Collective efficacy and natural hazards: differing roles of social cohesion and task-specific efficacy in shaping risk and coping beliefs

Figures & data

Table 1. Intercorrelations between collective efficacy measures in the Main Study.

	Social cohesion	Social support	Preventive group efficacy	Participatory group efficacy	Group efficacy
Social cohesion	–	.349**	−.125	−.062	−.097
Social support		–	.196**	.154*	.189**
Preventive group efficacy			–	.772**	.940**
Participatory group efficacy				–	.943**

Pearson correlations; *p < .10; **p < .05; Group efficacy: composite index combining preventive and participatory group efficacy.

Table 2. Regression results of the Main Study.

	Risk perception	Fear	Self-efficacy
Age	−.181**	−.141*	−.039
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male)	.071	.112	.149*
Income	.116	−.089	.164*
Risk zone (0 = no, 1 = yes)	.165**	.115*	−.069
Disaster experience (0 = no, 1 = yes)	.192**	−.010	.145*
Social cohesion	−.183**	−.181**	−.014
Social support	−.130	−.064	.210*
Group efficacy	.156*	.246*	.059
adj. R2	.177	.127	.095
n	154	154	154

Standardised beta coefficients: *p < .10; **p < .05.

Table 3. Stability of t1 and t2 measures in the Validation Study.

	Age	Gender	Income	Risk zone	Flood experience	Risk perception	Fear	Social support
Pearson correlation t1–t2	.984**	.917**	.745**	.436**	.256**	.587**	.705**	.635**

*p< .10; **p < .05.

Table 4. Regression results of the Validation Study.

	Risk perception	Fear	Self-efficacy
Age	−.206***	−.005	.015
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male)	.019	−.054	.074
Income	.006	.023	.108**
Risk zone (0 = no, 1 = yes)	.130**	.130**	.113**
Disaster experience (0 = no, 1 = yes)	.172***	.260***	.130**
Social support	−.177***	−.190***	.297***
Adjusted R2	.108	.131	.125
N	345	347	339

Standardised beta coefficients: *p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01; all predictor variables measured at t1; all dependent variables measured at t2; sample size varies due to missing values.

Table A1. Item wordings, descriptives and internal consistency of measures in the Main Study.

Factor	Item	Response scale	N	Mean	SD	α
Social cohesion	Generally speaking, in my hometown, …	+2 = positive statement /−2 = negative statement				.83
	… most people can be trusted / … you can't be too careful when dealing with others		213	0.55	1.18
	… most people try to be fair / … most people take advantage of others if they get the chance		213	0.30	1.16
	… many people are engaged in formal associations or churches / … only a few people are engaged		213	0.83	1.19
	… people try to make the town a better place to live / … people hardly bother about the town		215	0.55	1.08
	… people care for each other / … people primarily consider their own needs		214	0.04	1.21
Social support	In a natural hazard event, I can count on support by others.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	215	3.82	1.05	.80
	Many people would help me during a natural hazard event.		215	3.80	0.96
	In a natural hazard event, many people would stand by me.		211	3.87	0.89
Preventive group efficacy	Collective action in a preventive citizen group would improve natural hazard protection.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	207	3.88	0.82	.83
	Through collective efforts, a preventive citizen group would achieve progress in natural hazard protection.		205	3.67	0.93
	A preventive citizen group would improve natural hazard protection, even if it meets resistance or difficulties.		204	3.78	0.89
Participatory group efficacy	Collective action in a participatory citizen group would improve natural hazard protection.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	203	3.75	0.85	.86
	Through collective efforts, a participatory citizen group would achieve progress in natural hazard protection.		200	3.60	0.90
	A participatory citizen group would improve natural hazard protection, even if it meets resistance or difficulties.		201	3.68	0.98
Group efficacy	[composite index of all preventive and participatory group efficacy items]	–	–	–	–	.91
Risk perception	How likely do you consider a severe natural hazard event to occur at your building within the next ten years?	Ten-step, 10 = very likely	196	2.83	2.03	.85
	How likely do you consider a severe natural hazard event to occur in your municipality within the next ten years?		211	5.26	2.65
	What level of damage do you expect, if a severe natural hazard event occurs at your building?	Ten-step, 10 = very high	192	2.93	2.12
	What level of damage do you expect, if a severe natural hazard event occurs in your municipality?		207	4.82	2.29
Fear	I am afraid of natural hazards.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	216	2.80	1.30	.77
	I am very worried about the potential threat of natural hazards.		214	2.85	1.26
Self-efficacy	My knowledge and skills suffice to implement natural hazard protection by myself.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	216	2.87	1.18	.69
	I can set up natural hazard protection on my own, even if it is costly and difficult.		214	2.83	1.16
	I am capable of protecting myself from natural hazards.		211	2.71	1.12

N = number of cases; SD = Standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s Alpha; all original items were in German and translated for this paper.

