Asce India Dpi

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329628753
Disaster Preparedness Index: A Valid and Reliable Tool to Comprehend Disaster

Preparedness in India
Conference Paper · December 2018

DOI: 10.1061/9780784482032.017
CITATIONS READS
5 5,687
5 authors, including:
Rohith V R Sreevalsa Kolathayar
3 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
National Institute of Technology Karnataka
129 PUBLICATIONS 880 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Kedarisetty Priyatham s. Nikil

Larsen and Toubro Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
3 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of New Attenuation Relations for Assessment of Seismic Hazard in the Himalayas and the Influence of Land Use on Seismic Risk View project
Integrated Hazard mapping for Coimbatore city View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sreevalsa Kolathayar on 09 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies 156
Disaster Preparedness Index: A Valid and Reliable Tool to Comprehend Disaster

Preparedness in India
V. R. Rohith1; S. Kolathayar, Ph.D.2; K. Priyatham3; V. Karan Kumar4; and S. Nikil5
1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham, India
2
Vidyapeetham, India. E-mail: k_sreevalsa@cb.amrita.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sreevalsa Kolathayar on 01/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3
Vidyapeetham, India
4
Vidyapeetham, India
5
Vidyapeetham, India
ABSTRACT
Disaster preparedness is an important factor which plays a major role in diminishing the
causalities in case of any disasters. United Nations global assessment report published in the year
2015 on disaster risk says that India incurs an average annual economic loss of $9.8 billion due
to natural disasters. This number is a wake-up call for the country to increase its commitment
and invest in smart solutions that strengthen disaster resilience. This purpose calls for a valid and
reliable tool for assessing the preparedness level of individuals towards any natural disaster
which forms the basis of our study. This paper presents the development of one such tool that
measures preparedness of individuals towards any natural disaster on the basis of four factors. It
included a 14-item scale for disaster preparedness index (DPI) for individuals along with
demographics for interpretative studies. The 14-item scale included necessary measures that
were considered necessary for an individual to safeguard life and property not only during a
major natural disaster but also to secure the life of the individual after the disasters.
Governmental agencies can utilize this tool which produces DPI for individuals to evaluate and
then analyze the preparedness levels of any group of individuals towards natural disasters. In
summary, the data presented here support the usefulness of the disaster preparedness index, as a
measure of preparedness towards natural disasters. It includes items based on psychological
parameters of the individuals towards natural disasters, a component that is not included in other
measures of disaster preparation. It has a stable, unifactorial structure that is suitable for use as a
dependent variable, and has high reliability and good validity. Studies of disaster preparedness
on Chennai residents showed that the 14 item scale measuring the disaster preparedness of
individuals is a valid, reliable, and consistent in unifactorial scale.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the fact that humans have made tremendous progress in various aspects in terms of
technological and scientific advancements, there has always been one area where we have not
been able to surpass and that is the supremacy of nature. Nature has always proved to be much
more powerful than the human race. In spite of so many developments in weather forecast
techniques, damage to life and resources due to natural disasters could not be prevented. Time
and time again, we have seen and read about many natural disasters occurring all over the world,
© ASCE
Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

which have caused a great havoc in the society, destroying lives and properties. Given that the
warning time will be very less for some natural disasters (especially earthquakes and tsunamis),
the effectiveness of adaptive and coping efforts can be expressed as a function of the degree to
which the required knowledge, competencies and resources (e.g., household emergency plans,
stored food, and water, ability to work with others to conduct local rescue efforts and capacity
for self-reliance) are organized in advance and are capable of being used promptly when the need
arises. Thus, the impact caused due to natural disasters can be reduced by taking several
personal, community and building safety measures.
Preparedness is a primary concept in the disaster management. Gillespie & Streeter (1986)
stated that the concept of preparedness has a huge potential in disaster studies to unify practical
and theoretical work. The practical significance of preparedness comes from its capacity to save
lives and also to increase control over disaster response activities (Klongaln et al 1973). Burby
and French (1981) showed that preparedness efforts have resulted in an immense drop down of
the causalities and also cut down the losses by an amount up to 40%. Property damage and
hardships due to floods have significantly decreased in places where land use regulations for
floodplains have been followed, similarly, hurricane warning systems have saved millions of
dollars and thousands of lives in the USA. Efforts to increase the preparedness levels of
individuals towards disasters have been taken, as a step to strengthen community resilience.
In the study done by Gillespie and Streeter (1987), a cross-sectional survey is conducted to
identify preparedness of 80 emergency social service organizations in a western urban region.
They assessed the preparedness towards natural disasters by taking an organization as the study
variable. Preparedness was operationalized as a mean score of seven factors: (a) two relate to the
items of past specialized training, (b) two relate to future training plans, (c) two related to
planning, and (d) one related to the emergency management system. The preparedness score for
the organization was calculated by taking the arithmetic average of the seven variables. Unlike
the above-mentioned study, the present study deals with developing a tool that can assess
preparedness at an individual level rather than assessing organizations involved in disaster
management.
There were also studies that evaluated the preparedness levels at a household scale (family).
Wai Man Fung and Alice Yuen Loke. (2010) observed that the perception of disaster among the
head of household is mainly responsible for the family matters of Hong Kong families with
young children, and their extent of preparation for disasters. As a part of their study, a total of
220 questionnaires were distributed and the responses were analyzed. They reported that only
9.1% are considered to be adequately prepared for disasters. The questionnaire had five parts
intended to collect demographic data, a section that asked about the events that happened in
Hong Kong considered as disasters, a section that asked about the type of disasters likely to
happen in Hong Kong, the necessities stocked at home to prepare for disastrous events and also a
section to identify the sources of disaster information. Their study didn't concentrate on the
psychological aspects of the households, which play a very important role in disaster
preparedness.
A few studies are reported to have assessed the disaster preparedness at an individual level
also, unlike the above-mentioned studies which took organization and household as the basic
study unit. David Simpson (2008) developed a multimodal approach for disaster preparedness
assessment. Identification of the various indicators and evaluating their respective weights to
finally evaluate preparedness measure was the main idea of Simpson's work. Using an inductive
approach to the relative importance of the measures, the following weighing system yielding
© ASCE

