Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Two impact pathways from religious belief to

public disaster response: Findings from a literature
review

Lei Sun, Yan Deng, Wenhua Qi

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: S2212-4209(17)30295-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.004
Reference: IJDRR684
To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Received date: 2 August 2017
Revised date: 30 September 2017
Accepted date: 4 October 2017
Cite this article as: Lei Sun, Yan Deng and Wenhua Qi, Two impact pathways
from religious belief to public disaster response: Findings from a literature
r e v i e w , International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.004
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Two impact pathways from religious belief to public
disaster response: Findings from a literature review
Lei Sun a, Yan Deng a, Wenhua Qi a,*
a Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration. A1, HuaYanLi, ChaoYang District, 100029, Beijing,
China

Corresponding author: *qiwenhua@ies.ac.cn

Abstract: This study aims to understand the ways in which religious belief impacts public disaster
response and to evaluate the current knowledge regarding this topic. By reviewing the literature
related to the “religion-hazard/disaster nexus”, this paper identifies two important impact
pathways. First, religious belief impacts how religious persons interpret natural hazards and
perceive risks (disaster awareness) while also governing their behaviours and affecting public
emotions in a disaster situation. Second, religious belief and religious identity link individual
believers with God(s) and create bonds among different adherents, which can become important
resources (religious support) for survivors when coping with physical and emotional wounds. As
an important contextual and identity factor in the two pathways to response, religious belief has
both constructive and harmful impacts. In certain contexts, religious belief and the associated
religious interpretation of natural hazards constrain people’s initiative to cope with disaster, but in
terms of a psychological response, religious attributes can foster and promote individual and social
disaster resilience. In the face of a disaster, people can obtain vital spiritual support from the God(s)
in whom they believe and can also have access to and rely on important support and resources that
are generated or mobilized by their belief-based social network. Regarding disaster risk reduction,
it is important for policymakers and practitioners to value and capitalize on the constructive
impacts of religious belief and to make an effort to moderate those impacts where they may be
obstacles.

Keywords: religious belief; disaster awareness; religious support; public response to disasters;
disaster risk reduction (DRR)

1. Introduction
In many disaster-prone regions of the world, religion is firmly embedded in local daily life and
has become an integrated element of culture. Within the context of today’s more culturally aware
agenda of disaster research, the role of religion and/or religious belief in the context of natural
disasters has gained more attention. For example, the Parliament of the World’s Religions held a
special forum entitled “Faith, Community, and Disaster Risk Reduction” in December 2009 [1], and a
special chapter focusing on belief and the perception of risk is included in the 2014 World Disaster
Report [2].

A deeper understanding of the role of religious belief in public disaster response will breed
more context-specific and culturally appropriate disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies. The
primary objective of this paper is to review and synthesize a wide range of relevant studies in order
to understand the way in which religious belief impacts public disaster responses. The paper
attempts to take stock of existing knowledge and discuss the implications for DRR as well as offer
some thoughts on further research. We organized the paper as follows. The second section (section
2) provides an introduction of our methodology. The third section (section 3) presents the results
1
from a descriptive analysis and the thematic classification of the articles included. The fourth section
(section 4) reviews and synthesizes the findings from relevant studies. The fifth section (section 5)
presents a concluding summary and discusses its implication for DRR in religious communities. The
last section (Section 6) presents some thoughts on further research.

2. Methodology
This review includes papers from a broad range of disciplines focusing on or related to religious
belief and natural disasters. Both descriptive analysis (section 3) and thematic analysis (section 4) are
presented. The search process for this review utilized several databases including Web of Science,
Google Scholar, Science Direct, Elsevier, and Taylor & Francis. The titles and abstracts of articles
published in English were searched for the keywords “natural hazard”, “natural disaster” and
“response” combined with “religious belief” or “religion”. This study also used similar terms via
Chinese search engines such as CNKI and Baidu Scholar to find studies published in Chinese that
had English abstracts. In addition, the retrospective method (i.e., collecting literature according to
the reference lists of the paper included) was also used as a supplementary method. For the purpose
of this study, those articles that focus on religious organizations’ responses rather than the public
were excluded. Eventually, 46 articles were reviewed (Table 1). Here, we would also like to note that
some publications (e.g., several early articles, relevant books and/or book chapters) were not
included in this study only because of the features of our search method (which privileges articles
published in journals and articles having electronic versions) and our limited accessibility to such
publications, which does not imply that their value is limited.

Table 1. Summary of selected studies reviewed in this paper.

Author 1 Year Country/Region 2 Country 3 Belief 4
Dynes and Yutzy [3] 1965 Texas and Arkansas, USA USA C
Sims and Baumann [4] 1972 Illinois and Alabama, USA USA C
Bradfield, et al. [5] 1989 West Virginia, USA USA C
Furnham and Brown [6] 1992 London, UK UK Ns
Schlehe [7] 1996 Java, Indonesia Germany Lr
Schmuck [8] 2000 Bangladesh Germany I
Smith et al. [9] 2000 Missouri and Illinois, USA USA C
Mitchell [10] 2000 South Carolina, USA USA C
Hutton and Haque [11] 2003 Bangladesh Canada I
Mitchell [12] 2003 South Carolina, USA USA C
Bankoff [13] 2004 Philippines New Zealand C
and the
Netherlands
Chester [14] 2005 None specified UK C
Rigg et al. [15] 2005 Malaysia and Thailand UK Ns
Paradise [16] 2005 Agadir, Morocco USA I
De Silva [17] 2006 Sri Lanka UK B
Pollock [18] 2007 Israel USA J
Chester et al. [19] 2008 Italy UK C

