 |
Effect of Increased |
|
Effect of Increased |
We thank Andrew Charleson and Richard White for
their generous assistance in the development of the questionnaire, and Ann
Weatherall and Anthony Taylor for valuable comments. Correspondence should be
addressed to John McClure, Department of Psychology, Victoria University of
Wellington, P. O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. Email may be addressed to:
John.Mcclure@vuw.ac.nz
Abstract
Using a methodology adapted from Bostrom, Fischhoff, and Morgan (1992), citizens' (N = 96) knowledge about how to prevent damage from earthquakes was compared to knowledge extracted from expert sources. The gaps or misconceptions in knowledge provided a basis for information on earthquake damage prevention. There was an increase in perceived preventability, indicating support for the hypothesis that changes in perceived preventability occur when specific targeted information is introduced. Prior earthquake knowledge correlated with earthquake preparation, but perceived preventability did not relate to prior knowledge or preparation for earthquakes. These findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications and the application to disaster preparation programs.
Despite the usefulness of preventive measures, people often fail to prepare for earthquakes. In poorer societies this may reflect a lack of resources, but wealthier societies are often less prepared than they could be. Surveys in "at risk" locations have highlighted this lack of preparation. Jackson and Mukarjee (1974) reported that 37% of San Francisco residents had done nothing to prepare for an earthquake. Similar findings were obtained in Los Angeles (Jackson, 1981). These low levels of preparation are clearly undesirable in areas subject to high seismic risk.
There is value in understanding factors that
influence the adoption of preventative strategies, particularly for
organisations whose goal is to get citizens to prepare for earthquakes (Smith,
1993). Several psychological factors influence people's preparation (Faupel
& Styles, 1993). A propensity to take risks limits preparation for hazards
and estimates of the probability of a hazard (Banerjee & Gillespie, 1994;
Britton, 1981; Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1982; Sorensen, 1983).
Preparation for hazards is also hampered by unwarranted optimism, where people
believe they will be personally immune in a disaster (Burger & Palmer, 1992;
Greening & Dollinger, 1992; Lehman & Taylor, 1987). Denial is a related
problem, in that denying the risk hinders preparation (See DeMan & Simpson-
Housley, 1988; Karanci & Rustemli, 1995; Lehman & Taylor, 1987).
The locus of control dimension also relates to hazard
mitigation. People with an internal locus see damage from natural hazards as
more preventable than those with an external locus and are more likely to
take preventative action (Perry, Lindell, & Greene, 1982; Simpson-Housley
& Bradshaw, 1978; Turner, Nigg, & Paz, 1986).
Citizens appear to assume that because earthquakes
are uncontrollable, so too are their effects (McClure & Williams, 1996).
This generalisation may reinforce the feeling that there is little point in
preparation. When they generalise from events that are controllable to events
that are uncontrollable, they become helpless (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman,
1993). Fatalism about earthquake damage (Turner et al., 1986), illustrates
helplessness. Turner et al. (1986) showed that a fatalistic orientation towards
earthquakes and their consequences disposed people against making preparations
or reacting to earthquake warnings.
An important issue is whether educative programs can
reduce fatalism. Mass media comprise a key source of public information about
disasters (Sorensen, 1983; Perry, Lindell, & Green, 1982). Both television
and printed media can play a role (Rattien, 1990). Education programs are
advocated to inform the public and encourage hazard preparation (Slovic et al.,
1982). However, it is important that these programs achieve the goals they are
designed to accomplish. Many public information programs appear to assume that
by presenting information on hazard risks and protective measures, the desired
preparation will occur (Smith, 1993). Researchers suggest that only
well-designed education programs will obtain public support for hazard
mitigation (Smith, 1993; Slovic et al., 1982).
