The American Preparedness Project: Where the US Public Stands in 2015

Petkova, Elisaveta P.; Schlegelmilch, Jeffrey; Sury, Jonathan; Chandler, Thomas; Herrera, Cynthia Duran; Bhaskar, Shwetha; Sehnert, Erin M.; Marx, Sabine M.; Redlener, Irwin E.

doi:10.7916/d84q7tzn

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17,20,31 The household's geographical region was operationalized as 3 dummy variables for Northeast, Midwest, and West regions, with the South region as the reference. 5,6,22 Urbanicity was not included owing to its unavailability in the public use file. There was low correlation among all independent variables, reducing multicollinearity concerns with the adjusted models.…”

Section: Jama Network Open | Public Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these efforts, studies have consistently found that US households are not ready for emergencies, there have been no significant improvements in preparedness, and the proportion of people fulfilling some actions, such as having a communication plan, has decreased. 5,6 Even when individuals claim to be prepared, often they are not. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly 50% of US households do not have resources or plans in the event of emergency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 High socioeconomic status has been consistently found to be associated with preparedness, but there are conflicting findings regarding other demographic characteristics. Higher socioeconomic status increases households' odds of being prepared, 5,[8][9][10][11] and the likelihood of evacuating when required. 12,13 However, results for racial and ethnic minority households are contradictory: some studies have found that these groups encounter more challenges to being prepared, 14,15 while others have found that they are more likely to have emergency plans and supplies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have identified factors associated with some preparedness actions; however, to our knowledge, no study has analyzed extensively their associations with different levels and types of disaster preparedness. 5,[9][10][11]16,18,[20][21][22][23] Taking this granular approach to examining preparedness is important because the relative importance of items may vary across disasters. For example, having emergency preparedness kits, financial resources, food stockpiles, and communication plans are important for responding to the novel coronavirus pandemic owing to temporary shelter in place restrictions and associated economic loss, whereas water stockpiles, electronic generators, an alternative meeting point, and a vehicle available for evacuation are relevant to responding to a natural disaster.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Association of US Households’ Disaster Preparedness With Socioeconomic Characteristics, Composition, and Region

Zamboni

Martin

2020

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the US government has promoted household disaster preparedness, but preparedness remains low. OBJECTIVE To identify disparities in disaster preparedness among US households. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional study used data from a nationally representative sample of US households from the 2017 American Housing Survey's topical section on preparedness to assess associations of disaster preparedness with households' socioeconomic characteristics, composition, and region. Logistic regressions were used to assess associations of household characteristics with overall preparedness, resource-and action-based preparedness, and specific preparedness items. Data analyses were completed on March 27, 2020.EXPOSURES Combined household income, head of household's education level, race/ethnicity, marital status of head of household, head of household aged 65 years or older, presence of children or a household member with a disability, and region. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESNine actionable preparedness items, such as having an emergency carry-on kit (resource), food and water stockpiles (resource), and alternative communication plans and meeting locations (action). Items were summed for the measures of overall, resource-based, and action-based preparedness, with preparedness defined as meeting at least half of the criteria. RESULTS Among 16 725 included households, 9103 household heads were men (54.4%), 11 687 were married (69.9%), and 10 749 (66.1%) had some college education or higher. In all, 1969 household heads (11.8%) were black, while 2696 were Hispanic/Latino (16.1%); 3579 household heads (21.4%) were 65 years or older. A total of 7163 households (42.8%) included children, and 3533 households (21.2%) included a person with a disability. Households were more likely to fulfill at least half of the criteria for resource-based preparedness (10 950 households [65.5%]) than for actionbased preparedness (6876 households [41.1%]). Wealthy households and those with household heads aged 65 years or older were more likely to fulfill at least half of resource-based items (wealthy households: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] by logged income, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.13-1.22]; household heads age Ն65 years: aOR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.29-1.55) but less likely to fulfill action-based items (wealthy households: aOR: 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.99]; household heads age Ն65 years: aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-0.99]). Households with black household heads were more likely to fulfill items directly related to emergencies (carry-on emergency kit: aOR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.14-1.39]; alternative communication plan: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.39-1.72]; alternative meeting location: aOR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.07-1.31]) but less likely to fulfill resource-based items (at least half of resource items: aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.99]).

show abstract

Section: Jama Network Open | Public Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Association of US Households’ Disaster Preparedness With Socioeconomic Characteristics, Composition, and Region

Zamboni

Martin

2020

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite of the importance of being prepared, few people prepare effectively. Only 25% of Americans have adequate emergency plans and all recommended emergency items (Petkova et al, 2016). Similarly, only 14% of New Zealanders are fully prepared (Disaster Preparedness Survey, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essays On Disaster Management Issues Related To Household Preparedness And Public Attention

Habibi¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This dissertation contains an essay on the effects of earthquake exposure on household preparedness in the short and long term and two essays on the predictors of public attention to earthquakes around the world. In Chapter I, I use a difference-in-differences method to estimate the causal effects of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes on people’s preparedness in the short-term (one month after the second earthquake) and long-term (up to 25 months after the second earthquake). I find that people who experienced the earthquakes increase their preparedness by 0.67 standard deviations in the short term. This impact stays positive but declines to 0.42 standard deviations in the long term. In chapter II, I investigate whether people from Western countries pay more attention to earthquakes in Western countries. I use Google Trends data and examine the proportion of Google searches from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for 610 earthquakes across the world over the period of 2006-2016. I find that people in these countries pay on average around 50 percent more attention to earthquakes in Western countries. My results are significant and consistent after controlling for geographical and social characteristics but becomes small and insignificant once I control for GDP per capita of the countries where the earthquake struck. There seems to be a developed country bias rather than a Western country bias. In the final chapter, I measure public attention – using the volume of Google searches – from 18 countries and investigate which factors predict public attention to earthquakes at international level. I focus on 372 earthquakes registered as disasters in The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) over the period 2004-2018. I find that people pay more attention to earthquakes in richer countries, in more democratic countries, and in countries with which they have more social and cultural similarities. I also find that social and cultural similarities predict more public attention from Western and Latin American countries and less public attention from Arab and Sub-Saharan African countries. While, the findings of the economic and political status of countries are universal and predict more public attention in all four groups of countries.</p>

show abstract