Impact of a community disaster awareness training program in Turkey: Does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors
Main Article Content
A community disaster training program focused on earthquakes, floods, and landslides was implemented in Cankiri, Turkey, in 2002. It covered mitigation, preparedness, and response aspects of natural disaster management. Four thousand community members participated in the training program delivered by 95 local trainers. In this study we evaluated the impact of participation in this program. One year later, 400 randomly selected participants in the training program and a comparable sample of 400 community members who did not participate in any disaster training program (nonparticipants) were surveyed. Disaster-related cognitions (i.e., disaster expectation, worry about future disasters, loss estimations if a disaster occurs, beliefs in the possibility of mitigation, and preparedness) and reported preparedness behaviors were assessed. The relationship of sociodemographic, previous disaster experience, anxiety, and locus of control variables with disaster-related cognitions and behaviors was examined. Results showed that participants in the training program had more disaster expectation, worry and loss estimation, and more preparedness behaviors. Results of regression analyses, examining the relationship of the variables of the study with disaster cognitions, affect, and actual preparedness behaviors showed that gender, education, being a participant in the training program, anxiety, and locus of control are important variables related to different kinds of disaster-related cognitions. However, reported preparedness behaviors were quite low and this result needs to be viewed with caution. These results have important implications for the modification of programs for targeting sustainable behavioral change, which is likely to reduce the impact of future disasters.
The importance of the participation of the local community for the execution of successful disaster mitigation and preparedness measures has been repeatedly stressed (Karanci & Aksit, 2000; Perry & Lindell, 2003). Increasing hazard and risk awareness and strengthening beliefs in the possibility of taking mitigation and preparedness measures can be an initial stage in motivating community members for the development and the application of appropriate preparedness behaviors (Lopez-Vazquez & Marvan, 2003; Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990; Mulilis & Duval, 1997). Numerous methods of community training, varying from simple booklets about hazards to workshops, seminars, and applied training courses in disaster mitigation and preparedness have been utilized (Asgary & Willis, 1997; Bowen & Faison, 2002). However, evaluation of the effects of such programs in increasing community resilience is scarce and has produced mixed results (Bowen & Faison, 2002; Morrissey & Reser, 2003; Ronan & Johnston, 2003). It is necessary to evaluate the impact of such training programs by assessing the cognitive and behavioral changes that follow them in order to develop guidelines for increasing their impact and to find methods that will facilitate cognitive and, more importantly, behavioral change and thereby elicit preparedness behaviors.
The aim in the present study was to examine the impact of participating in a basic disaster awareness training program for earthquakes, landslides, and floods on cognitive and behavioral measures related to disaster mitigation and preparedness. More specifically, the effects of such a training program on disaster-related cognitions (i.e., expectations and worry about future disasters, loss estimation, beliefs in mitigation, and preparedness) and preparedness behaviors were examined one year after the training program. The differences between the participants of the training program and a control group of nonpar- ticipants were examined in order to understand the impact of the training. Furthermore, we examined the predictors of disaster-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors.
In the literature on persuasive communication it is proposed that when individuals are persuaded that they are at risk of confronting events that will threaten their well-being they will engage in adaptive behaviors (Duval & Mulilis, 1999; Janis, 1967). Thus, according to this view, if individuals perceive a risk of disasters and believe that their well-being will be threatened then they are likely to engage in mitigation or preparedness behaviors. However, contrary to this view, previous experience with disasters has not been found to be a good predictor of preparedness behaviors (Rincon, Linares, & Greenberg, 2001; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). Therefore, simply being aware of risks does not seem to be a strong factor for the initiation of responsible adaptive behaviors. The person-relative-to-event (PrE) model can be used to modify the persuasive communication viewpoint (Duval & Mulilis, 1999). According to the PrE model, adaptive behavior is related to two kinds of appraisals. The first one is related to the evaluation of the event and the second one is about the evaluation of personal resources. In the model it is proposed that when the appraised severity and probability of the event exceed the appraised personal-coping resources adaptive behavior is not likely to follow. However, when the person assesses his/her own resources as sufficient relative to the perceived threat entailed in the event then adaptive behavior will follow. Thus, in disaster awareness programs it seems important to highlight and develop an awareness of risks involved in disaster events and also to empower the person with relevant skills to cope with the event, so that the person evaluates his/her resources relative to the dangers posed by the event as sufficient to deal with the threat. Duval and Mulilis found that earthquake preparedness behaviors increased for persons who evaluated their resources as high in comparison to the magnitude of their threat perceptions, supporting the PrE model. Furthermore, perceptions of responsibility for the mitigation of hazards have been found to have a moderating effect for adaptive behavior when personal resources are viewed as sufficient (Mulilis & Duval, 1997). Within the framework of this model, two dimensions need to be stressed in community disaster training programs. The first one is providing information on threat so that threat perception due to possible future disasters is raised. The second area is increasing the personal resources of the participants in dealing with the threat, so that the individual feels capable of dealing with a possible future disaster event. Lastly, training programs need to give community members a sense of responsibility for mitigation and prepared- ness. Previous researchers in Turkey showed that although earthquake survivors believe in the general possibility of mitigation and preparedness, they believe that they themselves have fewer resources as compared to the state institutions for taking such actions. Furthermore, they attribute responsibility for mitigation and preparedness to external sources, such as the state, municipality, engineers, and so on (Karanci & Aksit, 1999; Karanci & Aksit, 2000).