Research on public education is somewhat inconclusive
. Some studies have shown no connection between education and behaviour (e.g.,
Saarinen, 1979), whereas others have shown a connection between education
programs and the adoption of prevention strategies (Fitzpatrick & Mileti,
1994). In regard to earthquake preparation, there is little information on the
impact of non-emergency public hazard education on risk perception and behaviour
(Fitzpatrick & Mileti, 1994). Some authors have claimed that information on
earthquake preparation has little impact on public perceptions of risk
(Fitzpatrick & Mileti, 1994). Palm (1979) found that disclosure of property
hazards (earthquake and flooding) had no effect on the selection and purchase of
a home, and other factors such as size, architectural design and location were
considered more important. Whether this results from an ignorance of the risks
or a denial of the potential damage is unclear. However, research suggests that
when the risks are known and the consequences of earthquakes are highlighted,
earthquake preparation increases. Mulilis and Lippa (1990) employed earthquake
warnings over a five month period to successfully increase earthquake
preparedness.
A key element in any information program is the
quality of the information and the way it is presented. Some programs imply that
all that is required is to convey the risk; the wisdom of preventative measures
is assumed to be self-evident. This strategy fails to take account of citizens'
actual knowledge. Where misjudgments of risk are greatest, people's errors can
be traced to inadequate knowedge (Slovic et. al., 1982). Programs require more
appreciation of citizens' knowledge (Bostrom, Fischhoff, & Morgan,
1992).
One approach to this issue has attempted to examine
connections between people's causal model of hazard damage and their perceptions
of earthquake damage. McClure and Walkey (1995) investigated the relation of
attributional complexity to perceptions of earthquake damage. Attributional
complexity relates to the causal models people ascribe to hazards' effects. For
example, a complex model may include not only the magnitude of the earthquake
but factors such as building structure and soil type. In contrast, a simpler
causal model may omit the factors that increase or reduce damage, and may
reinforce a view of earthquakes as inevitably causing major damage (cf. Turner
et al., 1986).
McClure and Walkey (1995) examined whether people
with more complex causal models of earthquakes judged earthquake damage more
preventable than those with simpler models. Attributional complexity was defined
in terms of the number of causes cited in unstructured explanations of general
earthquake damage. Subjects judged the preventability of damage in scenarios
which varied the distinctiveness of the damage. High distinctiveness scenarios
presented exceptional damage, and low distinctiveness scenarios presented
generalised damage. Where the damage was distinctive, neither the simple or the
complex groups differed in how preventable they judged the damage. This suggests
that both groups related the damage to some weakness in the building. However
with non-distinctive (widespread) damage, those with more complex models saw the
damage as more preventable. Helping people to see the range of causes that
contribute to earthquake damage may lead people to see the damage as more
preventable, and may also influence them to prepare more for earthquakes.
In a related approach to causal models of hazards,
Bostrom et al. (1992) examined the differences between expert and lay people's
understandings of the same hazard . People's ability to respond to potential
hazards or disasters reflects their understanding of the physical, chemical, and
biological processes involved. Bostrom et al. (1992) developed a measure of
citizens' knowledge about a particular hazard, Radon gas. They conducted
open-ended interviews and a photograph-sorting exercise with experts and lay
people to establish what they knew concerning the hazard potential of the gas.
On this basis they constructed an expert influence diagram and compared experts
and non-experts. This method clarified differences between expert and lay
perceptions of the hazard. Non-experts' understanding of the Radon gas issue was
often incomplete, imprecise, incoherent, or erroneous.
In addition to assessing the Radon gas issue, this
study also introduced a method for studying risk perceptions that could be
applied to risk communications. Bostrom et al. (1992) claimed that the most
useful knowledge is not summary estimates of risks, but substantive knowledge of
how hazards have their effect. Determining what people know is the first step in
assessing what people need to know. Duplicating what is already known is both
superfluous and a waste of resources.
