Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Earthquake Readiness Index Tool for India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Preparing for Earthquakes: Lessons for India

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science ((BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL))

Abstract

This chapter presents the development of a survey based tool specific to India, to assess the earthquake preparedness level of individual, families and communities residing in earthquake prone regions.

Know Your Readiness Index and Boost Preparedness Level

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ardalan, A., & Sohrabizadeh, S. (2016). Assessing households preparedness for earthquakes: An exploratory study in the development of a valid and reliable Persian-Version Tool. PLOS Current. doi:10.1371/currents.dis.ccc8697279713e66887b928b839d0920.

  • Baytiyeh, H. (2014). The assessment of earthquake preparatory knowledge and activities of Lebanese engineering students. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 14, 11978–11987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. S. (2010) Understanding disaster preparedness and resilience in Canterbury: Results of interviews, focus groups and a questionnaire survey. GNS Science Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, M. D., & Ronan, K. R. (2012). A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: How individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness. Natural Hazards, 64, 107–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Man, A., & Simpson-Housley, P. (1987). Factors in the perception of earthquake hazard. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 815–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, D., Catalano, R., Mishra, S., & Serxner, S. (1992). Earthquake preparedness: Predictors in a community survey. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. E. (1993). Social location and self-protective behavior: Implications for earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies Disasters, 11, 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, J. E., Barlow, H. D., Finklestein, M. S., & Riley, L. (1993). Earthquake hysteria, before and after: A survey and follow-up on public response to the Browning forecast. International Journal of Mass Emergencies Disasters, 11, 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirose, H. (1986). The psychological impact of the Tokai earthquake prediction: Individual’s responses and the mass media coverage. Japanese Psychological Research, 26, 64–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirose, H., & Ishizuka, T. (1983). Causal analysis of earthquake concern and preparing behavior in the North Izu Peninsula. Japanese Psychological Research, 25, 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurnen, F., & McClure, J. (1997). The effect of increased earthquake knowledge on perceived preventability of earthquake damage. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 3, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. L. (1981). Response to earthquake hazard: The West Coast of North America, Environmental. Behaviour, 14, 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. L., & Mukerjee, T. (1974). Human adjustment to the earthquake hazard in San Francisco, California. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local national and global (pp. 160–166). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiecolt, K. J., & Nigg, J. M. (1982). Mobility and perceptions of a hazardous environment. Environmental Behaviour, 14, 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClure, J., & Allen, W. (2001). When earthquake damage is seen as preventable: Attributions, locus of control and attitudes to risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(2), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClure, J., Fischer, R., Hunt, M., & Charleson, A. (2007). Using action plans to increase voluntary actions that reduce earthquake damage. EQC Report No. 2314, Earthquake Commission, Wellington, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, J., Sibley, C. G., & White, J. (2009). Framing effects on preparation intentions: Distinguishing actions and outcomes. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(2), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mileti, D., & O’Brien, P. W. (1992). Warnings during disasters: Normalizing communicating risk’. Social Problems, 38, 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., & Bovalino, K. (1990). Tornado preparedness of students, nonstudent renters, and non-student owners: Issues of PrE theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1310–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulilis, J. P., & Lippa, R. (1990). Behavioral change in earthquake preparedness due to negative threat appeals: A test of protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 619–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okazaki, K., Ilki, A., Ahmad, N., Kandel, R.C., & Rahayu, H. (2008). Seismic risk perception of people for safer housing. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, D., Bajek, R., Okada, N., & McIvor, D. (2010). Predicting community earthquake preparedness: A cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand. Natural Hazards, 54, 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. A., & Bourque, L. B. (1995). Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environment and Behavior, 27, 744–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spittal, M. J., Mc Clure, J., Siegert, R. J., & Walkey, F. H. (2008). Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: Survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 798–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R., Mustart, D. A., & Galehouse, J. S. (1977). Living in earthquake country. California Geology, 3, 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., & Paz, D. H. (1986). Waiting for disaster: Earthquake watch in California. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang S., Gao H., Liu, L., Tang, W., He, L., & Fan, C. (2010). Analysis on public earthquake risk perception: Based on questionnaire. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Cartography and GIS, Nessebar, Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    T. G. Sitharam

  2. Civil Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

    Sreevalsa Kolathayar

Authors
  1. T. G. Sitharam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sreevalsa Kolathayar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendix: Questionnaire for Earthquake Readiness Indices

Appendix: Questionnaire for Earthquake Readiness Indices

4.1.1 Earthquake Readiness Index for Individuals

The following are the things that can be done to minimize the damage and disruption if an earthquake occurs. Record your responses (one response per statement)

How to calculate your score at individual level:

  1. i.

    Mark your responses against each statement.

  2. ii.

    Count the total number of responses against the first option (Have done this) for statements 1–25 or 27 (depending on employment status). This gives your ERI score.

  3. iii.

    The table provided at the end of the questionnaire gives your preparedness category.

figure a
figure b

If employed/studying, mark the following,

figure c

4.1.2 Earthquake Readiness Index for Community

Note: Community refers to a group in which you belong. It could be your neighbourhood, locality or social groups.

  1. A.

    With regard to your life in the community, record your responses. (Questions 1-5). (One response per statement)

How to calculate your score at community level:

  1. i.

    Mark your responses against each statement.

  2. ii.

    Count the total number of responses against the 1st option (Have done this) for statements 1 to 10.

  3. iii.

    Count the total number of responses against 1st (5) and 2nd (4) options for statements 11-20.

  4. iv.

    Sum of ii and iii gives the ERI score at community level.

  5. v.

    The table provided at the end of the questionnaire gives your preparedness category.

    figure d
  1. B.

    With regard to preparedness point of view, record your responses. (Questions 6-10). (One response per statement)

    figure e
  1. C.

    In regard to your general feelings about living in this community, please record to which extent you agree or disagree with the following statements on a scale of 1-5 (5- Strongly agree, 4- agree, 3- neither agree nor disagree, 2- disagree , 1- Strongly disagree) (Questions 11-20).(one response per statement)

    figure f

4.1.3 Demographics

We assure you that all information that you provide us will be strictly confidential and it will be restricted to the purpose of the study.

figure g

Preparedness levels

Level

ERI range for individuals

ERI range for community

Degree of preparedness

% of preparedness activities done

1

0–5

0–4

Very poor

Upto 20

2

6–10

5–8

Poor

Upto 40

3

11–17

9–13

Moderate

Upto 65

4

18–23

14–17

Good

Upto 85

5

24–27

18–20

Excellent

Above 85

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sitharam, T.G., Kolathayar, S. (2018). Earthquake Readiness Index Tool for India. In: Preparing for Earthquakes: Lessons for India. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59522-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation