Expectation of Reciprocity and Other-Focused Values Foster Informal Volunteering Intentions in Disasters: Evidence From Finland

Abstract

Decentralization of disaster management calls every sector to contribute to disaster management—including private citizens. While literature on formal volunteering is rich, less is known about drivers of informal volunteering and the differences between doing so spontaneously or with prompting from authorities. Drawing on social capital theory, we investigated whether beliefs in reciprocity and individual values impact informal volunteering intentions in a disaster. 1,019 Finnish participants completed an online survey. Unexpectedly, demographic variables did not impact volunteering intentions, but those who trusted authorities and expected that one would receive help from others were more likely to volunteer when prompted by authorities. Furthermore, those higher in other-focused values were more likely to volunteer both spontaneously and when asked by authorities. We show that expectations of reciprocity and concern for others promote informal volunteering, demonstrating people’s willingness to help, and illuminating ways through which to engage private citizens in disaster management.

Keywords

disaster management community resilience volunteering informal and spontaneous volunteering social capital values

Introduction

There is a global trend toward decentralization of disaster management (Maes et al., 2018; Putra & Matsuyuki, 2020; Quader et al., 2023; Sou, 2019), and it is increasingly expected that the private sector and individual citizens play their part in maintaining societal security (Crosweller & Tschakert, 2021; Lucas & Booth, 2020). The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction also calls for the involvement of private citizens in disaster relief and recovery (United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015, 2023). The shift is largely driven by necessity caused by global trends, including the aging population, economic instability, intensifying impacts of climate change, and growing risk of complex and simultaneous emergencies (Grinin et al., 2021; UNDRR, 2023). At the same time, digitalization and dependency on electricity make societies increasingly vulnerable and drive the risk of large-scale disruptions (Jasiūnas et al., 2021; Molarius et al., 2022).

The Finnish comprehensive security model is an apt example of a decentralized approach to disaster management: every sector has a role to play, including private citizens. In the Finnish government’s Security Strategy for Society, social networks, nonprofit organizations, and social movements, where people’s contribution is usually voluntary, complement the role of authorities (Finnish Government, 2025). This comprehensive approach to preparedness and response aims to gather and connect all relevant societal actors and strengthen cooperation, to share information, plan, and train together (Valtonen & Branders, 2021), with an aim of promoting societal resilience.

An important way through which private citizens can contribute to disaster management is through volunteering efforts. While formal volunteering—where individuals are affiliated with a formal disaster management organization—is well-established in many Western societies, including Finland (Eskelinen & Nikkanen, 2020; Plagnol & Huppert, 2010), and the motivations for volunteering have been long explored in the literature (e.g., Clary et al., 1998), informal volunteering remains a less understood phenomenon. Informal volunteering involves “the activities of people who work outside of formal emergency and disaster management arrangements to help others who are at risk or are affected by emergencies and disasters” (Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 361). Informal volunteering is inclusive of spontaneous volunteers “who seek to contribute on impulse” (Cottrell, 2010, p. 2; see also Whittaker et al., 2015), without being actively recruited by authorities (Cottrell, 2010; Nissen et al., 2021). Examples of spontaneous volunteering include helping a neighbor in need, search and rescue efforts, or making food for a community affected by a disaster.

Indeed, effective disaster response likely involves both formal and informal volunteers and may even necessitate it. Given the increase in frequency and magnitude of disasters (Lesk et al., 2016), it has been suggested that in the event of a large-scale disaster, the authorities would likely need help from citizens’ networks and communities (Berling & Petersen, 2021; Brennan & Koven, 2009; Daddoust et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2017; Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004; Rapeli et al., 2018; Simsa et al., 2019; Waldman et al., 2018; Whittaker et al., 2015). For example, forest fires (Johansson et al., 2018) or long power outages can overwhelm the resources of emergency and rescue authorities (Petermann et al., 2011; Tennberg & Vola, 2014), making citizens’ participation invaluable (Majchrzak et al., 2021). Furthermore, ordinary citizens are often first on the scene of accidents and can possess useful equipment and skills that benefit authorities (Twigg & Mosel, 2017; Whittaker et al., 2015). Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic and several recent disasters have demonstrated the potential of volunteers in distributing goods and information, taking care of vulnerable citizens, and supporting their community in other ways. The pandemic, for example, elicited a strong willingness to help (Grönlund et al., 2021), especially among informal volunteers (Wong, 2024).

It is therefore not surprising that many European countries are increasingly encouraging the participation of such volunteers (Nahkur et al., 2022; Nielsen, 2022). However, it is noteworthy that the contribution of informal volunteers in disaster response is not recognized or encouraged globally. For example, while in some Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway) community participation is largely formalized, in Belgium and Italy private citizen participation is discouraged. In Italy, for example, only formal volunteers with training are permitted to get involved with a disaster response (Nahkur et al., 2022). In Finland, most volunteers are affiliated with organizations, but spontaneous volunteering is also viewed positively (Ruohonen & Backholm, 2023). However, while spontaneous volunteering may be encouraged in Finland, it remains unclear whether private citizens would actually be willing to help in a disaster, an area we wish to explore in the present study.

It is noteworthy that despite the potentially significant contribution of informal volunteers in disaster response, there are known challenges connected to involving spontaneous volunteers: ensuring their safety, coordinating them in an efficient manner to avoid unnecessary burden on emergency management professionals, lack of relevant legal or administrative frameworks for involving informal volunteers, and the volunteers’ variable levels of skills and training (Daddoust et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2017; Krogh & Lo, 2023; Nahkur et al., 2022; Ruohonen & Backholm, 2023). Consequently, personnel, including trained, formal volunteers from civic organizations, are required to engage in task allocation and rapid training (Daddoust et al., 2021; Raisio et al., 2023). This coordination is considered necessary to prevent enthusiastic but uncoordinated, spontaneous volunteers from endangering themselves or causing harm (Daddoust et al., 2021).

