Social Representations of Earthquakes: A Study of People Living in Three Highly Seismic Areas

Abstract

Much research on people's seismic adjustment activity in highly seismic areas has assumed that low levels of adjustment are attributable to insufficient awareness of seismic risk. Empirical evidence for this assumption is weak, and there is growing appreciation of the role played by sociocultural and emotional variables in risk perception and behavior. This study explored these sociocultural and emotional dimensions via 144 interviews and questionnaires, with matched samples of locals in Seattle (United States), Osaka (Japan), and Izmir (Turkey). The data showed that high awareness of possible seismic adjustment measures was not translated into behavior, with all sites demonstrating low adjustment uptake, though the North Americans adopted significantly more adjustments than the other cultures. Thematic analysis of the interview data suggested that adjustment behavior was undermined by anxiety, distrust, distancing self from earthquake risk and fatalistic beliefs. The paper concludes by recommending how culture-specific disaster mitigation plans may be developed to address these factors.

How to increase earthquake and home fire preparedness: the fix-it intervention

“…Proven predictors of preparedness are: perceived self-efficacy, that is, beliefs regarding personal capacity to act effectively, which influences the number and quality of plans, effort and perseverance in risk reduction behaviours (Paton et al 2003); collective efficacy, defined as people's shared beliefs in their collective power (Paton and Johnston 2015); perceived outcome expectancy, the perception of whether ones' actions will reduce the problem or threat (Paton et al 2003); behavioural intention, which refers to the motivation to act and precedes adjustment adoption (Paton et al , 2010; critical awareness, defined as the frequency of talking and thinking about a specific hazard (Paton and Johnston 2015;Paton et al 2005); sense of community, that is, feelings of belonging and attachment to people and places (Bishop et al 2000;Paton 2000); community participation, which refers to individuals who form groups to collaborate with management agencies (Karanci and Aksit 2000;McGee and Russell 2003;Paton and Johnston 2015;Paton et al 2005;Tierney et al 2001); and trust in authorities, defined as trust in various sources of information (Dillon and Phillips 2001;Paton and Johnston 2015). In addition to targeting these predictors in this intervention, sociocultural and emotive variables, such as anxiety and fatalism, were added as mediators of the relationship between awareness and actual preparedness behaviours, as well as that between awareness and personal responsibility (Joffe et al 2013;Johnston et al 2013;Paton 2008;Paton et al 2010). …”

“…Community preparedness for natural hazards remains low across cultures (Ballantyne et al 2000;Lindell and Whitney 2000;Paton 2000), even among those where awareness of the natural hazard risk is high (Joffe et al 2013;Karanci et al 2005;Lindell 2013;Solberg et al 2010) Despite the importance of natural disaster preparedness interventions in reducing personal, social and economic losses, the literature on such interventions is scarce and its methodology is often not well documented (Perez-Fuentes and Joffe 2015). There are a wide range of mass media and internet-based natural disaster preparedness engagement methods, yet their documentation and evaluation are rare (Verrucci et al 2016).…”

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).…”

“…However, the existing literature shows that most communities fail to take adequate steps to mitigate against the effects of such events, even in areas where disasters occur with relatively high frequency (Joffe et al 2013;Solberg et al 2010;Karanci et al 2005;Rüstemli and Karanci 1999).…”

“…Furthermore, issues such as trust, beliefs, and perceptions about personal and community efficacy influence the ways in which information is consumed and used (Paton et al 2008;Paton 2007;Devine-Wright and Devine-Wright 2004). Anxiety levels also play a major role in disaster preparedness (Joffe et al 2013).…”