The studies by McClure and Walkey (1995) and Bostrom
et al. (1992) indicate the importance of taking account of people's specific
knowledge about hazards. The present study combines aspects of McClure and
Walkey's (1995) and Bostrom et al.'s (1992) analyses. The study follows up
McClure and Walkey's (1995) suggestion that there may be value in increasing
knowledge about earthquake damage. The study aimed to get participants to see a
range of factors contributing to damage and to spell out the logic behind these
factors. This procedure also incorporates Bostrom et al.'s (1992) idea that
correcting misconceptions in knowledge may influence judgments about the
preventability of hazard damage.
We predicted that giving information about earthquake damage prevention after answering knowledge-based questions would increase judgments of preventability of earthquake damage. We also hypothesised positive relations between knowledge about earthquake damage, preparation for earthquakes, and judgments that earthquake damage is preventable.
Participants
The study employed a total of
109 residents of a suburb, Tawa in Wellington, who were recruited over a three
week period. Three were eliminated for failing to complete large portions of the
questionnaire. Section 1 of the questionnaire was completed by 106 subjects (54
male, 52 female) 96 of whom also completed Section 2 (47 males, 49 females).
Subjects' ages ranged from 21 to 72 years for the males (mean = 43 ) and 16 to
89 years for the females (mean = 42).
Materials
The questionnaire contained two
sections. Section 1 contained the questions on the perceived preventability of
earthquake damage, earthquake knowledge questions, and an earthquake prevention
checklist. Section 2 repeated the two questions on the perceived preventability
of earthquake damage.
Perceived preventability was measured by two
questions adapted from McClure and Walkey's (1995) questionnaire: "As you may be
aware, there have been a number of recent major earthquakes (e.g., Kobe in Japan
and Northridge in California) that have led to major damage and loss of lives".
1) "How likely is it that something could have been done to prevent the damage
and loss of life?". 2) "How difficult is to prevent damage to buildings in a
major earthquake?". Likelihood was rated on a scale of 1 ("not very likely") to
5 ("highly likely"). These questions were included in both Sections 1 and
Section 2 of the questionnaire. Their inclusion in Section 1 was to establish a
baseline measure of perceived preventability, and their inclusion in Section 2
was to assess whether answering or discussing the knowledge questions in Section
1 changed perceived preventability.
The earthquake knowledge section of the questionnaire
adapted Bostrom et al.'s (1992) procedure of interviewing experts and mapping
out an influence diagram. This study operationalised the consensus of expert
opinion by constructing questions incorporating material from experts in damage
prevention in earthquakes. This procedure follows studies that use structured
questions to study thinking in complex domains (Jungermann, Schutz, &
Thuring, 1988; Rousse & Morris, 1986).
Initially, 40 questions were formulated using current
information on preventing earthquake damage (BRANZ, 1991; Holmes, 1986; Key,
1988; Lagorio, 1990; Norwak & Galambos, 1990; Yanev, 1974). These questions
related to home construction, building location and earthquake mitigation
activities. The questions were piloted; unclear questions, and questions with
extremely high or low scores (in correct answers) were removed. The remaining
questions were then given to two experts, an architect, and a Professor of
architecture specialising in earthquake damage prevention. These experts
independently indicated the right answers to the various questions submitted.
From the questions that both experts agreed on, 15 were chosen for the final
questionnaire. Each question offered three possible answers "yes", "no" or
"unsure". (See Appendix A). "Unsure" answers suggested that the subject had
insufficient knowledge, and were coded as a wrong answer.
The earthquake preparation checklist derived from the
'Wellington city Emergency Management Office booklet' "Emergency Planning Guide"
(1995). Items were selected that specifically indicated earthquake preparation.
For each item, respondents indicated whether they had taken the action : "yes"
or "no". (See Appendix B).
In addition to the questionnaire, the materials
included photographs and diagrams relating to earthquake damage. Visual images
were used because pictorial information in earthquake warning pamphlets evokes
more response than non-pictorial information (Bostrom et al., 1992). Visual
images were likely to create more interest and more easily convey the relevant
information. (See Appendix B).
