Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
DOI https://doi.org/10.31876/er.v6i44.835
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological
hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Explicando la preparación ante riesgos hidrometeorológicos. Un estudio
exploratorio en México
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez*
Pilar Arroyo*
Received: July 12, 2022
Approved: January 09, 2023
* Engineering School, Universidad
Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM).
Postal address: Cerro de Coatepec S/N,
Ciudad Universitaria, 50110 Toluca de
Lerdo, Méx. llozah@uaemex.mx.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5107-7110
* EGADE, Business School del
Tecnológico de Monterrey campus
Toluca, México. Postal address: Avenida
Eduardo Monroy Cárdenas 2000, San
Antonio Buenavista, 50110, Toluca de
Lerdo, Mexico. pilar.arroyo@tec.mx.
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6160-871X.
Abstract
This study explores how the threat and appraisal constructs proposed
by the Protection Motivation Theory affect preparedness behavior
towards hydrometeorological hazards contingent to the confidence
on the governmental support, the individual’s social vulnerability, and
his/her previous experience with a natural threat. Data from an online
survey of residents of two Mexican coastal counties was used to
provide empirical support to the conceptual model developed. The
analytical results of structural equation modelling indicate that a high
confidence in the authorities’ support has a non-significant effect on
preventive behaviors but negatively affects the perceived coping self-
efficacy of socially vulnerable individuals. Additionally, preparedness
behavior is triggered by risk or coping factors depending on the
previous experience with an hydrometeorological hazard. These
findings advise to 1) better manage the expectations of socially
disadvantaged residents regarding the governmental assistance by
improving their self-protection ability towards natural threats, and 2)
offset the decreased risk perception of households who are exposed
to hydrometeorological warnings regularly. The main limitation of this
study is the small purposing sample used to empirically validate the
model proposed. An extensive study based on a probabilistic sample
of coastal communities of Mexico is recommended to confirm the
findings of this exploratory research.
Keywords:
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), hydrometeorological
disasters, governmental support, social-vulnerability.
Cite this:
Loza-Hernandez, L., Arroyo, P.
(2023
).
Explaining preparedness
towards hydrometeorological
hazards. An exploratory study in
Mexico. Espirales. Revista
Multidisciplinaria de investigación
científica, 7 (45), 62-87
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
63
Introduction
A disaster, natural or man-made, is defined as “a major hazard event that causes
widespread disruption to a community or region that the affected community is unable
to deal with adequately without outside help” (IB Geography, definitions, p. 1). The
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (Emergency Events
Database [EM-DAT], 2021) reported 389 natural disasters in 2020, that killed 15,080
people, affected 98.4 million of people and cost US $171.3 billion. In 2020, floods and
storms were the most common type of disaster (201 events) that affected 45.5 million
people and caused economic losses for US $92.7 billion. In México,
hydrometeorological events hit the coast of Mexico recurrently; the most affected states
are Veracruz located in the Gulf of Mexico and Oaxaca and Chiapas in the Pacific Coast
(Alcántara-Ayala, 2020). During 2020 these hazards represented 83.4% of the total
economic losses due to disasters (approx. US $16 millions) (CENAPRED, 2021).
Preparedness, defined as an individual’s capacity to manage, adapt, respond, and
recover from a disaster, is critical to reduce the potential consequences of natural
Resumen
Este estudio explora como los constructos de la Teoría de la
Motivación Protectora afectan las conductas de preparación para
afrontar riesgos hidro-meteorológicos condicionadas a la confianza
en el apoyo del gobierno, la vulnerabilidad social del individuo y la
experiencia previa con una amenaza natural. Los datos de una
encuesta en línea aplicada a residentes de dos municipios costeros
mexicanos se utilizaron para dar apoyo empírico al modelo
conceptual desarrollado. Los resultados analíticos del modelado con
ecuaciones estructurales indican que una alta confianza en el apoyo
de las autoridades no tiene un efecto significante en las conductas de
prevención, pero afecta negativamente la autoeficacia para enfrentar
el peligro en los individuos socialmente vulnerables. Adicionalmente,
las conductas de preparación son estimuladas por factores de riesgo
o afrontamiento dependiendo de la experiencia previa con una
amenaza hidro-meteorológica. Estos hallazgos proponen: 1) manejar
mejor las expectativas de los residentes en desventaja social con
relación a la asistencia del gobierno para que mejoren su habilidad
para autoprotegerse en caso de un peligro natural, y 2) contrarrestar
la percepción de menor riesgo de los residentes que están expuestos
regularmente a advertencias de amenazas hidro-meteorológicas. La
principal limitación del estudio es la muestra pequeña con fines
especiales que se utilizó para validar empíricamente el modelo
sugerido. Un estudio extensivo basado en una muestra probabilística
de comunidades costeras de México es recomendable para confirmar
los hallazgos de esta investigación exploratoria.
Palabras clave:
Teoría de Motivación Protectora (TMP), desastres
hidro-meteorológicos, apoyo gubernamental, vulnerabilidad social.
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
64
hazards. However, unless there is a sense of immediate need, instructing households
about how to plan and respond to a threat is rarely a priority even in disaster-prone
regions (Alexander, 2012; Lopez-Vargas & Cardenas-Aguirre, 2017; Miller, Adame, &
Moore, 2013). The National System of Civil Protection (Sinaproc), the Mexican entity
responsible of managing disasters and hazards, mainly acts in response to emergencies,
leaving to communities, local public, and private organizations the major responsibility
to perform the preparation actions that help individuals to decrease the risk of personal
injury or property damage due to a hazard. Najafi et al. (2017) argued that disaster
preparedness is a type of health-protective behavior, thus behavioral theories are a
proper approach to understand the factors that motivate or inhibit natural disaster
preparedness behaviors. From this perspective, natural disaster preparedness is
explained by variables such as the adaptive capacities, the sense of social support, and
the perception of risk towards the occurrence of extraordinary events (Paton & Johnson,
2001).
The appropriate allocation of ex ante and ex post budgeting for disasters is relevant in
designing effective disaster policies given the burden of the non-monetary cost of
human suffering and the high cost to the government of providing disaster relief and
recovery after the event occurrence (ex post). If disaster prevention is appropriate,
human suffering decreases, the economic activities are suspended less time, and the
resilience of the population increases thus decreasing the expenditure. According to
the National Center for Disaster Prevention (CENAPRED), the economic impact of
damages and losses due to natural events increased 202% in 2020 (approx. US$16
million which represents 0.14% of Mexican GDP) (Forbes, 2021, CENAPRED, 2021).
