Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III 267

Individualised risk communication of
sediment-disaster evaluated using a
psychological process model
A. Taniguchi1, S. Fujii2, N. Osanai3 & H. Ito41

Department of Risk Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Department of Urban Management, Kyoto University, Japan
3
Erosion and Sediment Control Division,
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport,
National Institute for Land and Infrastructure, Japan
4
Faculty of Policy Studies, Iwate Prefectural University, Japan
2

Abstract
This study developed a non-emergency risk-communication program focusing
on sediment disasters. The program, which targeted local residents, included a
motivational leaflet, easily understandable information, and a questionnairerequesting to make a behavioural plan. To verify the effectiveness of the
program, it was tested in the town of Tosa in Kochi Prefecture, Japan.
Participants in Tosa were randomly divided into two groups, with one groupserving as the control and the other as the experimental group. The results
showed that understanding of sediment disaster risk was significantly higher inthe experimental group than in the control group. However, the program had
only a limited effect on participants who did not trust the local government,
indicating the importance of the credibility of local government agencies
responsible for disaster prevention. The risk-communication program also had apositive effect on inducing evacuation behaviour.
Keywords: risk communication, evacuation behaviour, psychological processmodel, sediment disaster.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
doi:10.2495/DMAN130241

268 Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III

1 Introduction
In Japan, warnings regarding sediment hazards have been broadcast on TV andradio since 2007. However, it has been found that many people do not fully
understand the meanings and roles of these warning notices and how they differ
from other evacuation alarms or weather advisories. Furthermore, these notices
do not necessarily induce evacuation behaviour [1]. An effective riskcommunication program that can induce evacuation when necessary is needed
across Japan, and research on effective programs is underway. A riskcommunication program should include not only information on the risk but also
tips designed to induce people to consider how they will behave in a risk
situation.
One type of communicative program that has been shown to induce voluntary
behavioural changes is mobility management, a “soft” transportation measurethat has been adopted throughout the world [2]. Mobility management
incorporates findings of psychology in a practical yet sophisticated method that
can have significant effects on travel behaviour. In this study, we examined
whether this practical approach from the transportation field can be applied torisk communication to induce disaster evacuation behaviour.
We developed a program to communicate sediment-disaster risk and induce
evacuation behaviour. The program material included a simple motivational
leaflet with information on concrete actions to take during an evacuation and aquestionnaire that induced participants to consider their behavioural plan. Using
control and experimental groups, we tested the program among residents of Tosa
Town, Kochi Prefecture, Japan, and verified its effectiveness as a psychologicalprocess model for behavioural change.
Basically, the goal of such a communication program is to induce evacuation‘behaviour’. However, in the real world, it may be difficult to test theeffectiveness of a program empirically by actual evacuation behaviour.
Therefore, we tested the effectiveness of the program by measuring andanalysing psychological factors that were considered to have significant
relationships with behaviour.

2 Literature review
2.1 Process model of risk-coping behaviour and trust
Rowan [3] proposed the CAUSE model to describe a process of risk-coping
behaviour. The model includes five phases as goals of risk communication:‘credibility’, ‘awareness’, ‘understanding’, ‘solution’, and ‘enactment’. Using
this model, Fujii [4] suggested a process model to induce risk-coping behaviour.
An advantage of this model is that it is possible to determine participants’current phase of the process model and to then communicate appropriately forthe phase. Moreover, this model assumes that ‘credibility’ is the deepest factor,
reflecting many psychological research findings that ‘trust’ is fundamentally
important in risk communication (e.g. Nakayachi and Cvetkovich [5] andWIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III 269

