Ethnic differences in perceptions of social responsibility
Informing risk communication strategies for enhancing community resilience to flooding
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15306154 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Aaron Mullins (Coventry University, corresponding author), Robby Soetanto (0000-0002-9731-7869, Loughborough University) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 119-131 |
| Publication date | 2013-04-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0965-3562 • E-ISSN: 1758-6100 |
| Publisher | Emerald Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1108/09653561311325271 |
| OpenAlex | W1567671011 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 34 |
Purpose The purpose of this research is to investigate ethnic differences in perceptions of social responsibility, in relation to flooding, for householders, local businesses and policy makers. Design/methodology/approach The data were obtained via a questionnaire survey of three communities in Birmingham and one community in South East London, UK. A total of 481 responses were received and used in the statistical analysis. The interpretation of the findings was aided by cognitive mapping to synthesise the data transcripts from 174 responses to the open‐ended questions. Comparisons were made between communities in different locations and with different experience of flooding. Findings Ethnic differences consistently exist within the perceptions of householder and business groups within communities (in different locations) which have recent experience of flooding, but not in the policy maker group or in a community without recent flood experience. The finding also suggests three different levels of resilience and their association with different ethnic groups. Research limitations/implications Future research should conduct further analysis with equal ethnic representation throughout each community group so that more ethnic groups can be investigated and compared. For a more comprehensive understanding, further investigation should be conducted across different communities in different countries with different environmental hazards. Practical implications The findings contribute to the understanding of the influence of demographic factors in disaster management field, and can provide useful knowledge for targeted and tailored strategies of communication of flood information. Originality/value The research represents the first attempt to investigate ethnic differences in perceptions of social responsibility of householders, small businesses and policy makers for the community resilience to flooding
Ethnic group · Flood myth · Geography · Originality · Perception · Political science · Psychological resilience · Public relations · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Climate Change, Adaptation, Migration · Disaster Management and Resilience · Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Psychology · Social Psychology
Community flood preparedness in a collectivist cultural context
Subsiding Cities
Nuanced assessment of livelihood resilience through the intersectional lens of gender and ethnicity
Neighborhood Structure, Social Capital, and Community Resilience
The resilience of neighborhood social processes
Community social capital and individual functioning in the post-disaster context
Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition
Cultural Theory and Individual Perceptions of Environmental Risks
Risk perception
At Risk
Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners
Household Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard
Risk and Culture
Representing climate change futures
Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability
A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters
Business Social Responsibility
Words in Ads
The Traditional Socially Responsible Personality
Making Women Visible in Disasters
Risk and Culture
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,55 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2025 (11) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |