases collective efficacy and participation in civic activities. But does community belonging increase disaster preparedness?   Previous empirical studies have produced ambivalent answers to this question. One study found a positive relation between community engagement and disaster pre­ paredness (Marsh and Buckle, 2001). Bishop et al.’s (2000) study on risk perception and environmental degradation and Bachrach and Zautra’s (1985) study on threats posed by hazardous waste indicated that a stronger community bond led to greater involvement in community response and to feeling less vulnerable following a dis­ aster. These studies suggest that individuals in a dense social network in their local community are likely to be better prepared for an approaching hurricane.   Other studies, though, demonstrate a negative relationship or no relation between community engagement and disaster preparedness. Riad and Norris (1998) found that people with stronger community links were less likely to heed hurricane evac­ uation warnings. Other evacuation studies also have reported the negative effects of social capital on evacuation decisions and behaviour. For instance, when people have to leave their homes and inhabit emergency shelter or temporary housing, those with dense social ties prefer to stay with relatives, neighbours and friends than go to a safer place (Drabek, 1983; Perry and Greene, 1983). Paton, Millar and Johnston (2001) argued that a sense of community was unrelated to vulnerability following a volcanic eruption. Somewhat related to this, they found also that if people trust government officials, their risk perception and level of preparedness would be miti­ gated. That is, a high level of trust among residents in local or federal governments’ capacities to deal with hurricane disasters would discourage their own efforts to prepare for hurricanes. Lastly, Christenson and Ruch (1980) discovered that neither the actions of friends nor those of a spouse had any effect on individuals’ evacua­ tion responses.   In this study, we test the effect of neighbourhood belonging on disaster prepar­ edness using a multidimensional measure, which covers both subjective belonging (that is, a sense of belonging) and objective belonging (that is, neighbourly actions based on diverse types of exchanges) to immediate neighbourhoods. In their daily lives, residents help one another by engaging in various neighbourly exchanges, such as watching the house next door, offering a ride and assisting with repairs. Neighbours

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

also feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood as they enjoy meeting and talking with one another. Studies have found that such neighbourhood belonging is a strong factor in a neighbourhood’s capacity to work together for the public goods (see, for instance, Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). One can reason that neighbour­ hood belonging also can influence neighbours’ motivations to collaborate in pre­ paring for a natural disaster. Most of the negative effects of community belonging on risk behaviour pertain to a situation in which individuals have to leave their house or neighbourhood. Therefore, we can hypothesise that, when evacuation is not necessary, neighbourhood belonging positively affects the motivation of indi­ viduals to engage in preparedness activities before and during a hurricane: • H3-1: individuals with a higher level of neighbourhood belonging will be more likely to participate in preparedness activities before a hurricane disaster. • H3-2: individuals with a higher level of neighbourhood belonging will be more likely to participate in preparedness activities during a hurricane disaster.

Methods Data One hundred and eighty-six residents in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, took part in telephone survey interviews. Respondents were selected using a random digital dialling tech­ nique, and the survey was conducted between 9 October and 11 November 2004, roughly three weeks after Hurricane Ivan made landfall at Gulf Shores, Alabama. As many as five contact attempts were made so that all respondents, including those who are hard to reach, had the opportunity to contribute to the survey. On average, one telephone interview took 25–30 minutes to complete. The response rate was approximately 40 per cent, which compares favourably with other telephone-based social surveys.2 Measures Pre-hurricane preparedness: this was measured by counting the number of activities individuals engaged in before Hurricane Ivan hit their local community. Possible values ranged from zero (no activity) to eight (all activities). Respondents were asked whether they took the following action: • • • • • • • •

‘talked in person with other people about the hurricane’ (91.5 per cent); ‘shopped for emergency foods or materials’ (73.8 per cent); ‘called others to talk about the hurricane’ (67.5 per cent); ‘tried to finish up some works before the hurricane’ (64.1 per cent); ‘helped other neighbours or friends to get prepared for the hurricane’ (55.9 per cent); ‘browsed websites to get information about the hurricane’ (46.0 per cent); ‘prepared the house’ (24.3 per cent); and ‘e-mailed others to talk about the hurricane’ (22.1 per cent).

