Social Predictors Of Intention To Prepare

604 views

Published on

Published in: Travel, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
604
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
253
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Predictors Of Intention To Prepare

  1. 1. Social Predictors of Intention to Prepare for Volcanic Hazards case study: Merapi Volcano, Indonesia Saut Sagala PhD Student, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University Supervisor: Prof Norio Okada Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University Syakai Bosai Seminar, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University – Sept 7-8, 2008
  2. 2. Research Background <ul><li>Disaster Preparedness at Household or personal level. </li></ul><ul><li>Issue of community participation </li></ul><ul><li>The link between personal, community and institutional factors </li></ul>
  3. 3. General Framework Personal Community Institutional Q1 Q2 Q3… Q1 Q2 Q3… Q1 Q2 Q3…
  4. 4. Contributing Factors Negative Outcome Expectancy Positive Outcome Expectancy Community Participation Trust Collective Efficacy Empowerment Critical Awareness Action Coping Self Efficacy Sense of Community Articulating Problem Social Support Personal Community Institutional
  5. 5. Model in New Zealand P P C C I I Source: Paton et al 2008 0.37 0.98 0.99 0.052 R 2 NFI GFI RMSEA
  6. 6. Survey : Jan – Feb 2008 <ul><li>Questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>322 samples </li></ul><ul><li>5 villages </li></ul><ul><li>Random </li></ul>Study Area
  7. 7. Sample Characteristics <ul><li>60% farmer </li></ul><ul><li>32% sand miner </li></ul><ul><li>30% dairy man </li></ul>96% male 4% female < 12,500 / month 70% 25% 12,500 – 25,000 / month Occupations Type of House <ul><li>Concrete (80%) </li></ul><ul><li>Wood (20%) </li></ul>Sex Income
  8. 8. History of Eruptions 1994 2006 year 66 2 1930 1369 1953 64 loss of life 1997 6 missing
  9. 9. This Research <ul><li>Do the communities learn? </li></ul><ul><li>What sort of factors are involved and play roles? </li></ul><ul><li>What factors are managable to be changed? </li></ul>
  10. 10. x 2 = 1896.3, df = 889 Social Predictors: 1 st Model 12% 0.119 0.438 0.586 0.779 0.070 0.070 R 2 NFI CFI GFI RMR RMSEA
  11. 11. x 2 = 683.9, df = 354 Social Predictors: 2 nd Model 26% 0.258 0.621 0.764 0.877 0.053 0.054 R 2 NFI CFI GFI RMR RMSEA
  12. 12. x 2 = 1247.5, df = 645 Social Predictors: 3 rd Model 27% 0.268 0.501 0.664 0.832 0.054 0.054 R 2 NFI CFI GFI RMR RMSEA
  13. 13. Conclusion… so far <ul><li>Negative outcome expectancy (-0.31) </li></ul><ul><li>Intention to seek for information - ISI (0.48) </li></ul><ul><li>Community participation (0.22) </li></ul><ul><li>Action coping (0.40) </li></ul>4 direct factors <ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Self Efficacy </li></ul>2 indirect factors
  14. 14. Conclusion… so far High influence by factors at personal / household level Community and institutional factors play role too Construction of model of social predictors of intention to prepare (model 2 and 3)
  15. 15. Thank you very much どもありがとうございます

×