In the present study, we investigate factors that may impact individual citizen’s willingness to offer help in a disaster. Our key research questions are:

Research Question 1: What impacts private citizens’ intention to volunteer in disasters?

Research Question 2: Are there differences in intentions to help spontaneously versus being prompted by authorities?

We answer these questions through a large-scale online survey of Finnish citizens. We focus on demographic variables, previously suggested to impact volunteering and helping behaviors, and the psychological variables of trust in authorities and expectation that one would receive help from others in a disaster, based on the Social Capital theory, which we will discuss in the below section on hypothesis development. Finally, we investigate the role of personal values as our individual difference variable, to account for benevolence and altruism, which are well-known predictors of formal volunteering behavior (Burns et al., 2006; Francis & Jones, 2012; Lockstone-Binney et al., 2022; Ramaekers et al., 2024).

Given the need and potential value of informal volunteers in disaster response, further research in this area is essential. We contribute to the volunteering literature in the following ways: We explore private citizen’s intentions to help in a disaster and the differences between spontaneous volunteering versus being prompted to help by authorities. Furthermore, our exploration of citizen values provides novel insights to the literature on the role of deep-seated guiding principles in an informal volunteering context. Finally, our findings relating to the role of trust toward authorities and fellow citizens also contribute to the literature on the pivotal role that trust in society plays in community resilience.

Hypothesis Development

What Impacts Helping Behaviors in Disasters?

Demographic variables have been shown as potentially influential on helping behaviors during disasters. For example, research suggests that older people are less likely to contribute in a disaster (Cvetković et al., 2018; Niebuur et al., 2018; Nikkanen & Kekki, 2021), possibly due to limited resources or capabilities, although research is not definitive on the relationship between age and volunteering (Dury et al., 2016; Haski-Leventhal & McLeigh, 2009; Lockstone-Binney et al., 2022). Religiosity in adulthood, good health, and higher education are associated with higher rates of formal volunteering (Lee & Brudney, 2012; Niebuur et al., 2018). Furthermore, women and people living in rural areas engage in more community-oriented behaviors and tend to spontaneously volunteer at a higher rate than males and urban dwellers (Kolmodin et al., 2019; Räsänen et al., 2020; Steblay, 1987; Straub et al., 2020). Such gender differences have been suggested to arise from societal norms and expectations of women to help others (Kulik et al., 2016). In rural contexts, individuals may identify as more competent and capable (Heidenstrøm & Kvarnlöf, 2018), or it could be that being more isolated necessitates self-reliance. Past research suggests that rural dwellers’ strengths in a disaster situation include identifying basic needs, organizing and coordinating activities, and participating in response activities (Bukvic et al., 2018). Straub et al. (2020) propose that bonding-type social capital (involving family and close circle) is particularly strong in rural areas, while bridging (outside one’s own reference group) and linking (across institutional boundaries) types of social capital are weaker.

We therefore expect that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1) : Those (i) younger, (ii) living in rural areas, and (iii) females are more likely to (a) spontaneously volunteer on their own volition or (b) when prompted by authorities.

In addition to demographic variables, private citizens’ relationships with and trust toward others—their level of social capital—has been explored in past disaster preparedness and response literature.

Social capital processes play a key role in community resilience and recovery (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Bixler et al., 2021). Defined as the “networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, p. 67), social capital consists of unofficial social relations, engagement with collective or common affairs, and trust toward other members of society (Putnam, 2000). In communities with high levels of social capital, disaster recovery is faster and more effective due to people supporting each other and the recovery effort (Aldrich, 2012a, 2012b; Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). Scholars have proposed three types of social capital (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Morsut et al., 2022). Bonding capital includes close relationships between people, including friends and family, and likely results in support given in times of crisis. Bridging capital involves more loosely linked social groups, for example through social, educational, and sporting groups. Finally, linking social capital connects private citizens with those in authority, such as with local government.

Trust toward others is a key component of all forms of social capital (Putnam, 2000), and past research suggests that trusting individuals are more likely to formally volunteer (Bekkers, 2012; Seo et al., 2012). In the present study, we focused on trust toward authorities (linking social capital), such as fire and rescue services, and trust that one would receive help from others (bonding and bridging capital). The role of trust in institutions and authorities in shaping attitudes and behaviors related to disasters has been studied widely, but the findings appear to be mixed and largely context-dependent. While some studies have indicated that trust itself serves as a direct predictor of resilience (Bonfanti et al., 2023) and faster disaster recovery (Liu et al., 2021), others have linked high trust to the delegation of responsibility to emergency management authorities (Cornia et al., 2016; Han et al., 2017; McNeill et al., 2013). However, how trust toward authorities may impact willingness to help in a crisis remains unexplored. Because on the potential paradox, where too high trust may reduce preparedness and helping behaviors due to reliance on authorities, we do not provide a directional hypothesis on the relationship between trust toward authorities and willingness to help.

However, trust in peers, relating to bonding social capital, has been found to increase willingness to contribute to prevention of damage from disasters (Felletti & Paglieri, 2019). Furthermore, trust that one would receive help from others may signify high levels of social capital, community resilience, or simply a faith that other people are generally benevolent. Indeed, a key process aligning with Social Capital theory is the rule of reciprocity, which suggests that people feel an obligation to pay back help received from others (Mazelis, 2015; Ramaekers et al., 2024; Simsa et al., 2019; Ziersch et al., 2005).

