Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PSOO-12 <br /> <br />Michael K. LindeIl <br />Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center - <br />Texas A&M University 3137 TAMU - <br />CoIlege Station TX 77843-3137 <br />979.862-3969; mlindell@archone.tamu.edu <br /> <br />Risk Area Residents' Perceptions of Seismic Hazard Adjustments <br /> <br />Disaster losses in the United States continue to rise (Mileti, 1999), but this trend could be reversed by <br />effective land use, building construction, and emergency preparedness practices. Individual households, in <br />particular, can do much to reduce hazard vulnerability but the factors affecting the implementation hazard <br />adjusttnents is poorly understood. In their recent review of the literature on household adoption of seismic <br />hazard adjustments, Lindell and Peny (2000) suggested that assessing risk area residents' perceptions of <br />hazard adjustment attributes might be a useful way to increase our understanding of the adjustment process. <br />Consistent with this recommendation, LindeIl and Whitney (2000) found that hazard-related attributes such <br />as an adjusttnent's efficacy in protecting people and property and its usefulness for other purposes were <br />significantly correlated with adoption intentions and actual adoption. By contrast, attributes involving the <br />resource demands of these hazard adjusttnents (cost, knowledge and skill requirements, effort requirements, <br />and required cooperation with others) had few significant correlations. A significant limitation of this study is <br />that data were collected from a sample that was relatively homogeneous demographically and resided in an <br />area with a history of recent earthquakes (Southern California). Thus, the generalizability of the results needs <br />to be assessed. . <br /> <br />More recently, Lindell and Prater (in press) reported some results from a survey of residents in two locations, <br />one with (Los Angeles) and the other without (Seattle) recent earthquakes. They found that the two locations a <br />differed substantially in residents' hazard experience and the intrusiveness of hazard-related thoughts into ., <br />everyday life. However, the locations had small differences in perceptions of hazard vulnerability and <br />adoption of hazard adjustments. Moreover, the researchers found that hazard adjustment adoption was most <br />strongly correlated with hazard experience, hazard intrusiveness, income, and marital status. <br /> <br />Lindell and Prater's (in press) sample was more broadly representative than the one used by Lindell and <br />Whituey (2000) and their questionnaire also asked about risk area residents' perceptions of seismic <br />adjustment attributes but these data have not been reported previously. Analyses of Lindell and Prater's <br />adjustment attribute data reveal that there was only one consistently significant difference between the two <br />locations in perceptions of seismic adjustment attributes--Los Angeles area residents rated the seismic hazard <br />adjustments as more effective in protecting persons than did the Seattle residents. Replicating the findings of <br />Lindell and Whitney (2000), analyses of the data collected by Lindell and Prater also reveal that all three <br />efficacy attributes have significantly correlations with adoption intentions and actual adoption. Another <br />confmnation of previous results is the fmding that attributes involving the resource demands of seismic <br />hazard adjustments generally have nonsignificant correlations with adoption intentions and actual adoption.' <br /> <br />Overall, these results suggest that hazard experience has only a minimal effect on people's perceptions of <br />hazard adjustments, so emergency managers can use the same hazard awareness materials in any area that is <br />seismically vulnerable, regardless of its recent seismic activity. Moreover, emergency managers should <br />emphasize the hazard-related attributes of seismic adjustments because these are the attributes most likely to <br />result in protective action. It should be noted that the hazard adjustments addressed in this study consisted <br />mostly of emergency preparedness and mitigation measures that could be implemented fairly easily by most <br />households, so further research is needed to study the adoption of adjustments that place greater demands on _ <br />household resources. ., <br />