Although there have been advances in the efficiency of civil protection in Mexico, there
is a need for multidisciplinary research to revising the current role, functionality, and
effectiveness of the National Civil Protection System. From a social perspective,
enhancing the understanding of the psychographic variables and environmental factors
that affect the preparation behavior towards natural hazards is relevant for the design
of an integral disaster management system, particularly in developing countries where
socioeconomic characteristics are different to those in developed countries where
theories have been originated and empirically tested (Ejeta et al., 2016; Shapira,
Aharonson-Daniela, & Bar-Dayana, 2018). To close this gap in the literature, the
objective of this study was to assess the influence that the constructs comprising the
two processes of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) have on the preparedness of
residents of two Mexican coastal counties that recurrently face hydrometeorological
hazards. The direct and indirect effect of trust and confidence in the authorities’ support
on the residents’ ex ante preparation behaviors, and the moderating effect of social
vulnerability and previous experience were also explored. This work is organized as
follows: the next section identifies the main health behavioral models used to
explain/predict disaster preparedness, and describes previous works that have applied
the PMT. The section ends with the explanation of the conceptual model proposed to
predict preparation behaviors or preparedness. The third section describes the methods
and measurement instrument used to survey residents of two coastal counties in Mexico
to empirically validate the conceptual model, while the fourth section discusses the
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
65
analytical results of the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Conclusions, academic and practical implications are presented in the final section.
Several behavioral theories have been applied to explain disaster preparation behaviors
at the individual level (Asnarulkhadi et al., 2019). Among the most cited are the Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), the Social-cognitive Preparation
Model (Paton, 2003), the Health Belief Model (Sharma & Romas, 2008), the Protection
Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1983), and the Extended Parallel Process Model of fear
appeals (EPPM) (Ejeta, Ardelan & Paton, 2015). Except by the TPB, these theories
consider the effect of risk perceptions on a range of preparedness actions towards
different types of disasters (Bourque, Regan, Keally, & Wook, 2013). Risk perceptions
are determined by assessing the negative consequences of a hazard, the perceived
exposure or vulnerability to the event, its imminence, and the concern about the hazard
(Shapira et al., 2018). These perceptions involve a cognitive and an affective component
from which the affective or emotional component seems to have the major influence on
disaster preparedness (Miceli, Sotgiu, & Settanni, 2008). Extant research suggests that
risk perception is a necessary but not sufficient predictor of preparedness, and its effect
is mediated or moderated by demographics and psychographic constructs (Bourque et
al., 2013). For example, Ng (2022) found risk perceptions positively influenced
preparedness intentions towards typhoons in Hong Kong, partially mediated by the TPB
constructs subjective norm, attitudes, and perceived control.
This work applies the PMT, a pragmatic, well-documented, robust, and flexibly theory,
that can be straightforward implemented to improve household preparedness towards
a variety of natural hazards (Bamberg, Masson, Brewitt, & Nemetschek, 2017; Bubeck,
Botzen, Laudan, Aerts, & Thieken, 2017). The PMT proposes people are motivated to
protect themselves driven by a threat appraisal and a coping appraisal process. The
threat appraisal ponders the severity and self-vulnerability towards the hazard, that is,
is related with the assessment of the risk. While the coping appraisal deals with the
beliefs about the effectiveness of the protective actions and the capabilities to change
current behavior to enhance preparedness. For example, Westcott, Ronan, and
Bambrick (2017) discuss how the PMT processes supplemented by trust in emergency
services and oneself, uncertainty on the information about the hazard, prior experience,
complexity of the social microclimate, and concerns about animal management affects
evacuation in case of bushfires in Australia. McCaughey, Mundir, Dalya, Mahdic, & Patt
(2017) also extended the PMT by exploring how the social influence (official information,
disaster training, and influence of close social groups) affect different coping appraisal
actions related to tsunami evacuation of buildings. Results show that social influence
and the coping appraisal constructs, especially self-efficacy, significantly affect future
evacuation actions.
Tang and Feng (2018) explicitly add “obstacles” (lack of preparedness knowledge, time,
and economic resources) to the PMT to explain disaster preparedness intentions of
Taiwanese households. Findings indicate that self-efficacy is positively and significantly
related to preparedness intentions, while obstacles negatively affect the behavior. Risk
perceptions did not affect disaster preparedness intentions. This unforeseen result was
attributed to low-risk perceptions after experiencing a recent earthquake, and potential
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
66
interactions between risk perception with the coping appraisal constructs and obstacles.
Botzen, Kunreuther, Czajkowski, & de Moel (2019) extend the PMT to explain flood
preparedness decisions among New York residents who live in flood-prone areas by
considering risk attitudes, time preferences, social norms, trust, and local flood risk
management policies. Results reveal households living in high flood risk zones take
more preparedness actions than residents of low-risk zones due to high threat appraisal.
Self-efficacy, effectiveness of preparedness behavior, risk attitudes, and time
preferences positively affect preparedness while the investment on preparation for
flooding is negatively related with expectations of receiving federal disaster assistance.
Yoo, Lee, Yoo, & Xiao (2021) explore how the quality of the argument and the source
credibility of short message disaster alerts influence the adaptive copings of individuals.
The study shows the PMT constructs moderate the elaboration likelihood, that is how
people process the alerts, change attitudes and consequently behavior. People with
high risk and coping efficacy perceptions thoroughly think over their decision to act,
that is they chose the central route. In comparison, when the threat and coping
assessment are quick and fuzzy, individuals are more easily persuaded by the message
and chose the peripheral route. Based on the empirical evidence regarding the ability
of the PMT to explain disaster preparedness, the first set of research hypotheses are
formulated:
H1: Higher levels of hydrometeorological hazard severity are associated with
higher levels of preparedness.
H2: Higher levels of perceived vulnerability towards a hydrometeorological
hazard are associated with higher levels of preparedness.
H3: Higher levels of self-efficacy to perform protective actions are associated
with higher levels of preparedness.
H4: Higher levels of perceived efficacy of preparation actions towards a
hydrometeorological hazard are associated with higher levels of preparedness.