Research on predictors of preparedness behavior for disasters showed that age, income, education, locus of control, beliefs in control, perceived threat, and distress were significant predictors of preparedness behaviors for hurricanes and earthquakes (Kasapoğlu & Ecevit, 2003; Rincon, et al., 2001; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). Rüstemli and Karanci found that anxiety about future earthquakes and perceived control were significant predictors of preparedness behaviors among the survivors of the Erzincan, Turkey earthquake. Kasapoğlu and Ecevit reported that education, employment, social security, and knowledge were important predictors of preparedness for future earthquakes among the survivors of the 1999 Marmara earthquake. Thus, these findings seem to lend partial support to the PrE model, by showing that being aware of threat and having personal resources – such as income, education, belief in personal control, and knowledge about disasters – are important factors for facilitating preparedness behaviors.
Method
Background to the Current Study
The study site This study is the follow-up phase of an applied field study, conducted in Cankiri, a province with a population of 250,000, located in central Turkey. Cankiri was hit by an earthquake of magnitude 5.9 on the Richter scale in June 2000, nearly 10 months prior to the initiation of the disaster awareness training program. The earthquake led to damage in nearly 3,000 buildings and caused three deaths. Furthermore, the study was initiated a year after the devastating 1999 earthquake in Marmara, Turkey. This earthquake severely affected five industrial cities in Turkey and led to a death toll of 17,000 and collapse of 50,000 buildings (Ecevit & Kasapoğlu, 2002; Kasapoğlu, Ecevit, & Ecevit, 2004). Thus, the community training program was initiated when there was a heightened awareness and keen interest in disasters in Turkey.
Disaster awareness training program In the initial phase of the community training program, a large multisectoral meeting was held in Cankiri, with the support of the Governor, in order to stress the importance of local participation and training in disaster management and to recruit local people who would be trained to become voluntary local trainers. As a result of discussions with local partners, earthquakes, floods, and landslides were depicted as the most important types of hazards for Cankiri. Individuals from the public sector, municipalities, nongovernmental organizations, and professional chambers were asked to volunteer to become local trainers, to be trained by central trainers. It was stressed that subsequently they would be asked to deliver the training program to adult community members.
Based on the information given above on the probability of high risk disasters in the province of Cankiri, the training of trainers handbook for earthquakes used previously in another community participation study (Karanci & Aksit, 1999) was revised and expanded to include floods and landslides. A booklet to be distributed to adult community members who would participate in the awareness program was also similarly revised. The handbook contained information on preparedness and mitigation measures. It clearly specified the method of conducting the training and emphasized activities to get the active involvement of participants. The handbook also contained sections with in-depth information for the trainer. There was also a 10-page simple brochure to be given to community members during the eight hours’ training. The content of the handbook and the brochure was based on previous similar publications (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]).