Nakayachi and Watabe [6]). Yamagishi [7] proposed that general trust in otherpeople or organization is determined by both trust in competency and trust in
intention, and this idea has been widely accepted.
2.2 Process model of attitude and behavioural change
Taniguchi and Fujii [8] suggested an integrated model of voluntary change intravel behaviour. The model was based on the assumption that the behaviour of
reducing car use is influenced by the behavioural intention to reduce automobileuse. That behavioural intention is, in turn, influenced by psychological factors,
including attitude and perceived behavioural control. These factors are
considered in the theory of planned behaviour, one of the most widely usedbehavioural theories [9].
Behavioural intention is necessary for sustained behavioural change, but it is
not sufficient. In the real world, behaviour is not always modified, even if one
has an intention to do so. In an attempt to determine how intentions are
implemented in behaviour, Heckhausen and Gollwitzer [10] and Gollwitzer [11,12] distinguished between ‘goal intention’ and ‘implementation intention’. Goal
intention can be regarded as a behavioural intention [13, 14], whereas
implementation intention entails a plan for when, where, and how the target
behaviour is to be implemented. Gärling and Fujii [13] hypothesised that theeffect of behavioural intention on behaviour is mediated by implementation
intention. They used data on causal relationships among behavioural intention,
implementation intention or planning, and actual behaviour to support thisassumption.
2.3 Practical measures to induce voluntary behavioural change
Even when people have a behavioural intention, such as ‘I am going to evacuate
when strong rainfall occurs’, they often fail to implement the actual behaviour
because they lack an implementation intention. An example of an
implementation intention is, ‘I am going to evacuate on a specific occasion to a
specific location (such as a shelter)’.
To reduce the gap between intention and behaviour and activate
implementation intention, Fujii and Taniguchi [15] and Taniguchi and Fujii [16]suggested a practical technique called a ‘behavioural plan’ for travel-behaviourchange. In their travel-behaviour plan, participants were asked to complete aquestionnaire regarding a specific occasion for which they would indicate whenand from where they would telephone to reserve an on-demand bus service.
Their results showed that requesting participants’ behavioural plans was
effective in inducing voluntary change in their travel behaviour. We thought that
this technique could also be applied to induce other behaviours, such as
evacuation behaviour in a risk situation.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)270 Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III

3 Method
3.1 Overview of the target area, Tosa town
Tosa Town is located in a central, mountainous part of Shikoku Island, Japan,
and receives an average of 2,500 mm annual rainfall. The population at the timeof our study was approximately 4,500 (1,860 households). The main industries
were agriculture and forestry. The population included a large percentage of
people 65 years old and over, who made up 39.8% of the total population (in2008), and in some areas, 70–80%. Local government officials in Tosa Town
were interested in implementing our experimental program and had previously
cooperated in other experiments designed by national ministries and Kochi
Prefecture agencies. In addition, because Tosa Town have risks of debris flow
and slope failure, we used the term “sediment disaster” as a general word to
express the disaster in our program.
Before implementing the program, we interviewed a town official to better
understand local circumstances. The interview revealed that Tosa residents
already knew of evacuation areas. However, deciding which area would be safe
under specific circumstances was a problem because Tosa Town is surroundedby mountains where sediment disasters could occur. The town official hoped that
residents would think about which areas would be safe and use such judgements
when evacuating.
In view of these circumstances, the program had to be senior friendly, and thegoal was to induce voluntary evacuation in risk situations.
3.2 Individualised risk-communication program for a sediment disasterWe developed a risk-communication program that included a questionnaire
aimed at inducing respondents to consider their behavioural plans. Tosa Town
had 46 neighbourhood associations. We excluded some, such as those that had
only a single household or that did not have high potential of sediment disaster,such as areas near the river. We then chose 21 neighbourhood associations andrandomly assigned them to the target group (10 associations, 819 households)
and control group (11 associations, 622 households).
Figure 1 shows the experiment schedule and the surveys used to investigate
the program’s effectiveness. As shown in the figure, the program kit consisted ofTarget group (Wave 1)

Sep. 2008

Feb. to Mar.
2009

- Motivational leaflet- Questionnaire requesting the
respondent’s behavioural plan

Control group
Received none of the
program material

Questionnaire to measure the effect (Wave 2)

Figure 1:

Flow diagram of the program.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III 271

the questionnaire requesting a behavioural plan, a motivational leaflet, asediment hazard map, and a magnet bar with which to display the behaviouralplan. Kits were distributed in September 2004 to the target group through theneighbourhood associations.
All of the program kit material was designed to accommodate senior
participants, such as by using large characters and having simple explanations.
The program kit is described in detail below.
- The questionnaire with a behavioural plan
The one-and-a-half page questionnaire requested that participants read the
motivational leaflet and refer to the hazard map for their residential area. Then,they were asked to answer questions such as the following: ‘Could you markyour home on the hazard map?’; ‘Is your home located within a red zone forsediment disaster?’; ‘Where will you evacuate to in the case of a sedimentdisaster?’; ‘Do you have a friend or acquaintance living within the red zone?’;‘Do you know their contact information?’
Next, respondents were asked to fill in the behavioural plan sheet. Items
included ‘In case of heavy rain, I will seek refuge in [location] _____ ’; ‘The
telephone number of the refuge area is [tel. number] _____’; and ‘In such cases, I
will tell [person’s name] _____ to seek refuge; their telephone number is _____’.
Lastly, participants were asked where they would hang the behavioural plan,such as on their refrigerator, wall, or the back of a door, and they were asked touse the magnet bar that was distributed in the program kit to do this.

Figure 2:

The questionnaire with behavioural plan (partial).

These questions and requests were designed to stimulate participants toconsider how they would behave in the case of a sediment disaster.
- The motivational leaflet
To explain the risks of sediment disasters and how to behave appropriately, we
made an A5-sized motivational leaflet. We tried to make the information as
simple and easy to understand as possible. The contents of the leaflet wereorganised as short lists, photographs, and a graph of sediment disasters in
Shikoku. The importance of evacuating to prevent human harm was emphasised.
WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)272 Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III

Figure 3:

Motivational leaflet.

- The sediment hazard map
Using hazard data provided by Kochi Prefecture, we made four hazard maps inwhich sediment hazard zones were clearly indicated in red for each part of Tosa
Town. The map was folded inside the questionnaire when the kit was distributed.
- The magnet bar
To remind people of sediment disaster risk and how to behave during a sedimentdisaster, we requested that participants place or hang the behavioural plan on
their refrigerator, wall, or a door. The magnet bar was distributed to aid in
displaying the plan.
About 6 months after the intervention, during February to March 2009, we
distributed a questionnaire to all the households to measure the effects of the
program (Wave 2).
3.3 Framework of analysis
As described in section 2, we used a psychological process model (Figure 3) tomeasure the effects of the risk-communication program described in subsection
3.2. This model was based on the CAUSE model, the model of trust, and thetheory of planned behaviour.
The measures for each factor are shown in Table 1.

4 Results and discussions
We distributed the Wave 2 survey questionnaire to 1,441 households (819 target
group, and 622 control group) and collected 374 (217 from the target group, 157
from the control group). We used these data to analyse the effects of the
program.
4.1 Mean, standard deviation, and t-test
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the target and control
groups and the results of the one-tailed t-test assessing differences between them.
Scores on all factors were higher in the target group than in the control group. A

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III 273

Table 1:

Questions used to measure factors in the Wave 2 questionnaire andthe possible responses to the measures.

Index

Question

Credibility(general trust)Do you trust the local government’s
disaster-prevention office?
Do you think that the local government’s
Trust in competency disaster-prevention office is competent toprevent sediment disaster?
Do you think that the local government’s
Trust in intention
disaster-prevention office intends toprevent sediment disaster?
Do you think that there is a risk ofAwarenesssediment disaster in Tosa Town?
Do you know that many cases ofUnderstanding
sediment disaster are caused by heavyrain?
Do you think that “just evacuating” isSolution
important to prevent human harm during
a sediment disaster?
Do you think that you will evacuate
Behaviouralduring a heavy rain that is likely to cause
intention
a sediment disaster?
Can you imagine with whom, to where,
Implementationand how you will evacuate in the case of
intention
heavy rain that is likely to cause asediment disaster?
† Memory of the
program

Do you remember the program held in
September 2008?

Ends of thescale/alternatives
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
No/YesFive-point scale
Remember/Rememb
er somewhat/Do notrememberBelow are dummy variables for the experimental group only based on the ‘Memory of
the program’ question. These are the dummy variables relative to the control group.
No memory dummySome memory
dummy
Memory dummy

The dummy variable was set to 1 if the participant answered ‘Do
not remember’; otherwise, the value was set to 0.
The dummy variable was set to 1 if the participant answered‘Remember somewhat’; otherwise the value was set to 0.
The dummy variable was set to 1 if the participant answered‘Remember’; otherwise, the value was set to 0.