Individual characteristics have been considered to explain preparedness intention. For
example, Miller et al. (2013) explained individual disaster preparedness based on an
extended combination of the EPPM and the vested interest theory (VIT). VIT proposes
that an attitude will be a strong predictor of behavior only if it is highly vested. The
concepts of salience, certainty, immediacy, and self-efficacy that the VIT incorporates
predict the attitude-behavioral intention relation. Salience pertains to the perceived
prominence of an attitude-object such as a natural hazard. The certainty and immediacy
refer to the imminent occurrence of the event and self-efficacy to the ability to act.
Individuals who have experienced the negative consequences of a disaster (increased
salience) and live in an area of a high propensity toward natural disasters (increased
certainty) are more likely to create vested attitudes and have stronger risk perceptions
that encourage preparedness behavior (Miller et al., 2013; Terpstra, 2011).
Previous experience with hydrometeorological hazards increases preparedness
depending on the nature and interpretation of the experience. Moreover, the relation
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
67
between experience, risk perceptions, and preparedness may be contingent on the
number of different (direct or indirect) previous experiences, the experienced loss, and
the level of concern (Becker, Paton, Johnston, Ronand, & McCluree, 2017). Bubeck et
al. (2017) operationalized prior flood experience in terms of evacuation experience and
found a positive relationship between hazard experience, risk perceptions, flood
response efficacy, and self-efficacy. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are
formulated:
H5: Prior experience with hazard events moderates the effect of risk perceptions
(vulnerability and severity) on preparedness behavior.
H6: Prior experience with hazard events moderates the effect of preparation
efficacy (self-efficacy and effectiveness of actions) on preparedness behavior.
Several studies conclude that the individual's economic and demographic
characteristics may determine their endurance towards disasters. For example, Annear,
Otani, Gao, & Keeling (2016) identified that older residents with low socioeconomic
background living alone were disproportionately affected by the 2011 earthquake in
Japan. Additionally, the limited access of the elder segment to information and social
networks contributed to increasing its vulnerability. Studies in the USA indicate ethnic
minorities, women, older adults with physical disabilities, and households with poor
English proficiency and lower socioeconomic status are the most vulnerable segment
to hurricanes (Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2013; Zoraster, 2010). Meanwhile, Shapira et al.
(2018) found that older individuals with higher socioeconomic and educational levels,
married with children, and residents in private homes are more prone to perform
preparedness actions in case of earthquakes. Social vulnerability is defined as “the
susceptibility of social groups to the impacts of hazards such as suffering
disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood; as well as their resiliency,
or ability to adequately recover from the impacts” (Martin, 2015, p. 53). Tapsell
McCarthy, Faulkner, and Alexander (2010) reviewed the literature on social vulnerability
towards natural hazards in Europe and identified research gaps in how it is assessed.
Vulnerability is a complex multi-dimensional concept comprising three general
dimensions: physical fragility (e.g. living in irregular settlements), socioeconomic fragility
(e.g. low income), and community resilience. The socioeconomic dimension is of major
interest because it refers to the societal conditions that determine the accessibility to
resources to respond to disasters (Álvarez-Gordillo & Tuñón-Pablos, 2017). Minorities,
children, elderly, and disabled individuals are more socially vulnerable because they
tend to live in more exposed areas and do not have enough resources to anticipate,
respond, resist, and recover from a disaster.
A variety of proxies have been used to measure social vulnerability, including
sociodemographic (for example, income), biological (for example, disabilities),
psychographic (for example, risk aversion), and socio-political (for example, public
policies) indicators (García-Castro & Villerías-Salinas, 2016). Understanding how risk
perceptions and coping responses to natural events, especially self-efficacy, differs
between socially vulnerable groups is a research gap (Álvarez-Gordillo & Tuñón-Pablos,
2017; Bubeck et al., 2017) addressed in the subsequent hypotheses:
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
68
H7: Social vulnerability moderates the effect of risk perceptions (vulnerability and
severity) on preparedness behavior.
H8: Social vulnerability moderates the effect of preparation efficacy (self-efficacy
and anticipatory actions) on preparedness behavior.
Governmental authorities are expected to develop policies, mitigation strategies, make
an objective assessment of the risk of natural hazards and inform communities under
threat, instruct the population about how to act, perform disaster relief operations, and
provide the governance and financial support to re-establish public services, economic,
and social activities. Extant research suggests that individuals will likely rely on the
government for preparedness planning, especially when they lack knowledge about
coping with a hazard (Col, 2007). Terpstra (2011) concludes that citizens that trust public
flood protection actions have lower risk perceptions and less proclivity to take
preemptive measures. DeYoung (2014) explored the effect of confidence in the disaster
management capabilities of local government on preparedness. Results suggest a
complex relationship between confidence in government and preparedness because of
the suppressor effect of overconfidence in government on self-efficacy. Then, the last
research hypotheses are formulated as follows:
H9: Confidence/trust in government support has an indirect effect on disaster
preparedness mediated by self-efficacy. High levels of confidence/trust in government
support reduce the perceived self-efficacy of households.
H10: Confidence/trust in government support has an indirect effect on disaster
preparedness mediated by vulnerability. High levels of confidence/trust in government
support reduces the perceived vulnerability towards a hazard.
H11: Confidence/trust in government support has a direct negative effect on
preparedness behavior.
The research hypotheses are integrated into the model of Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Conceptual model. Source: Own elaboration.
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
69
Materials and methods
Exploratory research was used to provide a better understanding of how social
vulnerabilities and expectations of government assistance modify the appraisal and
coping processes. Thus, the results of the study will enable to set a stronger model that
includes only the critical variables.
The measurement instrument consists of validated scales designed to assess the
theoretical constructs of the model of Figure 1. Most of the scales were adapted from
Kievik and Gutteling (2011), Miller et al. (2013), and Lin, Shaw, and Ho (2007) and
modified according to the socioeconomic profile of the people who participated in the
study. The scales were translated to Spanish and back-translated to ensure their original
meaning was not lost.
The structured questionnaire has seven sections. The items of five of sections (A-D and
G) are in a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. Thus, low values on the scale indicate high levels of the construct. Table 1 details
the number of items comprising the multi-scales and the references used to design
them.
Table 1.
