Household Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard

Abstract

Data from 23 studies confirm theoretical predictions that households’ adoption of earthquake hazard adjustments is correlated with their perceptions of the hazard and alternative adjustments, demographic characteristics, and social influences. However, some findings require modification of existing theories of hazard adjustment. Examination of the methods used in previous investigations underscores a need for better theories, more complete testing of existing theories, and improved data analytic and data reporting procedures in future tests of those theories.

Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards

“…There are many different ways of responding to uncertainty: to some people uncertainty generates anxiety, to others it is enabling and empowering (Lindell and Perry 2000). Both of these responses may affect decision-making and life chances.…”

Adoption of Hazard Adjustments by Large and Small Organizations: Who is Doing the Talking and Who is Doing the Walking?

“…In particular, the area of hazard adjustments has exhibited significant growth. However, the strengths of this literature have been either at the household level (e.g., Arlikatti 2009;Atwood and Major 2000;Burton et al 1978;Davis 1989;Dooley et al 1992;Edwards 1993;Farley 1998;Jackson 1981;Lindell and Perry 2000;Lindell and Prater 2002;Lindell and Whitney 2000) or community level (e.g., Berke and Beatley 1992;Burby et al 2000;Drabek et al 1983;May and Birkland 1994;Mushkatel and Nigg 1987;Prater and Lindell 2000;Wood 2004). At the household level, researchers have studied the relationship between hazard adjustments and independent variables like risk perception (e.g., Ge, Peacock and Lindell 2011;Jackson 1977;1981), hazard salience (e.g., Turner 1983;Turner et al 1986), earthquake experience (e.g., Dooley et al 1992;Turner et al 1986), culture (e.g., Palm and Carroll 1998), and gender, age, educational level, income, ethnicity, and marital status (e.g., Lindell, Arlikatti and Prater 2009). 1 Similarly, at the community level, researchers have examined the relationship between hazard adjustments and independent variables like community resources (e.g., May and Birkland 1994), politics (e.g., Prater and Lindell 2000), and local policy entrepreneurs (e.g., Wood 2004).…”

Digital engagement methods for earthquake and fire preparedness: a review

“…This widely accepted definition of preparedness highlights the activities that are recognised in the field as part of a proactive preparatory behaviour. The definition encompasses all activities and behaviours that either mitigate immediate risks of human and economic loss due to infrastructure or environmental damage, or prepare for and increase chances of survival, efficient response, and recovery in the aftermath of a destabilising major hazard event, natural or otherwise (Turner et al 1986;Mulilis and Lippa 1990;Lindell and Perry 2000;Spittal et al 2006;Joffe et al 2013). Such activities include, for instance, stockpiling of equipment/supplies, the development of coordination and emergency plans, evacuation and public information, and related training and field exercises, all of which must be supported by formal institutional, legal, and budgetary capacities (UNISDR 2009).…”