Developing a comprehensive model of hazard preparedness: Lessons from the Christchurch earthquake

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Large, damaging earthquakes are rare. When they occur, they do so without warning. This makes being prepared for such occurrences important. However, the rarity of the events makes it difficult for people to fully understand the hazard consequences they need to be prepared for. Taking the view that the goal of preparedness is increasing people’s ability to cope with and adapt to the demands and challenges encountered in disaster response and recovery periods, this paper examines the validity of conceptualizations of preparedness by identifying what people undergoing disaster recovery identified as essential for effective community response and recovery. Data on the latter were obtained from residents from five suburbs that experienced extensive physical damage and social and economic disruption (the “affected” group) by the 2011 earthquake identified as being required to be comprehensively prepared for future earthquakes. It then compares this with a sample from communities surrounding Christchurch that did not experience direct physical losses (the “unaffected group”) from the earthquake to assess if they endorsed these categories. Identification of the similarities and differences in both the functional categories endorsed by each group and the respective predictors of each functional category is used to frame discussion of how analysis of earthquake response and recovery experience can inform the development of comprehensive preparedness programs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this for disaster risk reduction strategies based on previous earthquake events for countries that face high levels of seismic risk.

Introduction

When large earthquakes occur, members of affected communities are abruptly faced with loss, challenges and demands that differ significantly from anything they would encounter under normal conditions and in circumstances in which normal societal functions and resources are suddenly marked by their absence. Recognition of these circumstances has prompted the development of approaches to managing seismic risk that range from mitigation (e.g., land use planning, building design) to encouraging people to prepare. Preparedness strategies attempt to develop the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and actions that increase people's ability to cope with, adapt to and recover from earthquake hazard consequences that can occur suddenly and can last for extensive periods of time (especially when accompanied by multiple, serious aftershocks) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Despite the considerable time, effort and expenditure on public hazard education engendered by recognition of the need to increase community preparedness, levels of preparedness, even when people acknowledge their risk, remains low [7], [8], [9], [10]. Nor can the occurrence of significant levels of seismic activity in one's backyard be guaranteed to stimulate preparedness. In the year following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (and during a time when aftershocks were still occurring), a survey by Statistics NZ [11] found that only 28% of New Zealand households had undertaken even basic preparation (e.g., having food and water for at least three days) in the year following the earthquake. This is lower than the 41% average adoption recorded in a preparedness survey in another high seismic risk location, Napier, New Zealand [12]. This discrepancy may reflect the fact the market survey approach adopted by Statistics NZ taps into a more generally representative sample of residents. In conrast, research data on preparedness may be biased by its data coming from with an interest in preparedness. While the latter must be regarded as tentative until systematically examined, a need to understand why levels of hazard preparedness remain low is undeniable.

The importance of proactively encouraging community earthquake preparedness derives directly from the impossibility of predicting when the next seismic event will occur and the need to facilitate preparedness prior to an earthquake that will not occur until some indeterminate time in the future. While a need for action is self-evident for the professionals who develop risk communication programs, the same cannot generally be said for the populace with whom they communicate. People's lack of experience of earthquakes makes it difficult for them to appreciate the range and implications of hazard consequences they may have to contend with and to convince them of the need for and benefit of preparedness [10].

While it is not possible to provide people with experience of earthquakes, one way of accommodating this uncertainty is to encourage learning about infrequent events using actual experience to develop case studies and illustrations of hazard consequences and so provide a context for framing and illustrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) preparedness strategies. Given that New Zealand will experience comparable or more severe earthquakes in the future, facilitating learning from the 2011 events is important. This paper argues that learning from events requires not only understanding the events, but also how people interpret the issues they are being asked to learn about. One issue concerns how people interpret the preparedness measures required [8]. Another relates to the interpretive processes that influence how people make decisions about whether to adopt these preparedness measures. Important lessons about preparedness and its predictors can be gleaned from identifying how well (or otherwise) disaster survivors are able to deal with the demands and challenges in response and recovery environments. That is, to examine preparedness during the experience of actual recovery.

The goal of preparedness is increasing people's ability to cope with and adapt to the demands and challenges encountered in disaster response and recovery periods. Analysis of actual recovery experience occurs at a time when people are well aware of the issues they have to deal with and what they need to be able to do to cope, adapt and recover. Analysis of these experiences can thus into an inventory of what people should have done (or need to do) to be better prepared for infrequent, sudden-onset earthquakes.