Description of the structured questionnaire used for data collection
Section
Construct
Number
of items
References used to design the multi-
scale
A
Self-efficacy
8
DeYoung (2014),
Kievik and Gutteling (2011),
Miceli et al. (2008).
B
Effectiveness of
responses
6
DeYoung (2014),
Miller et al. (2013),
C
Severity or
prominence of
event risk
8
Lin et al. (2007), Miceli et al. (2008),
Miller et al. (2013)
D
Vulnerability or
hazard-
susceptibility
8
Lin et al. (2007),
Miceli, et al. (2008).
E
Social
vulnerability
11
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley (2003),
Cutter et al. (2013), Martin (2015),
Rufat et al. (2015).
F
Preparedness
9
DeYoung (2014), Lin et al. (2007),
Terpstra (2011).
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
70
G
Government
support
8
Lin et al. (2007),
Terpstra (2011), Wei, Sim, and Han
(2019).
Source: Own elaboration
Trust on government support includes three components (Terpstra, 2011): perceived
competence or expertise of government in disaster management based on past
interventions, perceptions that enough resources are assigned to assist the affected
region, and general trust on the Mexican governmental institutions responsible of
disaster management (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional [SEDENA], Secretaría de
Marina, Guardia Nacional, Protección Civil, Centro Nacional de Prevención de
Desastres [CENAPRED]). Sections E and F use dichotomous scales with options Yes or
No; for example, if the household has a family’s survival emergency kit. The social
vulnerability multi-scale (E) was mainly based on the Social Determinants of Vulnerability
Framework developed by Martin (2015). The multi-scale includes eight pre-incident
socioeconomic factors at the household level: family with small children (< 5 years) and
old adults (> 65 years old), family members with disabilities, chronic or acute medical
illness, single-women household, low income, low educational level, and lack of a
vehicle. The three post-incident items include lack of access to health services, loss of
employment, and insufficient funds for recovery.
Preparedness behaviors may vary depending on the time, place, and type of natural
hazard, but in general they include two elements: preparing an emergency kit and
making an emergency plan (Ng, 2022). The emergency kit is a package of items for
survival including food, water, and first-aid supplies while the emergency plan refers to
practices for handling unexpected situations such as knowing what the warning and
emergency signals for the community are (e.g. emergency alert system broadcasts),
identification of meeting points, shelters, and evacuation routes. A third element related
to property safeguarding (strengthening residential structures, protecting windows and
doors) was also considered.
Hurricanes and cyclones hit Mexico's Pacific coast each year, causing recurrent floods,
economic losses, and human damages. The states of Michoacán and Oaxaca are
continuously affected by these events that sometimes require evacuating the area
severely affecting the residents and business activities. For example, the interruption of
the economic activities of the Port of Lazaro Cárdenas, one of the most important
Mexican ports located in the state of Michoacán, and the damage to its facilities due to
a natural event represents economic losses of approximately USD $300 million (De León
and Loza, 2019). Additionally, the tourism in Mexico which accounts for 8.5% of GDP
(Statista, 2022) is one of the main economic activities in the coastal areas of the state of
Oaxaca that accounts for approximately two thirds of the economic income of the state
and considerably contributes to its socioeconomic development (H. Congreso del
Estado Libre y Soberano de Oaxaca, 2020). These data put forward the significant
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
71
negative effects the hydrometeorological hazards have on the economy of both states
and the welfare of their inhabitants. Accordingly, it looks appropriate to empirically test
the conceptual model of Figure 1 using survey data from households of these two
states.
Students enrolled in two major public universities located in the coastal area of these
two states were invited by their professors to ask their families to answer the survey,
after providing a short verbal explanation of the research project. The survey was posted
online using Google Forms and students asked to invite and assist their parents to
answer the survey using their cell phones or computers. A video of about 2 minutes
long was included at the beginning of the survey to explain the purpose of the research
project, invite households to participate, and assure anonymity. A total of 181 complete
and usable questionnaires responded by the head of the family were obtained after two
months. The data were downloaded to an Excel file and analyzed with SmarPLS
software, Professional version 3.
Results
The PLS-SEM technique was selected because of the method’s flexibility and the
objective of the research, predicting preparedness which is the outcome of all the
psychographic constructs (Hair et al., 2019). Following the assessment process of a
reflective measurement model, the indicator loadings were first examined (Hair et al.,
2019). Most of them were greater than the recommended 0.5 bound, indicating that
the constructs explain more than 30% of the indicator’s variance. Indicators with non-
significant loadings and below the 0.55 threshold were eliminated to purify the scales.
The next step of the model assessment process was analyzing the internal consistency
of the measures. The Cronbach alpha value reported in the first column of Table 2 is
above 0.7 for all constructs except by the preparation behaviors. However, this could
be a result of the use of dichotomous items on the scale. Composite reliability (CR), an
alternative and less biased reliability measure, was also computed. All indexes were
between the recommended limits of 0.7 and 0.9. The values of the average variance
extracted (AVE) were above the acceptable 0.5 bound except again by preparedness
(Hair et al., 2019). The CR and AVE values reported in Table 2 support the convergent
validity of the measurement model.
Table 2.
Reliability indexes
Cronbach's
Alpha
Composite
Reliability
Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)
Self-efficacy
0.850
0.882
0.495
Response-efficacy
0.871
0.898
0.596
Government-
authority
0.876
0.902
0.537
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
72
Preparedness
behaviour
0.631
0.722
0.428
Severity
0.735
0.755
0.501
Vulnerability
0.874
0.888
0.502
Source: Own elaboration.
The discriminant validity of the measurement model was assessed through the
heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). According to the HTMT criterion, values smaller than
one indicate that the two constructs' true correlation differs. Bootstrapping (n = 5000)
was used to build confidence intervals. None of the intervals included 1, thus providing
evidence of discriminant validity.
Once the measurement model's assessment was completed, the conceptual model of
Figure 1 was evaluated. First, the Variance Inflationary Factors (VIF) were examined to
assure there is no bias in the regression results; all VIF’ were highly satisfactory (VIF <2).