Table A2. Descriptions of preventive and participatory citizen groups used in the Main Study questionnaire.

Type of citizen group	Description used in the questionnaire
Preventive	Group members prepare jointly for a potential natural disaster. They organise machinery and equipment and practise for emergency situations. The citizen group monitors local slopes and streams, clears debris from waterways and alerts residents to imminent hazards.
Participatory	Group members jointly represent their needs to authorities and officials. They participate in assigning risk zones and in planning built protection. The citizen group acquires specialised knowledge, gets involved in negotiations and engages in media relations to ensure that residents get heard.

Table A3. Socio-demographics of sample and population in the Main Study.

	Gender	Age (years)					Monthly net household income (€)						Disaster experience	Risk zone
	Female	20–34	35–49	50–64	65–79	≥80	<1,200	1,200–1,799	1,800–2,899	2,900–4,399	4,400–6,000	>6,000	Yes	Yes
Sample	33%	7%	21%	36%	31%	5%	8%	21%	35%	21%	13%	2%	43%	20%
Population	50%	22%	25%	28%	17%	8%	∼25%		∼25%	∼25%	∼25%		n.a.	n.a.

Population data refer to the Province of Tyrol (Statistics Austria 2017, 2018); income categories of population data refer roughly to quartiles of the Austrian income distribution; risk zone = flood return period of 300 years or less, or yellow/red risk zone; risk zone was coded ‘0’ if respondent answered with ‘no’ or ‘don't know’; prior analysis, income was converted into a metric scale using the respective category midpoints.

Table A4. Item wordings, descriptives and internal consistency of measures in the Validation Study.

Factor	Item	Response scale	t1				t2
			N	Mean	SD	α	N	Mean	SD	α
Social support	In a flood event, I can count on support by others.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	1,901	3.92	1.00	.83	510	3.51	0.99	.88
	Many people would help me during a flood.		1,931	3.3	1.03		540	3.43	1.03
	In a flood event, many people would stand by me.		1,860	3.35	1.01		543	3.58	1.04
Risk perception	How likely do you consider a severe flood to occur at your building within the next ten years?	Ten-step, 10 = very likely	1,934	4.22	2.76	.83	539	4.52	2.79	.81
	How likely do you consider a severe flood to occur in your municipality within the next ten years?		1,977	5.41	2.77		545	5.62	2.66
	What level of damage do you expect, if a severe flood occurs at your building?	Ten-step, 10 = very high	1,894	5.96	3.01		540	6.38	2.89
	What level of damage do you expect, if a severe flood occurs in your municipality?		1,937	6.54	2.63		544	7.13	2.55
Fear	I am afraid of a potential flood.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	1,951	3.17	1.33	.87	542	2.85	1.29	.86
	I am very worried about the potential threat of flooding.		1,867	3.14	1.24		546	2.82	1.26
Self-efficacy	I can count on my knowledge and skills, even if I am planning to implement difficult flood protection measures.	Five-step, 5 = fully agree	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	525	2.86	1.16	.68
	I can solve problems regarding my flood protection by myself.		n.a.	n.a.	n.a.		520	2.52	1.09
	I am able to take on activities regarding my flood protection, even if they are stressful and difficult.		n.a.	n.a.	n.a.		509	2.98	1.06

N = number of cases; SD = Standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s Alpha; t1 = assessed in first survey wave; t2 = assessed in second survey wave; all original items were in German and translated for this paper.

Table A5. Socio-demographics of sample and population in the Validation Study.

Municipality		Percentage of total sample	Gender	Age (years)					Monthly net household income (€)						Flood experience	Risk zone
			Female	20–34	35–49	50–64	65–79	≥80	<1,100	1,100–1599	1,600–2599	2,600–3999	4,000–5500	>5,500	Yes	Yes
Eisenerz	S t1	3.1%	40%	9%	17%	31%	39%	5%	11%	30%	39%	11%	2%	7%	18%	25%
	S t2	2.0%	0%	0%	10%	20%	60%	10%	0%	14%	29%	57%	0%	0%	9%	44%
	P	n.a.	53%	12%	18%	27%	29%	14%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	10–30%
Fernitz	S t1	2.2%	25%	11%	46%	27%	16%	0%	10%	10%	17%	43%	17%	3%	63%	23%
	S t2	2.5%	36%	7%	57%	21%	14%	0%	8%	15%	39%	31%	8%	0%	21%	36%
	P	n.a.	52%	22%	30%	28%	14%	6%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	10–30%
Gosdorf	S t1	3.7%	51%	6%	30%	36%	20%	7%	14%	32%	36%	16%	2%	0%	49%	28%
	S t2	3.2%	41%	0%	29%	29%	29%	12%	31%	39%	15%	15%	0%	0%	12%	33%
	P	n.a.	50%	20%	28%	27%	18%	6%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	10–30%
Gössendorf	S t1	7.6%	34%	13%	37%	32%	17%	1%	1%	17%	37%	32%	10%	4%	68%	44%
	S t2	9.4%	39%	13%	24%	31%	29%	2%	0%	8%	27%	43%	19%	3%	12%	48%
	P	n.a.	51%	22%	32%	25%	15%	6%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	0–10%
Hatzendorf	S t1	2.9%	29%	18%	32%	32%	18%	0%	13%	27%	31%	22%	4%	2%	50%	22%
	S t2	3.1%	40%	13%	25%	38%	25%	0%	15%	15%	39%	23%	8%	0%	0%	44%
	P	n.a.	50%	23%	28%	27%	16%	6%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	0–10%
Mooskirchen	S t1	2.5%	54%	17%	28%	37%	17%	0%	13%	10%	43%	20%	13%	0%	48%	22%
	S t2	2.7%	43%	14%	21%	21%	36%	7%	0%	38%	38%	13%	0%	13%	13%	46%
	P	n.a.	51%	23%	29%	26%	14%	7%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	10–30%
Radmer	S t1	1.7%	46%	6%	27%	36%	18%	12%	12%	54%	19%	12%	4%	0%	61%	42%
	S t2	2.2%	58%	0%	17%	67%	0%	17%	9%	64%	27%	0%	0%	0%	8%	64%
	P	n.a.	50%	13%	22%	29%	23%	13%	7%	14%	21%	34%	17%	7%	n.a.	10–30%
Lustenau	S t1	65.0%	34%	12%	25%	29%	26%	8%	6%	15%	38%	29%	9%	3%	15%	16%
	S t2	62.8%	24%	9%	25%	28%	31%	7%	3%	14%	25%	38%	14%	6%	1%	32%
	P	n.a.	51%	27%	29%	24%	16%	5%	8%	10%	36%	31%	8%	7%	n.a.	0–10%
Mellau	S t1	3.1%	38%	8%	28%	34%	18%	12%	4%	20%	41%	26%	7%	2%	59%	20%
	S t2	3.2%	22%	11%	22%	17%	44%	6%	0%	19%	31%	31%	19%	0%	0%	29%
	P	n.a.	49%	26%	28%	24%	15%	6%	3%	9%	24%	35%	22%	7%	n.a.	0–10%
Nenzing	S t1	8.2%	29%	7%	34%	32%	26%	2%	6%	17%	33%	33%	9%	3%	34%	10%
	S t2	8.8%	31%	7%	21%	29%	36%	7%	6%	18%	24%	30%	18%	3%	2%	15%
	P	n.a.	50%	24%	30%	25%	16%	5%	3%	9%	24%	35%	22%	7%	n.a.	10–30%
All regions	S t1	100%	34%	11%	27%	31%	24%	6%	6%	18%	36%	28%	8%	3%	26%	20%
	S t2	100%	29%	9%	25%	29%	31%	6%	5%	17%	27%	35%	13%	4%	4%	34%
	P	n.a.	51%	23%	28%	25%	17%	6%	7%	12%	28%	33%	14%	7%	n.a.	n.a.

Number of cases: N = 2,007 (at time 1), N = 554 (at time 2); S t1 = sample data at first survey wave; S t2 = sample data at second survey wave; P = population data (at t1); risk zone = flood return period of 300 years or less, or yellow/red risk zone; risk zone was coded ‘0’ if respondent answered with ‘no’ or ‘don't know’; flood experience at t2 relates to the occurrence of a flood since t1; gender and age data: Statistics Austria (2014); household income data: Statistics Austria (2009); risk zone data: HORA (2015); percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Statistics Austria. 2017. Microcensus Labour Force and Housing Survey, EU-SILC Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. Vienna: Statistics Austria.

 Google Scholar

Statistics Austria. 2018. Population at the Beginning of the Year since 2002 (Regional Status of 2017). Vienna: Statistics Austria.

 Google Scholar

Statistics Austria. 2014. Population Statistics 2014. Vienna: Statistics Austria.

 Google Scholar

Statistics Austria. 2009. Household Consumption Survey 2009/2010. Vienna: Statistics Austria.

 Google Scholar

HORA (Natural Hazard Overview & Risk Assessment Austria. 2015. “Hochwasserrisikozonierung. [Digital Hazard Map].” http://hora.gv.at.

 Google Scholar