AFETLERE HAZIRLIK NİYETİNİ ETKİLEYEN RİSK ALGISI ÜZERİNE ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Dünyada önceden hiç olmadığı kadar pek çok insan artan şekilde deprem, sel, orman yangını, toprak kayması gibi afetlere maruz kalmaktadır. Tüm dünyada iklim değişiminin sonucu ortaya çıkan sel, yangın, kuraklık gibi afetler, tektonik olaylar neticesinde ortaya çıkan depremler önemli can ve mal kaybına neden olmaktadır. Türkiye için yaşanan deprem felaketleri, beklenen Marmara depremi ülkenin geleceğini stratejik olarak tehdit eden olaylardır. Kamuoyunun afetlerin getirdiği olumsuz sonuçlara yönelik farkındalığı yüksek olmasına rağmen, yeterli risk algısının olmaması afete hazırlık ve önleminin benimsenmemesine neden olmaktadır. Afetlerin oluşturduğu bu tehditlere karşı nasıl bütünsel bir yaklaşımla yanıt verileceği konusu önemli kararlar arasındadır. Afet riskinin olduğu bölgelerde yaşayanların risk algısının geliştirilmesi afetlere zamanında müdahale etme yeteneklerinin geliştirilmesine yardımcı olabilir. Bu çalışma ile insanların afetlere yönelik risk algılarının afetlere yönelik tutum ve hazırlık niyetine etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri kolayda örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen kişilere uygulanan web tabanlı anket ile elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde PLS tabanlı yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılmıştır. Pazarlama bakış açısı ile yapılan bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgulara göre, risk algısı; algılanan kırılganlık ve algılanan şiddet üzerinde etkilidir. Algılanan kırılganlık, algılanan şiddet, afete yönelik tutum ve güven afete hazırlanma niyetinde etkilidir. Buna göre her bölgenin mevcut riskine göre insanlara afete hazırlık eğitimlerinin verilmesi ve bunun sürdürülebilirliğinin sağlanması uygun olacaktır. Hedef kitleyi oluşturan insanlardan elde edilen bu bilgiler kamu, özel ya da sivil toplum kuruluşlarının faaliyetlerini planlamasına destek olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet
• Risk algısı
• Tutum
• Hazırlanma niyeti

ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ВЛИЯНИЯ ВОСПРИЯТИЯ РИСКА НА НАМЕРЕНИЕ ГОТОВИТЬСЯ К ЧРЕЗВЫЧАЙНЫМ СИТУАЦИЯМ

Öz

В современном мире всё больше людей подвергается воздействию стихийных бедствий, таких как землетрясения, наводнения, лесные пожары и оползни. Бедствия, вызванные изменением климата — наводнения, пожары, засухи, а также землетрясения, обусловленные тектоническими процессами, приводят к значительным человеческим жертвам и материальному ущербу. Для Турции прошедшие землетрясения и ожидаемое землетрясение в Мраморном регионе являются стратегически важными угрозами для будущего страны. Несмотря на высокую осведомлённость общественности о негативных последствиях бедствий, недостаточный уровень восприятия риска приводит к низкой степени готовности и непринятию мер предосторожности. Вопрос о том, как разработать комплексный подход к реагированию на угрозы, вызванные бедствиями, является важной задачей для принятия решений. Повышение уровня восприятия риска у людей, проживающих в зонах риска, может способствовать развитию у них способности своевременно и эффективно реагировать. Настоящее исследование направлено на изучение влияния восприятия риска на отношение к бедствиям и намерение подготовиться к ним. Данные были собраны с помощью веб-анкеты, распространённой среди участников, отобранных методом удобной выборки. Для анализа данных использовалось структурное моделирование с использованием метода наименьших квадратов (PLS-SEM). Согласно результатам исследования, проведённого с точки зрения маркетинга, восприятие риска оказывает значительное влияние на воспринимаемую уязвимость и серьёзность. В свою очередь, воспринимаемая уязвимость и серьёзность влияют на отношение к бедствиям. Кроме того, отношение к бедствиям и уверенность в своих силах влияют на намерение подготовиться. На основе полученных результатов рекомендуется проводить обучение по подготовке к бедствиям с учётом региональных рисков и обеспечить его устойчивость. Результаты исследования могут быть полезны для планирования деятельности государственных, частных и общественных организаций.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Бедствие
• Восприятие риска
• Отношение
• Намерение подготовиться

A STUDY ON RISK PERCEPTION AFFECTING THE INTENTION TO PREPARE FOR DISASTERS

Öz

More people around the world are increasingly exposed to disasters such as earthquakes, floods, forest fires, and landslides than ever before. Disasters resulting from climate change, such as floods, fires, and droughts, as well as earthquakes caused by tectonic activity, lead to significant loss of life and property. In Turkey, past earthquake disasters and the anticipated Marmara earthquake represent strategically critical threats to the country’s future. Despite the high public awareness of the adverse consequences of disasters, a lack of adequate risk perception results in insufficient disaster preparedness and precautionary behaviors. Developing a holistic response to the threats posed by disasters is a crucial policy issue. Enhancing the risk perception of individuals living in disaster-prone areas can contribute to improving their ability to respond effectively in a timely manner. This study investigates the impact of individuals’ risk perception on their attitudes and intentions regarding disaster preparedness. The research data were collected through a web-based survey administered to participants selected via convenience sampling. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed for data analysis. According to the findings of this study, conducted from a marketing perspective, risk perception significantly influences perceived vulnerability and perceived severity. In turn, both perceived vulnerability and perceived severity affect attitudes toward disasters. Additionally, attitudes toward disasters and perceived self-efficacy influence the intention to prepare. Based on these findings, it is advisable to provide region-specific disaster preparedness education and ensure its sustainability. The results of this study may inform the planning of activities by relevant public, private, and non-governmental organizations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disaster
• Risk perception
• Attitude
• Preparedness intention

Kaynakça

1. Ainuddin, S., Routray, J.K., Ainuddin, S. (2014). People's risk perception in earthquake prone Quetta city of Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 7, 165-175.
2. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50(2), 179- 211.
3. Alexander, D. (2019). L’Aquila, central Italy, and the ‘disaster cycle’, 2009-2017”. Disaster Prevention and Management, 28 (2), 272-285.
4. Al-Nammari, F., Alzaghal, M. (2015). Towards local disaster risk reduction in developing countries: challenges from Jordan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12, 34-41.
5. AlQahtany, A.M., Abubakar, I.R. (2020). Public perception and attitudes to disaster risks in a coastal metropolis of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 44, 101422.
6. Armaş, I. (2008). Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania, Natural Hazards, 47, 397-410.
7. Bronfman, N.C., Cisternas, P.C., López-Vázquez, E., Cifuentes, L.A. (2016).Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile. Natural Hazards, 81, 307-327.
8. Brown, P., Daigneault, A.J., Tjernström, E., Zou, W. (2018). Natural disasters, social protection, and risk perceptions. World Development, 104, 310-325.

9. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Rykkja, L.H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: building governance capacity and legitimacy, Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.
10. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
11. De Coninck, D., D'Haenens, L., Matthijs, K. (2020). Perceived vulnerability to disease and attitudes towards public health measures: COVID-19 in Flanders, Belgium. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110220.
12. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Models with Unobservables Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
13. González-Castro, JL., Ubillos-Landa, S., Puente-Martínez, A., Gracia-Leiva, M. (2021). Perceived Vulnerability and Severity Predict Adherence to COVID-19 Protection Measures: The Mediating Role of Instrumental Coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 674032.
14. Grothmann, T., Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not, Natural Hazards, 38(1) 101-120.
15. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
16. Han, Z., Lu, X., Hörhager, E.I., Yan, J. (2017). The effects of trust in government on earthquake survivors' risk perception and preparedness in China. Natural Hazards, 86(1), 437-452.
17. Ho, M.C., Shaw, D., Lin, S., Chiu, Y.C. (2008). How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?. Risk Analysis, 28(3), 635-643.
18. Hoffman, R., Muttarak, R. (2017). Learn from the past, prepare for the future: impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand. World Development, 96, 32-51.
19. Huang, L., Zhang, F., Wu, X., Peng, Y., Bao, H., Zhang, Y. (2022). High school students’ trust and risk perception of typhoon disaster: Moderating role of government ability in disaster management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 71, 102816.
20. Kates, R., Kasperson, J. (1983). Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80, 7027-7038.
21. Kurata, Y.B., Prasetyo, Y.T., Ong, A.K., Nadlifatin, R., Persada, S.F., Chuenyindee, T., Cahigas, M.M. (2022). Determining factors affecting preparedness beliefs among Filipinos on Taal Volcano eruption in Luzon, Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76, 103035.
22. Lazarus, R., Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
23. Lindell, M., Whitney, D. (2000). Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 13-26.
24. Lindell, M.K., Hwang, S.N. (2008). Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment, Risk Analysis, 28, 539-556.
25. Miceli,R., Sotgiu, I., Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journals Environmental Science, 28(2), 164-173.
26. Miles, A. (2020). Perceived severity. Perceived severity | division of cancer control and population sciences (DCCPS). https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/research/cons tructs/perceived-severity.
27. Monteil, C., Barclay, J., Hicks, A. (2020). Remembering, Forgetting, and Absencing Disasters in the Post-disaster Recovery Process. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11, 287-299.
28. Ong, A.K.S., Prasetyo, Y.T., Kusonwattana, P., Yuduang, N., Persada, S.F., Nadlifatin, R., Cahigas, M.M.L., Chuenyindee, T., Thana, K. (2023) Factors affecting the intention to prepare for tsunami in Thailand. Ocean & Coastal Management, 233, 106464.
29. Ong, A.K.S., Prasetyo, Y.T., Lagura, F.C., Ramos,R.N., Sigua, K.M., Villas, J.A., Young, M.N., Diaz, J.F.T., Persada, S.F., Redi, A.A.N.P. (2021). Factors affecting intention to prepare for mitigation of “the big one” earthquake in the Philippines: integrating protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102467.
30. Pagneux, E., Gísladóttir,G., Jónsdóttir, S. (2011). Public perception of flood hazard and flood risk in Iceland: a case study in a watershed prone to ice-jam floods. Natural Hazards, 58(1), 269-287.
31. Papathoma-Köhle, M., Kappes, M., Keiler, M. et al. (2011). Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. Natural Hazards, 58, 645-680.
32. Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 210-216.
33. Paton, D. (2019). Disaster risk reduction: Psychological perspectives on preparedness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71, 327-341.
34. Paton, D., Anderson, E., Becker, J., Petersen, J. ( 2015). Developing a comprehensive model of hazard preparedness: lessons from the Christchurch earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 37-45.
35. Perry, R.W., Lindell, M.K. (2008). Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172, 170-178.
36. Quan, L., Zhen, R., Yao, B., Zhou, X., Yu, D. ( 2017). The role of perceived severity of disaster, rumination, and trait resilience in the relationship between rainstorm-related experiences and PTSD amongst Chinese adolescents following rainstorm disasters. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 31(5), 507-515.
37. Rana, I.A., Jamshed, A., Younas, Z.I., Bhatti, S.S. (2020). Characterizing flood risk perception in urban communities of Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 46, 101624.
38. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
39. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1-36.
40. Short Jr. J.F. (1984). The social fabric of risk: towards the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49(6), 711-725.
41. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713‐719.
42. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20 (1), 1-11.
43. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 80(236), 280-285.
44. Slovic, P. (1992). Convergent validation of risk-taking measures. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(1), 68-71.
45. Song, H.R., Kim, W.J. (2013). Effects of Risk Characteristic and Risk Perception on Risk Severity of Natural Disaster. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 13(4), 198-207.
46. Spielman, S.E., Tuccillo, J., Folch, D.C., Schweikert, A., Davies, R., Wood, N., Tate, E. (2020). Evaluating social vulnerability indicators: criteria and their application to the Social Vulnerability Index. Natural Hazards, 100, 417- 436.
47. Terpstra, T., Lindell, M.K., Gutteling, J.M. (2009). Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study. Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1141-1155.
48. UNDRR (2024). Afet riski. https://www.preventionweb.net/understanding-disaster-risk/component- risk/disaster-risk (Erişim: 18.7.2024)
49. UNISDR (2009). 2009 UNISDR Terminology on disaster risk reduction. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
50. Vinnell, L. J., Milfont, T. L., McClure, J. (2023). Natural Hazard Versus Natural Disaster: Does Framing the Event Affect Preparedness Intentions, Attitudes, and Behaviour?. Social Psychological Bulletin, 18, 1-26.
51. Watts, M.J., Bohle, H.G. (1993). The space of vulnerability: The causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress in Human Geography, 93, 43-67.
52. Weinstein, N.D. (1989). Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior, Psychological Bulletin, 105, 31- 50.
53. Wu, W.H., Zheng, J.J., Fang, Q.H. (2020). How a typhoon event transforms public risk perception of climate change: a study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261(10), 121163.
54. Zaremohzzabieh, Z., Samah, A.A., Roslan, S., Shaffril, H.A.M., D'Silva, J.L., Kamarudin, S., Ahrari, S. (2021). Household preparedness for future earthquake disaster risk using an extended theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 65, 102533.
55. Zhao, Y., Ni, Q., Zhou, R. (2018). What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age, International Journal of Information Management, 43, 342-350.