IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i9p1883-d166719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model: An Analysis of Individual Decision Making Process toward Residential Seismic Strengthening

Author

Listed:
  • Hao-Teng Cheng

    (Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan)

  • Ko-Wan Tsou

    (Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan)

Abstract

Mitigation policy is regarded as an effective strategy to achieve the purpose of building health resilience and reducing disaster risk with the current high frequency of environmental event occurrences. To enhance public acceptance of mitigation policy, the issue of decision-making behavior has been a concern of researchers and planners. In the past literature, qualitative measures employed to reveal the behavioral intention of hazard risk mitigation cause restricted outcomes due to the problem of sample representativeness and the fact that quantitative research is restricted to discuss the linear relationship between the two selected variables. The purpose of this article is to attempt to construct a Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model (MPAM) to analyze the behavioral intention of seismic risk mitigation strategies. Based on Dual Processing Theory, affective is conducted as the core variable for constructing two types of thinking processes, and the variables of risk perception, trust and responsibility are selected in MPAM from theories and past research. In this study, the mitigation policy of residential seismic strengthening, adapted in Yongkang District of Tainan, has been conducted as the case study. According to the results, the result of model fit test has confirmed the MPAM framework, and two thinking modes could be associated together when people face a risky decision-making process. The variable of affective is the most effective factor to influence each variable, and a direct effect on intention is also shown in this model. The results could provide suggestions in communication risk strategies for the government.

Suggested Citation

  • Hao-Teng Cheng & Ko-Wan Tsou, 2018. "Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model: An Analysis of Individual Decision Making Process toward Residential Seismic Strengthening," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:9:p:1883-:d:166719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/9/1883/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/9/1883/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ke Cui & Ziqiang Han & Dongming Wang, 2018. "Resilience of an Earthquake-Stricken Rural Community in Southwest China: Correlation with Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. Temitope Egbelakin & Suzanne Wilkinson & Regan Potangaroa & Jason Ingham, 2011. "Enhancing seismic risk mitigation decisions: a motivational approach," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(10), pages 1003-1016.
    4. Michael K. Lindell & Sudha Arlikatti & Carla S. Prater, 2009. "Why People Do What They Do to Protect Against Earthquake Risk: Perceptions of Hazard Adjustment Attributes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1072-1088, August.
    5. Michael K. Lindell & David J. Whitney, 2000. "Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 13-26, February.
    6. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz & Cathie Carlisle, 1999. "Public Support For Earthquake Risk Mitigation In Portland, Oregon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 205-216, April.
    7. Nicola Banwell & Shannon Rutherford & Brendan Mackey & Roger Street & Cordia Chu, 2018. "Commonalities between Disaster and Climate Change Risks for Health: A Theoretical Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-11, March.
    8. Douglas Paton & Robert Bajek & Norio Okada & David McIvor, 2010. "Predicting community earthquake preparedness: a cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 54(3), pages 765-781, September.
    9. Neumayer, Eric & Plümper, Thomas & Barthel, Fabian, 2014. "The political economy of natural disaster damage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50699, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Iuliana Armaş, 2008. "Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 47(3), pages 397-410, December.
    11. Julia Becker & Douglas Paton & David Johnston & Kevin Ronan, 2012. "A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 64(1), pages 107-137, October.
    12. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    13. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dingde Xu & Zhuolin Yong & Xin Deng & Yi Liu & Kai Huang & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2019. "Financial Preparation, Disaster Experience, and Disaster Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence From the Wenchuan and Lushan Earthquakes in China’s Sichuan Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    3. Dingde Xu & Chen Qing & Xin Deng & Zhuolin Yong & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2020. "Disaster Risk Perception, Sense of Pace, Evacuation Willingness, and Relocation Willingness of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    4. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    5. Yue ‘Gurt’ Ge & Michael K Lindell, 2016. "County planners’ perceptions of land-use planning tools for environmental hazard mitigation: A survey in the U.S. Pacific states," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(4), pages 716-736, July.
    6. Dingde Xu & Wenfeng Zhou & Xin Deng & Zhixing Ma & Zhuolin Yong & Cheng Qin, 2020. "Information credibility, disaster risk perception and evacuation willingness of rural households in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(3), pages 2865-2882, September.
    7. Yilin Zou & Alexia Stock & Rachel Davidson & Linda Nozick & Joseph Trainor & Jamie Kruse, 2020. "Perceived attributes of hurricane-related retrofits and their effect on household adoption," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 201-224, October.
    8. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    9. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    10. Junlei Yu & Timothy Sim & Wenhua Qi & Zhe Zhu, 2020. "Communication with Local Officials, Self-Efficacy, and Individual Disaster Preparedness: A Case Study of Rural Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Tianzhuo Liu & Huifang Jiao, 2018. "How does information affect fire risk reduction behaviors? Mediating effects of cognitive processes and subjective knowledge," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(3), pages 1461-1483, February.
    12. Dingde Xu & Yi Liu & Xin Deng & Chen Qing & Linmei Zhuang & Zhuolin Yong & Kai Huang, 2019. "Earthquake Disaster Risk Perception Process Model for Rural Households: A Pilot Study from Southwestern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    13. Yibin Ao & Hongying Zhang & Linchuan Yang & Yan Wang & Igor Martek & Gang Wang, 2021. "Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(2), pages 1287-1310, June.
    14. Nicolás C Bronfman & Pamela C Cisternas & Paula B Repetto & Javiera V Castañeda, 2019. "Natural disaster preparedness in a multi-hazard environment: Characterizing the sociodemographic profile of those better (worse) prepared," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Julia S. Becker & Douglas Paton & David M. Johnston & Kevin R. Ronan, 2013. "Salient Beliefs About Earthquake Hazards and Household Preparedness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1710-1727, September.
    17. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    18. Alex Lo & Lewis Cheung, 2015. "Seismic risk perception in the aftermath of Wenchuan earthquakes in southwestern China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 78(3), pages 1979-1996, September.
    19. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    20. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:9:p:1883-:d:166719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.