477

478 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

During-hurricane preparedness: this was measured by counting the number of activities individuals engaged in on the day Hurricane Ivan passed through their community. Possible values ranged from zero (no activity) to six (all activities). Respondents were asked whether they took the following action: • • • • •

‘called others to see if they are OK’ (74.1 per cent); ‘browsed websites to know what’s going on’ (25.9 per cent); ‘sent emails to let other people know I’m OK’ (20.4 per cent); ‘stayed with other neighbours or friends’ (22.0 per cent); and ‘sent emails to other people in Tuscaloosa to let them know I am OK’ (21.1 per cent) and ‘sent emails to other people in Tuscaloosa to check if they are OK’ (9.9 per cent).

Intensity of interpersonal neighbourhood storytelling: this was measured by asking respondents to indicate, on a scale from one to 10, with one representing ‘never’ and 10 ‘all the time’, how often they ‘have discussions with other people about things happening in their neighbourhood’ (range: 1–10, mean = 4.8, standard deviation = 3.0). Connections to community organisations: this was assessed using a two-step process. Respondents were asked first if they belonged to any of five different types of organisations: sport or recreational (26.9 per cent); cultural, ethnic or religious (49.5 per cent); neighbourhood or homeowner’s (19.9 per cent); political or educa­ tional (29.0 per cent); and other (23.1 per cent). A membership of each type of entity was coded as ‘1’. By summating these scores, we created a final synthetic variable assessing the scope of respondents’ connections to community organisations (range: 0–5, mean = 1.9, standard deviation = 1.3). Local media connectedness: this was measured by asking respondents about the usefulness of receiving community information through each of the four local media forms: local commercial television, local public television, radio and local newspa­ pers. Respondents were scored on a scale of one to 10, with one representing ‘not at all important’ and 10 ‘extremely important’. The average of the four items served as the indicator of local media connectedness. Integrated connectedness to a storytelling network: this was computed using the following equation (Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006a): ICSN =  LC × INS +  INS × OC +  OC × LC

(1)

where LC is local media connectedness, INS is intensity of interpersonal neighbour­ hood storytelling, and OC is scope of connection to community organisations (range: 1–30, mean = 11.2, standard deviation = 4.2). Neighbourhood belonging: this was measured using the ‘belonging index’ (BallRokeach, Kim and Matei, 2001). The eight-item index captures residents’ feelings

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

of attachment to a residential area that inspire everyday acts of neighbourliness (BallRokeach, Kim and Matei, 2001), and includes an equal number of items measuring subjective and objective dimensions. Respondents were given five response options: ‘strongly disagree’ (1); ‘disagree’ (2); ‘so and so’ (3); ‘agree’ (4); and ‘strongly agree’ (5). For the subjective dimension items, we enquired about: • ‘being interested in knowing what your neighbours are like’ (57.0 per cent agreed or strongly agreed); • ‘enjoying meeting and talking with your neighbours” (68.9 per cent agreed or strongly agreed); • ‘ease of becoming friends with your neighbours’ (63.5 per cent agreed or strongly agreed); and • ‘borrowing things from you and your family’ (16.7 per cent agreed or strongly agreed).   For the objective dimension items, we asked respondents how many of their neigh­ bours they know well enough to ask them to: • ‘keep watch on their house or apartment’ (mean = 3.9, standard deviation = 3.6); • ‘ask for a ride’ (mean = 3.8, standard deviation = 3.5); • ‘talk with them about a personal problem’ (mean = 1.8, standard deviation = 2.9); and • ‘ask for their assistance in making a repair’ (mean = 2.8, standard deviation = 3.1).   Respondents again were given five response options: (1) = no neighbour; (2) = 1 neighbour; (3) = 2 neighbours; (4) = 3 neighbours; and (5) = 4 or more neigh­ bours. The mean value of the neighbourhood belonging composite variable (range = 1–5) was 3.2 (standard deviation = 0.9). Cronbach’s alpha test for index scalability was 0.82. Risk perceptions: we measured two dimensions of risk perception: social and personal risk perceptions. Personal risk perception was gauged using the following four items: ‘I thought my house would lose power or water’; ‘I thought my house or apartment might have physical damage’; ‘I thought my family might have to move to a shelter’; and ‘I thought my family would get hurt’. Social risk perception was determined using the following four items: ‘I thought other people in Tuscaloosa would lose power or water’; ‘I thought other people in Tuscaloosa would have physical damage to their properties’; ‘I thought other people in Tuscaloosa might have to move to a shelter’; and ‘I thought other people in Tuscaloosa would get hurt’. The items for both dimensions of risk perception were measured on a point scale of one to five, with one representing ‘not at all likely’ and five ‘very much likely’. The Cronbach’s alpha for personal and social risk perception was 0.89 and 0.82, respectively.

479

480 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

Individual-level covariates: years in neighbourhood is a continuous measure of years of neighbourhood residence (mean = 10.3 years, standard deviation = 13.0), while home ownership is a dichotomous measure, with owner status coded as ‘1’ (66.7 per cent) and renter status as ‘0’ (33.3 per cent). Respondents were asked also about household income in the previous year: ‘less than USD 20,000’ (20.4 per cent); ‘USD 20,000 to less than USD 35,000’ (12.9 per cent); ‘USD 35,000 to less than USD 45,000’ (13.6 per cent); ‘USD 45,000 to less than USD 60,000’ (20.4 per cent); ‘USD 60,000 to less than USD 75,000’ (8.9 per cent); ‘USD 75,000 to less than USD 100,000’ (8.9 per cent); and ‘USD 100,000 or more’ (12.9 per cent). The highest grade or year of school achieved by respondents was used to measure their educational level: ‘eighth grade or less’ (1.2 per cent); ‘some high school’ (3.0 per cent); ‘high-school graduate’ (24.2 per cent); ‘some college or technical school’ (26.5 per cent); ‘college graduate’ (27.1 per cent); ‘some graduate study’ (3.5 per cent); and a ‘graduate degree’ (14.7 per cent). Age ranged from 19–69 (mean = 43.3, standard deviation = 14.7). In terms of gender, male (58.9 per cent) was coded as ‘1’ and female (41.1 per cent) as ‘0’. Regarding race, white (76.0 per cent) was coded as ‘1’ and African American (24.0 per cent) as ‘0’.

Results Results of hypotheses testing Table 1 shows zero-correlation coefficients among the major variables included in our data analysis. We hypothesised that individual characteristics (home ownership, income, education and risk perceptions) are related to preparedness activity before and during a hurricane disaster (H1-1 and H1-2). Based on hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 2), we discovered that only risk perceptions are significantly related to disaster preparedness. We found a different pattern between social risk perception and personal risk perception. Only social risk perception showed a signifi­ cant relation to pre-hurricane preparedness ( β = 0.23, P < 0.01), while personal risk perception was a significant factor in during-hurricane preparedness (β = 0.20, P < 0.05). Thus, H1-1 and H1-2 are supported only in terms of risk perceptions, but not of other individual characteristic variables.   In H2-1 and H2-2, we predicted that ICSN would have a positive effect on both pre-hurricane and during-hurricane preparedness. As shown in Table 2, ICSN was a significant factor both in pre-hurricane preparedness ( β = 0.27, P < 0.01) and during-hurricane disaster preparedness ( β = 0.28, P < 0.01), confirming hypotheses H2-1 and H2-2.   We also hypothesised that neighbourhood belonging would be a positive factor in both pre-hurricane (H3-1) and during-hurricane (H3-2) preparedness. We found that neighbourhood belonging is positively related to during-hurricane prepared­ ness ( β = 0.0.18, P < 0.05), but not to pre-hurricane preparedness (see Table 2). Therefore, our data only supports H3-2.

2

0.63**

-0.09

-0.15*

0.13

-0.02

0.10

0.06

0.22**

0.30**

0.30**

0.06

2. During-hurricane preparedness

3. Age

4. Gender (Female = 0, Male = 1)

5. Homeownership (Rent = 0, Own = 1)

6. Years in neighbourhood

7. Income

8. Education

9. Personal risk perception

10. Social risk perception

11. ICSN

12. Neighbourhood attachment

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

1

1. Pre-hurricane preparedness

0.17*

0.18*

0.15*

0.23**

0.12

-0.06

-0.05

0.00

-0.03

-0.09

1

–

Residents (N = 186)

1

0.19**

0.18*

0.02

-0.02

-0.01

0.08

0.46**

0.23**

-0.03

1

–

–

3

0.08

-0.03

-0.12

-0.12

-0.05

0.03

-0.08

-0.04

1

–

–

–

4

0.25**

0.32**

0.10

0.05

0.16

0.39**

0.34**

1

–

–

–

–

5

0.38**

0.20**

0.042

-0.06

-0.02

-0.10

1

–

–

–

–

–

6

-0.04

0.20**

0.10

-0.05

0.26**

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

7

-0.06

0.22**

0.09

-0.01

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

8

0.00

0.05

0.36**

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

9

Table 1 Zero-order correlations between independent variables for before and during a hurricane disaster

