Earthquake Preparedness Levels
Among CSUMB Students
Jennifer Glasman
Dr. JuanJose Gutierrez
California State University, Monterey Bay
0
Abstract
Disaster preparedness is one of the most important steps to help minimize the risks that can occur
if an earthquake struck a community. In this senior capstone, I will be evaluating the
preparedness levels among students at California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB)
using a survey that asked the students about their knowledge of disaster preparedness and the
measures they have taken to prepare their households. Based on this survey, only 40% of
students feel prepared if an earthquake occurred in their community. In order to gain a better
understanding of these results, I studied the various factors that will influence an individual’s
preparedness level using several academic perspectives. Previous studies suggest that poor
educational efforts, lack of resources, and an absence of a strong emergency authoritative figure
can decrease a community’s preparedness levels. It has also been found that there are patterns of
preparedness among specific demographic groups. I used the self-efficacy theory to have a better
understanding of the reasons why certain people have specific preparedness levels. This theory
explains that an individual’s confidence and ability will determine who prepared they will be in
the face of a disaster. This study can help CSUMB to comprehend the current levels of
preparedness and to also find tactics that will help prepare students in order to reduce the
devastating threats from earthquakes.
1
Introduction
Natural or man-made disasters can occur at any moment in any community and it is vital
for each individual to be prepared in order to survive. California is known for having a large risk
of a dangerous earthquake which makes California State University of Monterey Bay very
vulnerable during these disasters. This capstone project examines preparedness levels among
CSUMB students. The data for this project has been largely collected by the means of survey
questionnaires designed to study the various factors that affect an individual’s level of
preparedness by means of past research. It is important for this and other universities in
comparable situations to help keep their students and staff prepared using resources and
providing education. One example of this type of the resources that are provided at CSUMB with
information about various emergencies using email, telephone, text, university website, local
media, etc. (Emergency Procedures) for their students and staff.
It took over 70 years for earthquake preparedness and hazard mitigation to be a topic
among policy makers and the public in the United States and especially California (Geshwind,
2001). On April 18, 1906, an earthquake of about a magnitude of 7.8 occurred in San Francisco,
which resulted in a huge the turning point for earthquake preparedness in the United States. This
was the first time that Californian residents started to become aware that something needed to be
done before the next disaster even though earthquakes in this state have occurred in the past. In
fact, earthquakes happen quite frequently in the state of California especially in the vicinity of
the Bay Area. It was up to scientists to have find enough research to convince the population on
the science of earthquakes, seismology, and earthquake preparedness. Once seismologists
produced research and after a few more catastrophic earthquakes, government officials finally
started making seismology a popular topic.
2
California State University Monterey Bay is located about 8 miles north of Monterey, CA
and has about 6,000 undergraduate and graduate students (About our Students). Since this
population is located in an area prone to earthquakes, it is vital that each individual is prepared.
In order to have a well-prepared community, the residents must be educated on the topic of the
disasters that can strike their homes and how to prepare for these tragedies.
After I graduate, I hope to join an organization that deals with emergency management,
disaster relief, and preparedness. This line of work will allow me to help educate others on the
types of disasters that can affect their communities and how to prepare for them. For the past 10
months, I have been volunteering with the American Red Cross. During my volunteer hours, I
have been able to prepare vulnerable groups using education and resources.
The fact that a disaster can have a devastating effect on a community without any kind of
warning has made me very interested on the topic of emergency management, specifically on
preparedness. Preparing for disasters such as earthquakes can greatly minimize the amount of
damages and injuries in a community. I would like to get a better understanding of how prepared
my community of CSUMB is in order to create better evacuation and preparedness plans for
future disasters.
Theoretical Context
In this section of the report, I will explore the central concepts and theories that can help
understand the current level of awareness as well as certain patterns that effect a community’s
.effort to prepare for disasters. One reason why people are more prepared for earthquakes than
others is because of the way that the individuals view their own identities and the situation before
them. The social psychological theory of self-efficacy theory has been used in sociology for
3
many years for the reason that it relates to many sociological theories. Self-efficacy theory is a
vital concept because it can have an effect on the stability of the society. Sociologists have found
patterns among various groups that suggest that personal efficacy can have an impact on a
person’s preparedness levels against disasters. The roles and efficacy of individuals and the
social norms of a society have made it so that some groups have higher levels than others (Gecas,
1989).
One reason that individuals are more prepared than others is if they believe that they have
the ability to do the appropriate actions. For instance, lack of resources or a disability may impair
people’s preparedness levels because they do not believe that they are able to be well-prepared.
Miller, Adame, and Moore state that
Therefore, vested interest is conceptualised as a function of: (a) the salience of the
attitude; (b) the perceived certainty of potential consequences following from behaviours
relevant to the attitude; (c) whether or not those consequences are perceived to be
immediate as opposed to remote in time; and (d) one’s belief in his/her ability to engage
in the attitude-relevant behaviour (that is, one’s pertinent level of self-efficacy). (p.6)
The self-efficacy theory also states that people will devote more time to something if they
believe that it will have a direct effect on their lives. Another component to this theory is that if a
person believes that they have the ability to create a positive outcome, then they will have higher
levels of self-efficacy. This theory proves that people will devote more time to preparedness if
they understand the traumatic consequences it can have and if they believe that they can prepare
effectively (Miller, Adame, & Moore, 2013).
One way that the self-efficacy theory can be applied to sociology is the impact that it can
have on the social structure. Socioeconomic status is one factor that can have a great effect on a
4
person’s self-efficacy. Another important component to self-efficacy is education. When a
person is properly educated, they contain the skills that will give them more control in specific
situations. Gender can also play a role on an individual’s sense of self-efficacy. It has also been
shown that men tend to score higher on self-efficacy tests than women do. Gender role
stereotypes and the structural factors have created this difference among men and women
(Gecas, 1989). There has also been a link found between trust in the government and personal
efficacy. When a population does not trust that their government will take the proper precautions
for an earthquake, then they too will not prepare. A community and government that work
together to help promote a well-prepared and more educated society, will encourage individuals
to protect their home and family from disasters.
Literature Review
This conceptual framework that I use to explore this topic is also solidly grounded in a
substantial body of literature. This section reviews some of the central materials that one needs to
have in mind in order to understand the complexity of these issues and processes. In 1906, an
earthquake occurred in San Francisco which was the turning point for earthquake preparedness.
This was the first time that people started to become aware that something needed to be done.
Scientists studied earthquakes for many years before policies were created. Once seismologists
produced research and after a few more catastrophic earthquakes, government officials finally
started making seismology and preparedness a popular topic in the U.S (Geshwind, 2001).
The best way to reduce the devastating results that follow earthquakes is by simply being
prepared. California State University Monterey Bay is a community that has a high risk of being
effected by earthquakes and my goal is to get a better idea understanding of the preparedness
5
levels among CSUMB students. It is thought that many Californians are well informed about
earthquake preparedness because of the commonality of earthquakes in this state. According to a
study done by researchers Rajib Shaw, Kobayashi Koichi Shiwaku Hirohide, Kobayashi Masami
on the topic of preparedness levels on 12 different Japanese high schools. Awareness of such
disasters is not enough, there must be some sort of educational effort in order to make an impact
on a community (2004).
One reason for a lack of mitigation efforts in many communities is because there is not
any education to properly inform its residents on how to prepare for disasters. According to Nii
K. Allotey, Godwin Arku, Paulina E. Amponsah, “it rather seems to be mostly due to poor
awareness, and a lack of an appreciation of the magnitude of the risk faced by the society at
large” (Allotey, Arku, & Amponsah, 2010, p. 152). A Model of Household Preparedness for
Earthquakes: How Individuals Make Meaning of Earthquake Information and How this
Influences Preparedness discusses the various factors that affect various populations’ earthquake
preparedness levels in New Zealand. These residents are unsure of how earthquakes could affect
their community and how they can decrease the risk of damages and injuries. Education that
requires some action, such as interactive and experimental educational programs would motivate
people more to start preparing (Becker, Paton, Johnston, & Ronan, 2012). Teaching residents
how to react to catastrophes competently makes preparedness a normal activity in their lives and
second nature when disasters occur (Shaw, Koichi Shiwaku Hirohide, & Masami, 2004).
There must be a system in place that creates a more prepared society along with a
community that educates its community about preparedness. A true plan is defined as “measures,
which enables governments, organizations, communities and individuals to act efficiently and
effectively in earthquake situations” (Gupta, Sinvhal, & Shankar, 2006, p. 618). One step
6
towards creating an efficient emergency plan in the event of a disaster is to educate the
community about awareness and preparedness. When a disaster occurs, the community is more
likely to evacuate quicker and work together better if they are well educated.
