Risk Perception and Attitudes Towards Mitigation
Güler O. Fişek Ph.D.
Nur Yeniçeri Ph.D.
Serra Müderrisoğlu Ph.D.
Gökçe Özkarar M.A.
Department of Psychology
and
Center for Disaster Management
(CENDIM)
Boğaziçi University
IIASA-DPRI Meeting
Integrated Disaster Risk management: Megacity Vulnerability and Resilience
Laxenburg, Austria
July 29-31, 2002
The research reported here was funded by the Boğaziçi University Research Fund,
research code number 00R107.
2
Risk Perception and Attitudes Towards Mitigation
Güler O. Fişek, Nur Yeniçeri, Serra Müderrisoğlu and Gökçe Özkarar
Department of Psychology
Boğaziçi University
Abstract
This paper is a partial report on the results of the field survey conducted as part of
the psychosocial module of the project on an integrated decision support system for
disaster management in Turkey. The sample consisted of 254 adults from five different
regions of İstanbul, and of varying levels of socioeconomic status. The results indicate
that despite low levels of damage in the 1999 earthquake, the respondents were
traumatised and not ready to face another major disaster. Level of education and income
were significant factors in reported levels of trust in official information, felt readiness
and mitigation behaviors. The results indicated a complex relationship between these
demographic variables, stated attitudes towards mitigation and actual mitigation
behaviors, such that lower SES respondents who expressed more positive attitudes
towards mitigation, reported fewer actual mitigation behaviors. While financial
constraints may be important, it appears that response biases should be taken into account
in evaluating avowed attitudes regarding willingness to mitigate.
Note: The authors would like to thank the Frekans Research Company for conducting the
survey for this investigation.
3
Introduction
The aim of the Psychosocial Module of the Project on an Integrated Decision
Support System for Disaster Management in Turkey, was to prepare a guideline for local
disaster preparedness, response and recovery plans, involving only the human element of
disaster management. To meet this objective, the research was planned on two related
issues:
a) Phase I: to assess the population's state of mind regarding risk perceptions, level of
knowledge, willingness to engage in mitigation activities and responsiveness to public
information.
b) Phase II: to delineate a psychoeducational plan for preparedness at the psychosocial
level in view of the data.
It is essential to have information about the form and level of disaster awareness,
preparedness and vulnerability of the local population in order to prepare guidelines for
the activation and implementation of disaster awareness and preparedness education
programs by local authorities. Thus the aim of this study was to collect information
regarding the social, and relational structures of local community residents to see how
they can be organised and prepared to meet disasters, to study their level of psychological
awareness especially as a result of experience with the earthquakes of 1999, to map out
the cultural codes through which risk awareness can and is communicated, and to
measure local communities' psychological vulnerability and readiness for mitigation
regarding disasters.
4
Phase I. Setting up and Implementing an Earthquake Preparedness Inventory
The preparation of the inventory involved the following essential steps:
(1)
carrying out a pilot study to delineate/formulate the assumptions regarding
households in the targeted areas, and to evaluate the appropriateness of
the questions asked. This step also involved:
a. training the interviewers which would involve imparting to them the
skills necessary for successful administration of the inventory to the
participants, and
b. deciding on the rules to be followed in sampling the households to be
visited during data collection phase of the study.
(2)
Evaluating the pilot study results and preparing the final inventory
according to the pilot findings ,
a. training a new set of interviewers,
b. setting up a new and final sample of communities to be canvassed.
(3) Analysing and writing up the final report
Method
The Preparation of the Inventory.
The questions that were included in the inventory were selected from a variety of
sources, including such surveys conducted in the United States that were accessible
(Blanchard-Boehm, 1997), a report prepared by Boğaziçi University colleagues after the
5
August 17 earthquake (Alp, Kabasakal, and Sirman, 1999), reports from the Turkish
literature (Sakallı, 2000), and questions posed by colleagues with an interest in the
findings. The inventory went through several versions until a final pilot version was
considered satisfactory. The completed inventory was composed of seven subsections as
follows:
I.
Demographic Information: This includes vital statistics regarding the respondent
and the members of the household as well as financial information regarding the
residence.
II.
Previous Earthquake Experience: This includes information on the respondent's
and the household's experiences in the 1999 Marmara earthquake, the major
aftershock and the Düzce earthquake.
III.
Reports of Post Traumatic Stress Complaints: This section refers to the
respondent's report of stress symptoms after these earthquake experiences. The
items were taken from The Impact of Events Scale (Horowitz, Wilner and
Alvarez, 1979).
IV.
Information about Earthquakes: This section evaluates the level of knowledge of
the respondent about the causes and effects of earthquakes,
V.
Risk Perception and Expectations about Future Earthquakes: This section
includes questions about the respondent's assessment about the level of risk to
his/her residence, locality and city, predictions about what kind of damage might
result from a future earthquake etc.,
VI.
Subjective Appraisals and Attitudes towards Mitigation: This section covers the
respondent's attitudes about the value of mitigation behaviours and subjective
6
evaluation of his/her ability to reduce the potential risks posed by a future
earthquake,
VII.
Actual or Planned Mitigation Behaviours: This sections covers what mitigation
activities were engaged in, if any by the individual, family or residents of an
apartment, the reasons for engaging or not engaging in such activities.
The Pilot Study
Since the main purpose of the pilot study was to test the appropriateness of the
inventory and the respondents' willingness and ability to answer the questions posed to
them, it was decided to test a small sample. Nevertheless for purposes of comparison two
localities in Istanbul were chosen for their specific characteristics. One was the locality of
Avcılar, which suffered some damage in the 1999 Marmara earthquake and is known to
be located on insecure ground; the other was Rumelihisarüstü, a locality situated on
relatively rocky ground, and which did not suffer any significant effects from that
earthquake, despite the fact that construction tends to be poor there. A random sample of
25 respondents was interviewed in each locality, which were demographically similar.
Results indicated that both localities showed similar levels of traumatisation from the
1999 earthquakes; had similar low levels of information and trust in information; and
similar attitudes towards risk and mitigation. The main difference was in the fact that the
more traumatised respondents showed more clear evidence of processes involving
defensiveness, helplessness and inconsistencies in their responses (Fişek, et al, 2001).
The final sample consisted of 254 respondents from five different localities in
Istanbul. Avcılar (N=54), Fatih (N=50), and Erenköy (N=50) represented relatively poor
7
soil conditions and Beşiktaş (N=50) and Beykoz (N=50) represented relatively better soil
conditions. The socioeconomic status of the respondents was similarly varied, with
Erenköy and Beşiktaş representing a higher SES level in general. The demographic
characteristics of the sample is presented below.
Procedure
The interviewers approached each respondent with an explanation of the purpose
of the inventory, the connection to the university and asked if the respondent were willing
to participate. There were no refusals and the interview took about one hour.
Results
The results will be presented in two parts: descriptive statistics on the
demographic characteristics of the respondents and some of their responses, and the
findings from some analyses of the relations between risk perception, demographics and
mitigation variables.
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents.
The respondents in the five localities are rather similar demographically as Table
1 indicates. Only about a quarter of the respondents were male, as the interviews were
conducted at home in the daytime. The mean age of the respondents was 39. The
localities differed in terms of education level,
Beşiktaş and Erenköy scoring
significantly higher than Avcılar, Fatih and Beykoz (Table 2). Table 3a shows that 85%
8
of Avcılar and Fatih fall below the poverty level for Istanbul, while this rate is about 55%
for Beşiktaş and Beykoz and 32% for Erenköy. About three fourths of the Beykoz
sample own their own house, while this rate is about two-thirds for the rest (Table 3b).
This is most likely due to the fact that the homes in Beykoz tend to be gecekondu
(squatter) homes built by the people illegally on government land.
Risk Perception.
All respondents express an expectation of relatively high risk to their dwellings in
a future earthquake. As seen in Table 4a, Fatih with relatively poor soil expects
significantly higher risk than Beykoz, with the best soil conditions. The primary criterion
they use to evaluate risk is their level of trust in the construction of their buildings,
followed by the level of trust in the zone, and trust in God (Table 4b).
The criteria were ranked in terms of their abstractness versus realism, with a
higher score indicating less concrete/more abstract criteria, more remote from the
realistic. As seen in Table 4c trust in the building was the most concrete criterion and
don’t know answers the least. Erenkoy, with higher levels of education and income had
the most concrete criteria in evaluating risk.
In terms of expectations of damage to the zone they lived in, as would be
expected Avcilar and Fatih see more risk then Beşiktaş and Beykoz (Table 5a). The
criteria for damage expectation were ranked in the same manner and can be seen in Table
5b. Table 6 indicates that all respondents expect a higher destructive potential in the next
9
quake, compared to the 1999 earthquakes. Finally Table 7 indicates that overall risk
perception is highest in Avcılar and Fatih.
In summary we see that the perceptions of risk and expectations of damage are
expectable and realistic, considering the different zones. The criteria for risk evaluation
are mostly realistic, involving primarily structural concerns. Finally overall risk
perception is high.
Preparedness and Mitigation.
Table 8a indicates that more than one third of the respondents claim they have a
plan about what to do at the time of an earthquake. Erenköy leads those who have
practiced or drilled on their plan by about two thirds, diminishing to one fourth of the
respondents in Beşiktaş. In terms of preventive measures, again Erenköy heads the group
both inside the home and for their buildings, with fatih reporting the lowest level of
mitigation with 10% (Table9a). As for reasons for undertaking mitigation, safety needs
and concern about the family dominate (Table9b). It is interesting to see in this table that
Beşiktaş and Erenköy, the most educated groups, did not endorse scientists’ warmings as
a reason to mitigate but the other groups did.
Table 9c presents reasons for not undertaking any mitigation measures. There are
many reasons, topped by trust in their buildings and the expenses involved. Table 9d
presents the list of preventive measures undertaken. Most claim they learned what to do
during an earthquake. Taking out insurance ranges from 72% in Erenköy to24% in
Beykoz. This is a repeated trend: Erenköy and Beşiktaş indicate higher percentages in
10
the various preventive measures, presumably due to higher education and income. This
presumption is strengthened when we look at Table 9e, presenting the overall level of
completed prevention, with Erenköy showing higher percentages than the rest.
Asked about reasons for not taking out insurance, the most common response
involved the expense, followed by lack of trust in the government (Table 9f). Finally
Table 10 shows that the overall level of felt readiness follows an expectable pattern.
Erenköy feels the most ready and Avcılar and Fatih the least.
In summary these results seem to indicate that mitigation is more a matter of
income and education than anything else. While Avcılar and Fatih realistically perceive
higher risk for their localities, they do not seem to have followed up that perception with
appropriate efforts at mitigation.
Relationships between the Variables.
This section presents some of the analyses done to explore relationships between
the variables. Gender was explored and women were found to be more traumatised, use
more abstract criteria for risk perception and feel less ready (Table 11). Table 12
presents the effects of income on some variables, and the presumptions mentioned above
seem to be borne out. Income has no effect on overall risk perception. However those
with higher income use more concrete criteria for risk assessment, report more completed
prevention, a more positive attitude towards insurance, more total trust in various
agencies and more felt readiness. Thus it appears that while income does not affect the
assessment of risk it does affect how one feels about it and what one does.
11
A number of regression equations were run to see the predictors of some
variables. The only variable significantly predicting the level of overall risk perception
was the post traumatic stress reactions score (Table 13). Education, income, gender,
criterion for risk assessment and previous experience of damage were excluded from the
equation. Trust was significantly predicted only by income (Table 14), while education,
income, gender and experienced damage were excluded. Lastly the predictors of
completed prevention and level of felt readiness were evaluated. In addition to income
and abstractness of risk assessment criteria, some attitudinal factors derived from a series
of statements involving the earthquake experience, were included as predictors.
