Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards

Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine if gendered differences in risk perception automatically mean that women and men rank the hazards of their community differently, focusing any risk reduction measures on the priority risks of only part of the population. Design/methodology/approach – The study applies survey research through structured personal interviews in three municipalities in El Salvador. The data are analysed using SPSS to find statistically significant associations. Findings – It was found that there are no significant differences between the ranking of hazards of women and men in the studied communities. However, several other parameters have significant associations with the ranking of hazards, indicating that there are more dividing lines than gender that may influence priorities of risk reduction initiatives. Research limitations/implications – A quantitative study can only indicate how gender and other parameters influence the ranking of hazards. In order to understand why, it must be complemented with qualitative research. Practical implications – This study indicates that it is vital to communicate with and invite as wide a group of people as possible to participate in the risk reduction process. Not only women and men, but representatives with various livelihoods, income levels, level of education, locations of their dwellings, etc. If not, there is a danger that vital needs and opinions are left out and community commitments to risk reduction measures limited. Originality/value – The paper presents a new pragmatic argument for wider participation in disaster risk reduction to policy makers and practitioners in the field. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Disaster Prevention and Management Emerald Publishing

Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards

Per Becker
Disaster Prevention and Management , Volume 20 (4): 11 – Aug 30, 2011
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/whose-risks-gender-and-the-ranking-of-hazards-83CfwsV7XD
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0965-3562
DOI
10.1108/09653561111161743
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine if gendered differences in risk perception automatically mean that women and men rank the hazards of their community differently, focusing any risk reduction measures on the priority risks of only part of the population. Design/methodology/approach – The study applies survey research through structured personal interviews in three municipalities in El Salvador. The data are analysed using SPSS to find statistically significant associations. Findings – It was found that there are no significant differences between the ranking of hazards of women and men in the studied communities. However, several other parameters have significant associations with the ranking of hazards, indicating that there are more dividing lines than gender that may influence priorities of risk reduction initiatives. Research limitations/implications – A quantitative study can only indicate how gender and other parameters influence the ranking of hazards. In order to understand why, it must be complemented with qualitative research. Practical implications – This study indicates that it is vital to communicate with and invite as wide a group of people as possible to participate in the risk reduction process. Not only women and men, but representatives with various livelihoods, income levels, level of education, locations of their dwellings, etc. If not, there is a danger that vital needs and opinions are left out and community commitments to risk reduction measures limited. Originality/value – The paper presents a new pragmatic argument for wider participation in disaster risk reduction to policy makers and practitioners in the field.

Journal

Disaster Prevention and Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 30, 2011

Keywords: El Salvador; Community planning; Risk perception; Risk reduction; Gender; Perception; Hazard ranking

References

  • Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania
    Armas, I.
  • Reduction of vulnerability: “Natural” disasters in El Salvador
    Becker, P.
  • Research Methods In Anthropology: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches
    Bernard, H.R.
  • Research Methods In Anthropology: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches
    Bernard, H.R.
  • Cross‐cultural differences in risk perception: a model based approach
    Bontempo, R.N.; Bottom, W.P.; Weber, E.U.
  • Risk perception and personality facets
    Chauvin, B.; Hermand, D.; Mullet, E.
  • Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks
    Flynn, J.; Slovic, P.; Mertz, C.K.
  • The place of gender in earthquake vulnerability and mitigation
    Fordham, M.
  • Societal risk perception among children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people
    Hermand, D.; Mullet, E.; Rompteaux, L.
  • Varying risk comparison elements: effects on public reactions
    Johnson, B.B.
  • Parental risk perceptions of childhood pedestrian road safety: a cross cultural comparison
    Lam, L.T.
  • Interpretation of subjective ratings: some fundamental aspects
    Lloyd, D.W.; Wilson, H.
  • Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
    Paton, D.; Johnston, D.
  • Statistical and conceptual problems in the study of disasters
    Quarantelli, E.L.
  • Worry and risk perception
    Sjöberg, L.
  • Factors in risk perception
    Sjöberg, L.
  • Perception of risk
    Slovic, P.
  • Probability judgment accuracy: China, Japan, and the United States
    Yates, J.F.; Zhu, Y.; Ronis, D.L.; Wang, D.; Shinotsuka, H.; Toda, M.