Procedure
Tawa residents were approached
and asked if they would mind filling out a questionnaire on earthquakes and
damage for a university research project. They were given a summary of the
questionnaire, and told that after completing Section 1 it would be collected
and Section 2 would be presented. When consent was given and any questions
answered, Subjects completed Section 1 of the questionnaire. They were
instructed to answer all questions. Upon completion, the answers to the
earthquake knowledge questions were checked with the subject present, and
additional information, including explanations of the correct answers, was
presented. Section 1 of the questionnaire was then collected and Section 2
handed out and completed. The participants were then debriefed on the study.
A second analysis determined whether there were any
differences between the two perceived preventability questions. Paired
comparison t-tests showed that general damage (M = 3.4) was judged
more preventable than building damage (M = 2.7) at Time1, t(95) =
5.48, p< .001, and at Time 2: general damage (M = 4.0);
building damage (M=3.5), t(95) = 4.65, p < .001.
Pearson product moment correlations were used to
assess whether there were relationships between Earthquake Knowledge scores,
Earthquake Preparation, and perceived preventability. A positive correlation
between Earthquake Knowledge and Earthquake Preparation indicated that
participants with more earthquake knowledge were more likely to be prepared for
earthquakes,, r =.21, p< .05. However, there was no
relationship between Earthquake Knowledge and perceived preventability at Time
1, either on the General damage preventability question, (r = .13, ns) or
the Building damage preventability question,(r = .01, ns). There
was also no relationship between Earthquake Preparation and perceived
preventability at Time 1, either on the General damage preventability question,
( r = -.05, ns) or the Building damage preventability question,
(r = - 0.11, ns).
The results show that damage preventability scores
increased significantly after completing the questionnaire. The present study
adopted a procedure of identifying and using the gaps and misunderstandings in
knowledge as a basis for information aimed at increasing earthquake knowledge
(cf. Bostrom et al., 1992). This procedure increased judgments that earthquake
damage was preventable, suggesting that there is value in using a questionnaire
based on expert knowledge to assess and correct gaps and misinformation in lay
knowledge. The results suggest the value of increasing knowledge about the
specific causes of damage and the ways that damage can be reduced (McClure &
Williams, 1996).
This increase in judgments that the damage was
preventable may have been enhanced by the personal relevance of the material
read by the subjects. Slovic et al. (1982) suggested that one determinant of the
success of a program is the level of interest people have in the information.
The educative phase of this study was tailored to specific gaps and
misconceptions in participants' knowledge, and emphasized prevention activities
specific to the subjects' present living situation. Participants' knowledge that
the questionnaire would be marked in their presence may have enhanced their
desire to know the answers.
These findings support the idea that educational
programs can counter inadequate knowledge and help people realise that
earthquake damage can be prevented (Slovic et al., 1982). Examining why specific
instances of damage occurred, and pointing out how this damage could be
prevented, may reduce fatalistic attitudes and the negative aspects of past
experience (Turner et al., 1986). The increase in perceived preventability
produced here suggests that a knowledge-based educative strategy is likely to
reduce fatalism about earthquakes. Spelling out the effects of preparation may
encourage people with an external locus of control to realise that some damage
is within their power to limit (McClure & Walkey, 1995). Given that
maladaptive coping strategies such as denial are greatest where people perceive
no control over the relevant events, increasing perceived preventability may
reduce denial (Lehman & Taylor, 1987). Perceptions of preventability alone
may be insufficient to get people to prepare more for earthquakes, but they may
be a prerequisite to such action taking place voluntarily (McClure & Walkey,
1995).
The present study used one method of presenting
information. There is a need to assess not only what information is more
effective in enhancing knowledge, but also which educative contexts have more
effect on preparation for hazards. The feedback procedure used in this study
could be adapted to other formats. If a "face-to-face" method is too costly, one
lower-cost option is a self-contained questionnaire and information kit where
the information (both written and visual) would directly relate to the questions
asked. The questions could target key issues such as what can be done to prevent
damage. This package could be given to citizens immediately after a major
earthquake in another region when interest is likely to be greatest. The
information could also be presented on a videotape and held in public libraries
(Rattien, 1990). Another method is to target community groups. With the help of
these groups, an exercise similar to the present study could be conducted on a
larger basis. The reinforcement and encouragement of the group might encourage
preventative action. This could include a resource person from an appropriate
organisation, or if such a resource person is not available, a videotape.