preparedness measure (PM) was proposed.

PM = 3  A + B + C + 2  D  + 3  E  + 3  F + G +  -  H + 3  I  + J
There are no studies which proposed a valid and reliable scale to assess the overall individual
preparedness levels towards general natural disasters, but there are many studies specific to
earthquakes and floods. In a detailed study to develop a unifactorial earthquake preparedness
measure by Spittal (2005) a detailed questionnaire tool comprising of 23 items was developed
and they included both the mitigation and planning items together. The questionnaire was face
validated and also checked for consistency and reliability. In total two samples comprising a total
of 652 residents were collected. The first sample of 292 responses was analyzed by exploratory
factor analysis and the second sample comprising of 360 responses was analyzed by
confirmatory factor analysis and then both the factor components are verified to be same, thus
validating the questionnaire. The uniqueness of the work is that for the first time a scale was
proposed and the continuum of 0-23 scores was broken down into 5 levels each level
representing a specific discrete level of preparedness measure: Spittal (2005). Similarly Sitharam
and Kolathayar (2008) presented a region specific index to evaluate earthquake preparedness in
India. This idea of specifying calibrated levels would be used in this study.
Flood disaster preparedness indices (FDPI) were developed by ICHARM in 2012. The
survey had questions which fell under the following factors: Hard countermeasures, flood
disaster mitigation plans, and standards, flood mitigation systems, evacuation plans and systems,
emergency plans, Leadership and collaboration between organizations, education levels, and
community strength. The weightages i.e. the coefficients express the importance of each of the
above factors and each question that falls under each factor of the indices were rated on a scale
of 1 to 5. The results are analyzed in a completely novel way in this work, they were analyzed on
a radar chart. 8 Axes are drawn for all the 8 factors considered and the results are marked on
them, a closed figure is obtained by joining respective points on all the axes and such diagrams
of various communities surveyed can be superimposed and their preparedness levels can be
easily compared and understood. ICHARM has compared three regions of Thailand and
elucidated the regional differences.
Preparedness can be assessed by observing the actions that an individual has taken to fight
against a disaster and these action checklists are made available in many studies done before, but
only a few studies concentrated on the factors that affect the preparation levels of individuals like
their socio-economic conditions, previous disaster experience, psychological mindsets etc.
Lazarus and Folkaman (1984) proposed that individuals exposed to an external threat are likely
to take an action to reduce the threat only if they see the event as controllable. If they feel it as
uncontrollable they retort to options of coping, cognitive avoidance and denial. Tayler and
Brown (1999) reported that unrealistic optimism and denial of danger are the main factors that
lead people to ignore legitimate risks and fail to take measures to offset those risks in case of the
majority of disasters. Anxious and depressed individuals are most likely to use avoidance in
dealing with stressful situations like an outbreak of disaster. Network and personal
characteristics predict earthquake preparatory behavior. Individuals who help and support others
in their social networks were the most likely individuals to remember messages about disaster
preparedness, these people are the targets of public preparatory messages: Kenneth Heller &
Douglas Alexander (2005).
Disaster experience has a positive impact on the household preparation of emergency
measures. People who have experienced a recent massive disaster are relatively well prepared
compared to respondents who have experienced disasters long back in the time frame. Disaster
© ASCE

experience is one factor that has strikingly strong impact psychologically on the respondent,
thereby unconsciously making him take steps towards disaster preparedness: Hiroki Onuma &
Kong Joo Shin (2017).
Table 1 Percentage of participants undertaking each of the disaster preparedness activities

S.No ACTIVITY % Item ID
1 Identified the best evacuation route from our home 58.2 X1
2 Identified a safe elevated area to rescue from floods 55.5 X2
3 Developed a family emergency plan 28.3 X3

4 Provided information on disaster preparedness to other 41.3 X4
family members and friends
5 Discussed the community’s emergency warning system 22.2 X5
6 Protected vital records 40.5 X6
7 Procured a life insurance policy 40.6 X7
8 Created an emergency supplies kit 30.6 X8
9 Secured all hazardous materials (such as gas cylinder etc.) 44.9 X9
10 Secured all the movable objects at home (TV, Computers, etc.) 37.9 X10
11 Identified the locations and operational procedures of utility 32.6 X11
shut-off valves
12 Acquired a fire extinguisher and learned how to operate 24.3 X12
13 Acquired an all-hazards alert radio 22.7 X13
14 Collected the contacts of emergency services (Ambulance, Fire, 63.5 X14
Police, etc.)
This study is unique with respect to the other works in the past, mainly because, a reliable
and valid scale would be proposed for assessment of preparedness towards natural disasters as a
whole and also, captures the effect of psychological and socioeconomic factors on the
preparation levels. The face validity and content validity of the questionnaire were established by
subject experts. Construct validity of the developed tools were established using Principal
Component Analysis. Internal Consistency and Spearman's Co-efficient were found out to
establish reliability. Relevant and accurate information provided by such a valid and reliable
instrument can result in appropriate disaster planning and policy making. Reducing causalities
and improving community survival are the key goals of the earthquake readiness indices.
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire development: A literature review was carried out as the first step towards the
questionnaire development. Developing sample questions with regard to survey guidelines,
questionnaire development studies (Emmalou 1990, Radhakrishna 2007) and on the basis of
various studies conducted on different parts of the world (Spittal et al. 2006, David Simpson
2008, Wai Man Fung and Alice Yuen Loke, 2010). It consists of questions seeking past disaster
experience, perception towards disaster risk, personal and community participation; roles of
individuals, community and government in disaster management, preparation measures and
demographic details.
© ASCE

Various online resources were examined for obtaining precise and accurate information on
disaster preparation and questionnaire development. It included those of American Red Cross,
FEMA, NDMA, WEMO etc. Information regarding the different steps and measures to prepare
for any disaster and lists of recommendations made by several disaster management agencies and
guidelines on questionnaire development were obtained.
Sample questionnaire: A sample questionnaire with the basic framework and primary
contents derived from the above-mentioned journals, websites and focus group discussions were
developed. It included a 14-item scale for Disaster Preparedness Index (DPI) for individuals
along with demographics for interpretative studies. The 14-item scale included necessary
precautions/measures that were considered necessary for an individual to safeguard life and
property not only during a major natural disaster but also to secure the life of the individual after
the disasters.
Establishing face validity and content validity of sample questionnaire and peer
reviews: Subject experts established the face validity and content validity of the questionnaire.
Group discussions were carried out with participants from various disciplines with both direct
and indirect experiences with disasters. Peer reviews were done with the questionnaire and many
changes were incorporated into the sample questionnaire. The final revision was made in the
sample questionnaire making it 14 item scale for DPI of individuals and this questionnaire was
then sent for pilot survey.
Pilot survey: The sample questionnaire was pretested by sending it for the pilot survey using
Google Forms. The sample size obtained for the pilot survey was 81. The completion rate of the
survey was 98.8%. Opinions and suggestions from the respondents were taken and the questions
were revised.
Measuring construct validity of sample questionnaire: Construct validity was determined
by exploratory factor analysis. It was done by clustering items into common factors. Principal
component analysis (PCA) and Varimax methods were employed for EFA. To ensure an
appropriate sample size for running factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olikin (KMO) sampling
adequacy was computed. The accepting values of >=0.5 were recommended. The KMO
sampling adequacy of the tool was 0.87 indicating the sample size of 81 had been reasonable for
performing factor analysis for the pilot study.
Measuring reliability of sample questionnaire: Internal consistency reliability check
produced alpha coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.91 (greater than 0.7), indicating an acceptable
correlation between the items of the questionnaire. Based on the above-mentioned steps the
finalized questionnaire for field survey was developed.
Participants and field survey: A field survey was conducted with the participation of the
residents of the city of Chennai. A total of 445 responses were collected for development of DPI
for individuals. Questionnaire booklets were distributed to several flats, malls, parks etc. in the
city of Chennai and the forms were returned in a week's time. The online survey was also
conducted through Google Forms which yielded a good number of responses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The KMO sampling adequacy on disaster preparedness index tool for individuals was found
to be 0.837 which indicated that the sampling sizes were appropriate for performing factor
analysis for the tool. A total of 91 degrees of freedom were identified and the Barlett’s test of
sphericity showed that the data was statistically significant. Principle Component Analysis for
the tools produced 4-factor solutions each. All items with a loading greater than or equal to 0.5
© ASCE