An eight hours’ training of trainers program was given to 117 potential local trainers by the present authors. Out of the 117 potential local trainers who participated in the training of trainers program, 95 agreed to be local trainers. A contract was signed with these local trainers, based on a requirement to train at least 50 adults from the community by the end of March 2002. Thus, a total of 4,750 adults from the community were targeted. They were each given a training of trainers handbook, 50 brochures to be distributed to community members participating in their training groups, and 50 questionnaires outlining some dimensions of disaster experience and mitigation and preparedness beliefs of those who would attend their groups. They were asked to distribute these surveys at the end of their training groups and then to collect and return them to the project coordinators. The project researchers required the trainers to give out questionnaires in order to provide some control over the local trainers. These surveys asked for consent for future contact in an evaluation study and requested consenting participants to give their contact phone numbers and addresses so that they could be contacted in the future. A total of 4,000 community members participated in the training program and they all gave their consent for future contact (Aksit, Karanci, & Anafarta, 2002).
One year after the completion of the program 400 individuals were randomly selected from the questionnaires completed and contacted for the present study.
The Sample
The sample consisted of 800 adults (female = 202, male = 598) living in Cankiri. Half of the sample was drawn randomly from among the 4,000 participants of the disaster awareness training program (participants), while the other half were 400 adults, randomly chosen from among individuals living in similar neighborhoods, but not exposed to a disaster awareness training program, forming a control group (nonparticipants). Ninety percent of the sample was employed, 48% owned the house they were living in and 53.6% had had a previous natural disaster experience. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the participant and nonparticipant samples. As can be seen, those who had participated in training were slightly older and had less education. Apart from these differences, the two groups were comparable.
Research Instruments
The first part of the instrument was used to identify sociodemographic variables [gender, age, marital status, education, employment status, household size, house ownership status (owner versus rental), and household property (measured as the total number checked by the respondent from a list of 10 household appliances or consumer items, such as refrigerator, dishwasher, television, etc.)], whereas the second part contained questions on disaster experience (whether they had experienced a disaster in their lives, if yes, its type and degree of loss from the disaster), five questions on cognitions/emotions related to hazard awareness and mitigation (“How likely do you think is the probability of a disaster in Cankiri in the next year?”; “How much do you worry about the occurrence of a disaster in Cankiri over the next year?”; “How much loss do you expect for yourself/family if a disaster occurs?”; “Do you believe that it is possible to mitigate disaster losses?”; “To what extent can one be prepared for disasters?”). All the items were rated on 3-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 3 = very much) and finally one question on preparedness behavior “Have you made any preparations for future disasters?; and if yes please list the actions that you have completed?” The following scales were given in the next section of the instrument:
Locus of Control Scale (LCS) In the present study the 47-item LCS, developed and tested with Turkish samples, was used (Dag, 2002). The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale response format (1 = not suitable at all; 5 = completely suitable). Dag reported the reliability of the whole scale as .92. The possible score range is 47-235.
Table 1. Subjects’ Characteristics
In the present study a total locus of control score was obtained simply by summing up the responses to the items of the LCS (M = 118.30, SD = 19.37, min. = 60, max. = 181), higher scores reflecting external locus of control. Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .86 for the present study.
Symptom Checklist-40 (SCL-40) The SCL-40 provides a measure of general distress (Derogatis & Cleary, 1977). The scale was previously translated and used with survivors of three separate earthquakes in Turkey (Karanci & Rüstemli, 1995; Karanci, Alcan, Aksit, Sucuoglu, & Balta, 1999). The items tap somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and anger/irritability. Respondents were asked to report which of the 40 symptoms they had experienced within the past two weeks and to rate each item/symptom by considering the degree of distress it caused on a 3-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, and 3 = a lot) during the past two weeks.
For the present study a varimax orthogonal factor analysis was conducted for the SCL-40, which revealed 7 factors, explaining 51% of the variance. Since previous research showed that Anxiety is the only factor that is related to preparedness (Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999), only the factor reflecting anxiety was used in the present study for predicting disaster-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors. This factor had 10 items and had an adequate Cronbach’s alpha reliability value (.78). Anxiety scores were obtained by simply summing up the responses to the 10 items of the anxiety factor of the SCL-40, (M = 13.74, SD = 3.23, min. =10, max. = 29).
Procedure
Four hundred participants were randomly selected from the 4,000 participants who took part in the awareness training program. Their addresses and names were noted. The 400 adults for the control group (nonparticipants) were selected randomly either from households located on the same street, or from among individuals working in the same workplace. Trained interviewers administered the questionnaires one year after the completion of the training program, in either the homes or workplaces of the respondents. The administration took about 30 minutes. All of the individuals contacted agreed to participate in the study. Since 20 adults from the original training sample could not be contacted, the researchers drew an additional 20 individuals from the list of participants.
