Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan

Abstract

This study examines people's immediate responses to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan. Data collected from 257 respondents in Christchurch and 332 respondents in Hitachi revealed notable similarities between the two cities in people's emotional reactions, risk perceptions, and immediate protective actions during the events. Respondents' physical, household, and social contexts were quite similar, but Hitachi residents reported somewhat higher levels of emotional reaction and risk perception than did Christchurch residents. Contrary to the recommendations of emergency officials, the most frequent response of residents in both cities was to freeze. Christchurch residents were more likely than Hitachi residents to drop to the ground and take cover, whereas Hitachi residents were more likely than Christchurch residents to evacuate immediately the building in which they were situated. There were relatively small correlations between immediate behavioural responses and demographic characteristics, earthquake experience, and physical, social, or household context.

Behavioral Response in the Immediate Aftermath of Shaking: Earthquakes in Christchurch and Wellington, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan

“…This study’s results indicate that respondents who had received earthquake information prior to their earthquakes were more likely to turn off utilities ( r = 0.12) and help others ( r = 0.11). These results could be related with previous findings that reported a positive effect of previous experience and preparedness on appropriate immediate responses to extreme events [13]. However, the results of the present study are slightly different in that, although earthquake information did not have significant correlations with immediate responses during shaking, it did seem to have positive impacts on behaviors after shaking stopped.…”

“…Following the 2011 Christchurch and Tōhoku earthquakes, researchers from Texas A&M University drafted a questionnaire in collaboration with colleagues from New Zealand (GNS Science/Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand) and Japan (Kansai University, Osaka, Japan)—see Lindell et al [13] for details. The study team then selected a random sample of 600 households from census (Christchurch) or voter registration (Hitachi) records.…”

“…There has been a significant amount of research on household preparedness for earthquakes [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11] but there has been substantially less research on people’s responses during earthquakes. Recent studies by Prati et al [12] and Lindell et al [13] have built on previous work [14,15,16,17,18,19,20].…”

“…Recent studies by Prati et al [12] and Lindell et al [13] have built on previous work [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Specifically, the Prati et al [12] study of the 2012 Emilia-Romagna MW 6.1 earthquake found that the most common response was to move to another room (42%), followed by evacuating the home (36%), waiting in bed (33%), going downstairs (28%), getting dressed (19%), sheltering in a doorway (14%), sheltering near a supporting wall (14%), and sheltering under a table (2%).…”

“…There were no significant predictors of the three sheltering behaviors, probably because they were so infrequent, and fear was the most consistent predictor of all five other behaviors. The Lindell et al [13] study of the 2011 Christchurch and Tohoku earthquakes reported that the most common response during the shaking was to freeze in place (34%), followed by evacuate immediately (20%), duck, cover and hold on (12%), protect persons (8%), protect property (8%), and continue normal activities (2%). Logistic regression analysis revealed inconsistent predictors for the three most common responses—freezing, evacuating, and covering.…”