2
 Author 1 Year Country/Region 2 Country 3 Belief 4
Dove [20] 2008 Java, Indonesia USA Lr
Rajkumar et al. [21] 2008 Tamil Nadu, India India Ns
Lavigne et al. [22] 2008 Central Java, Indonesia France Lr
Wang and Hang [23] 2009 Beichuan County, China China B
Ghafory-Ashtiany [24] 2009 Iran Iran I, C and
J
Schipper [25] 2010 El Salvador Sweden C
Reale [1] 2010 None specified Australia Ns
Falk [26] 2010 Phang Nga, Thailand Sweden B
Merli [27] 2010 Southern Thailand UK B and I
Schlehe [28] 2010 Java, Indonesia Germany I
Qi et al. [29] 2011 Qinghai Province, China China B
Zhang et al. [30] 2012 Yushu County, China China B
Joffe [31] 2012 USA, Japan, and Turkey UK I
Wessinger [32] 2012 USA USA Ns
Adiyoso and Kanegae [33] 2013 Banda Aceh, Indonesia Japan I
Paul and Nadiruzzaman 2013 None specified USA Ns
[34]
Alshehri and Rezgui [35] 2013 Saudi Arabia UK I
Chan and Rhodes [36] 2013 New Orleans, USA China Ns
Chester et al. [37] 2013 None specified UK I
Sipon et al. [38] 2014 Sepang, Malaysia Malaysia Ns
Schipper, et al. [2] 2014 None specified UK Ns
Baytiyeh and Naja [39] 2014 Middle East Lebanon I
Ha [40] 2015 Korea Korea B and C
Joakim and White [41] 2015 Yogyakarta, Indonesia UK I
Taylor and Peace [42] 2015 Java, Indonesia New Zealand I and C
Ghafory-Ashtiany [43] 2015 Iran Iran I, C, and
J
Bempah and Øyhus [44] 2017 Communities along the Ghana I
Volta River,
Ghana
Sherry and Curtis [45] 2017 Nepal Australia B
Rahiem et al. [46] 2017 Indonesia Indonesia I

Note: 1. Articles are listed in chronological order. 2. Country/Region here refers to the study area. 3.
Country here means country of affiliation of the first author. 4. C=Christianity, B=Buddhism, I=Islam, Lr=Local
religion, J=Judaism, Ns=None specified

3. Descriptive analysis and theme classification

3
 Figure 1 shows the classification of these articles according to the religious beliefs on which they
focus. Figure 1 reveals that in addition to the attention given to the three major religions of Islam
(28.3%), Christianity (21.7%), and Buddhism (13.0%), these articles also dealt with local religious
belief, though only to a limited degree. It should be noted that Protestantism and Catholicism, which
were addressed in these articles, are both coded as Christianity in the classification. The data in
Figure 1 also suggest that a limited number of studies were conducted from cross-religious
comparison perspective.

Figure 1. Classification of the included papers according to the religious beliefs on which they focus

Figure 2 presents the source of the reviewed articles according to the country of affiliation of the
first author and their study areas. These statistics were used to understand how heterogeneous the
cultural backgrounds of the studies and the authors were [47]. The figure reveals that although more
than half of the studies (58.7%) focused on Asian countries, a larger proportion of them are affiliated
with developed countries. These percentages indicate that in general, authors from the third-world
countries mainly study their own religion-hazard/disaster nexus issues, while studies conducted by
authors from developed countries or regions such as the USA and the UK focus on issues both inside
and outside of their communities (Table 1, Figure 2).

Figure 2. Classification of the included papers according to the country of the affiliation (inner circle)
and area of focus (outside circle)

Table 2 presents a summary of the themes from the articles in Table 1. We can see that these
articles address both the behavioural and psychological responses (in the sense of emotional and
mental health). All the themes (in the “Theme” column in Table 2) basically fall into two thesis

4
categories: disaster awareness, which is marked with “*” in Table 2, and religious support (resources
and support related to the response), which is marked with “#” in Table 2. This categorization allows
the two impact pathways from religious belief to disaster response to be summarized. First, religious
belief impacts or drives the disaster awareness of religious believers and governs their disaster
response to some extent. Second, religious belief and religious identity can generate, mobilize and/or
transform into the needed support and resources for believers to cope with disaster.

Table 2. Summary of religious belief- and disaster response-related themes of the selected
studies

Theme 1, 2 Articles

*Religious interpretation of
natural hazards (religious
attribution)
Dynes and Yutzy [3]; Furnham and Brown [6]; Schlehe [7];
Schmuck [8]; Smith et al. [9]; Mitchell [10]; Hutton and Haque
[11]; Bankoff [13]; Chester [14]; Rigg et al. [15]; Paradise [16];
Chester et al. [19]; Schipper [25]; Merli [27]; Schlehe [28];
Adiyoso and Kanegae [33]; Paul and Nadiruzzaman [34];
Alshehri and Rezgui[35]; Chester et al. [37]; Taylor and Peace
[42]; Bempah and Øyhus [44]; Rahiem et al. [46]

*Perception of risk, sense of
security, and attitude towards
risk (e.g., fatalism)
Schipper, et al. [2]; Dynes and Yutzy [3]; Schlehe [7]; Schmuck
[8]; Mitchell [10]; Paradise[16]; Chester et al. [19]; Dove [20];
Lavigne et al. [22]; Joffe [31]; Adiyoso and Kanegae [33];
Alshehri and Rezgui [35]; Baytiyeh and Naja [39]; Taylor and
Peace [42]; Sherry and Curtis [45]

*Perception of efficacy (e.g., Schipper, et al. [2]; Sims and Baumann [4]; Hutton and Haque
perception of ability to cope [11]; Paradise [16]; Bempah and Øyhus [44]
with disasters)

#Religious practices, Schlehe [7]; Mitchell [12]; De Silva [17]; Chester et al. [19];
ceremonies, and rituals (the role Rajkumar et al. [21]; Falk [26]; Ha [40]; Joakim and White [41];
of such activities) Sherry and Curtis [45]; Rahiem et al. [46]

#Religious network and Reale [1]; Bradfield, et al. [5]; Rigg et al. [15]; De Silva [17];
resources Pollock [18]; Qi et al. [29]; Ha [40]; Joakim and White [41];
Taylor and Peace [42]; Sherry and Curtis [45]; Rahiem et al.
[46]

Emotional and mental health in
the context of disaster
(psychological response)
Schmuck [8]; Smith et al. [9]; Hutton and Haque [11]; Mitchell
[12]; Rigg et al. [15]; De Silva [17]; Pollock [18]; Rajkumar et al.
[21]; Wang and Hang [23]; Falk [26]; Qi et al. [29]; Zhang et al.
[30]; Wessinger [32]; Paul and Nadiruzzaman [34]; Chan and
Rhodes [36]; Sipon et al. [38]; Ha [40]; Sherry and Curtis [45];
Rahiem et al. [46]

Response behaviour (e.g., Schlehe [7]; Schmuck [8]; Mitchell [10]; Hutton and Haque
preparedness, mitigation, and [11]; Rigg et al. [15]; Paradise [16]; Chester et al. [19]; Lavigne
evacuation) et al. [22]; Schipper [25]; Paul and Nadiruzzaman [34];

5
 Theme 1, 2 Articles

Chester et al. [37]; Sherry and Curtis [45]

Disaster risk reduction Reale [1]; Chester et al. [19]; Ghafory‐Ashtiany [24]; Adiyoso
and Kanegae [33]; Baytiyeh and Naja [39]; Ha [40]; Chester et
al. [37]; Joakim and White [41]; Ghafory-Ashtiany [43]

Note: 1 The table is a summary of the themes addressing religious belief and public disaster response from
the articles in Table 1. 2. Disaster awareness-related themes are marked as “*”, and religious support-related
themes are marked with “#”.

In sum, the results of the analysis in this section provide the following conclusions. First,
although current studies have addressed many types of religions, we might not gain much
knowledge about religious differences in terms of disaster response due to the lack of cross-religious
work. Second, a rather substantial proportion of studies about developing countries regarding
religion and disaster have been conducted by researchers from developed countries. Notably, in the
study of “others” or “foreign cultures”, cultural misunderstandings might mingle with some of the
findings regarding the local inhabitants’ response to disaster. Third, “the religious interpretation of
disaster and the way it interacts with the public response to disaster” and “the role of religious belief
and the resources it might provide to a public response to disaster” might be two main entry-points
for exploring the religion-hazard/disaster nexus.

Section 4 synthesizes the findings based on the two abovementioned thesis categories of
disaster awareness and religious support in order to construct and illustrate the two impact pathway
models. First, the terminology used in this paper is introduced.

 Hazard is defined as a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that

may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and
services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage [48] .

 Disaster refers to a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving

widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds
the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources [48] .

 Public awareness of disaster refers to the extent of common knowledge about disaster risks, the
factors that lead to disasters, and the actions that can be taken individually and collectively to
reduce exposure and vulnerability to hazards [48] .

 Religious support can be defined as all the resources and support that one can obtain from one’s
religious commitment in order to help manage stressful events (see [49]).

4. Thematic analysis: synthesis of findings

4.1. Public awareness and disaster response

In religious discourse, the causes of behaviour and/or events, including natural hazards and
disasters, are often explained in theistic terms (i.e., religious attribution). A common interpretation
reported in such studies is that natural hazards are supernatural, the “will/act of God” or “divine
retribution” [e.g., 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 42, 44]. These studies come from different
religious communities (e.g., Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam), which indicates that viewing the
divine as the source of natural hazards is a phenomenon that crosses religious denominations.

6
However, this common feature does not mean that there are no religious differences regarding the
religious interpretation of disasters. For example, the research conducted by Merli [27] in southern
Thailand noted that Muslims are more likely than Buddhist adherents to regard the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami as divine retribution. A study by Furnham and Brown [6] found that Muslims and
Jews stress God-centred explanations for disasters more often than Christians and atheists do. In
addition, Furnham and Brown also found that people who judged religion as being important to
them endorsed God-centred explanations more strongly. According to a study by Mitchell [10], the
frequency of disaster occurrence can also impact religious disaster understanding. In his study,
Mitchell [10] found that some Christians in Alabama did not regard a series of tornado events in
1997 as God’s retribution because tornados are so common in that area. However, these religious
groups did consider the 1997 earthquake to be divine punishment. The pioneering work by Dynes
and Yutzy [3] indicated that religious interpretations of disasters may originate with the religious
person’s insufficient scientific knowledge about disasters. However, several recent studies go
further to note that a believer’s religious interpretations of natural hazards can sometimes involve
both science and the believer’s religious belief system [15, 28, 33, 41, 44, 45]. In other words, the
religious interpretations of natural hazards and the relevant scientific views may sometimes coexist
within a religious community.

The findings regarding the influences and consequences of religious attributions of natural
hazards are mixed and thought provoking. Some studies indicated that religious attribution may
result in a low level of risk perception and fatalistic attitudes towards responses [2, 7, 16, 25], which
to some extent determine a religious persons’ negative and passive response. For example, in an
early study in Illinois and Alabama, Sims and Baumann [4] noted that people with a greater belief
that God controls their lives respond more passively to tornado disasters. A review of those recent
studies reveals that at least three kinds of beliefs result in a religious believer’s lower level of
perception of risk or false sense of security (compared to non-religious counterparts): the belief that
God(s) will protect the believers [7, 16, 25, 45], the belief that all losses and damage are under the
control of divine forces [12, 22], and the belief that natural hazards are just manifestations of the
mundane and routine activities of spirits [20]. This low level of perception of risk or false sense of
security among believers is often interwoven with a feeling of helplessness and powerlessness, such
as the assumption that “there is nothing we can do” [19, 31] or a lack of confidence in one’s own
ability [4]. In a study in Bajo Lempa (El Salvador), Schipper [25] found that local inhabitants have
two different ways of thinking to justify their negative attitudes and behaviours regarding floods
and droughts. One is that nothing can be done because natural hazards are God’s will; the other is
that taking actions to respond to natural hazards might influence the actual event because natural
hazards are supernatural forces. Similar “logics” were also found being used by the informally
educated inhabitants of Agadir, Morocco [16], several people from communities along the Volta
River in Ghana [44], and some Middle Eastern communities [39].

Many religious believers consider religious scriptures and doctrines to be their principle sources
of religious thoughts and to be guides to follow [24, 43]. Religious scriptures and doctrines are also
expected to contain theological rationales for those believers’ understanding of disasters. Thus, these
scriptures and doctrines serve as a guide for the responses of believers. For example, several studies
have noted that Buddhists’ interpretations and perceptions of disasters are closely connected with
the doctrine of karma (which is a fundamental concept in Buddhism and means that one reaps the
consequences of one’s actions [17]) [27]. Thus, disasters are the result of or punishment for the bad
karma that a person gathered in past lives [34]. A similar concept indicating that a person will be
responsible for their deeds also exist in the Holy Quran. For example,

7
 Whoever does good, the reward to him is better than his deed, and whoever do bad shall not be
rewarded, or shall be punished [to the extent] of their deeds (Quran-Qesas; 28:84)(cited in [24]).