The second main goal of the study was to establish
whether there was a relationship between earthquake knowledge, earthquake
preparation, and judgments that earthquake damage was preventable. The
correlation between earthquake knowledge scores and preparation scores showed
that those with more earthquake knowledge were more likely to have prepared for
earthquakes. A causal relation cannot be imputed from this relation, but this
finding lends encouragement to programs designed to increase knowledge about
hazards through well designed information programs (Slovic et. al., 1982).
No relationship was found between preparation scores
and judgments that earthquake damage is preventable. Some participants may lack
the resources to undertake prevention, but the low cost of some items on the
preparation checklist combined with the relative wealth of the geographical
area surveyed challenge this explanation. A more likely explanation is that
participants may see preparedness as the responsibility of the government
(Jackson, 1977; Jackson, 1981; Kunreuther et. al., 1978). This finding may also
reflect a preference for a crisis response (Jackson, 1988). Valery (1995)
claimed that in Kobe, many citizens knew about the risks of earthquakes and how
to prepare, but they thought that the science of predicting earthquakes was so
advanced that they would receive a warning of an earthquake. As a consequence,
they failed to prepare. Even when at-risk people know that damage is
preventable, they may not prepare because they deny the seriousness of risk
(Jackson, 1981; Lehman & Taylor, 1987).
The results also showed no correlation between
earthquake knowledge and the perceived preventability of earthquake damage.
Citizens may have knowledge about what people can do, but perceive their
situation as different (Turner et al., 1986). Hence their knowledge may be
overruled by a fatalistic attitude. In addition, reliance on previous experience
can limit people's use of hazard information (Sorenson, 1983). Although
experience of a hazard can motivate people to prepare, others can be misled if
the event caused little damage. Others judge that having sustained damages in
the past, they are unlikely to do so again in the future (Burger & Palmer,
1992). Media images of mass destruction from large earthquakes may influence
people's judgments that earthquake damage is preventable. People may think that
preparation may prevent damage in some situations, but not in a major
earthquake.
In the present study, general damage was judged more
preventable than building damage. The more inclusive nature of the damage in the
general question may have led participants to judge that more could be done. In
contrast, the more specific nature of the Building damage question ("How
difficult is it to prevent damage to buildings in a major earthquake?") may have
led subjects to think that the damage was severe and less preventable. The
participants also may have less knowledge about preventing damage to buildings,
and the judgments may reflect media images of mass destruction which focus on
buildings (Williams & McClure, 1995). Educative programs need to be clear
that much earthquake damage to buildings is preventable.
In conclusion, the findings here suggest that the perceived preventability of earthquake damage can be increased by completing a brief earthquake knowledge questionnaire with a follow-up session that addresses gaps or misconceptions in earthquake knowledge. Secondly, participants' prior knowledge about earthquakes is related to their level of preparation for earthquakes, whereas judgments of the preventability of damage were unrelated to either prior earthquake knowledge or preparation. These findings have implications for the design of future hazard information programs. If programs take into account citizens' current knowledge and address gaps or misconceptions in that knowledge, then citizens may prepare more for earthquakes and other disasters.
Banerjee, M. M., & Gillespie, D. F. (1994). Strategy and organisational
disaster preparedness. Disasters : The Journal of Disaster Studies and
Management, 18, 344-354.
Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1992). Characterising mental
models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to Radon.
Journal of Social Issues, 48, 85-100.
Britton, N. R. (1981). What have New Zealand learnt from earthquake disasters
in their country? Disaster: The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management,
5, 384-390.