Emergency management in the United States is run by policies that have been created to
help prepare and mitigate for any future disasters. There must be policies in place that will help
the various types of populations that will be effected. Sociologists have been very helpful during
the process of creating policies that deal with emergency management. These researchers can
help emergency management authorities to predict how the effected community will react to a
disaster using past disasters as evidence. There will always be groups that will be unable to care
for themselves and emergency management authorities must have plans to help them (Dynes,
1988).
Resettled refugee community perspectives to the Canterbury earthquakes: Implications
for Organizational Response discusses how these earthquakes have affected the victims and
whether they are more prepared or not. This article primarily focuses on the variety of people
that have a refugee background, including Ethiopian, Afghan, and Bhutanese, and how they have
been affected by disasters. Currently, the groups included in this study feel as though they are a
bit rejected compared to other groups. One of the most important lessons learned from this article
is the fact that communities need to understand the diverse groups in the population and to
ensure that they are just as informed, prepared, and represented (Marlowe, 2013).
Many communities lack an official emergency management authoritative figure.
Ainuddin and Routray look at how Balochistan, Pakistan is negatively impacted by this problem.
There is also no plan that allows various agencies to coordinate in case a disaster did occur. This
means that the residents of this city are completely unaware of how to properly prepare for
7
disasters in order to reduce the risks. The researchers recommend that a plan must be made that
helps the community become more aware, create better coordination among agencies, and create
more preparedness activities (Ainuddin & Routray, 2012). Whereas Ainuddin and Routray are
addressing the need for an authoritative figure to look towards during a disaster in Pakistan,
Chikoto Sadiq and Fordyce discuss how nonprofits take this role in areas they support (Chikoto,
Sadiq, & Fordyce, 2013).
There are many societies that are relying more on efforts made by nonprofits rather than
the public sector. In fact, nonprofits have the most impact on a community’s level of
preparedness and mitigation. Due to some restraints, however, nonprofits earn the least amount
of resources. This article sums up with the importance of collaboration and governance among
all sectors when a disaster strikes (Chikoto, Sadiq, & Fordyce, 2013). In fact, governance is one
of the most important concepts in emergency management. It is impossible to get through a
disaster alone and governance should be a top priority for many Emergency Operations Services.
Governance must consist of various characteristics: accountability, transparency, and flexibility.
Naim Kapucu describes governance as “…the term governance coincides or overlaps the concept
describing network relationships and partnership arrangements among several actors,
representing different sectors and levels of government that come together to address a common
goal and produce shared results” (2012, p. 541).
One theory that illustrates the value of collaboration is the emergency norm theory. The
emergent norm theory suggests that a brand new set of norms will emerged in a dire situation
such as a natural or man-made disaster (Aguirre, Vigo, & Wenger, 1998). However, social
networks and relationships will still be in place. Weller and Quarantelli state that “Crowd norms
emerge from the nuclear cores provided by preexisting social relationships among members”
8
(Weller & Quarantelli, 1973, p. 681). Emergency managers should take advantage of this
phenomenon. In order to save their community, they should create the emerging norms and build
relationships with the public as soon as possible.
There are other factors that can have an impact on a person’s earthquake preparedness
level. Kanako Iuchi, Ann-Margaret Esnard shows that the more resources an individual or a
community has, the more prepared they will most likely be. The capital of the Philippines is an
example of how lower socioeconomic areas are greatly affected by disasters compared to those
with a higher income. Whereas poorer communities struggle with resources to prepare for
disaster wealthier populations contain the proper resources to help prepare before and recover
after disasters. An efficient preparedness plan contains information that is readily available and
easily understood by each resident (Iuchi & Esnard, 2008).
There are various factors that can affect how prepared an individual is and their
willingness to participate in the evacuation process. Emergency services must understand each
type of population in their community in order to be able to communicate with them.
Demographics can be used to point out which groups of people will be more prepared in a
disaster (Heath, Lee, & Ni, 2009). For instance, technology has assisted by communicating
upcoming or present disasters to the public. This resource can help people prepare for any
upcoming events and hopefully make the evacuation process much smoother and quicker (Ha &
Parks, 2014). Unfortunately, there are many groups of people that are unable to receive any
information using technology because they do not have any access to it.
In every community has a group of people that have special needs. It is vital for those
people to first be identified and defined before something occurs. According to Jones, Smith, and
Walton, many emergency management officers classify groups such as the elderly, those with
9
physical impairments, carless individuals, those with a lower income, children, etc. as groups
that are most vulnerable in the event of a disaster (2008). These groups must be represented and
accounted for by each emergency management authority in order to help better prepare or aid
them during times of disaster.
