Collective action for community-based hazard mitigation: a case study of Tulsa project impact

During the past two decades, community-based hazard mitigation (CBHM) has been newly proposed and implemented as an alternative conceptual model for emergency management to deal with disasters comprehensively in order to curtail skyrocketing disaster losses. Local community members have been growingly required to share information and responsibilities for reducing community vulnerabilities to natural and technological hazards and building a safer community. Consequently they are encouraged to join local mitigation programs and volunteer for collective mitigation action, but their contributions vary. This research examined factors associated with Tulsa Project Impact partners?? contributions to collective mitigation action. In the literature review, self-interest and social norms were identified and briefly discussed as two determinants to guide partners?? behavior by reviewing game theoretic frameworks and individual decision-making models. Partners?? collective interest in building a safer community and feelings of obligation to participate in collective mitigation action were also considered for this study. Thus, the major factors considered are: (1) collective interests, (2) selective benefits, (3) participation costs, (4) norms of cooperation, and (5) internalized norms of participation. Research findings showed that selective benefits and internalized norms of participation were the two best predictors for partners?? contributions to collective mitigation action. However, collective interests, participation costs, and norms of cooperation did not significantly influence partners?? contributions.