What motivates people to take precautionary action against earthquake risk in Istanbul? Sıdıka Tekeli Yeşil  1 ,  Necati D...
- There will be storms, trees will fall down, houses will collapse, terrible things will happen. -When? -10 years later. -...
Introduction Mitigation and preparedness activities at individual level are important to reduce damage from hazards and lo...
<ul><li>To identify the factors associated with taking action in anticipation of an earthquake among the residents of Ista...
<ul><li>Istanbul;  </li></ul><ul><li>-located in an earthquake zone,  </li></ul><ul><li>-an earthquake of a magnitude of ~...
<ul><li>A field survey was carried out in May and June 2007.  </li></ul><ul><li>Districts were stratified according to the...
<ul><li>Dependent variable:   had taken at least 3 of the 11 measures </li></ul><ul><li>Explanatory variables: </li></ul><...
No. of measures that had been taken within SELs in each districts Results
Frequency of the measures  taken by the respondents in the districts and in total   30 (3%) 15 (3%) 15 (3%) The individual...
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the factors predicting the likelihood of getting prepared for an earthquake 1...
<ul><li>Conclusion 1- </li></ul><ul><li>Socioeconomic factors were crucial in preparedness of individuals.  </li></ul><ul>...
<ul><li>Conclusion-2 (practical implications) </li></ul><ul><li>Changing the factors, which were significantly associated ...
<ul><li>Recommendation-2a </li></ul><ul><li>Provide effective earthquake awareness programmes, which </li></ul><ul><li>com...
<ul><li>Recommendation-2b </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness programmes should also consider different demographic and socioecono...
<ul><li>Recommendation-2c </li></ul><ul><li>Possible actors;  </li></ul><ul><li>p eople who have participated in   rescue ...
<ul><li>Thanks for your attention ! </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. S ıdıka Tekeli-Yeşil </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

What motivates people to take precautionary action against earthquake risk in Istanbul?

662

Published on

What motivates people to take precautionary action against earthquake risk in Istanbul?

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
662
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

What motivates people to take precautionary action against earthquake risk in Istanbul?

