From information to public preparedness in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Examining risk communication outcomes in Metropolitan Portland, OR

Abstract

A Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake will cause widespread damage along the Pacific Northwest (PNW) coast of the United States. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how to reduce future impacts across this region and assess current levels of household preparedness. Here, we examine whether decades of risk and preparedness campaigns have established protective knowledge and promoted hazard adjustments for residents of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan (PDX) region, an area where risk and preparedness campaigns have been increasing over the last decade. We also explore how PDX preparedness levels compare to those in other PNW regions using analogous data from multiple surveys over a 20-year time interval and assess PDX respondent’s perceptions of risk information sources. We find that 63% of PDX residents do not intend to “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” (DCHO) when earthquake shaking starts and that, although residents are generally aware of earthquake hazards in the area, they are less aware of the specific risks for their homes. Furthermore, PDX residents’ preparedness levels seem to be comparable to those recently surveyed in Washington, but somewhat less than those surveyed two decades ago in California, though more comprehensive data are needed to verify these results. We also find that people rate risk information provided by emergency managers and their websites as more accurate, understandable, relevant, and new than other sources. Our results suggest that significant gaps remain in translating broad awareness of the CSZ earthquake into personal knowledge and preparedness. This work provides guidance to PDX emergency educators for more targeted messaging and provides methods to measure preparedness variables in other regions for future comparisons. By paying close attention to preparedness gaps, local officials can use their limited resources more effectively to develop strategies to inform their communities and improve preparedness before a major earthquake strikes.

What attributes influence rural household’s willingness to get vaccinated for COVID-19? Perspectives from six Chinese townships

“…However, even though risk management experts put much effort into encouraging emergency preparedness in the pre-crisis stage, until now, preparedness has usually been targeted for natural disasters. For example, residents in earthquake prone areas have long been advised to have a working battery-powered radio with spare batteries, at least 4 gallons of water in plastic containers, a complete first-aid kit, and a 4-day supply of dehydrated or canned food [58] . However, emergency preparedness is rarely targeted at new and unknown public health threats [83] .…”

Evaluation of hazard brochures using topic viewing durations: Application to tsunami evacuation brochures

“…Results from McPherson‐Krutsky et al. (2022) suggest that participants’ choices of which buttons to click (i.e., their chosen sources/channels) would have been defined by their expectations that clicking each button would yield information that was new , understandable , accurate , and relevant . It is quite obvious that information insufficiency must be addressed by new information, but it is also important that the new information is also perceived to be understandable, accurate, and relevant.…”

“…For example, McPherson‐Krutsky et al. (2022) asked study participants to retrospectively report the extent to which they had received or searched for risk and preparedness information from a list of sources. By contrast, DynaSearch allows researchers to measure in real time the extent to which study participants searched for information on different topics.…”

Residents’ information seeking behavior and protective action for earthquake hazards in The Portland Oregon Metropolitan Area

“…For additional recommendations for practice based on this work, see MacPherson‐Krutsky et al. (2022).…”

“…Together, these recommendations can help practitioners develop more effective risk communication campaigns and researchers conduct more robust studies that can link information with action. For additional recommendations for practice based on this work, see MacPherson-Krutsky et al (2022).…”