Advanced

Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards

Becker, Per LU (2011) In Disaster Prevention and Management 20(4). p.423-433
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... (More)
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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
El Salvador, Community planning, Risk perception, Risk reduction, Gender, Perception, Hazard ranking
in
Disaster Prevention and Management
volume
20
issue
4
pages
423 - 433
publisher
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
external identifiers
  • wos:000296042100008
  • scopus:80053070120
ISSN
0965-3562
DOI
10.1108/09653561111161743
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
144d44bb-66c1-4cbc-9b9d-6e770937efa6 (old id 2211556)
date added to LUP
2011-11-28 08:58:56
date last changed
2017-01-01 05:56:57
@article{144d44bb-66c1-4cbc-9b9d-6e770937efa6,
  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.},
  author       = {Becker, Per},
  issn         = {0965-3562},
  keyword      = {El Salvador,Community planning,Risk perception,Risk reduction,Gender,Perception,Hazard ranking},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {423--433},
  publisher    = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  series       = {Disaster Prevention and Management},
  title        = {Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653561111161743},
  volume       = {20},
  year         = {2011},
}