Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation Actions before and after Two Earthquakes

Abstract

This study examines the current state of preparedness among Los Angeles County and San Francisco Bay Area residents, determines the extent to which levels of preparedness have changed since the Sylmar earthquake in 1971, identifies the circumstances under which people have prepared, and assesses the extent to which respondents' overall perceptions of preparedness match their reports of preparedness activities. Since the 1970s, residents of the two areas have increased their level of survival activities substantially, but progress in home-hazard mitigation and family earthquake planning has generally remained constant and low. Pre-earthquake preparedness was predicted by home ownership, income, education, marital status, number of children at home, number of years in the neighborhood, and number of earthquakes experienced. In contrast, post-earthquake preparedness was predicted by proximity to the earthquake epicenter, earthquake-related experiences, fear, and levels of pre-earthquake preparedness.

The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature

“…Levels of adjustment are then found by summing up the "yes" responses, and a ratio computed to derive how close participants are to optimal adjustment levels. As Kirschenbaum (2004Kirschenbaum ( , 2005 has persuasively argued, hazard adjustment is not a simple one-dimensional entity, but should be divided into separate constructs that may have distinct sets of predictors (see also Lindell et al, 2009;Mulilis, 1999;Russell et al, 1995). Kirschenbaum (2004) derived four factors that explained a significant proportion of the variance in his data: levels of essential provisions stocked in the household; knowledge of and ability to use survival skills; having household emergency plans; and the presence of structural mitigation measures (e.g., seismic retrofitting or aseismic construction).…”

“…Pre-disaster, earthquake-specific preparedness and mitigation (e.g., structural retrofitting) adoption rates are consistently much lower, and have not increased significantly from the early 1970s to the present time in the US (Jackson and Mukerjee, 1974;Nguyen et al, 2006;Russell et al, 1995;Turner et al, 1986). Farley's (1998) report on changes in seismic adjustment levels in the US New Madrid Seismic Zone after a widely publicised, but ultimately unfounded earthquake prediction in 1990 shows a similar pattern: response and recovery-related seismic adjustments were more widespread than preparedness and mitigation adjustments were, albeit with higher rates of adjustment compared to the Western US.…”

Place attachment and flood preparedness

“…Dooley, Catalano, Mishra, & Serxner, 1992;Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990;Paton, Johnston, Smith, & Millar, 2001;Russell, Goltz, & Bourque, 1995). Preparedness focus has been largely on actions states can take and to a lesser extent on activities by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), local communities, families, and individuals.…”

Obstacles and Disaster Risk Reduction: Survey of Memphis Organizations

“…For example, information on earthquake risks can induce households to take preparatory action (Jackson and Mukerjee 1974;Sullivan et al 1977;Palm 1981;Turner 1983;Russell et al 1995;Flynn et al 1999;Atwood and Major 2000;Celsi et al 2005). A notable example is the impact of Iben Browning's forecast that a major earthquake in the NMSZ would occur around December 3, 1990 (e.g., Farley et al 1993;Showalter 1993;Atwood and Major 2000).…”