This paper first discusses the preparedness functions identified by people undergoing disaster recovery as essential for effective community response and recovery (and which should be developed to prepare for future earthquakes). Data on the latter were obtained from residents in five Christchurch suburbs that experienced extensive physical damage and social and economic disruption (the “affected” group) from the 2011 earthquake. The accounts given by members of this “affected” group (obtained while they were actually dealing response and recovery issues in an environment of ongoing disruption and recurring aftershocks) provides a relatively objective and robust platform on which to identify comprehensive functional preparedness categories. This knowledge can be used to develop comprehensive DRR preparedness in a context people may be able to identify with [14]. It cannot, however, be automatically assumed that populations who have not had direct experience of an earthquake will accept the full range of actions they need to adopt to be comprehensively prepared.

This makes it pertinent to first ascertain whether populations who have not had direct experience of a large earthquake interpret the range of preparedness categories required to deal with all hazard consequences in the same way as their survivor counterparts. This possibility can be tested by comparing survivors' accounts of preparedness categories with those of a population who would be aware of the hazard consequences and preparedness (based on risk information made available within the Canterbury region in the post-2011 period).

Comparative data were obtained from communities surrounding Christchurch that did not experience direct physical losses (the “unaffected group”) from the earthquake. It is acknowledged that this classification cannot exclude the possibility that members of this “unaffected” group were affected by, for example, knowing people who were affected or killed. Consequently, the use of the term “unaffected” refers specifically to a sample whose members did not experience direct physical losses and did not have to contend with ongoing disruption in the location in which they lived. With this qualification in mind, the comparison between the “affected” and “unaffected” groups afforded some measure of opportunity to assess if those who had not experienced direct physical hazard consequences who were not required to actively respond and recover to constant, ongoing social, environmental and economic hazard consequences endorsed these categories. Conducting such a comparison is one of the objectives of this paper.

By identifying the similarities and differences in both the functional categories endorsed by each group and the respective predictors of each functional category, this paper discusses how analysis of earthquake and aftershock response and recovery experience can provide case studies to inform the development of comprehensive preparedness programs.. If, however, people in “unaffected” group do not identify comparable preparedness categories, this knowledge could identify issues that need to be accommodated in future risk communication programs intended to facilitate preparedness in at-risk populations.

A second line of interpretive enquiry being pursued in this paper involves examining factors that help explain why some people prepare and others less so or not at all (predictors of preparedness). If confirmation of preparedness as a multi-faceted phenomenon is forthcoming, a more searching analysis of predictors will be required [5], [8], [10], [36], [37]. The rational for the latter is introduced later. The first issue addressed here concerns how a sample of Christchurch residents accounts, acquired in the midst of their earthquake response and recovery experience, of what they think comprehensive earthquake preparedness should be.

Section snippets

Comprehensive earthquake readiness

Research into earthquake preparedness categories is not new. For example, one study [15] defined readiness as comprising structural (e.g., securing house to foundations, securing water heaters and tall furniture, etc.), survival (e.g., ensuring a supply of water to cope with loss of utilities for several days, having a radio with spare batteries, etc.), and planning (e.g., developing household earthquake plans and attending meetings to learn about earthquakes and how to deal with their

Aims and hypotheses

The aims of this study are to (a) examine whether functional readiness categories identified during disaster recovery are reflected in people's pre-event beliefs, and (b) if categorical differences in preparedness (e.g. structural versus relational preparedness) are evident, explore the social and psychological factors involved in predicting hazard preparedness. Information on preparedness and its predicotrs in the “affected” group were obtained from the thematic analysis of qualitative data.