0.13

0.24**

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

10

0.39**

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

11

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

12

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness 481

482 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for factors in disaster preparedness (N = 186) Variable

Pre-hurricane preparedness

During-hurricane preparedness β

t

∆R2

0.06

–

–

0.03

-1.51

–

-0.07

-0.89

–

-0.15*

-2.02

–

-0.03

-0.33

–

Homeownership

0.14

1.57

–

0.05

0.57

–

Years in neighbourhood

-0.01

-0.15

–

-0.04

-0.45

–

Income

0.05

0.65

–

-0.11

-1.27

–

Education

0.02

0.22

–

0.13

1.73

–

Ethnicity

-0.06

-0.64

–

0.06

0.753

–

Step 2

–

–

0.11**

–

–

0.05*

Personal risk perception

0.09

1.20

–

0.2*

2.51

–

Social risk perception

0.26**

3.38

–

0.08

1.02

–

Step 3

–

–

0.13**

–

–

0.03**

ICSN

0.30**

3.85

–

0.19*

2.43

–

Step 4

–

–

0.00

–

–

0.02**

Neighbourhood belonging

-0.05

-0.58

–

0.18**

2.13

–

Step 5

–

–

–

–

–

0.34**

Pre-hurricane preparedness

–

–

–

0.65**

10.55

–

Total R2

–

–

0.30

–

–

0.49

β

t

∆R

Step 1

–

–

Age

-0.12

Gender

2

†

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, † p < 0.10. ∆R 2 = R square difference.

Supplemental model testing results Based on the findings described in the previous section, we developed the hypotheti­ cal model shown in Figure 1. LISERL 8.3 was used to test this model, and overall, it fits well with our data. The chi-square test was not statistically significant, indicating a good model fit: χ2 (3, N = 186) = 2.83, p < 0.10. Other model-fit indices, which meet Schumacker and Lomax’s (2004) model-fit criteria, also suggest a good fit between this model and the data (Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.985; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.994).   The model test supports the conclusions that ICSN has only a direct effect on prehurricane preparedness. It has an indirect effect on during-hurricane preparedness through other mediating factors such as neighbourhood belonging or risk percep­ tion. Social risk perception has a direct effect on pre-hurricane preparedness, but an indirect effect on during-hurricane preparedness. Overall, this model explains 69 and 24 per cent of variance of during- and pre-hurricane preparedness, respectively.

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

Figure 1 Path model of hurricane preparedness with standardised regression weight

Notes: the figure shows the influence of neighbourhood-level social connectedness factors on preparedness action before and during a hurricane. χ2 (3, N =186) = 2.83, p > 0.1; NFI = 0.985; RMSEA = 0.00; goodness of fit index = 0.994; the links among solid lines are statistically significant at p < 0.05 while those among dotted lines are not significant; e1 = 16.98; e2 = 0.85; e3 = 0.94; e4 = 0.85; e5 = 0.52.

Discussion Our data on how local residents in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, responded to Hurricane Ivan of September 2004 revealed that ICSN has a positive effect on the likelihood of engaging in preparedness activities before and during a hurricane. ICSN raises the probability of engaging in pre-hurricane preparedness activities directly as well as indirectly through increasing social risk perception. Its relation with during-hurricane preparedness activities was mediated by neighbourhood belonging, which heightens the prospects of conducting during-hurricane preparedness activities but has no sig­ nificant bearing on pre-hurricane activities. In addition, we discovered an interesting pattern for two different types of risk perceptions: social and personal risk perceptions. Social risk perception, but not personal risk perception, increases the likelihood of taking preventative steps before a hurricane. However, personal risk perception, but not social risk perception, is related positively to engaging in preventative action during a hurricane. Individual socioeconomic or structural factors were found not to be sig­ nificant in disaster preparedness activities both before and during a hurricane.   These findings have several theoretical implications. First, our data suggest that it is critical to connect individuals to an ICSN to augment knowledge about a disaster,