†: This question was not included in the questionnaire for the control group.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)274 Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III
Model for Trust
Trust in

CAUSE Model

Competency
Credibility(General Trust)

Awareness

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Understanding

Implementation

Behavioural
Intention

Solution

Intention

Trust inIntention

Figure 4:

Framework of analysis based on three theories.

significant difference was found in the factor of ‘understanding’. These results
indicate that the risk-communication program developed in this study waseffective in activating psychological factors for inducing evacuation behaviour to
avoid sediment disasters.
For further analysis, the target group was divided into three groups according
to answers regarding ‘memory of the program’. Table 3 presents mean andstandard deviations for the three groups. As shown in Table 3, more
Table 2:Comparison of the target and control groups and results of the onetailed t-test.
Control group

Credibility (general trust)
Trust in competency
Trust in intention
Awareness
Understanding
Solution
Behavioral intention
Implementation intention

n
154
154
153
153
153
154
153
151

M
3.36
3.16
3.61
4.36
4.75
4.64
4.08
3.39

SD
0.99
1.00
0.95
0.76
0.64
0.64
1.00
1.32

Target group
n
215
215
214
212
212
216
214
213

M
3.43
3.19
3.63
4.40
4.87
4.70
4.17
3.55

SD
1.01
1.06
1.83
0.86
0.50
0.64
0.98
1.24

t -testControl vs. target
t

df

p

-0.74
-0.22
-0.09
-0.46
-2.02
-0.90
-0.93
-1.21

367
367
365
363
363
368
365
362

0.23
0.41
0.47
0.32
0.02
0.18
0.18
0.11

n : number in sample; M: mean; SD: standard deviationt : t -value; df: degrees of freedom; p : significance (one-tailed)

Table 3:

Mean and standard deviation of the target group categorised bymemory of the program.
Target group,no memory

Credibility (general trust)
Trust in competency
Trust in intention
Awareness
Understanding
Solution
Behavioral intention
Implementation intention

n

43
43
42
43
41
43
43
43

M
2.98
2.72
2.95
4.16
4.68
4.56
3.74
3.19

SD
0.89
1.05
1.19
1.19
0.91
0.85
1.29
1.28

Target group,
some memory
n

67
67
67
68
66
68
68
67

M
3.39
3.27
3.88
4.34
4.86
4.60
4.24
3.45

SD
0.98
1.01
2.79
0.78
0.46
0.65
0.88
1.27

n : number in sample; M: mean; SD: standard deviation

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Target group,
memory
n

86
86
86
83
86
86
84
86

M
3.61
3.34
3.66
4.53
4.98
4.86
4.32
3.79

SD
1.00
0.99
1.09
0.68
0.15
0.44
0.87
1.18

Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III 275

psychological factors were activated in participants who had greater memory
than in those with less memory of the program. The scores in the ‘no memory’group were lower than those in the control group. In the next section, we will
examine the factors that led to this result.
4.2 Psychological process model for evacuation behaviour and effects ofparticipants’ memory of the program
To verify that the psychological process model induced evacuation behaviour
and to identify which factors differed among the three groups, we used the model
shown in Figure 4. In this model, the relationships between the three dummy
variables (shown at the bottom of Table 1) indicating memory of the program
and the psychological process model for evacuation behaviour were examined.
We tested this model by using hierarchical multiple regression analysis, setting
the factors on the right side as dependent variables and those on the left side as
independent variables. For example, for the dependent variable ‘understanding’,
the independent variables are ‘awareness’, ‘credibility’, ‘trust in competency’,‘trust in intention’, and the three dummy variables.
Trust inCompetency
Credibility(General Trust)

Awareness

Understanding

Solution

Behavioural
Intention

Implementation

Intention

Trust inIntention

Target group
No Memory
Dummy

Some Memory
Dummy

MemoryDummy

Memory of the experiment

Figure 5:

Proposed psychological process model for evacuation behaviour.

Table 4 and Figure 5 show the results of hierarchical multiple regression
analysis.
First, trust in the local government’s competency and trust in the local
government’s intention had significant effects on credibility, which replicatedformer research findings. Only trust in intention had a significant effect onawareness, and there was no significant effect of credibility or trust on
competency. Awareness had a significant effect on understanding, andunderstanding and awareness had significant effects on solution. Credibility,
trust in competency, and solution had significant effects on behaviouralintention, and awareness had a marginally significant effect on behaviouralintention. Furthermore, credibility, understanding, and behavioural intention had
significant effects on implementation intention. These results indicated that thepsychological process model was appropriate to describe a process of evacuation
behaviour.
Additionally, trust in intention had a marginally significant negative effect on
implementation intention. Although the coefficient of this pass was
WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

276 Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III
comparatively small (= -0.08), further research is needed to clarify the reason forthis result.