Gender can also play a role in the preparedness and mitigation activities that must be
taken before an earthquake occurs. Males and females identify with various activities in our
society based on if it is more masculine or feminine. Research shows that males and females
appeared to be more prepared in their stereotypical tasks and collection of objects (Mulilis,
1999). Other factors include marital status, income, level of education, number of children, home
ownership, and affiliations with earthquakes in the past. Those with a higher education level and
a higher income tend to be more prepared because they contain the financial resources and the
proper education to keep their homes and families safe (Edwards, 1993). However, the two
factors that created a more collaborated community included how long they have been in the
community for and their emotions towards other community members (Russell, Goltz, &
Bourque, 1995).
It has also been found that a college campus may have different results than most
communities when it comes to preparedness levels. In College Student Disaster Risk, Fear, and
Preparedness, researchers found that marginalized groups tend to be less prepared outside of
universities. With the help of their surveys, Tate and Lovekamp were able to show that race and
gender did not make a difference of whether a person is prepared or not. Since universities
support many local communities, it is very important that they are well prepared. “Funding
provided to the Disaster Resistant University (DRU) program was granted by Congress under a
special rule to set aside moneys to from be allocated specifically for universities to develop a
10
planning strategy for vulnerability reduction” (Lovekamp & Tate, 2008, p. 73).
Emergency managers must be able to communicate with their community in order to help
them get to safety when disasters occur. However, it is ultimately up to the public to decide
whether they want to evacuate and human interaction can play a huge role in this. Michael
Widener, Mark Horner, and Sara Metcalf were able to show how social networks can influence a
person’s decision to evacuate by using geographic data within an agent based model in Florida.
This type of model shows “explicit representation of spatial actors (or agents), their connections
to other agents and their communication about decisions on whether to evacuate” (Widener,
Horner, & Metcalf, 2013, p. 195). This concept is only true when there is a direct link from one
party to the other.
Methodology
This research project mainly uses qualitative research methods. The ultimate objective for
this project was to understand how prepared California State University of Monterey Bay
students are in case an earthquake occurred. Since California has a high risk for earthquakes, it is
important that all communities to prepare for these catastrophic disasters to lessen damages,
injuries, and deaths. In order to do this I created a 20 question survey that will reflect the
student’s measure of preparedness which is located in the appendix. This earthquake
preparedness level survey was created on Google Drive Forms. It was shared with only CSUMB
students and 128 students responded to the survey.
Preparedness requires participation from an authoritative figure that deals with
emergency management and the individuals of the community. Authoritative figures should use
their power to use seismic research to create plans and educate the community. Individuals
11
should also prepare for possible disasters in each of their households. My survey asks the
student’s current knowledge of preparedness, how they prepare for earthquakes on their own,
and if they feel as though the school provides them with enough information on their
recommendations and procedures for earthquakes.
Text analysis is my second main method of my capstone project. Text analysis is treated
as an interview after it has been written down. This type of method is used as a device to identify
data using words and images that have been recorded by someone else besides the researcher. I
will look at several texts that describe the various factors that influences a person’s preparedness
level. The readings that are used in this research project were uploaded onto the qualitative
analysis and mixed methods research computer program called NVIVO 10. Each article was
analyzed thoroughly and divided according to several topics. Figure one shows several topics
that were included: community bonding, education, resources, etc.
Figure 1 - List of nodes
12
All of the articles give some insight to the various reasons why some people tend to be
more prepared than others. There are many different factors that can affect a person’s
preparedness level because of their own actions or external issues. This text analysis will give me
the opportunity to find links between the influences that were discussed in the articles and the
participants’ responses.
The final step was to insert the responses of my participants into NVIVO 10 in order to
observe them and to connect them with the data retrieved from the text analysis. My
preparedness survey consisted of both multiple choice questions and short answer questions.
Each multiple question either tested the students’ familiarity on preparedness or examined their
own preparedness measures. For each question, I determined the percentage of students that
answered correctly or suggests that they take actions to prepare themselves and their household.
The next step was to view these results using the demographics were incorporated in the survey.
Participants were separated by gender, class, income level, and status. In order to view the results
for the short answer questions, I used the word frequency query in NVIVO. This tool allows me
to view the most frequently used words for each question.
Results and Findings
In this section I will present the results and findings of the survey questionnaire that was
completed by CSUMB students in order to better understand their preparedness levels. The
section is divided up by the results all of the participants and then by demographics.
CSUMB Participant Results
The survey was conducted to test students’ preparedness levels. The survey is split up
between multiple choice questions and short answer questions. Each of the results were
13
transported onto on Excel as seen in Figure 1. Figure 2 represents the percentage of how
prepared students of California State University Monterey Bay are using the multiple choice
questions. These set of multiple choice questions tests the students’ knowledge on earthquake
preparedness, the actions they have taken to prepare themselves, and a few other factors that
relate to an individual’s preparedness level.
Figure 2 - Graph of Level of Preparedness among CSUMB Students (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 6 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11
Figure 3 – Snapshot of Participant Results on Excel
14
The first set of questions reflect how educated the students with preparing and reacting to
earthquakes. The best way to create a well-prepared community is by providing the residents
interactive information in order to decrease uncertainty among the entire public. (Becker, Paton,
Johnston, & Ronan, 2012). About 53% of students understand that they must either get under a
table or sit up against a wall if they are indoors during an earthquake and 66% of students
answered that they must pull over and stay in a car if an earthquake occurs while driving.
The next set of multiple choice questions indicate the measures people have taken to
prepare their households. Safety preparedness kits were a less prevalent form of preparedness
among the participants (21%). A little less than a quarter of the respondents are do not contain
preparedness kits. Only 20% of students have designated a meeting spot for their household. The
American Red Cross advises families to designate two meeting places outside of the home
(Make a Plan). CPR and first aid appear to be more common since 46% of my participants state
that they contain these skills.
Figure 4 – Percentages of Participants that know CPR, that are somewhat familiar, and those that
do not know CPR
16%
46%
38%
Yes
Somewhat
No
15
The last three multiple choice questions specify how bonded they are to their own
community and how CSUMB has encouraged efforts to be well-prepared. According to the selfefficacy theory, if a person believes that they have the ability to create a positive outcome, then
they will be better prepared. There is a pattern among various groups and their level of personal
efficacy or worth, such as that the roles and social norms of a society have made it so that some
groups have higher levels of efficacy than others (Gecas, 1989). For instance, this theory proves
that people will dedicate more time and resources towards preparing themselves and their
households if they believe that they can prepare effectively (Miller, Adame, & Moore, 2013). It
is up to the emergency management office at CSUMB to help their students become more
educated on the topic of preparedness in order to give them the confidence to prepare.
Community bonding seems to be lacking among the CSUMB campus. Only 8% claim
that they participate in any CSUMB events. Weller and Quarantelli state that when a disaster
occurs, that new norms will form from the relationships that have already been created
beforehand. It is vital for emergency managers to connect with public in order to have a more
prepared and well-bonded community (Weller & Quarantelli, 1973).
After reviewing the previous questions it is no surprise that less than half, 40%, of the
participants feel that they are prepared if an earthquake occurred in their community. The final
question helps finalize whether CSUMB is doing enough to keep their students prepared in case
of an emergency. Only 28% of the participants have participated in at least one earthquake drill
during their time at CSUMB.
The first two short answer questions tests the student’s familiarity on the topic of safety
preparedness kits. When asked about the types of items that would be included in their safety
16
preparedness kits, the most frequent items included in the word frequency query are in fact
supplies that must be included in these kits. Water was the most frequently used word with a
weighted percentage of 8.65. The next five words include food (5.89%), first aid kit (3.83%),
flashlight (3.37%), batteries (3.14%), radio (3.14%). The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) launched a campaign called Ready that educates individuals on preparedness.
According to Ready’s Basic Disaster Supplies Kit web page, water, food, first aid kit, flashlight,
radio, and batteries must be included in preparedness kits (Basic Disaster Supplies Kit, 2014).
Figure 5 provides an example of the word frequency query used for question number four.
Question number five asked the participants where the most important places to keep
safety preparedness kit in. The top two most frequently used in this response was car (13.11%)
and in their homes (8.44%). FEMA’s Ready Campaign website suggests that kits should be
stored at home, work, and in a vehicle (Kit Storage Locations, 2014). Only two participants
included workplace in their answers.
Figure 5 - Most frequently used words for question 4
17
Question 7 asks the students how they are able to receive updates and information about
the disaster if there was no electricity. The most frequently used word by the participants was
radio, with a weighted percentage of 19.31. About 4.9% specifically stated battery-powered
radios and .86% advised hand-crank radios. The American Red Cross suggests that individuals
should use radios to receive information during a disaster (Be Informed: Know Important
Information to Stay Safe, 2015). Out of the 128 participants, 3.5% are unsure how to obtain
information without the use of electricity.