Results
Hazard-Related Cognitions and Preparedness Behavior of the Participants and Nonparticipants in Awareness Training
Preparedness behavior was calculated by first making a categorization of possible preparedness behaviors, based on a screening of the replies to “What have you done for preparedness”. The categories were: 1. Keeping supplies (food, medicine, clothing etc.); 2. Stabilizing furniture; 3. Getting earthquake insurance; 4. Making a family reunion plan and other plans for when disaster occurs; 5. Structurally strengthening the building. Subsequently the replies of each respondent were placed in appropriate categories. Since there were a lot of items falling under the first category they were all counted as one, in order not to inflate the number of preparedness behaviors. Thus, the possible score range was 1-5. Participants reporting preparedness behaviors were very few, with only 9.5% reporting that they had engaged in one category of behavior, 2.5% in two and only 1% engaging in three category behaviors.
The mean scores of disaster expectation worry about future disasters and loss estimation and actual preparedness behaviors were significantly higher for the participants (M = 2.45, 2.34, and 2.32; SD = .57, .61, and .56, respectively) as compared to nonparticipants (M = 2.30, 2.17, and 2.19; SD = .59, .65, and .67, respectively) (t(798) = 3.57, 3.80, and 2.82 respectively, p < .01, two-tailed). Although the scores of the participant group for belief in the possibility of mitigation and preparedness (M = 2.27 and 2.21) were slightly higher in comparison to the control group (M = 2.18 and 2.08), the difference was not significant (t(798) = 1.86 and 3.03, p < .01). For preparedness behavior, the mean scores were very low and although the participant group (M = .35; SD = .67) had a significantly higher score than did the nonparticipant group (M = .18; SD = .51) (t(798) = 4.18, p < .001, two-tailed), the scores for the groups were generally very low.
Regression Analyses
In order to examine the variables that are related to disaster cognitions/emotions and preparedness behaviors, six separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted.
Prior to conducting a series of regression analyses, zero order correlations between possible independent and dependent variables (i.e., disaster expectation, worry about future disasters, loss expectation, beliefs in mitigation, and preparedness) and number of preparedness behaviors were obtained. This analysis revealed that the following were significantly related to dependent variables: gender (1 = female, 2 = male), years of education, marital status (1 = married, 2 = not married), household size (number of people living at the same home), house ownership (0 = owner, 1 = rented); house type (0 = nonreinforced concrete; 1 = reinforced concrete), household properties (calculated by summing up the ownership of 10 listed household appliances or consumer items, such as a refrigerator, television, washing machine, dishwasher, radio/tape recorder, telephone, and car), participation in awareness training (1 = participated; 0 = did not participate), anxiety (the sum of the anxiety factor items of the SCL-40), locus of control. Although age was not significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables, it was included in the regression analyses as a control variable (1 The correlation matrix can be obtained from the authors upon request).
In all of the six analyses, a similar set of independent variables was used and they were entered in three blocks. In the first block, personal and residential variables [i.e., gender, age, years of education, marital status, household size (number of people living at the same home), house ownership status, house type, household properties (number of consumer items)] were entered. In the second block participation in awareness training (0 = no; 1 = yes) was entered. In the third block anxiety and locus of control scores were entered. Conversely, in the analysis for actual preparedness behaviors, disaster expectation, worry about disasters, loss expectation, and beliefs about mitigation and preparedness were also entered in the third block. Table 2 contains the results of the six regression analyses.
Predictors of Disaster Expectation
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that the 11 predictor variables explained 8% of the variance in disaster expectation (F(11, 547) = 4.08, p < .001). In the final analysis, household property (β = .09, t = 2.03, p < .05), participation in awareness training (0 = no; 1 = yes) (β = .19, t = 4.35, p < .001) and anxiety (β = .14, t = 3.23, p < .001) appeared as significant predictors of disaster expectation. Thus, having more household property, participating in training, and being more anxious seem to be related to higher expectations for the occurrence of future disasters.
