Psychological influences and implications for household disaster preparedness: a systematic review

Ni M 1 , Xia L 2 , Wang X 3 , Wei Y 4 , Han X 5 , Liu Y 6 Show all authors , Pan S 7

Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Science and Engineering, The University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China
  • 2 Center for Sustainable Energy Technologies, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China
  • 3 College of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin, China
  • 4 School of Civil Engineering and Resources, University of Science & Technology Beijing, Beijing, China
  • 5 Centre for Building, Construction and Tropical Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 7 Key Laboratory for Comprehensive Energy Saving of Cold Regions Architecture of Ministry of Education, Jilin Jianzhu University, Changchun, China
Front Public Health, 2025;13:1457406.
PMID: 40161023 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1457406

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Household disaster preparedness remains critical yet underachieved, despite substantial investments in mitigation infrastructure. Understanding psychological drivers affecting the implementation of household preparedness measures helps distinguish families fully prepared for disasters from those not, thereby improving disaster education. Psychological drivers may promote, hinder, or have no impact on household preparedness. This review fills a significant gap by systematically categorizing psychological factors influencing household disaster preparedness, an area that remains underexplored in previous literature, aiming to provide recommendations for developing more effective psychological interventions and coping mechanisms.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, analyzing published studies (2017-2024) from Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Two authors determined the eligibility of studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included in this review. Regarding cognitive appraisal, risk perception generally promotes household preparedness. Hazard intrusiveness, perceived efficacy, and perceived response efficacy encourage preparedness. Regarding motivation and intention, self-efficacy and perceived benefits boost preparedness, and the transfer of responsibility regulates the influence of trust on household preparedness. Regarding social interaction, formal support, and community resilience promotes preparedness, whereas informal support and social norms may impede it. Regarding bonds with the living environment, place attachment promotes housing protection but hinders relocation. Sense of place hinders permanent evacuation or relocation.

DISCUSSION: Disaster prevention and management should emphasize the responsibility of individuals and families in reducing disaster risks, clarify the consequences and probabilities of disasters, refine social norm indicators, and develop a resettlement planning incorporating place identity cultivation to improve effective household preparedness.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications