Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Bucharest, Romania
Authors: Appleby-Arnold, Sandra
Brockdorff, Noellie
Keywords: Emergency management -- Romania -- Public opinion
Disaster relief -- Romania -- Public opinion
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: Culture And RISk management in Man-made And Natural Disasters
Citation: Appleby-Arnold, S., & Brockdorff, N. (2016). Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Bucharest, Romania. (G.A. 653748). Bucharest, Romania.
Series/Report no.: CARISMAND;G.A. 653748
Abstract: The analyses and results in this document are based on data collected during the first CARISMAND Citizen Summit held in Bucharest, Romania, on July 9th 2016. The Citizen Summit was designed as a 1-day event combining public information with feedback-gathering through different methods of data collection: (1) 30 questions with pre-defined answer options posed to the audience and collected via an audience response system; and (2) small moderated group discussions of approximately 1.5 hours duration which followed a detailed set of questions and discussion guidelines, including (3) a short association exercise. All questions and discussions aimed to explore citizens’ attitudes, feelings and perceptions towards disaster risks as well as the identification of cultural factors in disaster preparation, response and recovery. Their definition and design was based on a literature review, preliminary research results from other work packages, and taking up specific topics identified in the 1st CARISMAND Stakeholder Assembly. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed please see Appendix A. Overall, 110 citizens participated in the Bucharest event. The total sample shows a relatively even gender and age distribution, which is unsurprising given the target quotas which were requested from the recruiting local market research agency. The comparatively low number of senior citizens aged 65 and above was expected and reflects mobility issues. Participants were asked about three key aspects of experience of disasters and disaster risk perception that could potentially have an impact on how other questions were answered. More than nine out of ten respondents indicated that they, or a close friend or family member, have experienced a disaster, 68% felt that they are living in an area that is specifically prone to disasters, and 78% answered that they know other people in the area where they live who they think are particularly vulnerable or exposed to disasters. Slight gender differences were found to be not statistically significant (p>=.05). This report presents the results of the first CARISMAND Citizen Summit and is structured in six main sections: After this introduction, the second section will provide an overview of the different methods applied. The third section, based on the quantitative data collected via the audience response system, presents the results from questions on general disaster risk perceptions, disaster preparedness, and behaviours in disaster situations, the latter with a particular focus on the use of social media. The fourth section, based on the qualitative data collected in the discussion groups, will analyse the participants’ risk perceptions and behaviours related to (a) different “features” of disasters, in particular related to slow/fast onset, short/long-term effects and the “visibility” of disasters, and (b) different disaster phases. Furthermore, this section will report on the different cultural aspects and cultural groups identified by the participants, the specific needs of such groups, and perceived community strengths and weaknesses in case of a disaster. Additionally, it will provide insight into participants’ views on measures that may help to improve disaster preparedness and response. The fifth section focuses on risk perception in relation to causes of disasters, in particular the blurred distinction between natural and man-made disasters. The final section compared and contrasts the results from sections 2, 3 and 4, draws some tentative conclusions, and identifies topics and issues that should feed into the next round of events in 2017, i.e. the 2nd Stakeholder Assembly as well as the 3rd and 4th Citizen Summits.
Appears in Collections:Scholarly Works - FacMKSCS

Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.