Capítulo 4. Juego serio desarrollado 73
4.4. Pasos seguidos y pruebas realizadas 97
The 10 variables discussed here play roles of varying importance in the prediction of bushfire preparedness, but may be considered the key constructs emerging in the development of a decision about bushfire preparedness. These constructs have been identified from interviewees directly, who related personal thinking (cognition) about bushfire preparedness. Each interviewee considers most, if not all, of these constructs as having some importance in
influencing their preparedness decision, suggesting they form the backbone of a generic decision-making process that leads people to choose to prepare or not to prepare for bushfire.
The two most important constructs, and those which essentially begin the bushfire preparedness decision process, are outcome expectancy and sense of community. Both of these constructs can be separated dichotomously, and while the two aspects of sense of community (place and people) play different but mostly positive roles in influencing preparedness, positive and negative outcome expectancy are the key determinants of a choice to, or not to, prepare respectively. Based on the qualitative data presented here, positive and negative outcome expectancy may influence bushfire preparedness directly and indirectly through both aspects of sense of community.
Preparation inhibition is a construct that mediates the relationship between householders’ negative outcome expectancy and the decision to prepare by amplifying beliefs about the “folly” of making bushfire preparations. Not previously examined in a bushfire preparedness context, this construct describes the primarily mechanical factors that may prevent preparation, including: cost of preparing, need for assistance from others, lack of knowledge about preparing, or physical inability. The significance of inhibitors such as these is that while people may realise they should prepare, if they don’t have the money or the physical ability they perceive they would need to prepare, then they believe they would be incapable of preparing, and consequently invest little time or effort in making bushfire preparations.
From the interviews it is possible to infer that low self-efficacy often hinders preparation, and interviewees state that having other people around is an extremely important requirement they consider when thinking about bushfire preparedness. This collective requirement suggests the need to include another construct that describes the interdependence that many community members require in reaching strong preparedness levels: collective problem solving. That collective problem solving was not identified in the qualitative analyses may suggest that interviewees find it more difficult to articulate it as a concept, focussing more on their own handicaps, rather than the ability of their community to provide an important support system. Collective problem solving incorporates aspects of collective efficacy, so while self- efficacy arose as a relatively important qualitative predictor of preparedness, what is actually
important is people’s beliefs that they can rely on other people around them to help in the case that bushfire threatens. This can be represented more effectively using collective problem solving than self-efficacy, and consequently this construct is examined alongside self-efficacy in the quantitative analyses (see section 4.4).
Intention to prepare is identified as playing a key mediatory role between outcome expectancy and sense of community and bushfire preparation, but not all interviewees reflect on this construct with the same level of importance – some suggesting that low confidence in preparations directly prevents them from preparing, or that hearing about the value of preparing from trusted neighbours is a direct encouragement to prepare.
Likewise, perceptions of bushfire severity, fear of bushfire, agency trust and responsibility, and environment and bushfire weather are all discussed by most interviewees, but with varying degrees of consequence for/in individual circumstances. In the case of these constructs, the relevance to all interviewees (and by extrapolation to all people living at risk of bushfire) exists, but plays differing roles.
The grounded theory analyses conducted in this section have focussed partly on identifying these key constructs, but also on exploring the causal relationships between these constructs. Part of the descriptions of each of the constructs above includes an examination of what the construct is influenced by, and what other factors the construct influences. Identifying these causal relationships is a crucial step in the development of a model representing the bushfire preparedness decision process, because it demonstrates how the individual’s cognitions can affect other components within a decision process.
The qualitative findings discussed in this chapter were used to refine the selection of variables used in the quantitative analyses of the predictors of preparedness examined in the next section. Additionally, other variables including critical awareness, risk perception and the availability of (information) resources are also included in this analysis because of their importance in previous examinations of natural hazard preparedness. It is important to note that not all of the key constructs could be examined using the quantitative survey data collected in Hobart and Sydney, which are explored in the following section (4.4). Psychometrically valid survey data were not specifically collected for perceived bushfire severity, fear of bushfire, bushfire salience, and environment and bushfire weather. Survey
measures exist for the first three of these constructs, and should be included in future surveys of bushfire preparedness.