Table 2. Predictors of the Cognitive/Emotional Variables Related to Disasters and Preparedness Behavior
Notes: 1 Beta, standardized coefficients are given; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Predictors of Worry About Future Disasters
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that the 11 predictor variables explained 10% of the variance in worry (F(11, 551) = 5.23, p < .001). In the final step, gender (1 = female, 2 = male) (β = -.14, t = -3.15, p < .01), years of education, (β = -.12, t = -2.61, p < .01), marital status (1 = married, 2 = not married) (β = -.10, t = -2.14, p < .05), household property (β = .11, t = 2.38, p < .05), participation in awareness training (1 = yes, 0 = no) (β = .16, t = 3.88, p < .001), and anxiety (β = .11, t = 2.61, p < .01) appeared as significant predictors of worry. So, being female and being married, having lower levels of education, having more property, participating in disaster training and anxiety are related to worries about future disasters.
Predictors of Loss Estimation From Future Disasters
All the predictors explained 6% of the variance in loss estimation (F(11, 534) = 2.76, p < .01). In the last step, gender (β = -.13, t = -2.72, p < .01), marital status (β = -.12, t = -2.42, p < .05), and participation in awareness training (β = .13, t = 2.95, p < .01) appeared as significant predictors of loss estimation from future disasters. Thus, being female, being married and participation in training are related to higher estimations of loss from future disasters. All the predictors explained 6% of the variance in loss estimation (F(11, 534) = 2.76, p < .01). In the last step, gender (β = -.13, t = -2.72, p < .01), marital status (β = -.12, t = -2.42, p < .05), and participation in awareness training (β = .13, t = 2.95, p < .01) appeared as significant predictors of loss estimation from future disasters. Thus, being female, being married and participation in training are related to higher estimations of loss from future disasters.
Predictors of Belief in the Possibility of Mitigation
For beliefs in the possibility of mitigation the 11 predictor variables explained 15% of the variance (F(11, 554) = 8.78, p < .001). Years of education, (β = .13, t = 2.96, p < .01), household size (β = -.10, t = -2.21, p < .05), participation in awareness training (β = .08, t = 1.95, p < .05), and locus of control (β = -.27, t = - 6.55, p < .001) appeared as significant predictors of mitigation. So, having more education, having a smaller household, participation in training, and finally having internal locus of control are related to beliefs in mitigation.
Predictors of Beliefs in Preparedness
Eleven predictors explained 17% of the variance in beliefs in preparedness (F (11, 554) = 9.99, p < .001). Years of education, (β = .15, t = 3.29, p < .001), house-hold size (β = -.09, t = -2.18, p < .05), participation in awareness training (β = .16, t = 3.11, p < .001), locus of control (β = -.26, t = -6.39, p < .001) appeared as significant predictors of beliefs in the possibility of preparedness. So, having more education, having a smaller household, being a participant, and finally having internal locus of control are related to beliefs in the possibility of preparedness.
Predictors of Preparedness Behavior
In this analysis, disaster expectation, worry, and loss expectation, beliefs in mitigation and preparedness were also entered in the third block. The 16 predictor variables explained 11% of the variance in preparedness behavior (F(16, 527) = 3.97, p < .001). In the final step gender (β = .09, t = 2.02, p < .05), years of education (β = .15, t = 3.07, p < .01), house ownership (β = .10, t = 2.13, p < .05), participation in awareness training (β = .15, t = 3.37, p < .001), and worry about disasters (β = .14, t = 2.53, p < .01) appeared to be significant. Thus, males, those having more education, living in a rented house, being a participant in the disaster awareness training program, and worry about future disasters appeared important for actual preparedness behaviors.
Discussion
In this study we aimed to assess the impact of a disaster awareness training program on disaster-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors. A group of adults who did not participate in such a disaster awareness training program was also evaluated in order to understand the impact of being exposed to disaster awareness training. The results revealed that the participants had higher threat perceptions as compared to nonparticipants. They had higher disaster expectations, loss estimations, and worry about future earthquakes. Furthermore, among the predictors of these three cognitive variables being a participant in the training program appeared as a significant variable. Thus, it seems that an 8-hour awareness program led to heightened awareness. This is an important finding within the context of the PrE model (Duval & Mulilis, 1999; Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990; Mulilis & Duval, 1997). According to this model the fact that the participants in the training program had a higher appraisal of threat is suggested as being conducive to adaptive behavior, provided that they also appraise their own resources as sufficient. Two other cognitive variables were used in the present study, “belief in the possibility of mitigation and preparedness”, which were examined to assess whether or not individuals believe that reducing disaster damage and being prepared are possible. On these two variables, although the participants had slightly higher scores than the nonparticipants, the differences between the two groups were not significant. Thus, although risk awareness was higher among the participants, beliefs about doing something about it were not significantly different in the two groups. However, for both these variables being a participant was significant in the regression analysis after controlling for other variables. This result indicated that participation also had a positive impact on beliefs about mitigation and preparedness.
Considering that 3 was the maximum score on these variables, an inspection of the means for both groups reveals that they are both above 2, and thus quite high. This may be related to the extensive media coverage of disasters and methods for mitigation and preparedness following the 1999 Marmara earthquake. The extensive impact of this earthquake might have led to a general awareness of the possibility of mitigation and preparedness in Turkey. For this reason the control group, who did not report having had a formal disaster awareness training experience, may have also developed these favorable cognitions for disaster mitigation and preparedness. This issue needs to be examined in the future when a massive disaster experience is not so prominent.
A crucial issue for disaster awareness training programs is to motivate individuals to take appropriate action. Thus, in this regard, the present results showed that the participants in the program had engaged in significantly more preparedness behaviors. However, the mean values for preparedness behaviors were very low. This is a disheartening result and indicates that, with a short training program, although hazard-related cognitions could be influenced it is difficult to facilitate behavioral change. In order to have an impact on actual preparedness behaviors the programs may need to be longer and other concerns of the community members may need to be reduced. During the final meeting with the local trainers this group reported that although the training was received with enthusiasm and interest, the participants in the trainers’ sessions stated that they have other concerns in life, such as economic hardship, problems with their health and meeting the financial costs of their children’s education. An in-depth analysis of the concerns of the participants needs to be conducted in future studies in order to understand reasons for not engaging in preparedness behaviors.
As proposed by the PrE model, the appraisal of the coping resources of individuals is also important for adaptive behavior. In our study, a direct examination of the appraisals of the sample on their resources was not made. However, personal resources were assessed by using certain sociodemographic (e.g., education; household property) and personality variables (internal locus of control). The results of the regression analysis revealed that cognitive variables, reflecting threat appraisals (expectation of disasters, worry about disasters, and loss estimation for future disasters) were all related to gender. Women tended to have higher disaster expectations, more worry, and higher loss estimations. Furthermore, household property and being married were related to threat perceptions, showing that the more individuals have at stake the more threat they perceive. Education appeared to be important only for the worry dimension. The more education people had the less worry they reported about future disasters. Furthermore, education was found to be related to beliefs in mitigation and the possibility of preparedness. Education was also found to be an important predictor of preparedness behavior in previous studies (Kasapoglu & Ecevit, 2003; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). Thus, education seems to be an important resource for decreasing the worry of individuals and giving them a sense of control in relation to mitigation and preparedness. Similarly, locus of control was found to be related to beliefs in mitigation and preparedness. Thus, individuals who have an internal locus of control, believing that they can exert control over events, are more likely to believe in the possibility of their controlling the harmful consequences of disasters (mitigation and preparedness). Anxiety, as an affective variable, was a significant predictor of disaster expectations and worry about future disasters. Thus, being very anxious seems to lead to higher threat perceptions.
Limitations
The regression analysis about disaster-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors revealed low beta coefficients resulting in low levels of explained variance (R2). Our indicators of cognitions and beliefs were Likert-type measures with only 3 response options, rather than 5. This was used due to difficulties reported in our pilot testing for the comprehension of 5-point scales. This might have limited a better assessment of variation. Our measure of preparedness behavior was also such that the mean for preparedness behaviors was very low. The measure for preparedness behavior that we used was quite conservative. In future studies a more detailed analysis of preparedness behaviors needs to be adopted.