Therefore, based on such concepts, disasters may be punishment from Allah for those people who
are sinners in the eyes of Muslims. A study by Alshehri et al. [35] argues that the Holy Quran states
clearly that disasters are punishment from God; the authors offer the story of Noah’s Ark as an
example. Mitchell [12] also found that Christians rely on the Bible to support their perceptions of
disasters. For example,

You will not have to worry about sudden disasters, such as come on the wicked like a storm. The Lord will
keep you safe. He will not let you fall into a trap (Proverbs 3: 25-26) (cited in [12]).

However, it is significant to note that not all studies supported the negative impacts of religious
attribution on disaster response. For example, a nationwide survey conducted by Alshehri et al. [35]
in Saudi Arabia found that although the majority of the respondents had faith that "God is in control
of the world and disasters may be a punishment from him", they were not hindered in their
willingness to actively cope with disasters. Similarly, in their study, Adiyoso and Kanegae [33]
found that although most respondents from Banda Aceh, Indonesia believe disaster to be a God’s
will, they also believe that people should take actions to prepare for disasters in addition to Doa
(praying). Based on interviews conducted in Java (Indonesia), Taylor and Peace [42] noted that “both
Islam and Christianity require believers to be responsible for their actions, which extends to flood
prevention and risk reduction”. However, they also found that interviewees referred to using prayer
to prevent flooding. The study of Sherry and Curtis [45] also reported that the Rolwaling Sherpa
people can combine religious response behaviours such as prayer with non-religious actions to cope
with flooding. Similarly, research by Chester et al. [19] in Italy noted that people living in Etna take
“parallel practices” to respond to the threat of volcanic eruption: religious practices encourage a
miracle to occur while protective measures such as evacuation are also employed. As Schlehe [28]
stated, “people everywhere can and do combine and negotiate manifold co-existing explanations
and coping strategies in an enduring entanglement of secular and religious interpretations of natural
hazards and disasters”.

Although few researchers focus specifically on how to integrate religious belief into DRR,
several existing studies have noted that some religious concepts can contribute to an effective DRR
approach. For example, Ghafory-Ashtiany’s [24, 43] study on Abrahamic religions (i.e., Islam,
Christianity, and Judaism) demonstrated that a religious understanding of disaster and some key
religious concepts from the Holy Quran can both create a religious incentive among believers to take
disaster risk and risk reduction seriously. Interestingly, unlike Alshehri et al. [35], who took the story
of Noah’s Ark as an example of a disaster that was described as God’s punishment in the Holy
Quran, Ghafory-Ashtiany [43] argued that this story Noah’s Ark can be a clear example of disaster
education by illustrating how to be safe in a disaster. Believers can gain DRR experience from this
story; for example, “safety can only be achieved when one is prepared…” and “God’s protection of
his prophets is also achieved through respecting the laws of nature…” [43].

In addition, some studies from the perspective of psychological responses placed greater
emphasis on the constructive impacts of these common religious attributions in the context of
natural disasters. These studies stated that for disaster-affected communities or societies, spirituality
and belief can offer answers to questions such as why natural hazards occur, how they occur, and
what the meanings are of injury and death. For example, Schmuck [8] noted that for the local person
who suffers recurrent floods in Bangladesh, religious attributions can help to prevent victims
wasting time and energy inquiring about the reasons behind natural hazards and instead maintain
emotional stability within the affected community. As such, the study of Hutton and Haque [11] in
Bangladesh stress that attributing a hazard to “will of Allah” sustains and strengthens people,
8
especially the disadvantaged, through the adversity that they are experiencing. A study by Dove
[20] found that inhabitants living around the Merapi volcano (Central Java) used the device of social
reconstruction to address volcanic hazards (i.e., they considered local volcanic hazards to be
manifestations of the mundane and routine activities of sprits) in order to familiarize themselves
with those hazards and live together with them. For similar beliefs in the Philippines, Bankoff [13]
stated, “the device of investing a hazard with personality, of anthropomorphizing the event, …
represents an attempt by people to come to terms and deal with such phenomena by reducing ‘the
awesome and incomprehensible to something prosaic and simplistic’ and so permit its incorporation
within the structure of people’s everyday cultural construction of reality”. A recent study by Joakim
and White [41] found that many respondents considered prayer and being a good person to be
strategies for preparing for future disasters, but those interviewed only use prayer as a method to
help them be emotionally and spiritual ready for future disasters rather than expecting that prayer
will prevent disasters.

Therefore, as mentioned above, religious attributions constrain people’s ability to cope with
disasters in certain contexts, which increases their vulnerability. However, it should be noted that
such religious attributions as disasters representing divine punishment are not equal to the fatalistic
acceptance of disasters. In some cases, religious persons might also use certain religious concepts to
support and justify active responses. Furthermore, in terms of mental health in disaster settings,
religious attributions of natural hazards can foster and promote individual and social resilience.
These attributions are vital for survivors, especially for those who lack sufficient capabilities and
resources to alleviate psychological distress and the difficulty of living in a disaster [8, 11, 34].

In general, the studies mentioned above show that religious belief is an important contextual
factor in how religious persons understand, interpret, and respond to natural disasters (Figure 3). A
review of these studies allows us to reveal an important impact pathway from religious belief to
public disaster response, which this paper refers to as the “disaster awareness pathway” (Figure 3).
Specifically, religious belief can impact believers’ choice of a particular interpretation of natural
hazards. To some extent, this interpretation determines believers’ disaster awareness, which mainly
includes their perception of disaster risk and their perception of self- and collective efficacy (i.e.,
whether they have the ability to cope with disasters). Believers can use their own ways of thinking to
incorporate natural hazards and/or disasters into their belief system, constraining or promoting their
behavioural responses and/or affecting their public emotions in a disaster situation. Here, we use an
example from Bangladesh [8] to better illustrate this disaster awareness pathway model. Impacted
by Islamic beliefs, many people in Bangladesh, mostly Muslim, interpret flooding as the “act of
Allah” (i.e., they attribute the hazard). This religious understanding of flooding causes them to
believe that they cannot and should not do anything to prepare for the flooding event (i.e.,
inappropriate perception of efficacy). Meanwhile, they also believe that as Allah has sent the floods,
He will also take them away and protect his believers (i.e., low perception of risk and false sense of
security). Disaster awareness of this kind to some extent leads to the poor disaster preparedness of
these people during and after flood (i.e., passive behaviour). However, because they “know” why
flooding happens to them and that Allah will protect them, they avoid becoming desperate and
helpless (i.e., positive psychological response).