“Subjective norms” refers to appropriate preventive behaviour according to significant
others, “attitude towards preparation” refers to one’s belief in the value of preparedness,
“knowledge” refers to avowals of knowing what to do in earthquakes, and “perceived
behavioural control” refers to avowals of self efficacy regarding earthquake
preparedness. In all cases a higher score is a more positive response.
Tables 15 and 16 present the results. Income predicts both completed prevention
and felt readiness positively. The interesting finding seen in these tables is that a more
positive score on the attitude factors predicts less completed prevention and less felt
readiness. Thus it appears that avowals of all sorts of positive attitudes about earthquake
preparedness does not translate into mitigation behaviour and the resulting sense of being
prepared for the next big one.
Since income figured so much as a predictor, the relationship between income,
education and attitude was explored, and Table 17 presents the results. It is clear that all
attitude factors are correlated either with income or education or both. And these two are
12
correlated with each other. It is interesting that as education/income increase, attitude
towards preparedness, subjective norms and knowledge become more negative. As
education/income increase, behavioural control, faith in the bureaucracy and faith in
science and law become more positive. Clearly demographics have complex relationships
with attitudes.
A summary of the results is given below:
1.The respondents in all five localities present a realisticappraisal of the risks they face in
terms of the security of their dwellings and their zones.
2. The overall level of perceived future risk tends to be high.
3. Income appears to be an important predictor of both behavioural efforts at mitigation
and psychological level of felt readiness, while it does not affect the assessment of risk.
4. The level of perceived risk is not necessarily followed by commensurate efforts at
mitigation; income, education, attitudes act as important moderators of this relationship.
5. Similarly the positiveness of expressed attitudes about mitigation and preparedness do
not show a straightforward relationship with felt readiness and actual mitigation
behaviours.
The literature tends to support these results. Income and education do seem to
place limits on what people are able to do in response to the level of risk they perceive
(eg. Boehm, 1997). Sakallı (2000), reporting on a Turkish sample brings in the income
factor, stating that people may be unable to put their positive intentions into practice
because of expenses. Farley (19 ) reports on a phenomenon of “rational preparedness
and irrational response”,. namely that what you say you will do is not borne out by your
actions. This is a key statement that claims about intention to mitigate and actual
13
completed mitigation do not necessarily match. Hurner and McClure (1997) speculate
that level of perceived preventability may mediate between level of perceived risk and
preventive action. They cite finite resources as another mediating variable. Kasapoğlu
and Ecevit (2001) reporting on the victims of the 1999 earthquakes, say that education
had a strong positive impact on psychological reactions, attitudes and actions.
It is possible that income may be implicated in another way in the discrepancy
between expressed attitude and actual behaviour. Low SES Turkish respondents of
attitude measures often display a response bias towards saying what they think is
normatively appropriate rather than what they truly think, in an effort to look good
(Fişek, 1991, 2000: van de Mond, 198x). It is possible that such a bias is operative in
this context also.
Altogether these results indicate that no matter what their risk assessment, or
attitude, people have to perceive an element of feasibility, financial or otherwise before
they engage in actual mitigation. Clearly an effective educational campaign has to
provide not only information on how to prepare for earthquakes, but also information on
the demonstrated effectiveness of each kind of preventive effort.
14
References
Fişek, G.O. (1991) A cross-cultural examination of proximity and hierarchy as
dimensions of family structure. Family Process, 30, 1, 121-133.
Fişek, G.O. (2000) Child health and family process in the Turkish urban context
Boğaziçi University, Istanbul: unpublished project report.
Van de Mond, A. (1988) The initiation and extension of conversation in Turkish
families. Paper presented at the fourth conference on Turkish linguistics, Ankara,
Turkey, 17-19 August.
Sakallı, N. (2000) How to change people's attitudes toward preparedness to earthquake:
The application of the moel of planned action. Paper presented at the fifteenth congress
of cross-cultural psychology, Pultusk, Poland, July 16-21.