Burger, J. M., & Palmer, M. L. (1992). Changes in the generalisation of
unrealistic optimism following Experiences with stressful events: Reactions to
the 1989 California earthquake. Personality and Social Psychology
bulletin, 18, 39- 43.
BRANZ. (1991). BRANZ Homeowners Manual. Published by Holmes
Publication Limited in association with BRANZ.
DeMan, A., & Simpson-Housley, P. (1988). Correlates of response to two
potential hazards. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128,
385-391.
De Marchi, B. (1991). Effective communication between the scientific
community and the media. Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies
Management, 15, 237-243.
Faupel, C. E., & Styles, S. P. (1993). Disaster education, household
preparedness, and stress responses following hurricane Hugo. Environment and
Behavior, 25, 228-249.
Fitzpatrick, C., & Mileti, D. S. (1994). Public Risk Communication. In R.
R. Dynes., & K. J. Tierney. (Eds.), Disasters, Collective Behaviour and
Social Organisation. Newark : University of Delaware Press.
Greening, L., & Dollinger, S. J. (1992). Illusions (and shattered
illusions) of invulnerability: Adolescents in natural disaster. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 5, 63-75.
Holmes, W. T. (1986). Identification of Deficiencies in Buildings. In M. A.
Cassaro (Ed.), Seismic Design and concern for existing structures: Seminar
course manual. USA: American Concrete Institute.
Jackson, E. L. (1977). Public response to earthquake hazard. California
Geology, 30, 278- 281.
Jackson, E. L. (1981). Response to earthquake hazard: The West Coast of North
America. Environment and Behavior, 13, 387- 416.
Jackson, E. L., & Mukerjee, T. (1974). Human adjustment to the earthquake
hazard of San Francisco, California. In G. F. White (Ed.) Natural Hazards :
Local, National, Global. New York : Oxford University Press.
Jungerman, H., Schutz, H., & Thuring, M. (1988). Mental models in risk
assessment: Informing people about drugs. Risk analysis, 8, 147-155.
Karanci, N. A., & Rustemli, A. (1995). Psychological consequences of the
1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake. Disasters : The Journal of Disaster
Studies Management, 19, 8-18.
Key, D. (1988). Earthquake design practice for buildings. London :
Thomas Telford Limited.
Kunreuther, H., et al. (1978). Disaster Insurance Protection : Public
Policy Lessons. New York : John Wiley.
Lagorio, H. J. (1990). Earthquakes : An Architect's Guide to Nonstructural
Seismic Hazards. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lehman, D. R., & Taylor, S. R. (1987). Date with an earthquake: Coping
with a probable, unpredictable disaster. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 546-555
McClure, J. L., & Walkey, F. (1995). Helplessness and preparation for
earthquakes. Manuscript under review. Victoria University of Wellington.
McClure, J. L., & Williams, S. (1996). Community Preparedness :
Countering Helplessness and Optimism. In D. Paton., & N. Long. (Eds.),
Psychological aspects of Disaster: Impact. coping, and Intervention.
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. pp. 237-254.
Mulilis, J. P., & Lippa, R. (1990). Behavioural change in earthquake
preparedness due to negative threat appeals: A test of protection motivation
theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20,
619-638.
Norwak, A. S., Galambos, T. V. (Eds.) (1990). Making Buildings Safer for
people. During Hurricanes, Earthquakes and Fires. New York : Von Nostrand
Reinhold.
Normile, D. (1995). Cracking up. New Scientist, 29, 26-31.
Palm, R. (1979). Real estate agents and dissemination of information on
natural hazards in the urban area. Research Presentation 11. Boulder :
Department of Geology, University of Colorado.
Perry, R. W., Lindell, M. K., & Greene, M. R. (1982). Threat perception
and public response to volcano hazard. The Journal of Social Psychology,
116, 199-204.
Peterson, C., Maier, D.F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.), Learned
Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control, Oxford : Oxford
University Press.
Rattien, S. (1990). The role of the media in hazard mitigation and disaster.