9
 Figure 3. A summary of the impact pathway related to disaster awareness. This impact pathway
comprises (a) belief predictors, (b) awareness predictors, and (c) response predictors (In this figure
and thereafter (e.g., Figure 4 and Figure 5), “behavioural response” mainly refers to people’s actual
response behaviour, such as preparedness, evacuation, and rescue action, in the context of a disaster.
“Psychological response” is expressed in this study as peoples’ psychological and emotional
conditions, such as anxiety, grief, fear, and helpless in the context of disasters.)

4.2. Religious support and disaster response

When a community begins to respond the physical and emotional wounds caused by a natural
disaster, social support may play a central role in their response [50]. Social support has been
defined as those social interactions that provide individuals with actual assistance or embed them
into a web of social relationships perceived as loving, caring, and readily available in a time of need
[51]. Religious support, which can directly come from one’s God/gods concept and from those who
share the same beliefs (fellow adherents, religious leaders and clergy), can be likened to general
social support [49].

Studies have clearly documented that religious belief can be a vital source of spiritual support
for people coping with disasters [5, 12, 18, 21]. For many religions, religious practices, which
function as communication links between the believer and the God(s) in whom they believe [12],
could serve as a direct support channel from God(s) to the believers. As stated by Gibbs [52],
“religion could serve as a coping strategy in the face of disaster, and victims apparently do use
religious belief to deal with the anxiety and uncertainty of a disaster”. Similarly, Pargament asserted
that in the face of a stressful life event, general religious belief and religious practices can be
translated into specific forms of coping [53]. For example, in an early study of the response of
Protestant ministers in the wake of the floods in West Virginia (USA) in 1985, Bradfield et al. [5]
found that ministers offered a unique contribution by assisting the survivors in integrating the
suffering brought by this flood into the “theological contexts of their religious beliefs” [5]. In recent
studies addressing the new disasters of the new millennium, including the 2004 tsunami in southern
Thailand [26] and the 2010 Yushu earthquake disaster [29], Buddhist beliefs and rituals were found
to be significant in providing hope and alleviating suffering for many survivors. Moreover, it is
important to note that disaster victims may have already accumulated abundant local knowledge for
addressing disaster situations as best they can [46]. Several studies even indicated that religious
coping or healing may be more culturally appropriate and popular than science-based
psychotherapy in a disaster situation [17, 21].

However, the quantitative psychological studies that address the relationship between religious
belief and psychological response/condition in the context of natural disasters reported mixed
findings. Different case studies reported religious belief as having a protective role [38], no

10
protective role [30], and even a negative role [23]. For example, in the study of Sipon et al. [38], all
respondents interviewed in the Sepang community (Malaysia) reported that religious beliefs helped
them to cope with a flooding disaster. However, Zhang et al. [30] found no protective role of
religious belief in buffering against psychological trauma among Yushu earthquake survivors. The
study of Wang and Hang found that ageing Buddhist believers even demonstrated a worse
psychological condition than their non-religious counterparts in the wake of the Wenchuan
earthquake [23]. We noted that both Zhang et al. [30] and Wang and Hang [23] concluded their
findings based on a comparative analysis between believers and their non-religious counterparts on
scale scores for psychological tests. The potential differences in impact from positive (e.g., seeking
spiritual support from God) and negative (e.g., thinking God is punishing them) psychological
coping strategies [53, 54], both of which might be used by the survivors after the Wenchuan
earthquake and the Yushu earthquake, lack further measures and analysis in their studies. Different
religious coping strategies can result in different psychological responses to disasters. For example,
the study by Smith [9] on the great American flood of 1993 revealed that negative coping strategies
were related to poor mental health after disasters and positive coping strategies were associated
with better psychological health and less distress in disaster situations. Similarly, according to a
survey of the female victims of Hurricane Katrina, Chan and Rhodes [36] found that negative
religion-relevant mental adjustments can cause victims long-lasting psychological distress, while
positive mental adjustments can help to produce “posttraumatic growth” among victims.
Pargament, et al. [53] stated that people make more use of positive coping strategies such as seeking
spiritual support from God’s love and care than negative ones. For disaster studies, the research of
Wessinger [32] on survivors of Hurricane Katrina in and around New Orleans supports the
statement of Pargament, et al. [53].

It was also suggested that the public’s response to natural disasters could benefit from a shared
belief system. Religious belief and its associated customs, rituals and traditions can breed a sense of
identity for many individuals and groups, sustain a religious-based social network, and enhance
social cohesion [2, 25, 41, 45]. Abundant social capital is embedded in religious-based social
networks and believers’ sense of identity, which can become a vital resource when coping with
disaster. For example, the study by Bradfield [5] on the floods in West Virginia in 1985 found that
Protestant ministers played a crucial role in flood relief work, serving as “powerful catalysts in
generating, mobilizing, and organizing” the needed resources for those survivors. Similarly, in the
aftermath the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, numerous Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka provided
immediate help and support for the survivors [17]. In another example, Qi et al. [29] reported that
approximately forty thousand monks (the total population affected by the Yushu earthquake is
approximately two hundred thousand) from the temples in Yushu and its surrounding areas quickly
joined participation in the relief work in the wake of the 2010 Yushu earthquake. They played
important roles in searching for trapped people, distributing supplies, providing spiritual support
and cremating cadavers. For these case studies, common religious belief sustains and strengthens
unity and solidarity among believers, helping them to cope with disasters together even though
those lay followers and religious clergies had no strong social ties before the disasters occurred.