Implications
Overall, the results showed that for all disaster-related cognitions being a participant in the disaster awareness training program made a difference. It seems that the program was powerful in preparing individuals cognitively to tackle future disasters. In spite of this, being men, having a higher level of education, having a smaller household size, worrying about future disasters, and – most important of all – participating in even a short disaster awareness program, contributed to disaster preparedness behaviors. This shows that in developing countries like Turkey, the challenge is to find means and support mechanisms to motivate community members to engage in actual preparedness behaviors. Almost none of the people in our sample engaged in strengthening their buildings against future disasters. This requires high levels of economic resources. For such kinds of committed mitigation behaviors not only the individual but also the community and state resources need to be mobilized. Even after such a large- scale disaster as the Marmara earthquake of 1999 and although Turkey is a country in which almost 90% of the population lives on earthquake-prone areas, the Turkish state and civil society do not seem to have reached the point of having cognitions and behaviors necessary for effective disaster mitigation and preparedness. The present program can be considered as a small step in this direction.
Aksit, B., Karanci, A. N., & Anafarta, M. (2002). Disaster preparedness training through local trainers: An implementation and assessment in a province of Turkey. Paper presented at “Hazards 2002 – Ninth International Symposium on Natural and Human-made hazards: Disaster Mitigation in the Perspective of the New Millennium”, Antalya, Turkey.
Asgary, A., & Willis, K. (1997). Household behavior in response to earthquake risk: An assessment of alternative theories. Disasters, 21, 354-365.
Bowen, C. F., & Faison, N. (2002). Using simple training methods to motivate consumers to prepare for emergencies. Journal of Extensions, 40, 1-10.
Dag, I. (2002). Kontrol Odagi Ölcegi (KOÖ): Ölcek gelistirme, güvenirlik ve gecerlik calismasi [Locus of Control Scale: Scale development, reliability and validity]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 17, 77-90.
Derogatis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: A study of construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 981-989.
Duval, T. S., & Mulilis, J.-P. (1999). A person-relative-to -event (PrE) approach to negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 495-516.
Ecevit, M., & Kasapoğlu, A. (2002). Demographic and psychosocial features and their effects on the survivors of the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 30, 195-202.
FEMA. (2000). http://www.fema.gov
Janis, I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and experimental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 166-124). New York: Academic.
Karanci, N. A., & Rüstemli, A. (1995). Psychological consequences of the 1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake. Disasters, 19, 8-18.
Karanci, N. A., Alkan, N., Aksit, B., Sucuoglu, H., & Balta, E. (1999). Gender differences in psychological distress, coping, social support and related variables following the 1995 Dinar (Turkey) earthquake. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 189-204.
Karanci, N. A., & Aksit, B. (1999). Strengthening community participation in disaster management by strengthening governmental and non-governmental organizations and networks: A case study from Dinar and Bursa (Turkey). The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 13, 35-39.
Karanci, N. A., & Aksit, B. (2000). Building disaster resistant communities: Lessons learned from past earthquakes in Turkey and suggestions for the future. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18, 403-416.
Kasapoğlu, A., & Ecevit, M. (2003). Impact of the 1999 East Marmara earthquake in Turkey. Population and Environment, 24, 339-358
Kasapoğlu, A., Ecevit, Y., & Ecevit, M. (2004). Support needs of the survivors of the August 17, 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 66, 229-248.
Lopez-Vazquez, E., & Marvan, M. W. (2003). Risk perception, stress and coping strategies in two catastrophe risk situations. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 31, 61-70.
Morrissey, S. A., & Reser, J. P. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of psychological preparedness advice in community cyclone preparedness materials. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 18, 46-61.
Mulilis, J.-P., Duval, T. S., & Lippa, R. A. (1990). The effects of a large, destructive local earthquake on earthquake preparedness as assessed by an earthquake preparedness scale. Natural Hazards, 3, 357-371.
Mulilis, J.-P., & Duval, T. S. (1997). The PrE model of coping and tornado preparedness: Moderating effects of responsibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1750-1766.
Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2003). Preparedness for emergency response: Guidelines for the emergency planning process. Disasters, 27, 336-350.
Rincon E., Linares, M. Y.-R., & Greenberg, B. (2001). Effect of previous experience of a hurricane on preparedness for future hurricanes. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 19, 276-279.
Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M. (2003). Hazards education for youth: A quasi-experimental investigation. Risk Analysis, 23, 1009-1020.
Rustemli, A., & Karanci, N. A. (1999). Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behavior in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 91-101.
Table 1. Subjects’ Characteristics
Table 2. Predictors of the Cognitive/Emotional Variables Related to Disasters and Preparedness Behavior
Notes: 1 Beta, standardized coefficients are given; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.