We therefore propose that:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Those trusting that one would receive help from others are more likely to (a) spontaneously volunteer on their own volition or (b) when prompted by authorities.

A well-known driver of formal volunteering behavior, in and outside of the context of disaster management, has been altruism and benevolence (Chacón et al., 2011; Clary et al., 1998; Malinen & Mankkinen, 2018; Mattila & Malinen, 2024). Indeed, personal values are at the core of much of human behavior (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Rokeach, 1973). A significant body of literature based on the cognitive hierarchy theory of human behavior posits that human values impact beliefs and attitudes, which subsequently impact behavioral intentions and behavior (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Rokeach, 1973). While many factors can impede a linear values-to-behavior relationship, including lack of perceived behavioral control, lack of resources such as social capital, or prevailing social norms, values related to benevolence and caring are likely to impact willingness to support others in a disaster. For example, those higher in self-efficacy and benevolent values have been found to engage more in pro-social behavior, such as helping and sharing (Caprara & Steca, 2007). Furthermore, we expect that values relating to stability, characterized by valuing order, preservation of the past, and conservation, measured by the values of security and tradition (Schwartz, 2012), may impact the willingness of people to volunteer in disasters. Particularly, this is relevant to the context in which the study was conducted: in addition to being a small and relatively homogeneous nation, Finland’s prevailing societal norms of communal voluntary work, social cohesion, and equity may impact the belief that everyone should contribute to societal functioning (Chong, 2018; Ruohonen & Backholm, 2023; Tedre & Pehkonen, 2014). We therefore expect that:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Those higher in (i) other-focused values, and (ii) values relating to stability, are more likely to (a) spontaneously volunteer on their own volition or (b) when prompted by authorities.

This research makes a timely contribution to disaster management and informal volunteering literature, given the increasing need for all parts of society to contribute to disaster preparedness and management. This study increases our understanding of individual and social elements that strengthen societal resilience by activating private citizen involvement in responding to disruptions or crises.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A random sample of 1,019 Finnish participants completed an online survey. Participants were recruited via a market research company, Taloustutkimus Oy. Participant ages ranged between 18 and 79 years (M = 47.94, SD = 15.41), and 52.1% were males. Education levels ranged from high school graduates (~7%) to university educated (~27%). Around a quarter classified themselves as an “employee,” but the sample also included students (~11%) and retirees (~15%), among other professions. The majority of participants lived in urban regions (78%). The sample was closely representative of the country’s population in terms of age, gender, and region (Statistics Finland, 2024).

Measures

The survey sections relevant to this research were included in a larger survey on emergency preparedness. To keep the survey length reasonable, we chose single items for some measures. While not as reliable as multi-scale items (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012), single items are increasingly used to reduce demands on participants, in addition to which single items can be valid (Matthews et al., 2022). The survey included the following measures. All were back translated from English items.

Demographic Variables

Participants were asked of their gender, age, and whether they lived in a rural or urban region, as these variables have been previously found to impact people’s willingness to volunteer (Hustinx et al., 2010).

Likelihood of Volunteering

Two items were developed for this study due to lack of existing measures: How likely is it that you would volunteer to help if your community was faced with a serious crisis? (a) on my own initiative; (b) when asked (e.g., by an official or institution/organization). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (I wouldn’t volunteer) to 5 (I’d be very likely to volunteer).

Trust That One Would Receive Help From Others

We used a single item from Becker et al. (2013): Others will help me in a disaster (e.g., agencies, other community members). Responses were made on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (agree completely).

Trust in Authorities

We used two items based on Paton et al. (2003), who refer to an unpublished manuscript by Dillon and Phillips (2001). The items were: “I trust my local council to respond to meet the needs of its residents” and “I trust the leaders in my community (members/decision-makers of the local council).” The responses were made on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (agree completely). The two items correlated highly (r = .83) and were averaged.

Values

We used Schwartz’s well-known 10 value dimensions to understand participants’ personal values. Participants were asked to rate values according to how each serve as ”a guiding principle in their life” on a 9-point scale, ranging from (−1) opposed to my values, (0) not important, (3) important, (6) very important, and (7) extremely important. We used Sekerdej and Roccas’ (2016) method for calculating two value indices: Concern and Stability index:

Concern-index was calculated by taking Self-Enhancement values from Self-Transcendence. Self-transcendence is comprised of benevolence and universalism, and self-enhancement of power and achievement. The higher the Concern-index, the higher is the participant’s concern for the welfare and interest of others (Schwartz, 2012).

Stability-index was calculated by taking Openness values from Conservation. Conservation is comprised of security, tradition and universalism, and openness of self-direction and stimulation. Higher values indicate higher focus on order, preservation of the past, and resistance to change (Schwartz, 2012).

Results

Descriptive statistics and bi-variate correlations between study variables can be found in Table 1. The mean levels for intention to volunteer were above the mid-point of the response scale, with volunteering when prompted by authorities significantly higher versus volunteering spontaneously (p <.001). Participants’ trust toward authorities and that others who will help them were also relatively high, above the mid-point of the scale.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bi-Variate Correlations Between Study Variables.

Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender		-
2. Age	47.94 (15.41)	.03
3. Rural/Urban		.12**	−.07*
4. Trust in authorities	4.37 (1.63)	−.13**	−.02	.16**
5. Would receive help	4.72 (1.76)	−.16**	−.08*	.03	.32**
6. Concern-Index	2.20 (2.41)	−.27**	.10**	−.04	.14**	.12**
7. Stability-Index	0.96 (2.11)	−.03	.27**	−.20**	−.10**	−.03	.04
8. Volunteering: Spontaneously	3.35 (1.42)	−.02	.07*	−.05	.15**	.15**	.12**	.03
9. Volunteering: When prompted	4.12 (1.18)	−.04	−.02	−.03	.21**	.22**	.17**	.02	.60**

Note. rural coded 0, urban coded 1; Gender: 0 = females, 1 = males. SD = Standard deviation; N = 1,019.

= p <.05; ** = p < .001.

As seen in Table 1, the older the participant, the higher their intentions were to spontaneously volunteer. Higher trust toward authorities and trust that one would receive help from others were related to both outcome variables. Those living in urban areas showed higher levels of trust toward authorities as compared with rural participants, but regionality did not relate to intentions to volunteer. In terms of values, those participants higher in concern, that is other-focused values, were more likely to volunteer both spontaneously and when prompted.

Hypothesis Testing

We used hierarchical multiple regressions to test our hypotheses. We chose this conventional method as it allows for the examination of multiple predictors and for the estimation of effects while controlling for other variables. We tested for multicollinearity (variance inflation factor [VIF] <.16), homoscedasticity, independence of errors (Durbin-Watson <2), and normality of residuals (using P-P plot) before running the analysis and found assumptions to be met.

We used demographic variables as our control variables and entered them in Step 1, followed by the predictor variables in Step 2. Two separate regressions were run with each of our outcome variables: intentions to spontaneously volunteer versus volunteering when prompted by authorities. Notably, with both analyses, our control variables accounted for little variance in the outcome variables (see Step 1 in Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.

Regression Results for Volunteering: Spontaneously.

Model	B	SE	Beta	t	Sig.	R² adj.	R²∆
						.005
Constant	3.173	.176		18.075	<.001
Gender (1M)	−.048	.090	−.017	−.538	.590
Age	.007	.003	.071	2.256	.024
Rural/Urban	−.140	.108	−.041	−1.294	.196
Step 2
Constant	2.117	.233		9.103	<.001	.047	0.05
Gender	.131	.092	.046	1.415	.157
Age	.006	.003	.068	2.124	.034
Rural/Urban	−.206	.108	−.060	−1.900	.058
Trust in authorities	.098	.029	.112	3.416	<.001
Others will help me	.099	.026	.123	3.771	<.001
Concern	.054	.019	.092	2.869	.004
Stability	.008	.022	.012	.374	.709

Note. adj. = adjusted; R²∆ between Steps 1 and 2; F (7, 1,011) = 8.23. Significant results bolded. Beta stands for the standardized coefficients.

p < .001.

Table 3.

Regression Results for Volunteering: When Prompted.

Model	B	SE	Beta	t	Sig.	R² adj.	R²∆
Constant	4.304	.146		29.518	4.304	.000
Gender	−.090	.075	−.038	−1.201	.230
Age	−.001	.002	−.019	−.610	.542
Rural/Urban	−.080	.090	−.028	−.895	.371
Step 2
Constant	3.104	.189		16.451	<.001	.087	.091
Gender	.123	.075	.052	1.636	.102
Age	−.002	.002	−.029	−.938	.349
Rural/Urban	−.147	.088	−.052	−1.681	.093
Trust in authorities	.116	.023	.160	4.963	<.001
Others will help me	.107	.021	.160	4.999	<.001
Concern	.069	.015	.142	4.492	<.001
Stability	.019	.018	.034	1.076	.282

Note. adj = adjusted; R²∆ between Steps 1 and 2; F(7, 1,011) = 14.90. Significant results bolded. Beta stands for the standardized coefficients.

p < .001.

Those with higher trust toward authorities, with a belief that one would receive help from others, and with other-focused values had higher intentions to spontaneously volunteer (Table 2).

As shown in Table 3, and similar to the results of the above analysis (spontaneously volunteering), the belief that one would receive help from others, trust toward authorities, and other-focused values were significant predictors of volunteering when promoted by authorities.

Discussion

Private citizens’ role in disaster management is important due to expectations that every societal sector plays their part in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. We sought to understand what impacts the willingness of private citizens to spontaneously volunteer in a disaster situation, or to help when prompted by authorities. We grounded our investigation in Social Capital theory and explored inter-personal trust as our key variable. In addition, we investigated individual values and demographic variables as predictors, as past work suggests these influence formal volunteering behaviors.

The results largely supported our expectations, although with some nuances. Older participants were stronger in their intentions to spontaneously volunteer (H1ia), while there were no age differences in volunteering intentions when prompted by authorities (H1ib). Past research on the relationship between age and informal volunteering is mixed, and it is likely that the relationship depends on the specific context where help is needed. While some research suggests that younger people are more likely to help in disasters (e.g., Nikkanen & Kekki, 2021), the current study’s disaster context was left undefined for the participants, possibly allowing older respondents to consider helping situations suitable for their capabilities. Unexpectedly, we found that other demographic variables did not relate to volunteering intentions (H1ii-iii). While past research suggests that rural communities are more self-reliant and depend more on volunteer efforts (Räsänen et al., 2020; Straub et al., 2020), our findings suggest that trust and individual value-orientation play a larger role in citizen volunteering, regardless of regionality. It could be that in disasters, regional differences are reduced, as willingness to volunteer may increase with the rise in perceived need. It is also possible that in more stable times, people living in urban centers would have the willingness to help, but they simply have fewer opportunities to do so, or there is less familiarity with neighbors, resulting in lower helping behavior. It is noteworthy that only a quarter of our sample lived in rural areas, however, the proportion of rural participants in our sample is representative of the wider population in Finland (Statistics Finland, 2024). Like regionality, age and gender—already extensively researched in literature (Dury et al., 2016; Lockstone-Binney et al., 2022; Niebuur et al., 2018)—were less important factors in intentions to volunteer as compared with interpersonal trust and values. Perhaps the nature of informal volunteering in disaster situations explains the lack of demographic differences in our results: Informal volunteering could be expected to be episodic or short-term, resulting in higher likelihood of private citizen participation as compared with more traditional, formal forms of volunteering, which may require longer-term commitment. However, this speculation necessitates future research to understand why demographic differences did not emerge in our study.