In general, religious belief can be mobilized or translated into important resources for disaster
survivors. An overview of the studies mentioned above can conclude another important impact
pathway from religious belief to response, which the paper refers to as “religious support pathway”
(Figure 4). Figure 4 shows that religious belief and identity link the individual believer with God(s)
and create bonds among different adherents. Believers can obtain direct support from God(s) to cope
with the physical and emotional wounds caused by a natural disaster. Furthermore, shared belief
systems, religious activities, and religious-based social networks can breed a strong sense of identity
and a high degree of trust among believers. These networks allow for the development and
accumulation of social capital, which can be the other important source of religious support for
11
victims. Here, a case from Bantul (Yogyakarta, Indonesia) [41] can further illustrate the religious
support-related impact pathway. In Bantul, the majority of local villagers practice Islam. Their
religious activities mainly consist of group prayer, reciting the Ouran, and religious education. As
found by Joakim and White [41], engaging in these activities generated and enhanced community
spirit and solidarity. The shared Islamic belief system also facilitated the people’s religious
connections with other Islamic communities in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. From the perspective of this
impact model, we can see the villagers’ Muslim identity has embedded individual believer within a
network that includes God, fellow adherents in Bantul, and other Islamic communities in Saudi
Arabia and Qatar. During and after the Bantul earthquake (which occurred on 27 May 2006), these
local villagers obtained spiritual comfort through local religious practices such as praying. Because
of the history of previous engagement together in collective religious activities, they were more able
to work together to prepare for the earthquake disaster and rescue. In addition, aid and assistance
from other humanitarian organizations in Saudi Arabia and Qatar also came immediately to the
affected area to help rebuild local mosques. That is, Muslim identity caused these villagers to have
access to a large amount of support and resources (i.e., religious support), which drew either from
their constructed relationship with God or from their networks with other adherents and
communities.

Figure 4. A summary of impact pathway related to religious support. This impact pathway
comprises (a) belief predictors, (b) religious support predictors, and (c) response predictors

5. Summary and implication for disaster risk reduction

This review allows us to summarize two impact pathway models: the disaster awareness
pathway and the religious support pathway (Figure 5). Generally, religious belief can impact how
religious persons interpret natural hazards, how they perceive disaster risks, and how they perceive
their ability to cope with disasters. Disaster awareness that is impacted by their belief governs
religious persons’ actual response to some extent both behaviourally and psychologically. Regarding
the religious support pathway, religious belief and religious identity link the individual believer
with God(s) and create bonds among different adherents. These two types of relationships can
generate, mobilize, and/or transform into important support and resources for believers to cope with
the physical and emotional wounds brought by disasters.

12
 Figure 5. Two impact pathways of religious belief to disaster response

Although it cannot say that “the lack of research into religion, natural hazards and disasters”
situation has changed [55], this paper argues that there is a growing scientific consensus that
religious belief is an important factor impacting the public’s response to natural disasters. A
synthesis of the findings of these studies (Table 1) can conclude the following:

 Viewing the divine as the source of natural hazards is a phenomenon that crosses religious
denominations. However, to what extent religious attribution occurs can vary across different
religious affiliations. Religious interpretations and scientific views on natural hazards and
disasters may sometimes coexist in a religious community.

 Religious belief and the associated religious interpretation of natural hazards may result in
fatalistic and submissive attitudes regarding disaster response, which to some extent
determines followers’ inappropriate and even non-rational response behaviours. However, it
should be noted that some religious concepts can also be used to urge religious believers to
actively cope with disasters. Religious coping practices and secular disaster activities can also
coexist.

 The religious attribution of natural hazards and disasters may help to smooth and maintain
emotional stability for a disaster-affected community. From a psychological perspective,
evidence from disaster studies further stresses that the positive religious attribution has more
conductive impacts on the psychological response to disasters.

 Religious beliefs, religious practices, and religious clergy can provide survivors important
spiritual support to help cope with disasters. Moreover, in some cases, such as a disaster
situation, religious coping strategies might be more culturally appropriate and popular than
modern science-based psychotherapy.

 A shared belief system and its associated customs, rituals and traditions can generate social
capital and network-linked advantages, which can become a vital source of support and
provide resources for religious persons to respond to disasters.

These conclusions matter a great deal for DRR. A better DRR is certainly not to transform
existing religious belief systems or to wish people’s religious belief system had gone away, but to
incorporate these systems into the arena of DRR [2].

 It is important for DRR policymakers and practitioners to value the practical effects of religious
belief. For certain cultural contexts, negative religious attributions drive individual’s fatalistic
attitudes and become obstacles for DRR. However, current academic stances also highlight that

13
 negative religious attributions could also be regarded to some extent as a “cultural and
psychological adaptation to disasters”. Moreover, the co-existing phenomenon of “secular and
religious interpretations of natural hazards and disasters” should attract sufficient attention. In
some sense, this closeness means the possibility of the close combination of science-based and
religious-oriented disaster education strategies.

 Religious belief could be an important source of social support that is readily available in many
disaster-prone areas. It can help believers explain their unknown phenomenon, provide hope to
cope with adverse circumstances, and offer religious comfort. Furthermore, some local religious
psychological coping strategies might be more popular, more culturally appropriate, and more
effective than those “exterior” and “scientific” psychological coping strategies, which should be
well known and taken advantage of by DRR policymakers and practitioners. Specifically, these
strategies should gain enough attention from those habituated to only believe in the
effectiveness of modern dormant science-based models of DRR. For an effective and culturally
acceptable DRR project, interior-exterior and religious-secular partnerships are needed. In
particular, it should be noted that many religious concepts can be used to guide DRR (as
impressive examples, see Ghafory‐Ashtiany [24, 43]). A more culturally acceptable DRR
programme requires theological justification [37] or needs to take on a theological perspective
[40].

 Religious activities and religious-based social networks can play an important role in DRR,
especially in places where governments are characterized by incompetence and religious
organizations are indeed at the heart of local power structures. Specifically, those believers
within the same religious community (spatial and spiritual) can benefit from a strong sense of
identity and a high level of mutual trust. In addition, local religious institutions often have been
embedded in local communities and understand local culture better than “outsiders” [1]. DRR
practices including disaster education, early warning information dissemination, and disaster
preparedness can to some extent rely on local religious organizations and be based on those
social networks.