Trust inCompetency
Credibility(General Trust)

Understanding

Awareness

Behavioural
Intention

Solution

Trust inIntention

Implementation

Intention

Positive coefficient

なんとなく
Some
Memory
Dummy
記憶

ダミー

Figure 6:

Negative coefficient

実験群

実験群
No Memory
記憶無し
Dummy

ダミー

実験群
Memory
記憶あり
Dummy

ダミー

Significant relationship
Marginally significant relationshipResults of hierarchical multiple regression analysis.

Second, concerning the dummy for memory of the program, the results shownin Figure 5 and Table 4 do not mean that there were causal relationships between
the dummy variables and other psychological factors. These analyses were done
to verify an existence of correlation between dummy and psychological factors
and also to identify differences among the three dummy groups in comparison
with the control group.
Table 4:
Dependent
variable

Implementation
Intention

Behavioral
Intention

Solution

Results of the multiple regression analyses of relationships
between factors.
Independent
variable(constant)
Credibility (general trust)
Trust in competency
Trust in intention
Awareness
Understanding
Solution
Behavioral Intention
D_No memory
D_Some memory
D_Memory(constant)
Credibility (general trust)
Trust in competency
Trust in intention
Awareness
Understanding
Solution
D_No memory
D_Some memory
D_Memory(constant)
Credibility (general trust)
Trust in competency
Trust in intention
Awareness
Understanding
D_No memory
D_Some memory
D_Memory

β

ｔ

ｐ

0.15
0.05
0.02
-0.03
0.16
0.03
0.38
0.02
-0.05
0.04
0.13
0.10
-0.08
0.08
0.02
0.43
-0.05
0.09
0.01
0.07
-0.01
0.03
0.11
0.38
-0.02
-0.05
0.07

-2.15
2.30
0.76
0.32
-0.53
3.01
0.51
7.08
0.47
-0.92
0.80
-0.04
1.85
1.51
-1.62
1.53
0.34
8.29
-0.97
1.75
0.25
7.11
0.95
-0.18
0.54
2.13
7.27
-0.31
-0.91
1.35

0.02
0.01
0.22
0.38
0.30
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.32
0.18
0.21
0.48
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.37
0.00
0.17
0.04
0.40
0.00
0.17
0.43
0.29
0.02
0.00
0.38
0.18
0.09

Dependent
variable

Independentβｔvariable(constant)
20.19
Credibility (general trust) 0.02
0.31
Trust in competency-0.04 -0.56
Trust in intention
0.04
0.67
Understanding
Awareness
0.37
7.51
D_No memory-0.02 -0.32
D_Some memory
0.08
1.46
D_Memory
0.13
2.47(constant)
23.52
Credibility (general trust) 0.09
1.12
Trust in competency-0.07 -0.94
Awareness
Trust in intention
0.16
2.83
D_No memory-0.05 -0.88
D_Some memory-0.03 -0.55
D_Memory
0.08
1.35(constant)
8.46
Credibility (general trust) 0.69 17.51
Credibility
Trust in competency
0.08
2.13
(general trust)
D_No memory-0.03 -0.86
D_Some memory-0.04 -1.03
D_Memory
0.04
0.98(constant)
40.73
Trust
D_No memory-0.14 -2.59
in competency
D_Some memory
0.04
0.65
D_Memory
0.07
1.21(constant)
31.83
Trust
D_No memory-0.15 -2.75
in intention
D_Some memory
0.05
0.97
D_Memory
0.00 -0.06
β: Standardized coefficient; p : significance (one-tailed)

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

ｐ

0.00
0.38
0.29
0.25
0.00
0.37
0.07
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.17
0.00
0.19
0.29
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.20
0.15
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.48

Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III 277

As shown in Figure 5 and Table 4, the ‘no memory’ dummy had a significant
negative relationship with trust in competency and trust in intention. The reason
for this result is uncertain, but a possible explanation may be that people who did
not trust local government did not put serious effort into the program and thus
did not remember the program. The ‘some memory’ dummy was significantly
associated with behavioural intention and had a marginally significant
relationship with understanding. The ‘memory’ dummy showed a significant
association with understanding and a marginally significant association withawareness and solution. There results suggest that the more people were aware of
the risk of sediment disaster, the more memory they had of the program.
Overall, our results indicate that our psychological process model wasappropriate for describing the process of evacuation behaviour. Furthermore,trust in local government was found to be a fundamental factor in inducing
voluntary evacuation behaviour. If people did not trust in local government fordisaster prevention, they tended not to remember the risk-communication
program provided by the local government.

5 Conclusion
We developed an individualised risk-communication program to induce
voluntary evacuation behaviour as a governmental measure and tested theprogram in Tosa Town in Kochi Prefecture, Japan. We then examined thepsychological variables that were directly associated with evacuation behaviour
and created a psychological process model based on existing theories.
Our results showed that scores on psychological factors supporting anevacuation plan were significantly higher for the target group than the control
group. The psychological process model that we suggested was also found to beappropriate for describing a process of evacuation behaviour. Furthermore, trustin local government was of fundamental importance in inducing voluntaryevacuation behaviour.
In this program, psychological factors such as understanding and behaviouralintention were activated in at least 70% of the target group (the total of thememory and some memory groups). Additionally, nearly 30% of the target groupreported that they displayed their behavioural plan in their home (e.g., on a wall,
the refrigerator, or a door). These results suggest that the program was effective
and practical. Future research should examine the applicability of this program togovernment measures in other areas.

Acknowledgements
The English in this document has been checked by at least two professional
editors, both native speakers of English. For a certificate, please see:
http://www.textcheck.com/certificate/fRIfY1.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)278 Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III

References[1] Japanese Meteorological Agency (2010) Report of the results concerning
utilization of weather and disaster information, http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/hyouka/manzokudo/22manzokudo/22manzokudo_kekka.pdf(in Japanese), p. 34.
[2] European Platform on Mobility Management (EPOMM) WEB site:
http://www.epomm.eu/[3] Rowan, K. E. (1994) Why rules for risk communication are not enough: A
problem-solving approach to risk communication. Risk Analysis 14,
pp. 365-374.
[4] Fujii, S. (2007) Risk recognition and communication, earthquakes andhuman beings, chapter 3, Ohno, R., Fujii, S., Aoki, Y., Osaragi, J., Seo, K.,(eds.), Urban Earthquake Engineering Series, Asakura syoten (in Japanese).
[5] Nakayachi, K. and Cvetkovich, G. (2010) Public trust in government
concerning tobacco control in Japan. Risk Analysis, 30(1), 143-152.
[6] Nakayachi, K. and Watabe, M. (2005) Restoring trustworthiness after
adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary “Hostage Posting” ontrust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 1-17.
[7] Yamagishi, T. (2011) Trust—the evolutionary game of mind and society(The science of the mind), Springer.
[8] Taniguchi, A. and Fujii, S. (2007) Process model of voluntary behavior
modification and effects of travel feedback programs, Transportation
Research Record, 2010, pp. 45-52.
[9] Conner, M., and Armitage, C.J. (1998) Extending the theory of planned
behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 28, 1429-1464.
[10] Heckhausen, H., and Gollwitzer, P.M. (1987) Thought contents andcognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind.
Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101-120.
[11] Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993) Goal achievement: The role of intentions.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141-185．
[12] Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996) The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M.
Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh (Eds), The psychology of action: Linking
cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287-312). New York: Guilford
Press.
[13] Gärling, T., and Fujii, S. (2002) Structural equation modeling ofdeterminants of planning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 1-8.
[14] Fujii, S. (2005) Reducing inappropriate bicycle-parking through persuasive
communication, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1171-1196.
[15] Fujii, S., and Taniguchi, A. (2005) Reducing family car use by providing
travel advice or requesting behavioral plans: An experimental analysis oftravel feedback programs, Transportation Research D, 10(5), 385-393.
[16] Taniguchi, A. and Fujii, S. (2007) Promoting public transport using
marketing techniques in mobility management and verifying theirquantitative effects, Transportation, 34(1) 37-49.
WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 133, © 2013 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)