The standard criteria for evaluating the structural model include the coefficient of
determination (R
2
), the blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy measure Q
2
, the
residual mean square root (SRMR), and the statistical significance of the path
coefficients. The R
2
range from 52.5 per cent to 72.8 per cent depending on the groups
(high/low vulnerability, experienced/non-experienced previous disasters), which
indicates the model has a moderate to high prediction power on the preparedness-
behaviour of households of coastal areas. The Q
2
combines in-sample explanatory
power and out-of-sample prediction after removing data points for all variables. Q
2
for
the fundamental endogenous construct of preparedness ranged from 0.004 to 0.041
depending on the group. These values indicate a “small” effect size but support the
predictive relevance of the PLS-SEM model. The RMSR = 0.087 was below the
recommended bound of 0.1, thus supporting the good fit of the model.
Finally, the significance of the path coefficients was determined by using full
bootstrapping (n=5000 samples). A multigroup analysis was applied to empirically test
the moderating effect of social vulnerability and previous disaster experience on the
relations between the PMT constructs and preparedness (hypotheses H5-H8). Table 3
shows the multigroup results; the bold font is used to identify coefficients significant at
least at the 10% significance level.
Table 3.
Results of the bootstrapping of the Multigroup Analysis
Path Coefficients
Relation
Non-socially
vulnerable
segment/
non-
Non-socially
vulnerable
segment/
Socially
vulnerable
segment/
Socially
vulnerable
segment/
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
73
experienced
(n=51)
Experienced
(n=29)
non-
experienced
(n=72)
Experienced
(n=29)
Severity -> Preparedness
-0.49
(P = 0.200)
-0.481
(P = 0.275)
-0.150
(P = 0.697)
1.043
(P = 0.174)
Vulnerability ->
Preparedness
-0.42
(P = 0.254)
0.034
(P = 0.893)
-0.413
(P = 0.100)
-0.135
(P = 0.672)
Self-efficacy ->
Preparedness
-0.04
(P = 0.864)
-0.299
(P = 0.252)
-0.279
(P = 0.221)
-0.855
(P = 0.099)
Response-efficacy ->
Preparedness
0.166
(P = 0.551)
0.031
(P = 0.852)
0.324
(P = 0.163)
0.000
(P = 0.997)
Government-authority ->
Self-efficacy
0.245
(P = 0.353)
0.373
(P = 0.175)
0.364
(P = 0.013)
0.552
(P = 000)
Government-authority ->
Preparedness
0.022
(P = 0.930)
-0.17
(P = 0.513)
-0.007
(P = 0.972)
0.011
(P = 0.973)
Government-authority ->
Vulnerability
0.349
(P = 0.447)
0.439
(P = 0.423)
0.069
(P = 0.77)
0.499
(P = 0.135)
Source: Own elaboration.
According to the entries of Table 3, after the sample is stratified by previous disaster
experience and social vulnerability, the only significant coefficients correspond to the
socially vulnerable groups. There are also differences between the significant paths
depending on the previous exposition of socially vulnerable respondents to disasters as
proposed by H5 and H6. The preparedness behavior of the non-socially vulnerable
segment is not explained by the PMT constructs, previous experience with a disaster,
or the confidence in the government humanitarian support. Therefore, the moderator
effect of social vulnerability and disaster experience on the relationship between PMT
constructs and preparedness is supported.
The comparison of the low versus high socially vulnerable segments shown in Table 4
indicates the percentage of socially vulnerable individuals who have taken disaster
preparedness actions is greater than the corresponding percentage of non-socially
vulnerable people, as well as the mean confidence in government humanitarian aid
(mean socially vulnerable group = 2.88, mean of the non-socially vulnerable group =
3.12, t-Student = -1.9, P = 0.03). This unexpected result may be explained in terms of
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
74
resources available to acquire the supplies/services required during and after the
emergency, the family’s mobility, and the own coping and adaptive capacities of less
vulnerable households that result in a minor demand for governmental assistance in
comparison with the socially vulnerable segment (Rufat, Tate, Burton, & Maroof, 2015;
World Health Organization [WHO] Europe Regional Office, 2002).
Table 4.
Comparison of socially vulnerable segments according to the
adoption of disaster preventive practices
Behaviour
Low social
vulnerability
(%)
High social
vulnerability
(%)
Total of
individuals
(%)
Chi-square (P)
Emergency flashlight
and extra batteries
55.00
69.31
62.98
3.919
(P = 0.048)
First aid kit
31.25
38.61
35.36
1.059
(P = 0.303)
Portable stove, can
opener and other basic
kitchen tools
20.00
32.67
27.07
3.632
(P = 0.057)
Pack with basic
medicines
77.50
77.23
77.35
0.002
(P = 0.965)
At least 3-day supply of
non-perishable food
42.50
52.48
48.07
1.779
(P = 0.182)
Cell phone with
chargers and a backup
battery
22.50
28.71
25.97
0.896
(P = 0.344)
At least 3-day supply
(per person) of water
20.00
23.71
22.10
0.367
(P = 0.545)
Preparation of house to
hurricanes
21.25
43.56
33.70
9.948
(P = 0.002)
Fire extinguisher,
wrench, and pliers
5.00
11.88
8.84
2.623
(P = 0.105)
Identification of safe
meeting points (for
example shelters and
relative’s houses)
16.57
37.62
37.57
000
(P = 0.986)
Source: Own elaboration.
The PMT proposes the threat appraisal is a crucial determinant of protection motivation.
However, several studies on flood mitigation fail to confirm this relationship, find a weak
or even negative relationship between perceived disaster risk and preparedness
(Bubeck, Botzen, & Aerts, 2012). Results about the effect of a specific component of risk
perception, vulnerability, on protection intentions are also contradictory (Rufat et al.,
2015). In this research, vulnerability positive and significantly affects the preparedness
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
75
actions of socially vulnerable individuals who have not experienced a
hydrometeorological disaster (low values on the scale indicate high vulnerability while
high scores on preparedness imply more preparation actions are adopted, that is why
the path coefficient is negative). In contrast, individuals who previously experienced
floods (t-Student = 3.1, P = 0.000 for the difference between residence means = 3.6
years) seem to underestimate their vulnerability toward floods maybe because they
have longer times of residence in the region and have experienced only mild events
(Rufat et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2019).