Disasters : The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management, 14,
36- 45.
Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box:
Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin,
100, 349-363.
Saarinen, T. F. (1979). The relation of hazard awareness to adoption of
approved mitigation measures. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Center
IBS6. Boulder : University of Colorado.
Simpson-Housley, P., & Bradshaw, P. (1978). Personality and the
perception of earthquake hazard. Australian Geographical Studies,
16, 65-72.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Behavioral decision
theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologia , 56,
183-203.
Smith, K. (1993). Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk & Reducing
Disaster. London : Routledge Publishers.
Sorensen, J. H. (1983). Knowing how to behave under the threat of disaster:
can it be explained. Environment and Behavior, 15, 438-457.
Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., and Paz, D. H. (1986). Waiting for disaster:
Earthquake watch in California. Los Angeles : University of California
Press.
Valery, N. (1995). Fear of trembling : A survey earthquake engineering.
The Economist, 22, 3 - 12.
Wellington City Emergency Management Office. (1995). Emergency Planning
Guide for your household. Wellington : Wellington City Council.
Williams, S., & McClure, J. L. (1995). The effect of attributional
information on fatalism about earthquakes. Manuscript under review,
Victoria University of Wellington.
Yanev, P. (1974). Peace of Mind in Earthquake Country : How to Save your
Home and Life. San Francisco : Chronicle Books.
Appendix A: Earthquake
Damage prevention Questionnaire
Please tick the items below that you
think would be a good step to take in significantly reducing the damage to a
house (building) or its contents, in the event of a major earthquake.
yes no unsure
1) Replace your concrete chimney with a metal pipe type chimney
2)
Choosing to build with a modern concrete tile roof.
3) Make sure the chimney
is firmly attached to the house.
4) Add plywood to reinforce any uncovered
internal walls.
5) Increase the weight bearing capacity of the walls and
piles.
6) Fasten walls to foundations with anchoring bolts.
7) Reinforce
the foundation piles under the house
8) It is better to have a house that has
all the foundation on soil, than a house in which part of the foundation is on
bedrock and part is on soil.
9) Knowing the location of the fault lines in
the area is more important than knowing the location of the last earthquake,
when deciding where to build.
10) A good way to prevent damage to hot water
cylinders is to leave sufficiently large gaps between the cylinder and the wall
to prevent the cylinder from hitting the wall and bursting
11) Make the base
pad for a free standing heater or pot belly stove large enough so the stove
won't fall over should it move.
12) Build an additional brick wall along side
another brick wall for added strength
13) Square and rectangular shape
buildings are generally considered
more earthquake
resistant than other building shapes like '»', when the same construction
techniques are used.
14) Generally speaking single level houses are better at
withstanding the shaking of earthquakes, than split or multilevel houses.
15)
Most damage that occurs to a house or building is caused by the up and down
motion of an earthquake, rather than the side to side motion.
Appendix B: Earthquake preparedness measure
The following is a
list of earthquake preparedness items. Please indicate your response by ticking
Yes or No in the appropriate place following each item. Your responses should be
made with respect to your present residence.
yes no
Do you have any of the following items handy at your residence for use
immediately after an earthquake:
- First Aid
Kit?......................................................
- An
operating
Torch?..............................................
- Supply
of bottled
water?.........................................
- Supply
of canned or dehydrated
food?.........................
- Radio (battery
powered) with spare
batteries?.................
- Alternative cooking
source?......................................
Are the following items in your home securely
fastened:
- Hot water
cylinder?...............................................
- Tall
furniture? (e.g. tall bookcases).............................
Have
you:
- rearranged cupboard contents, so that
items in the cupboard won't break or spill?
(e.g.
placed heavy objects at ground level)
.............
- securely fastened cupboards with
latches?.....................
Does your household have an earthquake
plan?..................
(i.e., what to do during and after an
earthquake)
Do you know the location
of:
- The nearest civil
defence meeting place to your home?.....