 |
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?.....
