<p>New Zealand is exposed to many natural hazards and yet, despite its heightened risk, national rates of individual preparedness remain low. Previous research has shown that place attachment is positively associated with disaster preparedness. My work builds on this research and explores (i) the relationship between place attachment and preparedness intentions and behaviours and (ii) the potential for a place attachment intervention to change preparedness and behaviours. In the first two studies (Chapter 2), I examined 1) participants’ levels of place attachment at different spatial scales, 2) participants’ preparedness (intentions and behaviours), and 3) place attachment as a mediator of previously identified demographic predictors of preparedness. Findings show that place attachment is associated with both preparedness intentions and behaviour when measured simultaneously. When controlling for socio-demographic predictors, participants who reported stronger house and neighbourhood attachment also reported stronger intentions to prepare (Study 1). In Study 2, house attachment was associated with mitigation preparedness behaviour, whereas neighbourhood attachment was associated with community preparedness behaviour. House and neighbourhood attachment mediated the relationship between homeownership, length of residence, and preparedness. These findings suggest that place attachment varies by spatial scale which matters for different types of disaster preparedness. The second set of studies (Chapter 3) consisted of a pilot study with undergraduate students (Study 3) and a two-wave randomised control trial with a community sample (Study 4) to examine whether the use of a place visualisation intervention would strengthen people’s intentions to prepare (at Time 1) and encourage people to implement preparedness behaviours (at Time 2, two weeks later). I developed and implemented a guided place-based visualisation task, which asked participants to visualise a place they feel attached to (their house or in their neighbourhoods) and compared the effectiveness with visualisation of a neutral place. I expected that visualising one’s house or neighbourhood (i.e. a place people feel attached to) would result in stronger intentions to prepare and higher uptake of preparedness behaviours at a two-week follow-up when compared to people who visualised a neutral place. I did not find any meaningful effect of place visualisation on preparedness intentions or behaviours. In Study 5 (Chapter 4), I used qualitative methods to gain a deeper understanding of the quantitative findings. I thematically analysed qualitative data gathered as part of a previous survey (Study 1) to understand people’s relationships to places in more depth and to identify what people think is important about their attachment to places at different spatial scales. I identified six key themes (i.e. social, physical, residential, functional, sentimental, psychological) that were important for place attachment across four different spatial scales. Finally, across two chapters, I further explored my place visualisation intervention and why it may not have been as effective as expected. To this end, I first provided a mixed- methods analysis of how participants engaged with the intervention task (e.g. time spent on the task and number of words written) (Study 6, Chapter 5). Then, I used insights from behaviour change theories (Chapter 6) to discuss the findings from Studies 1-6 as they relate to the advancement of place attachment theory, application to disaster preparedness behaviour-change, and implications for intervention design and implementation. In the final chapter (Chapter 7), I discussed the key findings and implications across the entire thesis and how these can be used to inform theory, practice, and future research directions.</p>
No place like home: The role of place attachment in increasing individual preparedness for natural hazard events