For the sub-segment of disaster-experienced socially vulnerable individuals, the
construct that positively influences preparedness is self-efficacy; the higher the
perceived self-efficacy, the larger the number of protective actions taken. This result
suggests that people who have faced the consequences of a hazard go through a
gradual process of self-assurance that decreases their risk perceptions but makes them
recognize that their own efforts, preparation, and abilities can protect them from future
harm (Babcicky & Seebauer, 2019). However, the relationship between disaster
experience and risk depends on the severity of the experienced damage, and none of
the respondents reported suffering excessive losses or severe injuries (Ohman, 2017).
Therefore, an interesting extension to this research is to segment socially vulnerable
individuals according to their previous hazard experiences and explore how risk
perceptions vary accordingly with the severity of the experience.
Finally, the results of Table 3 indicate that the perceived self-efficacy to execute disaster
preventive actions among socially vulnerable individuals is negatively affected by their
confidence in government support. This effect is highly significant for the two socially
vulnerable sub-segments, individuals who have experienced or not the effect of a
hydrometeorological disaster. Contrary to studies that conclude community's
expectations in government support, trust in public flood planning and infrastructure
protection negatively affect preparedness intentions, in this research the confidence in
authorities’ disaster support had no direct or indirect effect on individual preparedness
(Basolo et al., 2009; Terpstra, 2011).
More recent research (Wei et al., 2019) shows that a higher degree of confidence in
authorities increases the likelihood to perform preparedness actions, but not necessarily
the actual demonstration of each behavior. Then, a possible explanation of our findings
is that we explicitly ask participants if they have already taken preparedness actions.
Table 5 summarizes results regarding the empirical support to the relationships
proposed in the research hypotheses.
Table 5
. Summary of hypotheses testing results
Research
hypothesis
Proposed relationship
Results
H1
Severity (event risk prominence)
→ Preparedness
Unsupported
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
76
H2
Vulnerability (hazard-
susceptibility) → Preparedness
Partially supported.
Weak support (P = .100) only for
the socially vulnerable non-
experienced segment
H3
Self-efficacy → Preparedness
Partially supported.
Weak support (P = .101) only for
socially vulnerable experienced
segment
H4
Efficiency of preemptive actions
→ Preparedness
Unsupported
H5
Disaster experience moderates
the relationship of risk
perceptions on preparedness
Partially supported.
Socially vulnerable individuals
without disaster experience
perceived as more vulnerable.
H6
Disaster experience moderates
the relationship of preemptive
actions' efficacy on
preparedness
Partially supported.
Socially vulnerable individuals with
disaster experience have stronger
self-efficacy perceptions.
H7
Social vulnerability moderates
the relationship of risk
perceptions on preparedness
Partially supported.
Only the vulnerability component
of risk perceptions influences the
preparedness of the socially
vulnerable segment.
H8
Social vulnerability moderates
the relationship of self-efficacy
on preparedness
Supported
H9
Confidence in government
support indirectly affects
preparedness via self-efficacy.
Supported
H10
Confidence in government
support indirectly affects
preparedness via vulnerability.
Unsupported
H11
Confidence in government
support → Preparedness
Unsupported
Source: Own elaboration.
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
77
The main limitation of the results is that they are based on a small sample size
comprising only residents of two coastal counties. Despite this limitation, the study
offers important insights about how to modify the conceptual model of Figure 1 to
improve household preparedness to reduce the adverse effects of hydrometeorological
events on individuals, economic activities, and public expenditure on humanitarian aid.
Babcicky and Seebauer (2019) propose that the dependence on public flood protection
qualifies as a non-protective response rather than a determinant of protective behavior.
By applying the PMT they conclude that two separate paths emerge: a protective route
from coping appraisal to flood preparedness behaviors and a non-protective route from
threat appraisal to the non-protective response. Although self-efficacy was not
considered by Babcicky and Seebauer (2019) as a component of the coping appraisal
process, their research suggests self-efficacy leads to preparedness but only for socially
vulnerable individuals who have previously experienced the effects of a flood. The
comparison between the groups that have experienced, or not previous hazards agrees
with the proposal of Babcicky and Seebauer (2019) about two protection behavioral
routes. This work suggests the protective route is selected by individuals who have
experienced a hydrometeorological hazard while individuals without the experience
follow the non-protective route. Therefore, another extension to this study is to explore
how the protective and non-protective routes function but considering that
overconfidence in governmental support can transfer to public organizations the
responsibility of taking preparedness actions among socially vulnerable individuals.
Results indicate that less socially vulnerable individuals are less likely to adopt
preparedness practices and have lower confidence in governmental humanitarian
assistance. These results may be explained in terms of resource availability (economic,
external aid, disaster management knowledge) and capabilities to respond to a
disaster's consequences without public assistance.
Finally, authors such as Cohen et al. (2013) argue that preparedness is more related to
local leadership and authority than to federal disaster programs. Assessing the effect of
trust/confidence of local authorities on preparedness for a representative sample of
disaster-prone individuals is another extension of this exploratory research.
Conclusions
Mexico is a developing country with a large coastal area hit by hurricanes and cyclones
yearly, causing mild to severe floods. These circumstances make it necessary to increase
the resilience of shore regions through several actions, among them increasing
household preparedness. This work contributes to the disaster management literature
by providing insights about how the variables -social vulnerability, previous experience
with a hydrometeorological warning, and confidence in government’s support-
indirectly influence household preparedness by modifying the risk perceptions and the
perceived self-efficacy of endorsing a coping response. The number of studies that have
jointly explored the effect of the previously cited factors and the PMT constructs on
preparedness behavior in developing countries is limited. Therefore, this work adds to
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
78
the understanding of how to influence the preparedness practices of residents of
disaster-prone regions in Mexico to reduce public expending on humanitarian aid and
the cost of the disruption of the economic activities in areas affected by
hydrometeorological events.
Several recommendations can be proposed based on this research. First, education and
communication on preparedness must be part of the government risk disaster strategy.
According to the survey, most of the participants were unaware if authorities organize
meetings to instruct the community about how to proceed in case of a disaster. Second,
disaster-prone communities need to collaborate with authorities to increase their
resilience. Government authorities must demonstrate leadership to strengthen the
community protective capabilities and resources. Third, the self-efficacy of socially
vulnerable individuals must be increased to encourage individuals to take the protective
route.
..........................................................................................................
References
Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2020). Disasters in Mexico:
maps and notes around an unfinished
story. Investigaciones Geográficas,
100.
https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.60025.
Alexander, D. (2012). Models of Social
Vulnerability to Disasters. RCCS Annual
Review [Online], 4. Retrieved from:
http://journals.openedition.org/rccsar/
412.
Álvarez-Gordillo, G. C. & Tuñón-Pablos, E.
(2017). Vulnerabilidad social de la
población desplazada ambiental por
las inundaciones de 2007 en Tabasco
(México). Cuadernos de Geografía:
Revista Colombiana de Geografía,
25(1), 123-138. https://doi.org/
10.15446/rcdg.v25n1.52591.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of
attitudes on behaviour. In Albarracin,
D.; Johnson, B.T.; Zanna M.P.
(Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Annear, M. J., Otani, J. Gao, X., & Keeling, S.
(2016). Japanese perceptions of
societal vulnerability to disasters during
population ageing: Constitution of a
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
79
new scale and initial findings.
International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 18, 32–40.
https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2018.65.
Asnarulkhadi, A. S., Zaremohzzabieh, Z.,
Shaffril, H. A. M., D’Silva, J. L., Syafila,
K. (2019). Researching natural disaster
preparedness through health,
American Journal of Disaster Medicine,
14(1):51-63.
https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2019.03
15.
Babcicky, P. & Seebauer, S. (2019). Unpacking
Protection Motivation Theory:
evidence for a separate protective and
non-protective route in private flood
mitigation behavior. Journal of Risk
Research, 22(12), 1503-1521.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.201
8.1485175
Bamberg, S., Masson, T., Brewitt, K., &
Nemetschek, N. (2017). Threat, coping
and flood prevention— a meta-
analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 54, 116–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.0
8.001
Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., Burby, R. J., Levine,
J., Cruz, A. M., & Huang, C. (2009). The
effects of confidence in government
and information on perceived and
actual preparedness for disasters.
Environment and Behavior, 41(3), 338-
364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165083
17222
Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M.,
Ronand, K. R., & McCluree, J. (2017).
The role of prior experience in
informing and motivating earthquake
preparedness. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 179-193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.
006.
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
80
Bourque, L. B., Regan, R., Kelley, M. M., Wook,
M. M. (2013). An Examination of the
Effect of Perceived Risk on
Preparedness. Environment and
Behavior, 45(5) 615–649.
Botzen W. J. W., Kunreuther, H., Czajkowski,
J., & de Moel, H. (2019). Adoption of
individual flood damage mitigation
measures in New York City: An
extension of Protection Motivation
Theory. Risk Analysis, 39(10), 2143-
2159.
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. J. W., & Aerts, J. C. J.
H. (2012). A review of risk perceptions
and other factors that influence flood
mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis,
32(9), 1481–1495.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2011.01783.x.
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. W. J., Laudan, J., Aerts,
J. C. J. H., & Thieken, A. H. (2017).
Insights into flood-coping appraisals of
protection motivation theory: empirical
evidence from Germany and France.
Risk Analysis, 38(1-2).
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12938.
Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres
(CENAPRED, 2021). Desastres en
México Impacto social y económico
[Disasters in Mexico social and
economic impact].
http://www.cenapred.unam.mx/es/Pub
licaciones/archivos/318-
INFOGRAFADESASTRESENMXICO-
IMPACTOSOCIALYECONMICO.PDF.
Cohen, O., Leykin D., Lahad, M., Goldberg, A.,
& Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2013). The
conjoint community resiliency
assessment measure as a baseline for
profiling and predicting community
resilience for emergencies. Technology
Forecasting and Social Change, 80
(2013), 1732–1741.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.201
2.12.009.
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
81
Col, J. M. (2007). Managing disasters: The role
of local government. Public
Administration Review, 67(s1), 114-
124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2007.00820.x.
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L.
(2003). Social vulnerability to
environmental hazards. Social Science
Quarterly, 84(2), 242-259.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
6237.8402002
Cutter, S. L., Emrich, C.T., Morath, D. P., &
Dunning, C. M. (2013). Integrating
social vulnerability into federal flood
risk management planning. Journal of
Flood Risk Management, 6, 332–344.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12018.
De León, D., Author. (2019). Reliability-based
analysis of Lázaro Cárdenas breakwater
including the economical impact of the
port activity. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction. Volume 40,
November 2019, 101276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.10
1276
DeYoung, S. E. (2014). Disaster preparedness:
psychosocial predictors for hazard
readiness. [Doctoral dissertation, North
Carolina State University]. North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
USA. ProQuest LLC. UMI 3584299.
Ejeta L. T., Ardalan A., & Paton D. (2015).
Application of behavioral theories to
disaster and emergency health
preparedness: a systematic review.
PLoS Currents,
1(7):ecurrents.dis.31a8995ced3213014
66db400f1357829.
https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.3
1a8995ced321301466db400f1357829.
Ejeta L. T., Ardalan A., Paton D., & Yaseri, M.
(2016). Predictors of community
preparedness for flood in Dire-Dawa
town, Eastern Ethiopia: Applying
adapted version of Health Belief
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
82
Model. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, 19, 341–354.
Forbes. (October 12nd, 2021). “Aumenta
202% el impacto económico de los
desastres naturales en México”. Forbes
Staff, Mexico.
https://www.forbes.com.mx/noticias-
aumenta-202-el-impacto-economico-
de-los-desastres-naturales-en-mexico/
García-Castro, N. & Villerías-Salinas, S. (2016).
Los niveles de vulnerabilidad social de
la ciudad de Chilpancingo, Guerrero,
México [The levels of social
vulnerability of Chilpancingo city,
Guerrero, Mexico]. Revista Geográfica
de América Central, 1(56), 259-288.
https://doi.org/10.15359/rgac.1-56.11.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle,
C.M. (2019). When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM.
European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-
0203.
H. Congreso del Estado Libre y Soberano de
Oaxaca (2020). Derrama económica del
sector turístico en el estado de Oaxaca.
Centro de estudios económicos y
finanzas públicas. Oaxaca, México.
Retrieved from:
https://docs64.congresooaxaca.gob.m
x
IB Geography (n. d.). Hazards and disasters.
Retrieved from:
https://www.geoib.com/hazards-and-
disasters.html.
International Disaster Database (EM-DAT,
2021). Disaster year in Review, Global
Trends and Perspectives. Centre for
Research on Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED). Research on Health and
Society at UC Louvain in Brussels.