We did not propose a directional hypothesis on how trust toward authorities might impact informal volunteering due to the possibility of higher trust relating to lower helping intentions. However, we found that those trusting of authorities were more likely to volunteer, both spontaneously and when prompted. The findings suggest a reciprocal expectation, where mutual trust between citizens and authorities likely builds community resilience, consistent with Social Capital theory. Similarly, the belief that one would receive help from others related to both volunteering spontaneously and when prompted by authorities (H2). It seems then that a degree of reciprocity is expected: As authorities expect private citizens to contribute during disasters (Harris et al., 2017; Hyvönen & Juntunen, 2020; Räsänen et al., 2020), it appears that both parties—private citizens and emergency management authorities—benefit from such an expectation. That is, trust that authorities and others will come to one’s rescue appears to enhance individuals’ willingness to help others and volunteer.

One of our novel findings relates to individual values. As expected (H3i), those higher in other-focused values (i.e., concern-index) were more likely to spontaneously volunteer as well as if prompted by authorities. However, stability-focused values, those relating to order, conservation, and resistance to change, were unrelated to volunteering in our analyses (H3ii), although we found that those higher in stability-focused values tended to show lower trust toward authorities. While it is not possible to make causal inferences with our cross-sectional data, it could be that values related to benevolence are more telling on intentions to help and volunteer, or that values related to stability and conservation suggest something about having lower trust toward those in authority. Indeed, past work suggests a relationship between conservatism and distrust in authority, such as toward the scientific community (Azevedo & Jost, 2021).

Practical Implications

Informal volunteers, private citizens, offer an essential resource in a disaster. Disaster management professionals have an opportunity to strengthen their response by ensuring communities will support their members and be self-sufficient where possible, enhancing community and societal resilience. Overall, our findings bode well for sharing responsibility for disaster management and engaging private citizens in supporting response and recovery.

As demographic variables were less influential than trust and values in volunteering intentions, it may be worthwhile to focus on the principle of reciprocity in building social capital and ensuring people will contribute during a disaster. Furthermore, appealing to individual values may prove fruitful in harnessing private citizen help when needed. As was expected, those higher in values related to concern for the welfare and interests of others were more likely to report higher intentions to help, both spontaneously and if prompted by authorities. Tapping into core values relating to benevolence may therefore be a beneficial avenue for rallying community action and support.

Not all citizens are able to volunteer, of course. For example, older citizens and those with poorer health can be prevented from helping (Dury et al., 2016; Nikkanen & Kekki, 2021). Authorities may consider activities that are more suitable for those who cannot readily physically help others, but who may, for example, contact others via phone or social media, to check on them. Those individuals with young families may also be more prepared to engage in helping by other means than physically being absent from their own family (Nikkanen & Kekki, 2021).

It is noteworthy that Finland, where the study was located, is generally a high-trust society: In 2019, 64% of Finns reported trusting the government, while the OECD (2021) average was 45%. The COVID-19 pandemic showed that trust remains high even in exceptional circumstances (OECD, 2021). Our findings indicate that this climate of high trust is likely to contribute to societal disaster preparedness and response through private citizen volunteering. This is promising for the Finnish comprehensive security approach, which is founded on the premise that civic engagement enhances social capital, creating a reciprocal resource spiral, continuously strengthening community resilience (see Hyvönen & Juntunen, 2020). However, we are mindful that our results may not be applicable to societies where trust toward authorities is lower. It would therefore be interesting to replicate our research in other cultural contexts to illuminate other levers for informal volunteering. Furthermore, it is notable that other variables, outside of those measured in this study, are influential in intentions to (at least formally) volunteer. Indeed, our predictors accounted for only a small proportion of variance explained in the outcome variables of volunteering intentions. Variables, such as empathy, have been previously shown to impact willingness to help (Bohns & Flynn, 2021). Future research could explore other variables found important in disaster preparedness literature, such as self-efficacy, past volunteering or past disaster experience. Finally, recent disaster events close to home may promote helping intensions, something which we did not capture in our survey, but could be an interesting idea to explore.

A noteworthy limitation in our research is social desirability in responding, as we used self-report as the means of data collection. It is possible that participants’ positive intentions to volunteer during disasters would not be realized in actual behavior. While self-report measures may be appropriate in identifying people’s values, future research should attempt to measure actual informal volunteering behavior during disasters, although we acknowledge the challenge in this task, given the disrupted and urgent context in which it would take place. Nonetheless, the gap that exists between people’s intentions and actual behavior is a well-known issue in research such as ours (Ajzen et al., 2009; Hatori et al., 2023). We also used single or two-item measures in our survey. While considered reliable in specific contexts (e.g., when not measuring broad spectrum of, e.g., personality, see Allen et al., 2022; Matthews et al., 2022), and reducing the burden on participants due to limiting survey length (Allen et al., 2022), we acknowledge the limitations in reliability of these measures (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). Future research should therefore consider replicating our study with multi-item scales or with a different research approach, such as using a vignette-based approach to provide participants with scenarios in which they are asked of their volunteering intentions. Such an approach would also enable participants to focus on specific disaster situations.