6. Thoughts on future research

As Gaillard and Texier [55] stated, religion can never be detached from its larger social-cultural
context, as it always interacts with social, economic and political constraints in the construction of
people’s vulnerability in the face of natural hazards. In a certain context, religious belief and other
identity factors such as gender, political power, and socioeconomic status might be intrinsically
interlinked. In the face of certain natural hazards, people’s response behaviour may be shaped by the
complex interaction between religious belief and socioeconomic constraints [22]. Thus, finding a
single theory or model to describe and explain all the existing findings is rather difficult.
Interdisciplinary (and/or transdisciplinary) and cross-religious comparative studies are necessary
and warranted in future research. In addition, more cultural homogeneous (of authors and their
study areas) studies are also necessary. Local researchers might give different opinions as to what is
defined as an inappropriate or illogical response behaviour in Western connotations and a Western
academic discourse.

DRR can be realized through three main actions: influencing hazard and reducing exposure,
reducing vulnerability, and increasing resilience [56]. This review argues that the first impact
pathway and relevant findings can help to find ways to reduce exposure and vulnerability for
religious communities. The second impact pathway and its associated findings can help to develop
context-specific and identity-oriented strategies to increase resilience. Due to the need for culturally
acceptable and effective DRR strategies, analysing and systematically exploring both the negative
and positive impacts of religious belief, then capitalizing on positive impacts and making efforts to
14
moderate them where they may be obstacles is also warranted. Thus, a partnership between
“religion-hazard/disaster nexus” studies and DRR studies is suggested.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the project of the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 40971274). It was also supported by the project (its National Natural Science Foundation of
China Grant No. is 41661134013) and the project “Research on post-earthquake comprehensive relief strategies
for large and medium-sized cities” (No. 2016QJGJ15). In addition, we would like to thank the journal editors
and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this research.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
[1] A . Reale, Acts of god(s): The role of religion in disaster risk reduction, 2010. <
http://odihpn.org/magazine/acts-of-gods-the-role-of-religion-in-disaster-risk-reduction/> (Accessed on 10 May
2017 )
[2] E. L. F. Schipper, C. Merli, P. D. Nunn, How religion and beliefs influence perceptions of and attitudes
towards risk in T. Cannon, E. L. F. Schipper, G. Bankoff, F. Kruger (Eds.), World disasters report 2014 : Focus on
culture and risk, Geneva, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2014, pp. 37-63.
[3] R. R. Dynes, D. Yutzy, The religious interpretation of disaster, Topic 10: A Journal of the Liberal Arts
(1965) 34-48.
[4] J. H. Sims, D. D. Baumann, The tornado threat: Coping styles of the north and south, Science 176(4042)
(1972) 1386-1392.
[5] C. Bradfield, M. L. Wylie, L. G. Echterling, After the flood: The response of ministers to a natural disaster,
Sociology of Religion 49(4) (1989) 397-407.
[6] A. Furnham, L. B. Brown, Theodicy: A neglected aspect of the psychology of religion, The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2(1) (1992) 37-45.
[7] J. Schlehe, Reinterpretations of mystical traditions: Explanations of a volcanic eruption in Java, Anthropos
91(4/6) (1996) 391-409.
[8] H. Schmuck, "An act of Allah". Religious explanations for floods in Bangladesh as survival strategy,
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 18(1) (2000) 85-95.
[9] B. W. Smith, K. I. Pargament, C. Brant, J. M. Oliver. Noah revisited: Religious coping by church members
and the impact of the 1993 Midwest Flood, Journal of Community Psychology 28(2) (2000) 169-186.
[10] J. T. Mitchell, The hazards of one's faith: Hazard perceptions of South Carolina Christian clergy, Global
Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 2(1) (2000) 25-41.
[11] D. Hutton, C. E. Haque, Patterns of coping and adaptation among erosion-induced displacees in
Bangladesh: Implications for hazard analysis and mitigation, Natural Hazards 29(3) (2003) 405-421.
[12] J. T. Mitchell, Prayer in disaster: Case study of Christian clergy, Natural Hazards Review 4(1) (2003) 20-26.
[13] G. Bankoff, In the eye of the storm: The social construction of the forces of nature and the climatic and
seismic construction of God in the Philippines, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35(1) (2004) 91-111.
[14] D. K. Chester, Theology and disaster studies: The need for dialogue, Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research 146(4) (2005) 319-328.
[15] J. Rigg, C. Grundy-Warr, L. Law, M. Tan-Mullins, The Indian Ocean tsunami: Socio-economic impacts in
Thailand, The Geographical Journal 171(4) (2005) 374-379.
[16] T. R. Paradise, Perception of earthquake risk in Agadir, Morocco: A case study from a Muslim community,
Environmental Hazards 6(3) (2005) 167-180.
[17] P. De Silva, The tsunami and its aftermath in Sri Lanka: Explorations of a Buddhist perspective,
International Review of Psychiatry 18 (3) (2006) 281-287.
[18] D M. Pollock, Therefore choose life: The Jewish perspective on coping with catastrophe, Southern Medical
Journal 100(9) (2007) 948-949.

15
[19] D. K. Chester, A. M. Duncan, C. J. L. Dibben, The importance of religion in shaping volcanic risk
perception in Italy, with special reference to Vesuvius and Etna, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research 172(3-4) (2008) 216–228.
[20] M. R. Dove, Perception of volcanic eruption as agent of change on Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172(3–4) (2008) 329-337.
[21] A. P. Rajkumar, T. S. Premkumar, P. Tharyan, Coping with the Asian tsunami: Perspectives from Tamil
Nadu, India on the determinants of resilience in the face of adversity, Social science and medicine 67(5) (2008)
844-853.
[22] F. Lavigne, B. D. Coster, N. Juvin, F. Flohic, J-C. Gaillard, P. Texier, J. Morin, J. Sartohadi, People's
behaviour in the face of volcanic hazards: Perspectives from Javanese communities, Indonesia. Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172(3–4) (2008) 273-287.
[23] T. Wang, B. Hang, Buddhism belief and mental health status of aging survivors in Wenchuan earthquake
disaster area, Chinese Journal of Gerontology 5(29) (2009) 1272-1275.
[24] M. Ghafory‐Ashtiany, View of Islam on earthquakes, human vitality and disaster, Disaster Prevention and
Management 18(3) (2009) 218-232.
[25] E. L. F. Schipper, Religion as an integral part of determining and reducing climate change and disaster
risk: An agenda for research in: M. Voss (Ed.) Climate change: The social science perspective. Wiesbaden,
Germany,VS-Verlag, 2010, pp. 377-393.
[26] M. L. Falk, Recovery and Buddhist practices in the aftermath of the tsunami in Southern Thailand,
Religion 40(2) (2010) 96-103.
[27] C. Merli, Context-bound Islamic theodicies: The tsunami as supernatural retribution vs. natural
catastrophe in Southern Thailand. Religion 40(2) (2010) 104-111.
[28] J. Schlehe, Anthropology of religion: Disasters and the representations of tradition and modernity,
Religion 40(2) (2010) 112-120.
[29] W. H. Qi, G. W. Su, B. Y. Wei, D. Jie, Gasonglada, Gaidanzhuoma. Damage characteristics of the Ms 7.1
Yushu Qinghai earthquake, Seismology and Geology 33(3) (2011) 533-548. (in Chinese with English abstract).
[30] Z. Zhang, W. Wang, Z. Shi, L. Wang, J. Zhang, Mental health problems among the survivors in the
hard-hit areas of the Yushu earthquake, Plos One 7(10) (2012) e46449-e46449.
[31] H. Joffe, Cultural barriers to earthquake preparedness, Risk Management 59(5) (2012) 21-24.
[32] C. Wessinger, Religious responses to the Katrina disaster in New Orleans and the American Gulf Coast,
Journal of Religious Studies 86(2) (2012) 53-83.
[33] W. Adiyoso, H. Kanegae, The preliminary study of the role of Islamic teaching in the disaster risk
reduction (a qualitative case study of Banda Aceh, Indonesia), Procedia Environmental Sciences 17(2013)
918-927.
[34] B. K. Paul, M. Nadiruzzaman, Religious interpretations for the causes of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
Asian Profile 41(1) (2013) 67-76.
[35] S. A. Alshehri, Y. Rezgui, H. Li, Public perception of the risk of disasters in a developing economy: The
case of Saudi Arabia, Natural Hazards 65(3) (2013) 1813-1830.
[36] C. S. Chan, J. E. Rhodes, Religious coping, posttraumatic stress, psychological distress, and posttraumatic
growth among female survivors four years after Hurricane Katrina, Journal of Trauma Stress 26(2) (2013)
257-265.
[37] D. K. Chester, A. Duncan, H. A. G. Dhanhani, Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and Islam. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 22(3) (2013) 278-292.
[38] S. Sipon, S. K. Nasrah, N. N. N. N. Nazli, S. Abdullahd, K. Othman, Stress and religious coping among
flood victims. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 140(2014) 605-608.
[39] H. Baytiyeh, M. K. Naja, Can education reduce Middle Eastern fatalistic attitude regarding earthquake
disasters? Disaster Prevention and Management 23(4) (2014) 343-355.
[40] K. M. Ha, The role of religious beliefs and institutions in disaster management: A case study, Religions 6(4)
(2015) 1314-1329.

16
[41] E. P. Joakim, R. S. White, Exploring the impact of religious beliefs, leadership, and networks on response
and recovery of disaster-affected populations: A case study from Indonesia, Journal of Contemporary Religion
30(2) (2015) 193-212.
[42] H. Taylor, R. Peace, Children and cultural influences in a natural disaster: Flood response in Surakarta,
Indonesia, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13(2015) 76-84.
[43] M. Ghafory-Ashtiany, View of Abrahamic religions on natural disaster risk reduction in: A.E. Collins, S.
Jones, B. Manyena, J. Jayawickrama (Eds), Hazards, risks and disasters in society, Boston, Academic Press,
(2015) pp. 373-390.
[44] S. A. Bempah, A. O. Øyhus, The role of social perception in disaster risk reduction: Beliefs, perception,
and attitudes regarding flood disasters in communities along the Volta River, Ghana, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction 23 (2017) 104-108.
[45] J. Sherry, A. Curtis, At the intersection of disaster risk and religion: Interpretations and responses to the
threat of Tsho Rolpa Glacial Lake, Environmental Hazards (2017) 1-16.
[46] M. D. H. Rahiem, N. S. M. Abdullah, S. E. Krauss, Religious interpretations and psychological recovery
from the Aceh 2004 tsunami: The promise of heaven, healing the trauma in: R. Djalante, M. Garschagen, F.
Thomalla, R. Shaw (Eds.), Disaster risk reduction in indonesia: Progress, challenges, and issues, Cham, Springer
International Publishing, 2017, pp. 495-514.
[47] E. Lettieri, C. Masella, G. Radaelli, Disaster management: Findings from a systematic review. Disaster
Prevention and Management 18(2) (2009) 117-136.
[48] UN/ISDR. UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction (2009). Available from: <
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/7817>, (Accessed on 6 May 2015 ).
[49] W. E. Fiala, J. P. Bjorck, R. Gorsuch, The religious support scale: Construction, validation, and
cross-validation, American journal of community psychology 30(6) (2002) 761-786.
[50] G. E. Ibañez, N. Khatchikian, C. A. Buck, D. L. Weisshaar, T. Abush-Kirsh, E. A. Lavizzo, F. H. Norris,
Qualitative analysis of social support and conflict among Mexican and Mexican-American disaster survivors,
Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1) (2003) 1–23.
[51] S. E. Hobfoll, The ecology of stress. New York, Hemisphere, 1998.
[52] M. Gibbs, Factors in the victim that mediate between disaster and psychopathology: A review, Journal of
Trauma Stress 2(4) (1989) 489-514.
[53] K. I. Pargament, B. W. Smith, H. G. Koenig, L. Perez, Patterns of positive and negative religious coping
with major life stressors, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37(4) (1998) 710-724.
[54] Pargament, K, Feuille, M, Burdzy, D. The brief RCOPE: Current psychometric status of a short measure of
religious coping, Religions 2(1) (2011) 51-76.
[55] J-C. Gaillard, P. Texier, Religions, natural hazards, and disasters: An introduction, Religion 40(2) (2010)
81-84.
[56] I. Kelman, J. Mercer, J-C. Gaillard, Indigenous knowledge and disaster risk reduction, Geography 97(1)
(2012) 12-21.

17