The next two short answer questions, question 12 and 13, asked the participants where
they would be able to find information about evacuation procedures on the CSUMB website and
in the classrooms. Unfortunately, the majority of the participants were uncertain on how to find
this material exactly on the website. Many of the respondents suggested to search this topic in
the search engine on the CSUMB website, because they were unsure of the precise location.
Only a weighted percentage of 2.92 participants were able to answer that these procedures are
located on the University Police page (Emergency Procedures, 2015). Even though many of the
participants were unsure about where to find information on the CSUMB website, almost all of
the respondents are able to find the evacuation procedures in the classroom. In each CSUMB
classroom, there is information about evacuation procedures for various types of disasters
located in the front of the classroom next to the exit door. Almost each participant answered
correctly by stating that these procedures would be located near the entrance and exit doors.
Question 15, the last short answer question, asked the respondents what types of
information or resources they would need in case of an emergency from their university. The
majority of the students requested for basic information on earthquakes and how to prepare for
them. A great deal of the participants would like more regular drills performed in the classes.
18
Students also requested information on any updates or changes to the evacuation procedures
through their student emails.
The last part of the survey asked the students to answer questions regarding their
demographics. Only 11% of the respondents were under classmen (freshmen and sophomores)
and the remaining 89% were upper classmen (juniors and seniors) as seen in Figure 4. Since the
under classmen are underrepresented, I will not be able to analyze the data using class. The same
is true with the demographic of marital status. Most of the participants were single (83%), 12%
stated they were married, and the remaining 5% are divorced.
Figure 6 – Pie chart of Respondents by Class
7%
4%
41%
48%
Freshmen
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
The majority of my participants were female and they made up 68% of all of the
participants. Only 30% of the respondents were men and 2% stated they were neutral. The last
question asked the students to share their family’s income bracket. The respondents’ income
brackets were ranked by $100,000 (19%), $50,000 to $99,999 (33%), $20,000 to $49,999 (28%),
and less than $19,999 (2%).
19
Analysis by Demographics
Since each community is divided by various groups, it is vital to understand each one. It
is important to understand that communities need to understand the diverse groups in the
population and to ensure that they are just as informed, prepared, and represented (Marlowe,
2013). For instance, gender can play a role in the preparedness and mitigation activities that must
be taken before an earthquake occurs. Males and females appeared to be more prepared in their
stereotypical tasks and collection of objects (Mulilis, 1999). For the next part of my research, I
divided my participants up by gender, underclassmen and upperclassmen, marital status, and
income level brackets.
Unfortunately, I was unable to get enough participants that represented the population
using gender, class, and marital status. There was a low response rate from males, under
classmen, and those with a marital status of single or divorced. Each group must be represented
and accounted for when created plans to keep a well-prepared society (Iuchi & Esnard, 2008).
The only demographic that was used for this study was income level brackets. The percentages
of each level are very close besides those in the bracket of less than $19,999.
Income Level Brackets
There is a tendency that the wealthier population receive help during a disaster before
those with a lower income because they contain the most amount of power (Iuchi & Esnard,
2008). For question number 1 regarding where the safest place to hide if an earthquake would
occur, 54% of those with an income level of $100,000 or more answered under a table or up
against a wall, 50% individuals with an income level of $50,000 to $99,999 knew the answer,
64% in the bracket of $20,000 to $49,999 answered correctly, and 42% of those in the less than
$19,999 bracket responded properly. There does not seem to be much of a difference between
20
the four income level brackets. It has been proven that groups that tend to be marginalized during
disaster times, however this is not always true on college campuses. (Lovekamp & Tate, 2008).
Figure 5 displays the levels of preparedness among the four income level brackets for question
number 1.
Figure 7 – Level of Preparedness for Question 1 by Income Level Brackets
Less than $19,999
$20,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Disability
Just like any other type of group in a community, students with special needs must be
identified and accounted for in order to properly support these individuals and the entire student
body. In many cases, those with special needs require more help than others in the community.
Emergency managers must plan on being able to help this group become better prepared and to
also respond to their needs if a disaster does occur (Jones, Smith, & Walton, 2008).