Retrieved from:
https://emdat.be/sites/defoult/files/ad
sr_2020.pdf and
https://www.cred.be/publications
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
83
Kievik, M. & Gutteling, J. (2011). Yes, we can:
Motivate Dutch citizens to engage in
self-protective behaviour with regard to
flood risks. Natural Hazards, 59(3),
1475–1490.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-
9845-1
Lin, S., Shaw, D., & Ho, M.-C. (2007). Why are
flood and landslide victims less willing
to take mitigation measures than the
public? Natural Hazards, 44, 305–314.
https://doi. org/10.1007/s11069-007-
9136-z.
Lopez-Vargas, J. C. & Cardenas-Aguirre, D. M.
(2017). Gestión de la logística
humanitaria en las etapas previas al
desastre: revisión sistemática de la
literatura. [Management of
humanitarian logistics in the pre-
disaster stages: systematic review of
the literature]. Revista de Investigación,
Desarrollo e Innovación, 7(2), 203-216.
https://doi.org/10.19053/20278306.v7
.n2.2017.6094.
Martin, A. S, (2015). A framework to
understand the relationship between
social factors that reduce resilience in
cities: Application to the City of Boston.
International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 12,(June), 53-80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.12.
001
McCaughey, J. W., Mundir, I., Dalya, P.,
Mahdic, S., & Patt, A. (2017). Trust and
distrust of tsunami vertical evacuation
buildings: Extending protection
motivation theory to examine choices
under social influence. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24,
462–473.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.
016.
Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008).
Disaster preparedness and perception
of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
84
in Italy. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 28, 164–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.1
0.006.
Miller, C. H., Adame, B. J., & Moore, S. D.
(2013). Vested interest theory and
disaster preparedness. Disasters, 37(1),
1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7717.2012.01290.x.
Najafi M., Ardalan A., Akbarisari A., et al.
(2017). The theory of planned behavior
and disaster preparedness. PLoS
Currents Disasters, 9, 1–16.
Ng, S. L. (2022). Effects of risk perception on
disaster preparedness toward
typhoons: An application of the
extended Theory of Planned Behavior.
International Journal of Disaster Risk
Science, 13, 100–113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-022-
00398-2
Ohman, S. (2017). Previous experiences and
risk perception: The role of
transference. Journal of Education,
Society and Behavioural Science, 23(1),
1-10.
https://doi.org/10.9734/JESBS/2017/3
5101
Paton, D. & Johnston, D. (2001). Disasters and
communities: vulnerability, resilience,
and preparedness. Disaster Prevention
and Management, 10(4), 270-277.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000
005930
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and
physiological processes in fear appeals
and attitude change: a revised theory
of protection motivation. J T Cacioppo
and R E Petty (Eds.). Social psycho-
physiology, New York, NY: Guilford
Press, pp. 153-176.
Rufat, S., Tate, E., Burton, C. G., & Maroof, A.S.
(2015). Social vulnerability to floods:
Review of case studies and implications
for measurement. International Journal
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
85
of Risk Disaster Reduction, 14, 470–
486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.
013
Salvador-Ginez, O., Ortega, A. P., Rivera, A. S.,
& García-Mira, R. (2017). Validez y
confiabilidad de la Escala de
Percepción de Riesgo de Deslave en la
Ciudad de México [Validity and
reliability of the Landslide Risk
Perception Scale in Mexico City]. Acta
de Investigación Psicológica, 7(1),
2618-2626.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.1
1.006.
Sharma, M., & Romas, J. A. (2008). Theoretical
Foundations of Health Education and
Health Promotion. Sudbury, Mass.:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Shapira, S., Aharonson-Daniela, L., & Bar-
Dayana, Y. (2018). Anticipated
behavioural response patterns to an
earthquake: the role of personal and
household characteristics, risk
perception, previous experience, and
preparedness. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.
001.
Statista (March 23th, 2022). Participación del
turismo en el producto interno bruto
(PIB) en México entre 2010 y 2020.
es.statista.com. Retrieved from:
https://es.statista.com/acercadenosotr
os/
Tang, J. & Feng, J. (2018). Residents’ disaster
preparedness after the Meinong
Taiwan earthquake: a test of protection
motivation theory. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 15, 1434.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1507143
4.
Tapsell, S., McCarthy, S., Faulkner, H., &
Alexander, M. (2010). Social
Explaining preparedness towards hydrometeorological hazards. An exploratory study in Mexico
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
86
Vulnerability and Natural Hazards.
CapHaz-Net WP4 Report, Flood
Hazard Research Centre – FHRC,
Middlesex University, London.
Retrieved from: http://caphaz-
net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-
Net_WP4_Social-Vulnerability.pdf.
Terpstra, T. (2011). Emotions, trust, and
perceived risk: Affective and cognitive
routes to flood preparedness
behaviour. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1658-
1675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2011.01616.x.
Wei, H.-H., Sim, T., & Han, Z. (2019).
Confidence in authorities,
neighborhood cohesion and natural
hazards preparedness in Taiwan.
International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 40, 101265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.10
1265.
Westcott, R., Ronan, K., Bambrick, H. et
al. (2017). Expanding protection
motivation theory: investigating an
application to animal owners and
emergency responders in bushfire
emergencies. BMC Psychology, 5, 13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-017-
0182-3.
World Health Organization, Regional Office for
Europe (WHO, 2002). Floods: Climate
change and adaptation strategies for
human health. Report on a WHO
meeting. London, UK, June 30th – July
2nd, 2002.
Williams, L., Arguillas, J., & Arguillas, F. (2020).
Major storms, rising tides, and wet feet:
adapting to flood risk in the Philippines.
International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 50(November), 101810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.10
1810.
Yoo, C. W., Lee, J., Yoo, C., & Xiao, N. (2021).
Coping behaviors in short message
service (SMS)-based disaster alert
Lourdes Loza-Hernandez, Pilar Arroyo
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 7, No. 45
March – July 2023. e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 62-87
87
systems: From the lens of protection
motivation theory as elaboration
likelihood. Information and
Management, 58(4).
httpss://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103
454.
Zoraster, R. M. (2010). Vulnerable populations:
Hurricane Katrina as a case study.
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 25(1),
74-78.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X000
07718.