  1. 1. What motivates people to take precautionary action against earthquake risk in Istanbul? Sıdıka Tekeli Yeşil 1 , Necati Dedeoğlu 2 , Charlotte Braun-Fahrländer 1 and Marcel Tanner 1 1 Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland 2 Akdeniz University, Medical Faculty, Department of Public Health, Antalya, Turkey
  2. 2. - There will be storms, trees will fall down, houses will collapse, terrible things will happen. -When? -10 years later. -10 years later? -Oooo.... O..... Piyale Madra, Ademler ve Havvalar
  3. 3. Introduction Mitigation and preparedness activities at individual level are important to reduce damage from hazards and loss of life, but people do not appear to be concerned about preparing themselves for hazards
  4. 4. <ul><li>To identify the factors associated with taking action in anticipation of an earthquake among the residents of Istanbul. </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis: </li></ul><ul><li>Residence in an area at high risk and socioeconomic level (SEL) would be associated with taking action. </li></ul><ul><li>Further personal, social and environmental factors would also be associated with taking action. </li></ul>Research Aim
  5. 5. <ul><li>Istanbul; </li></ul><ul><li>-located in an earthquake zone, </li></ul><ul><li>-an earthquake of a magnitude of ~7 on the Richter scale with a 62% (±15%) probability in any 30-year period (Parsons et al., 2000). </li></ul><ul><li>The study was conducted in two districts (Bakırköy and Beykoz) of Istanbul. </li></ul><ul><li>Bakırköy: closer to the fault lines, has poor soil conditions and is expected to experience the highest intensity (9.0–9.5) in a predicted earthquake </li></ul><ul><li>Beykoz: expected to experience the lowest intensity (5.5–6.0) (BU, 2003). </li></ul>Research Site
  6. 6. <ul><li>A field survey was carried out in May and June 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Districts were stratified according to their earthquake risk </li></ul><ul><li>sub-districts according to SEL </li></ul><ul><li>households were selected randomly from each stratum by a two-stage cluster sampling technique. </li></ul><ul><li>A total of 1123 people, who were the heads of households and had been living in their home for more than 1 year, were interviewed in the higher-and lower-risk zones. </li></ul>Methods
  7. 7. <ul><li>Dependent variable: had taken at least 3 of the 11 measures </li></ul><ul><li>Explanatory variables: </li></ul><ul><li>Risk level : Higher (Bakırköy) – Lower (Beykoz) </li></ul><ul><li>SEL : Education level; Tenure; SEL of the sub-district; Self expressed economic status </li></ul><ul><li>Demographic factors : Age; Gender; Marital status; Child living at home </li></ul><ul><li>Earthquake experience : Ever experienced an earthquake; Loss or injury in the closed circle; Participated in rescue and solidarity activities in past earthquakes </li></ul><ul><li>Earthquake knowledge : What is an earthquake?; What could be done to mitigate damage and reduce the impacts?; How to behave during an earthquake? </li></ul><ul><li>Risk perception : regarding the location of the home, respondents‘ home, family, themselves; whether they were more worried about other threats/risk in daily life. </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes score : 11 statements about attitudes toward taking action. </li></ul><ul><li>General safety score : Use (or not) of seatbelts while traveling in a car during the previous month. </li></ul>Questionaire
  8. 8. No. of measures that had been taken within SELs in each districts Results
  9. 9. Frequency of the measures taken by the respondents in the districts and in total 30 (3%) 15 (3%) 15 (3%) The individual was a member/volunteer of a related nongovernmental or CBO organization 128 (11%) 70 (13%) 58 (10%) Relevant training had been attended 221 (20%) 87 (16%) 134 (24%) An earthquake bag/kit was kept 240 (21%) 122 (22%) 118 (21%) A fire extinguisher had been obtained 241 (22%) 108 (19%) 133 (24%) Food had been stored in anticipation of an earthquake 336 (30%) 147 (26%) 189 (34%) Important documents had been secured 362 (32%) 163 (29%) 199 (36%) A family disaster plan had been drawn up 423 (38%) 136 (24%) 287 (51%) Earthquake insurance had been obtained 443 (39%) 213 (38%) 230 (41%) High furniture had been secured to the wall (partly or all) 546 (49%) 277 (49%) 269 (48%) A flashlight was kept near the bed 575 (51%) 144 (26%) 431 (77%) The building had been tested for construction quality N (%) N (%) N (%) Total LRD / Beykoz HRD / Bakırköy Measures that had been taken
  10. 10. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the factors predicting the likelihood of getting prepared for an earthquake 1 OR: Odds Ration; * p<0.05; **p<0.01; *** p<0.001; n.s: not significant; 1 refers to reference group 1.5* n.s 1 35-54 years old 55< 16-34 Age 1.5* n.s 1 Often - Always No such situation Never - Seldom General safety score (safety belt usage in car) 1.5* 1 7-11 action stimulating attitudes <7 Attitude score 1.7** 1 Owns Rents and others Tenure 1.9** 1 1.6** 1 1.5** 1 (Spontaneously) Knew ≥ 2 earthquake measures Did not know or know 1 measure Knew how to behave during an earthquake Did not know Scientific explanation about what an earthquake is Non- scientific explanations Knowledge about earthquakes and measures 2.0*** 1 Participated in rescue and solidarity activities in past earthquakes Not participated Earthquake experience 2.4*** 1 Higher risk area (Bakırköy) Lower risk area (Beykoz) Location of the home 2.6*** 2.4*** 1 Higher Education- University Education Middle School – High School Illiterate – Primary School Education Level OR 1 Factor
  11. 11. <ul><li>Conclusion 1- </li></ul><ul><li>Socioeconomic factors were crucial in preparedness of individuals. </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendation-1 </li></ul><ul><li>These findings pointed out that disaster risk reduction has to be seen as a political, economic and social issue; thus disaster management should be integrated into social and economic development. </li></ul><ul><li>Individual preparedness can not be left alone to individuals. It should be integrated in community and institutional preparedness programmes and supported by the state. </li></ul>Conclusions
  12. 12. <ul><li>Conclusion-2 (practical implications) </li></ul><ul><li>Changing the factors, which were significantly associated with taking action, is very difficult; interventions to political, social and economic systems are needed. </li></ul><ul><li>The factor that seems to be most amenable to interventions in the context of disaster preparedness programmes is : </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge about earthquakes and measures </li></ul>Conclusions
  13. 13. <ul><li>Recommendation-2a </li></ul><ul><li>Provide effective earthquake awareness programmes, which </li></ul><ul><li>communicate information rather than disseminate it, </li></ul><ul><li>emphasize to the measures rather than the risk, </li></ul><ul><li>help individuals to personalize the risk, </li></ul><ul><li>aim to change individuals’ attitudes towards various measures, actors of the disaster management, the importance of their own capacity, </li></ul><ul><li>aim to create a culture of safety in the community. This can be best achieved in schools by educating the next generations. </li></ul>Conclusions
  14. 14. <ul><li>Recommendation-2b </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness programmes should also consider different demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the society. The target populations in these programmes should be </li></ul><ul><li>people with a lower educatio n level , </li></ul><ul><li>people living in all risk areas (higher-lower risk areas) </li></ul><ul><li>people living in low socioeconomic areas, </li></ul><ul><li>t enants , </li></ul><ul><li>young people . </li></ul>Conclusions
  15. 15. <ul><li>Recommendation-2c </li></ul><ul><li>Possible actors; </li></ul><ul><li>p eople who have participated in rescue and solidarity activities in previous earthquakes, </li></ul><ul><li>women </li></ul><ul><li>Muhtar s </li></ul>Conclusions
  16. 16. <ul><li>Thanks for your attention ! </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. S ıdıka Tekeli-Yeşil </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>Any Question ?

×