For questions number fourteen and fifteen, I asked the students whether they are signed
up with the office of Students with Disabilities (SDR) and if they feel as though they are
protected if an earthquake struck their community of CSUMB. “Student Disability Resources
21
provides personal support services for students with disabilities so that they can be successful at
CSUMB” (Student Disability Resources, 2015). These questions allow me to gain a better
understanding of how CSUMB has coordinated with its students especially with this population.
Out of the 128 students that responded to the survey, 5% are signed up with SDR.
Out of the seven students that say they have signed up with SDR, only 29% of them
believe that they will be protected if a disaster occurred, 14% feel somewhat protected, and the
remaining 57% do not feel protected. Figure 6 displays those who feel they are protected,
somewhat protected, and not protected if an earthquake strikes CSUMB. Unfortunately, there is a
lack of research on the topic of the capacities of people with disabilities and their types of
vulnerabilities (Ronoh, Gaillard, & Marlowe, 2015). This results in poor planning for this group
as well.
Figure 8 – Percentage of SDR students that feel protected
29%
57%
14%
Yes
Somewhat
No
Summary of Findings

Though only about 20% of students do not have the proper resources to prepare for a
disaster, many students know what must be included in a safety preparedness kit.
22

Despite what is recommended, only about 20% of the participants have chosen meeting
spots with their families or roommates.

Community participation and bonding is extremely low at CSUMB.

Many students know where evacuation procedures are located in the classroom.
However, only a weighted percentage of about 3% were able to find where it is located
on the CSUMB website.

Only 40% of the participants feel that they are unprepared if a disaster strikes.

Many students suggest there is a lack of information regarding evacuation procedures and
basic information about possible disasters and how to prepare for them.

There is not much of a difference between the four income level brackets, $100,000 or
more, $50,000 to $99,999, $20,000 to $49,999 and less than $19,999 that were analyzed.

Out of the participants that are signed up with SDR, only 29% of them believe that they
will be protected if a disaster occurred.
Conclusion
Preparation for a disaster can have a huge effect on the amount of losses, injuries, and
deaths on a community and household level. In this study, I examined preparedness levels among
students at California State University, Monterey Bay using a survey. With the use of the survey,
I conclude that preparedness levels at CSUMB are low. Past research points out that the biggest
factors dealing with preparedness levels vary depending on the education, self-efficacy, income
level, and how close a community is.
Factors such as degree of education, community participation, the efforts of the
authoritative figure in the community, and the self-efficacy of the individual also play a big role
23
with disaster preparedness. The self-efficacy theory states that certain people are more prepared
than others because of their perspective on the situation, how it effects their life, and how they
can prepare themselves. Those who have a good understanding of earthquakes and believe that it
will negatively affect their household and individuals, and those that are certain that they are able
to do the suitable actions to prepare themselves will be more prepared than those with lower selfefficacy. For example, those who do not believe their authoritative figure will not properly
educate, prepare, and help relieve their sufferings, are less likely to participate in household
preparedness. Gecas states that communities and individuals with a higher self-efficacy will have
more stability and collaboration (Gecas, 1989).
In order to see this pattern with my participants, I divided them up by their income level,
gender, marital status, and underclassmen and upperclassmen. The only demographic that was
used was income level, but there was not much of a difference between the various incomes.
University campus are very different than many other communities. In their studies of disaster
preparedness among college students, Lovekamp and Tate conclude that students are “marginally
aware of their vulnerabilities, and do very little to prepare for disasters. Our findings suggest that
many of our students are not disadvantaged or vulnerable in the theoretical sense as gender was
only a significant predictor of fear while race/ethnicity was a significant predictor of perceived
risk and fear” (Lovekamp & Tate, 2008, pp. 86-87). Despite the fact that many students have
the education and resources to be prepared, they simply do not understand how vulnerable they
are if an earthquake did occur.
Gaining a better understanding of how well-prepared the students of CSUMB will help
point out the gaps with disaster preparedness policies and strategies of the whole community.
This research has proven that the majority of the students are not receiving the proper education
24
to prepare themselves for an earthquake. Students must comprehend the types of risks that can
occur if an earthquake struck their community. Emergency services provided at college
campuses can use this research to help improve their efforts to increase preparedness among their
students. Providing more opportunities to students to learn about earthquakes and disaster
preparedness will create a more bonded and prepared community.
25
Appendix
26
27
28
29
Works Cited
About our Students. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from California State University Monterey
Bay: https://csumb.edu/about/about-our-students
Aguirre, B., Vigo, G., & Wenger, D. (1998). A Test of the Emergent Norm Theory of Collective
Behavior. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 301-320.
