Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:38:37.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceived Safety at Work in the Wake of Terror: The Importance of Security Measures and Emergency Preparedness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2016

Alexander Nissen  and
Trond Heir
Alexander Nissen*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Oslo, Norway
Trond Heir
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Oslo, Norway Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Alexander Nissen, MD, Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Pb 181 Nydalen, 0409 Oslo, Norway (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to explore how perceived safety after terrorism is connected to views on security measures and emergency preparedness in a workplace setting.

Methods

Using a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study of ministerial employees in Norway who were targeted in a terrorist attack in 2011 (n=3344), we investigated how employees’ perceived safety at work 9 to 10 months after the attack was associated with their perceptions of whether security measures were sufficiently prioritized at work, whether there had been sufficient escape and evacuation training, and whether they were confident with evacuation procedures.

Results

We found strong evidence of increasing perceived safety at work the more employees believed security measures were sufficiently prioritized at work (partially confounded by post-traumatic stress disorder), and the better their knowledge of evacuation procedures (modified by gender and education).

Conclusions

The present study suggests that employers may enhance perceived safety at work for terror-exposed employees by showing a commitment to security measures and by ensuring employees know evacuation procedures well. More research is needed to investigate causality patterns behind the associations found in this cross-sectional study. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:805–811)

Keywords

perceived safetysecuritysecurity measuresemergency preparednessterrorism
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 805 - 811
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Davis, LM, Pollard, M, Ward, K, et al, Long-term effects of law enforcement’s post-9/11 focus on counterterrorism and homeland security. RAND Corporation. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232791.pdf. Published December 2010. Accessed July 2, 2015.Google Scholar
2. Goodrich, J. September 11, 2001 attack on America: a record of the immediate impacts and reactions in the USA travel and tourism industry. Tour Manag. 2002;23(6):573-580. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00029-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Archick, K, Ek, C, Gallis, P, et al, European Approaches to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. CRS Report for Congress. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl33573.pdf. Published July 24, 2006. Accessed July 2, 2015.Google Scholar
4. Hobijn, B, Sager, E. What has homeland security cost? An assessment: 2001-2005. Current Issues in Economics and Finance. 2007;13(2). https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/current_issues/ci13-2.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2016.Google Scholar
5. Homeland security budget. Watson Institue of International & Public Health Affairs, Brown University website. http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic/budget/dhs. Accessed February 10, 2016.Google Scholar
6. Stewart, MG, Mueller, J. A risk and cost-benefit assessment of United States aviation security measures. Journal of Transportation Security. 2008;1(3):143-159. doi: 10.1007/s12198-008-0013-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Akhtar, J, Bjørnskau, T, Veisten, K. Assessing security measures reducing terrorist risk: inverse ex post cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of Norwegian airports and seaports. Journal of Transportation Security. 2010;3(3):179-195. doi: 10.1007/s12198-010-0046-z.Google Scholar
8. Stewart, MG. Cost effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for protection of buildings against terrorist attack. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 2008;22(2):115-120. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2008)22:2(115).Google Scholar
9. Lieberman, D. Infringement on Civil Liberties After 9/11. NYL Sch L Rev. 2011;56(11/12). http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2012/02/Lieberman-article.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2015.Google Scholar
10. Lum, C, Kennedy, LW, Sherley, A. Are counter-terrorism strategies effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research. J Exp Criminol. 2006;2(4):489-516. doi: 10.1007/s11292-006-9020-y.Google Scholar
11. Maslow, AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943;50(4):370. doi: 10.1037/h0054346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Boscarino, JA, Adams, RE, Figley, CR, et al. Fear of terrorism and preparedness in New York City 2 years after the attacks: implications for disaster planning and research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006;12(6):505-513. doi: 10.1097/00124784-200611000-00002.Google Scholar
13. Silver, RC, Holman, EA, McIntosh, DN, et al. Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11. JAMA. 2002;288(10):1235-1244. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.10.1235.Google Scholar
14. Grieger, TA, Fullerton, CS, Ursano, RJ. Posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and perceived safety 13 months after September 11. Psychiatric Services. 2004;55(9):1061-1063. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.55.9.1061.Google Scholar
15. Grieger, TA, Waldrep, DA, Lovasz, MM, et al. Follow-up of Pentagon employees two years after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Psychiatric Services. 2005;56(11):1374-1378. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.11.1374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Chen, RJ, Noriega, P. The impacts of terrorism: perceptions of faculty and students on safety and security in tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 2004;15(2-3):81-97. doi: 10.1300/J073v15n02_05.Google Scholar
17. Taylor, T, Toohey, K. Impacts of terrorism-related safety and security measures at a major sport event. Event Management. 2006;9(4):199-209. doi: 10.3727/152599506776771544.Google Scholar
18. Sanquist, TF, Mahy, H, Morris, F. An exploratory risk perception study of attitudes toward homeland security systems. Risk Analysis. 2008;28(4):1125-1133. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01069.x.Google Scholar
19. Milman, A, Jones, F, Bach, S. The impact of security devices on tourists’ perceived safety: The central Florida example. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 1999;23(4):371-386.Google Scholar
20. Wallace, RR, Rodriguez, DA, White, C, et al. Who noticed, who cares? Passenger reactions to transit safety measures. Transp Res Rec. 1999;1666(1):133-138. doi: 10.3141/1666-16.Google Scholar
21. Hansen, MB, Nissen, A, Heir, T. Proximity to terror and post-traumatic stress: a follow-up survey of governmental employees after the 2011 Oslo bombing attack. BMJ Open. 2013;3(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Nissen, A, Birkeland Nielsen, M, et al. Perception of threat and safety at work among employees in the Norwegian ministries after the 2011 Oslo bombing. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2015:1-13. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2015.1009831.Google Scholar
23. Grieger, TA, Fullerton, CS, Ursano, RJ. Posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and perceived safety after the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54(10):1380-1382. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.54.10.1380.Google Scholar
24. Cox, S, Cheyne, A. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety Science. 2000;34(1):111-129. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6.Google Scholar
25. Williamson, AM, Feyer, AM, Cairns, D, et al. The development of a measure of safety climate: the role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Saf Sci. 1997;25(1):15-27. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00020-9.Google Scholar
26. Tharaldsen, J, Olsen, E, Rundmo, T. A longitudinal study of safety climate on the Norwegian continental shelf. Saf Sci. 2008;46(3):427-439. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Hem, C, Hussain, A, Wentzel-Larsen, T, et al. The Norwegian version of the PTSD Checklist (PCL): construct validity in a community sample of 2004 tsunami survivors. Nord J Psychiatry. 2012;66(5):355-359. doi: 10.3109/08039488.2012.655308.Google Scholar
28. Yavuz, N, Welch, EW. Addressing fear of crime in public space: gender differences in reaction to safety measures in train transit. Urban Stud. 2010;47(12):2491-2515. doi: 10.1177/0042098009359033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Rotter, JB. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall; 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Sherman, A, Higgs, GE, Williams, RL. Gender differences in the locus of control construct. Psychol Health. 1997;12(2):239-248. doi:10.1080/08870449708407402.Google Scholar
31. Fullerton, CS, Ursano, RJ, Reeves, J, et al. Perceived safety in disaster workers following 9/11. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2006;194(1):61-63. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000195307.28743.b2.Google Scholar