Data Screening

SPSS version 21 was used to screen data for missing values. To maximize sample size, given that 122 participants had missing data, estimation-maximization imputation (EMI) was used to estimate missing values [19]. Thirty one cases were deleted due to missing data of 10% or more (12 or more questions), leaving a sample of 264 for use in the final analysis. This provided approximately six cases per item, above the minimum of five recommended [20]. The assumptions necessary to conduct factor

Preparedness

Analysis of how a sample of Christchurch residents, interviewed while they were actively engaged in earthquake response and recovery issues, identified what actions and competencies would be required to cope with, adapt to and recover from direct and indirect earthquake hazard consequences [13] framed the hypotheses used for the second study. It was hypothesized that structural, survival, planning, psychological, community, community–agency preparedness functional categories would be supported

Acknowledgements

The authors express their thanks to the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (New Zealand), GNS Science (New Zealand), and Environment Canterbury (New Zealand) for their financial support of the research presented in this paper.

References (47)

  • D. Paton et al.

    Risk perceptionand volcanic hazard mitigation: individual and social perspectives

    J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.

    (2008)
  • S. Ainuddin et al.

    Institutional framework, key stakeholders and community preparedness for earthquake induced disaster management in Balochistan

    Disaster Prev. Manag.

    (2012)
  • S. Bannister et al.

    Evolution of the 2010–2012 Canterbury earthquake

    N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys.

    (2012)
  • L. Gawith

    How communities in Christchurch have been coping with their earthquake

    N. Z. J. Psychol.

    (2011)
  • Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nationas and Communities to Disasters

    (2005)
  • G.J. McColl et al.

    The new normal: twelve months of resiliency and recovery in Christchurch

    Disaster Med. Public Health Prep.

    (2012)
  • D. Paton et al.

    When good intentions turn bad: promoting natural hazard preparedness

    Aust. J. Emerg. Manag.

    (2005)
  • J. Becker et al.

    A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness

    Nat. Hazards

    (2012)
  • M.K. Lindell et al.

    Why people do what they do to protect against earthquakes risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes

    Risk Anal.

    (2009)
  • M.K. Lindell et al.

    Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review of research

    Environ. Behav.

    (2000)
  • D. Paton et al.

    Preparing for Disaster: Building Household and Community Capacity

  • How Prepared are New Zealanders for a Natural Disaster?

    (2012)
  • D. Paton et al.

    A Means-End Chain Theory Analysis Of Hazard Cognitions And Preparedness

    (2008)
  • D. Paton et al.

    Recovery and development: perspectives from New Zealand and Australia

  • J. McClure et al.

    New Zealander's judgements of earthquake risk before and after the Canterbury earthquake: do they relate to preparedness?

    N. Z. J. Psychol.

    (2011)
  • L.A. Russell et al.

    Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes

    Environ. Behav.

    (1995)
  • D. Paton

    MCDEM Christchurch Community Resilience Project Report Part 1. Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management

    (2012)
  • D. Paton

    Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: How trust influences its effectiveness

    Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues

    (2008)
  • D. McIvor et al.

    Modelling community preparation for natural hazards: understanding hazard cognitions

    J. Pac. Rim Psychol.

    (2009)
  • B.G. Tabachnick et al.

    Using Multivariate Statistics

    (2013)
  • P. Allen et al.
    (2010)
  • A. Field

    Discovering Statistics Using SPSS

    (2009)
  • H.F. Kaiser

    An index of factorial simplicity

    Psychometrica

    (1974)
  • Cited by (50)

    • Understanding the teachers' disaster preparedness beliefs

      2023, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
    • Seismic experience and structural preparedness of residential houses in Aotearoa New Zealand

      2021, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, people who attribute building earthquake damage to poor seismic design (as opposed to the earthquake itself) believe that damage to buildings was unavoidable for that earthquake, but could be reduced substantially in future [9,11,32,33]. Paton et al. [60] identified that several years after the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, people who experienced the shaking were more aware of the importance of strengthening buildings than people who did not experience the earthquakes. On the other hand, optimistic biases about potential major future earthquakes can cause people to underestimate probable damage, as highlighted in the preparedness models.

    • A framework of livelihood preparedness for disasters: A study of the Kaikōura earthquake in New Zealand

      2021, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      The purpose of this research was therefore to fill this gap by identifying the critical factors considered by individuals affected by the Kaikōura earthquake to have influenced their livelihood preparedness while they are still going through post-earthquake recovery. Paton et al. [20] suggested that data obtained during actual recovery is more representative of the issues people have to contend with. Therefore, this research delved into the recovery experience of those recovering from the earthquake to gain insight into what could have been done before the event to help people better prepare for disruptions to their livelihoods.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text