Conclusion

As authorities are often at the limits of their capacity during disasters, private citizens offer a significant resource to support the response, thereby strengthening community recovery. Informal volunteers can support both authorities and formal volunteer organizations, or they can fill a void and take on entirely new tasks or offer services for which no other resources exist or are available. We show that expectations of reciprocity and other-focused values promote private citizen, informal volunteering, highlighting the significance of social capital, and specifically trust, in disaster response and recovery.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Maj ja Tor Nesslingin Säätiö; Research Council of Finland (353056); Academy of Finland (353058); The Finnish National Rescue Association; and the University of Canterbury Business School.

ORCID iD

Sanna K. Malinen

Author Biographies

Sanna K. Malinen has a background in organizational and social psychology, and she researches in the areas of workplace resilience, employee and volunteer well-being, and disaster management.

Maija Nikkanen has researched disaster governance and allocation of responsibility regarding preparedness, and is currently working on the risks and uncertainties in maritime transport.

Tuula Kekki has specialized in preparedness of both individuals and authorities and operating environment of emergency of rescue services and civil preparedness.

References

Ajzen

Czasch

Flood

M. G.

(2009). From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 1356–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x

Aldrich

D. P.

(2012a). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery (1st ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

Aldrich

D. P.

(2012b). Social, not physical, infrastructure: The critical role of civil society after the 1923 Tokyo earthquake. Disasters, 36(3), 398–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01263.x

Aldrich

D. P.

Meyer

M. A.

(2015). Social capital and community resilience. The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299

Allen

M. S.

Iliescu

Greiff

(2022). Single item measures in psychological science: A call to action. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699

Azevedo

Jost

J. T.

(2021). The ideological basis of antiscientific attitudes: Effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 518–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221990104

Becker

J. S.

Paton

Johnston

D. M.

Ronan

K. R.

(2013). Salient beliefs about earthquake hazards and household preparedness. Risk Analysis, 33(9), 1710–1727.

Bekkers

(2012). Trust and volunteering: Selection or causation? Evidence from a 4 year panel study. Political Behavior, 34(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x

Berling

T. V.

Petersen

K. L.

(2021). Designing resilience for security in the Nordic region. In Nordic societal security (p. 131). https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/40049

10.

Bixler

R. P.

Paul

Jones

Preisser

Passalacqua

(2021). Unpacking adaptive capacity to flooding in urban environments: Social capital, social vulnerability, and risk perception. Frontiers in Water, 3, 728–730. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.728730

11.

Bohns

V. K.

Flynn

F. J.

(2021). Empathy and expectations of others’ willingness to help. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110368

12.

Bonfanti

R. C.

Oberti

Ravazzoli

Rinaldi

Ruggieri

Schimmenti

(2023). The role of trust in disaster risk reduction: A critical review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21010029

13.

Brennan

M. J.

Koven

S. G.

(2009). Hurricane Katrina: Preparedness, response, and the politics administration dichotomy. In Bureaucracy and administration (pp. 253–268).

14.

Bukvic

Gohlke

Borate

Suggs

(2018). Aging in flood-prone coastal areas: Discerning the health and well-being risk for older residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122900

15.

Burns

D. J.

Reid

J. S.

Toncar

Fawcett

Anderson

(2006). Motivations to volunteer: The role of altruism. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 3, 79–91.

16.

Caprara

G. V.

Steca

(2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self-efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(2), 218–239. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.218

17.

Chacón

Pérez

Flores

Luisa Vecina

(2011). Motives for volunteering: Categorization of volunteers’ motivations using open-ended questions. Psychosocial Intervention, 19(3), 213–222.

18.

Chong

P. W.

(2018). The Finnish “recipe” towards inclusion: Concocting educational equity, policy rigour, and proactive support structures. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(4), 501–518.

19.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

Ridge

R. D.

Copeland

Stukas

A. A.

Haugen

Miene

(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516

20.

Cornia

Dressel

Pfeil

(2016). Risk cultures and dominant approaches towards disasters in seven European countries. Journal of Risk Research, 19(3), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.961520

21.

Cottrell

(2010). Research report: A survey of spontaneous volunteers. Australian Red Cross, Carlton. http://www.redcross.org.au/files/ES0-Research_report.pdf

22.

Crosweller

Tschakert

(2021). Disaster management and the need for a reinstated social contract of shared responsibility. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102440

23.

Cvetković

V. M.

Milašinović

Lazić

. (2018). Examination of citizens’attitudes towards providing support to vulnerable people and volunteering during disasters. TEME, 42(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME1801035C

24.

Daddoust

Asgary

McBey

K. J.

Elliott

Normand

(2021). Spontaneous volunteer coordination during disasters and emergencies: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 65, 102546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102546

25.

Diamantopoulos

Sarstedt

Fuchs

Wilczynski

Kaiser

(2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science: Official Publication of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

26.

Dillon

Phillips

(2001). Social capital discussion paper. Unpublished manuscript, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia.

27.

Dury

De Donder

De Witte

Brosens

Smetcoren

Van Regenmortel

Verté

(2016). Is volunteering in later life impeded or stimulated by other activities? Research on Aging, 38(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027515574777

28.

Eskelinen

Nikkanen

(2020). Vapaaehtoisten ja viranomaisten yhteistyö-tutkimuksen loppuraportti. SPEK tutkii 21. https://issuu.com/spek_ry/docs/spek_tutkii_21_8c6c5420624c82

29.