483

484 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

to provide access to disaster prevention resources and to motivate them to implement preventive initiatives. Building a community-level communications environment where individuals can develop an integrated connectedness to different community storytellers (such as the local media, community organisations and neighbours) should be the first and most critical step in helping residents prepare for various natu­ ral disasters. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating the positive effects of seeking and sharing disaster information on participation in preparedness initiatives (see, for example, Turner et al., 1986; Mileti and Darlington, 1997). By incorporating the concept of ICSN, though, this study goes further, capturing the degree to which individuals connect to whatever information and communication resources are available in their local communities to raise awareness of disasterrelated problems and solutions. ICSN is a useful conceptual tool to assess area-level communication infrastructures that is usually invisible in non-disaster times, like other kinds of infrastructure, but is activated and mobilised in a time of disaster.   Second, our findings on the effects of neighbourhood attachment on hurricane preparedness are consistent with those of other scholars (Christenson and Ruch, 1980; Paton, Millar and Johnston, 2001). Having strong affective and behavioural connections to their neighbourhood did not increase the likelihood of engaging in preventive action before the hurricane. However, our data suggest utilisation of this neighbourhood-based social capital during a natural disaster. People with a higher level of neighbourhood belonging try to maintain their connection to other people in their area by checking if they are alright during a disaster and are willing to offer help to them if possible and if necessary.   Third, the findings on the different effects of social and personal risk perceptions on preparedness activities at different stages are also interesting—future research should investigate this issue more systematically. Based on the findings of this study, we can offer some tentative pointers for crisis-message construction at different stages of a hurricane disaster. When a hurricane is still a future event, it seems that telling a story emphasising personal damage (such as ‘you and your family will be affected’) is not a very effective way of making people take preventive action. In such predisaster periods, it appears that individuals have a tendency to perceive that ‘other people will be affected, not my family or me’; such typical responses have been described as ‘unrealistic optimism’ (Weinstein, 1980) or ‘third-person perception’ (Perloff, 2002). At this stage, it is more effective to say: ‘you have to do something for others and your community’. In other words, one should construct pre-hurricane preparedness messages that focus on community-level damage. It seems that when a natural disaster is still a future event, individuals’ concern about community (as responsible citizens) is a stronger factor in taking preparedness steps than perception of one’s own risks.   Most of the socioeconomic characteristic variables tested in this study did not re­ veal any significant influence on either pre- or during-preparedness activities. One must interpret these non-significant findings with caution because they may be due to how this study measured the preparedness variables. To gauge the level of participation

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

in preparedness action, we asked respondents about general categories of behaviour, rather than about more specific action. For instance, ‘protecting houses from poten­ tial damage’ can range from very simple, no-cost initiatives such as moving outdoor chairs to a safer place to expensive, major endeavours such as fixing roof problems or installing storm shutters.   An obvious limitation of this research is one that most other studies face when they rely on only cross-sectional data. Therefore, any statement made in this paper with causal implications has to be treated cautiously. In addition, the survey was con­ ducted some three weeks after the hurricane, consequently all of the respondents’ answers regarding psychological and behavioural experiences before and during the event were based on their memories. Future studies should adopt a longitudinal study design, as well as a technique to monitor individuals’ experiences during a hurricane disaster. Future studies also should revisit our measures of pre- and duringpreparedness. Our operational definition of hurricane preparedness was not so com­ plete as to lend itself to all types of hurricane situations. Most notably, we did not include evacuation. There were two reasons for this. First, since we carried out this study in the post-disaster period, we knew already that there had been no evacua­ tion announcement in the area—we included only what was actually observed in the study zone. Second, we tried to include activities in which anyone in the study area could have considered participating. Evacuation was not one of them. However, other studies should expand on or revise the list of preparedness behaviours depend­ ing on the severity and other unique features of the targeted disaster, as well as on the characteristics of the study area.

Acknowledgements The College of Communication and Information Sciences and the Center for Public Television and Radio, both at the University of Alabama, funded this research.

Correspondence Yong-Chan Kim, 200 Hawkins Drive, E238 GH, Iowa City, IA 52245, United States. Telephone: +1 319 384 5395; fax: +1 319 384 5385; e-mail: [email protected]

Endnotes 1

For the National Hurricane Center’s preparedness guidelines, see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/ english/prepare/family_plan.shtml. The American Red Cross’s hurricane preparedness guidelines are available at http://www.hurricane.alabama.gov/HurricanePreparednessGuide.pdf. 2 According to a 2004 study by the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (now the Marketing Research Association), the current mean response rate for random digital dialling telephone surveys is around 10 per cent (Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2007). Many national surveys, such as those of American National Election Studies, achieve a response rate of 35 per cent (American National Election Studies, 2002).