Ainuddin, S., & Routray, J. K. (2012). Institutional Framework, Key Stakeholders and
Community Preparedness for Earthquake Induced Disaster Management in Balochistan.
Disaster Prevention and Management, 21(1), 22-36.
Allotey, N. K., Arku, G., & Amponsah, P. E. (2010). Earthquake-Disaster Preparedness: The
case of Accra. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment,
1(2), 140-156.
Basic Disaster Supplies Kit. (2014, June 10). (FEMA, Producer) Retrieved April 6, 2015, from
Ready: Prepare. Plan. Stay Informed.: http://www.ready.gov/kit
Be Informed: Know Important Information to Stay Safe. (2015). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from
American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/prepare/location/home-family/informed
Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & 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(1), 107-137.
Chikoto, G. L., Sadiq, A.-A., & Fordyce, E. (2013). Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness:
Comparison of Nonprofit, Public, and Private Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 391-410.
30
Dynes, R. R. (1988). Cross-Cultural International Research: Sociology and Disaster.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 101-129.
Edwards, M. L. (1993). Social Location and Self-Protective Behavior: Implications for
Earthquake Preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,
11(3), 293-303.
Emergency Procedures. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from California State University
Monterey Bay: https://csumb.edu/police/emergency-procedures
Emergency Procedures. (2015, April 7). Retrieved from California State University Monterey
Bay: https://csumb.edu/police/emergency-procedures
Gecas, V. (1989). The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291316.
Geshwind, C.-H. (2001). California Earthquakes: Science, Risk, and the Politics of Hazard
Mitigation. Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press.
Gupta, I., Sinvhal, A., & Shankar, R. (2006). Himalayan Population at Earthquake Risk. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 15(4), 608-620.
Ha, K.-M., & Park, S.-H. (2014). Rapid Evolution of Emergency Management Culture: The case
of South Korea. Administration & Society, 46(3), 318-385.
Heath, R. L., Lee, J., & Ni, L. (2009). Crisis and Risk Approaches to Emergency Management
Planning and Communication: The role of similarity and sensitivity. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 123-141.
Iuchi, K., & Esnard, A.-M. (2008). Earthquake Impact Mitigation in Poor Urban Areas: The case
of Metropolitan Manila. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(4), 454-469.
31
Jones, J., Smith, J., & Walton, F. (2008). Assessment of Emergency Response Planning and
Implementation for Large Scale Evacuations. United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 1-158.
Kapucu, N. (2012). Disaster and Emergency Management Systems in Urban Areas. Cities, 29,
41-49.
Kit Storage Locations. (2014, January 2014). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from Ready: Prepare.
Plan. Stay Informed.: http://www.ready.gov/kit-storage-locations
Lovekamp, W. E., & Tate, M. L. (2008). College Student Disaster Risk, Fear, and Preparedness.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 26(2), 70-90.
Make a Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2015, from American Red Cross:
http://www.redcross.org/flash/brr/Make%20A%20Plan.pdf
Marlowe, J. (2013). Resettled Refugee Community Perspectives to the Canterbury Earthquakes:
Implications for Organizational Response. Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(5),
431-444.
Miller, C. H., Adame, B. J., & Moore, S. D. (2013). Vested Interest Theory and Disaster
Preparedness. Disasters, 37(1), 1-27.
Mulilis, J. (1999). Gender and Earthquake Preparedness. Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, 14(1), 41-50.
Ronoh, S., Gaillard, J., & Marlowe, J. (2015). Children with Disabilities and Disaster Risk
Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1), 38-48.
Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D., & Bourque, L. B. (1995). Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation
Actions Before and After Two Earthquakes. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 744-770.
32
Shaw, R., Koichi Shiwaku Hirohide, K., & Masami, K. (2004). Linking Experience, Education,
Perception and Earthquake Preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An
International Journal, 39-49.
Student Disability Resources. (2015, April 13). Retrieved from California State University
Monterey Bay: https://csumb.edu/sdr
Weller, J. M., & Quarantelli, E. L. (1973). Neglected Characteristics of Collective Behavior.
American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 665-685.
Widener, M. J., Horner, M. W., & Metcalf, S. S. (2013). Simulating the Effects of Social
Networks on a Population's Hurricane Evacuation Participation. Journal of Geographical
Systems, 15, 193-209.
33