Felletti

Paglieri

(2019). Trust your peers! How trust among citizens can foster collective risk prevention. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101082

30.

Finnish Government. (2025). Security strategy for society. Government resolution Publications of the Finnish Government 2025:3. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/166026/VN_2025_3.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

31.

Francis

J. E.

Jones

(2012). Emergency service volunteers: A comparison of age, motives and values. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(4), 27–32.

32.

Grinin

Korotayevc

(2021). Global trends and forecasts of the 21st century. World Futures, 77(5), 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2021.1949939

33.

Grönlund

Pessi

Berki

(2021). Generosity in times of crisis: Finnish helping behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Wiepking

Chapman

C. M.

McHugh

L. H.

(Eds.), Generosity in times of crisis. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

34.

Han

Hörhager

E. I.

Yan

(2017). The effects of trust in government on earthquake survivors’ risk perception and preparedness in China. Natural Hazards, 86, 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2699-9

35.

Harris

Shaw

Scully

Chris

Smith

C. M.

Hieke

(2017). The involvement/exclusion paradox of spontaneous volunteering: New lessons and theory from winter flood episodes in England. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 352–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016654222

36.

Haski-Leventhal

McLeigh

J. D.

(2009). Firefighters volunteering beyond their duty: An essential asset in rural communities. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 4(2), 80–92.

37.

Hatori

Moriwaki

Shingu

(2023). Disparity between evacuation intention and actual evacuation behavior during a heavy rain induced disaster event in Japan: Exploring the role of everyday awareness of disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 92, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103729

38.

Heidenstrøm

Kvarnlöf

(2018). Coping with blackouts: A practice theory approach to household preparedness. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(2), 272–282.

39.

Helsloot

Ruitenberg

(2004). Citizen response to disasters: A survey of literature and some practical implications. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12(3), 98–111.

40.

Homer

P. M.

Kahle

L. R.

(1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

41.

Hustinx

Handy

Cnaan

R. A.

Brudney

J. L.

Pessi

A. B.

Yamauchi

(2010). Social and cultural origins of motivations to volunteer: A comparison of university students in six countries. International Sociology, 25(3), 349–382.

42.

Hyvönen

A. E.

Juntunen

(2020). From “spiritual defence” to robust resilience in the Finnish comprehensive security model. In Nordic societal security (pp. 154–178).

43.

Jasiūnas

Lund

P. D.

Mikkola

(2021). Energy system resilience–a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111476

44.

Johansson

Danielsson

Kvarnlöf

Eriksson

Karlsson

(2018). At the external boundary of a disaster response operation: The dynamics of volunteer inclusion. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26, 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12228

45.

Kolmodin

Lundgren

Andersson

(2019). Preparing for climate change and hazards: Individual houseowners trust in local authorities and private entrepreneurs. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 41, 1–8.

46.

Krogh

A. H.

(2023). Managing spontaneous volunteers during emergency response: The role of trust. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 97, 104010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104010

47.

Kulik

Bar

Dolev

(2016). Gender differences in emergency volunteering. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(6), 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21795

48.

Lee

Brudney

J. L.

(2012). Participation in formal and informal volunteering. Implications for volunteer recruitment. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 23(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21060

49.

Lesk

Rowhani

Ramankutty

(2016). Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature, 529(7584), 84–87.

50.

Liu

Gerber

Jung

Agrawal

(2021). The role of human and social capital in earthquake recovery in Nepal. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00805-4

51.

Lockstone-Binney

Holmes

K. C. P. M.

Meijs

L. C. P. M.

Oppenheimer

Haski-Leventhal

Taplin

(2022). Growing the volunteer pool: Identifying non-volunteers most likely to volunteer. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33, 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00407-w

52.

Lucas

C. H.

Booth

K. I.

(2020). Privatizing climate adaptation: How insurance weakens solidaristic and collective disaster recovery. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(6), e676.

53.

Maes

Parra

Mertens

Bwambale

Jacobs

Poesen

. . . Kervyn

(2018). Questioning network governance for disaster risk management: Lessons learnt from landslide risk management in Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 85, 163–171.

54.

Majchrzak

Michalski

Reginia-Zacharski

(2021). Readiness of the Polish crisis management system to respond to long-term, large-scale power shortages and failures (blackouts). Energies, 14(24), 8286. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248286

55.

Malinen

S. K.

Mankkinen

(2018). Finnish firefighters’ barriers to volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 604–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017749890

56.

Matthews

R. A.

Pineault

Hong

Y.-H.

(2022). Normalizing the use of single-item measures: Validation of the single-item compendium for organizational psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(4), 639–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09813-3

57.

Mattila

J. I.

Malinen

S. K.

(2024). Exploring the normative structure of Finnish soldiers’ home association: Understanding an auxiliary organization through volunteer values. Armed Forces & Society, 51, 712–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X231224736

58.

Mazelis

J. M.

(2015). “I got to try to give back”: How reciprocity norms in a poor people’s organization influence members’ social capital. Journal of Poverty, 19(1), 109–131.

59.

McNeill

I. M.

Dunlop

P. D.

Heath

J. B.

Skinner

T. C.

Morrison

D. L.

(2013). Expecting the unexpected: Predicting physiological and psychological wildfire preparedness from perceived risk, responsibility, and obstacles. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1829–1843.

60.

Molarius

Keränen

Kekki

Jukarainen

(2022). Developing indicators to improve safety and security of citizens in case of disruption of critical infrastructures due to natural hazards—Case of a snowstorm in Finland. Safety, 8(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8030060

61.

Morsut

Kuran

Kruke

B. I.

Nævestad

Orru

Hansson

(2022). A critical appraisal of individual social capital in crisis response. Risks Hazards Crisis Public Policy, 13, 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12236

62.

Nahkur

Orru

Hansson

Jukarainen

Myllylä

Krüger

. . . Rhinard

(2022). The engagement of informal volunteers in disaster management in Europe. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 83, 103413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103413

63.

Niebuur

van Lente

Liefbroer

A. R.

Steverink

Smidt

(2018). Determinants of participation in voluntary work: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. BMC Public Health, 18, 1213. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6077-2

64.

Nielsen

L. R.

(2022). Dismantling boundaries between citizen volunteers and emergency authorities–cocreating emergency response in Denmark. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 74, 102910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102910

65.

Nikkanen

Kekki

(2021). Kotitalouksien varautuminen ja kriisinkestävyys. SPEK tutkii 26. https://www.spek.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SPEK-tutkii-26.pdf

66.

Nissen

Carlton

Wong

J. H.

Johnson

(2021). “Spontaneous” volunteers? Factors enabling the Student Volunteer Army mobilisation following the Canterbury earthquakes, 2010–2011. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 53, 102008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102008

67.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Drivers of trust in public institutions in Finland. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/52600c9e-en

68.

Paton

Smith

Johnston

Ronan

(2003). Developing a model to predict the adoption of natural hazard risk reduction and preparatory adjustments. EQC Project Report (01-479).

69.

Petermann

Bradke

Lüllmann

Poetzsch

Riehm

(2011). What happens during a blackout. Consequences of a prolonged and wide-ranging power outage. Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB).

70.

Plagnol

A. C.

Huppert

F. A.

(2010). Happy to help? Exploring the factors associated with variations in rates of volunteering across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 97, 157–176.

71.

Putnam

(1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

72.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

73.

Putra

D. I.

Matsuyuki

(2020). The disaster-management capabilities of local governments: A case study in Indonesia. Journal of Disaster Research, 15(4), 471–480.

74.

Quader

M. A.

Khan

A. U.

Malak

M. A.

Kervyn

(2023). Mainstreaming decentralization and collaboration in disaster risk management: Insights from coastal Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 14(3), 382–397.

75.

Raisio

Puustinen

Wiikinkoski

Valtonen

Lindell

(2023). Hähmäinen ja historiaton? Neljäs sektori ilmiönä ja käsitteenä turvallisuustoiminnan kontekstissa. Hallinnon Tutkimus, 42(1), 56–69.

76.

Ramaekers

M. J. M.

van der Lippe

Derks

(2024). Why neighbors would help: A vignette experiment on reciprocity in informal helping. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 54, 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640241241323

77.

Rapeli

Cuadra

Dahlberg

Eydal

G. B.

Hvinden

Ómarsdóttir

I. L.

Salonen

(2018). Local social services in disaster management: Is there a Nordic model? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 618–624.

78.

Räsänen

Lein

Bird

Setten

(2020). Conceptualizing community in disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 45, 101485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101485

79.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. Free press.

80.

Ruohonen

Backholm

(2023). Matter of trust: How to include digital volunteers in crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(4), 843–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12484

81.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

82.

Sekerdej

Roccas

(2016). Love versus loving criticism: Disentangling conventional and constructive patriotism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12142

83.

Seo

Sun

Merolla

A. J.

Zhang

(2012). Willingness to help following the Sichuan earthquake: Modeling the effects of media involvement, stress, trust, and relational resources. Communication Research, 39(1), 3–25.

84.

Simsa

Rameder

Aghamanoukjan

Totter

(2019). Spontaneous volunteering in social crises: Self-organization and coordination. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(2), 103–122.

85.

Sou

(2019). Household self-blame for disasters: Responsibilisation and (un) accountability in decentralised participatory risk governance. Disasters, 43(2), 289–310.

86.

Statistics Finland. (2024). Suomi lukuina 2024. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-244-720-3

87.

Steblay

N. M.

(1987). Helping behavior in rural and urban environments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 346–356.

88.

Straub

A. M.

Gray

B. J.

Ritchie

L. A.

Gill

D. A.

(2020). Cultivating disaster resilience in rural Oklahoma: Community disenfranchisement and relational aspects of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies, 73, 105–113.

89.

Tedre

Pehkonen

(2014). Aging people as communal actors: A case study in rural villages of East Finland. SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014533556

90.

Tennberg

Vola

(2014). Myrskyjä ei voi hallita: Haavoittuvuuden poliittinen talous. Alue ja Ympäristö, 43(1), 73–84.

91.

Twigg

Mosel

(2017). Emergent groups and spontaneous volunteers in urban disaster response. Environment & Urbanization, International Institute for Environment and Development, 29(2), 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247817721413

92.

United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf

93.

United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction. (2023). Regional assessment report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2023: Europe and Central Asia.

94.

Valtonen

Branders

(2021). Tracing the Finnish comprehensive security model. In Nordic societal security: Convergence and divergence (pp. 91–108).

95.

Waldman

Yumagulova

Mackwani

Benson

Stone

J. T.

(2018). Canadian citizens volunteering in disasters: From emergence to networked governance. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26, 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12206

96.

Whittaker

McLennan

Handmer

(2015). A review of informal volunteerism in emergencies and disasters: Definition, opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 358–368.

97.

Wong

K. L.

(2024). Overlapping functions: Volunteering and other forms of civic participation in the COVID-19 disaster. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 35, 854–865.

98.

Ziersch

A. M.

Baum

F. E.

MacDougall

Putland

(2005). Neighbourhood life and social capital: The implications for health. Social Science & Medicine, 60(1), 71–86.