485

486 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

References American National Election Studies (2002) ‘The 2002 National Election Study Dataset’. http://www. electionstudies.org/studypages/2002prepost/2002prepost_errata.htm (accessed on 10 December 2006). Anderson-Berry, L.J. (2004) ‘Community vulnerability to tropical cyclones: Cairns, 1996–2000’. Natural Hazards. 30(2). pp. 209–232. Bachrach, K.M. and A.J. Zautra (1985) ‘Coping with a community stressor: the threat of a hazardous waste facility’. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 26(2). pp. 127–141. Ball-Rokeach, S.J., Y.C. Kim and S. Matei (2001) ‘Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments’. Communication Research. 28(4). pp. 392–428. Beadle, N. (2004) ‘Ivan’s wrath limited in Tuscaloosa’. The Crimson White. 20 September. http://www. cw.ua.edu/2.4648/ivan-s-wrath-limited-in-tuscaloosa-1.1223457 (accessed on 12 August 2009). Bishop, B.D., D. Paton, G. Syme and B. Mancarrow (2000) ‘Coping with environmental degradation: Salinization as a community stressor’. Network. 12(4). pp. 1–15. Christenson, L. and C. Ruch (1980) ‘The effect of social influence on response to hurricane warnings’. Disasters. 4(2). pp. 205–210. Dooley, D., R. Catalano, S. Mishra and S. Serxner (1992) ‘Earthquake preparedness predictors in a community survey’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22(6). pp. 451–470. Drabek, T.E. (1983) ‘Shall we leave? A study on family reactions when disaster strikes’. Emergency Management Review. 1 (Fall). pp. 25–29. Drabek, T.E. (1999) ‘Understanding disaster warning responses’. The Social Science Journal. 36(3). pp. 515–523. DeWitt, R. (2004) ‘Damage varies by county’. Tuscaloosa News. 17 September. p. 3a. Ecevit, M. and A. Kasapoglu (2002) ‘Demographic and psychosocial features and their effects on the survivors of the 1999 earthquake in Turkey’. Social Behavior and Personality. 30(2). pp. 195–202. Faupel, C.E., S.P. Kelley and T. Petee (1992) ‘The impact of disaster education on household pre­ paredness for Hurricane Hugo’. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 10(1). pp. 5–24. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004) Are you ready? An In-depth Guide to Citizen Preparedness. August. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/areyouready_full.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2009). Fothergill, A. and L.A. Peek (2004) ‘Poverty and disasters in the United States: A review of recent sociological findings’. Natural Hazards. 32(1). pp. 89–110. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2000) Introduction to disaster preparedness. June. http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/disasters/resources/corner/dp-manual/all.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2009). Jackson, E.L. (1977) ‘Public response to earthquake hazard’. California Geology. 30(12). pp. 278–280. Kallmen, H. (2000) ‘Manifest anxiety, general self-efficacy and locus of control as determinants of personal and general risk perception’. Journal of Risk Research. 3(2). pp. 111–120. Kim, Y.C. and S.J. Ball-Rokeach (2006a) ‘Civic engagement from a communication infrastructure perspective’. Communication Theory. 16(1). pp. 1–25. Kim, Y.C. and S.J. Ball-Rokeach (2006b) ‘Community storytelling network, neighborhood con­ text, and neighborhood engagement: A multilevel analysis’. Human Communication Research. 32(3). pp. 411–439. King, D. (2000) ‘You’re on your own: Community vulnerability and the need for awareness and education for predictable natural disasters’. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 8(4). pp. 223–228. Lindell, M.K. and R.W. Perry (1992) Behavioral foundations of community emergency management. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC. Loges, W.E. (1994) ‘Canaries in the coal mine: Perceptions of threat and media system dependency relations’. Communication Research. 21(1). pp. 5–23.

Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness

Marsh, G. and P. Buckle (2001) ‘Community: The concept of community in the risk and emergency management context’. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. 16(1). http://www.ema.gov.au/ www/emaweb/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(3A6790B96C927794AF1031D9395C5C20)~concept_of_ community_in_the_risk_and_emergency_management_context.pdf/$file/concept_of_community_ in_the_risk_and_emergency_management_context.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2009). McMillan, D.W. and D.M. Chavis (1986) ‘Sense of community: A definition and theory’. Journal of Community Psychology. 14(1). pp. 6–23. Mileti, D.S. and J.D. Darlington (1995) ‘Societal response to revised earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco bay area’. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 13(2). pp. 119–145. Mileti, D.S. and J.D. Darlington (1997) ‘The role of searching in shaping reactions to earthquake risk information’ Social Problems. 44(1). pp. 89–103. Mileti, D.S. and P. O’Brien (1992) ‘Warnings during disaster: Normalizing communicated risk’ Social Problems. 39(1). pp. 40–57. Morrow, B.H. and E. Enarson (1996) ‘Hurricane Andrew through women’s eyes: Issues and recom­ mendations’. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 14(1). pp. 1–22. Mulilis, J.P. and T.S. Duval (1995) ‘Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A personrelative-to-event (PrE) model of coping and threat’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 25(15). pp. 1319–1339. Mulilis, J.P., T.S. Duval and K. Bovalino (2000) ‘Tornado preparedness of students, nonstudent renters, and nonstudent owners: Issues of PrE theory’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 30(6). pp. 1310–1329 Nigg, J.M. (1982) ‘Communication under conditions of uncertainty: Understanding earthquake forecasting’. Journal of Communication. 32(1). pp. 27–36. Paton, D. (2003) ‘Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective’. Disaster Prevention and Management. 12(3). pp. 210–216. Paton, D., M. Millar and D. Johnston (2001) ‘Community resilience to volcanic hazard consequences’. Natural Hazards. 24(2). pp. 157–169. Perloff, R.M. (2002) ‘The third-person effect’. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. pp. 489–506. Perry, R.W. and H. Hirose (1991) Volcano Management in the United States and Japan. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Perry, R.W. and M.K. Lindell (1990) Living with Mt. St. Helens: Human adjustment to volcano hazards. Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA. Perry, R.W. and M.R. Greene (1983) Citizen response to volcanic eruptions: The case of Mt. St. Helens. Irvington Publishers, New York, NY. Perry, R.W., M.K. Lindell and M.R. Greene (1981) Evacuation Planning in Emergency Management. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Prezza, M. and S. Constantini (1998) ‘Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation three different territorial context’. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. 8(3). pp. 181–194. Public Works and Government Services Canada (2007) Best practices in public opinion research: Improving respondent cooperation for telephone surveys. March. http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/rop-por/rapportsreports/documents/telephone-eng.pdf (Accessed on August 30 2009). Riad, J.M. and F.H. Norris (1998) Hurricane threat and evacuation intentions: An analysis of risk perception, preparedness, social influences and resources. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center Preliminary Paper. No. 271. http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/19716/107/1/PP271Hurricane%20Threat.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2009). Rogers, E.M. (2002) ‘Intermedia processes and powerful media effects’. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. pp. 199–214.

487

488 

Yong-Chan Kim and Jinae Kang

Rustemli, A. and A.N. Karanci (1999) ‘Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behavior in a victimized population’. The Journal of Social Psychology. 139(1). pp. 91–101. Schumacker, R.E. and R.G. Lomax (2004) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Schwarzer, R. (1994) ‘Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions: A systematic overview’. Psychology and Health: An International Journal. 9(3). pp. 161–180. Showalter, P.S. (1993) ‘Prognostication of doom: An earthquake prediction’s effect on four small communities’. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 11(3). pp. 297–292. Snyder, L.B. and R.A. Rouse (1995) ‘The media can have more than an impersonal impact: The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior’. Health Communication. 7(2). pp. 125–145. Tierney, K.J., M.K. Lindell and R.W. Perry (2001) Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC. Turner, R.H., J.M. Nigg, D. Heller-Paz and B. Young (1986) Waiting for disaster: Earthquake watch in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Van der Pligt, J. (1998) ‘Perceived risk and vulnerability as predictors of precautionary behavior’. British Journal of Health Psychology. 3(1). pp. 1–14. Weinstein, N.D. (1980) ‘Unrealistic optimism about future life events’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39(5). pp. 802–820. Zimet, G.D., A. Liau and J.D. Fortenberry (1997) ‘Health beliefs and intention to get immunized for HIV’ Journal of Adolescent Health. 20(5). pp. 354–359.