were accepted. Factor loadings of PCA and their factorial weights are shown in table2. The
internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaires were examined by Cronbach's alpha.
The computed value was 0.789 which revealed that there is an acceptable correlation between
the items and whole questionnaire.
Table 2 Final Four-factor solutions of the scales according to the Principal Component
Analysis with Varimax
Component
1 2 3 4
X1 0.509
X2 0.653
X3 0.551
X4 0.547
X5 0.586
X6 0.455
X7 0.482
X8 0.559
X9 0.608
X10 0.579
X11 0.587
X12 0.588
X13 0.642
X14 0.509
Table 3. Score ranges and distribution of the Disaster Index

Scale Distribution
Boundary
interval %
1 0-5 53.48
2 6-9 35.05
3 10-14 11.46
The questionnaire consisted of two sections; Disaster Preparedness Index questions and
demographics. The questionnaire consisted of four factors namely Indoor safety measures,
Documents preparation, Collective efficacy, Escape Plan.
Indoor safety measures included the factors x8, x9, x10, x11, x12 and x13 with the total
variance being 27.82%., Document preparation included the factors x6 and x7 with the total
variance being 9.19%. Collective efficacy included x3, x4, and x5 with total variance 8.08%.
Escape plan included factors x1, x2 and x14 with the total variance being 7.15%.
The scores that define the boundaries of the scale intervals are presented in Table 3. The full
continuum was partitioned into three intervals based on several reasons: it did not sacrifice useful
discrimination power at the low or high end of the scale; it produced a compact set of ranges, and
it enabled sufficient sample sizes in each interval (Spittal, 2005). The distribution of DPI scale
scores is also presented in the table. The percentage of activities that are completed for each
interval is also given.
Based on the information on table 3, people in level 1 could be regarded as ‘‘poorly
prepared;’’ people in level 2 as ‘‘moderately prepared;’’ and people in level 3 as ‘‘well
prepared.’’ The mean score from these data suggests that, on average, Chennai residents are only
© ASCE

moderately prepared for a major disaster. 53.48% of the respondents are poorly prepared and
only 11.46% are well prepared towards natural disasters.
A number of limitations were encountered during the course of the survey; the most
important one being the unavailability of translated questions in the local languages. Hence it is
suggested to do the translation of the questionnaires into local languages by a bilingual translator
with forwarding and backward translations.
CONCLUSION
This study considers disaster preparedness to be an important factor for disaster risk
reduction which is in line with the UN Sendai framework 2015-2030. As a step towards disaster
risk reduction, this study presented a tool which can evaluate both knowledge and practice with
respect to the preparedness of individuals. Governmental agencies can utilize this tool which
produces Disaster Preparedness Index (DPI) for individuals to evaluate and then analyze the
preparedness levels of any group of individuals towards natural disasters.
In summary, the data presented here support the usefulness of the Disaster Preparedness
Index, as a measure of preparedness towards natural disasters. It includes items based on
psychological parameters of the individuals towards natural disasters, a component that is not
included in other measures of disaster preparation. It has a stable, unifactorial structure that is
suitable for use as a dependent variable and has high reliability and good validity.
REFERENCES
Gillespie, David F., Michael W. Sherraden, Calvin L. Streeter, and Michael J. Zakour. (1986).
Mapping networks of organized volunteers for natural hazards preparedness. Final report
submitted to the National Science Foundation, Project No. CEE83-14421.
Klonglan, Gerald E., Charles L., Mulford, and Caroline S. Faisal. (1973). ‘problem solution and
effectiveness: A systems analysis of local coordinators.’ Ames: Department of sociology and
Anthropology, Lowa state university.
Burby, Raymond J. and Steven P. French. (1981). “Coping with floods: The land use
management paradox.” Journal of the American planning association 46 (July):289-300.
David F. Gillespie and Calvin L. Streeter. (1987). “Conceptualizing and measuring disaster
preparedness.” International Journal of mass emergencies and disaster August, Vol.5, No.2,
155-176.
Wai Man Fung, Olivia, and Alice Yuen Loke. (2010) "Disaster preparedness of families with
young children in Hong Kong." Scandinavian journal of public health 38, no. 8: 880-888.
David M. Simpson. (2008). “Disaster preparedness measures: a test case development and
application.” Center for Hazards research and policy development, University of Louisville,
Kentucky, USA.
Matthew J. Spittal, Frank H. Walkey, John McClure, Richard J. Siegret and Kimberley E.
Ballantyne. (2005). “The earthquake readiness scale: The development of a valid and reliable
unifactorial measure.” Center for behavior research, Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand.
Tadashi Nakasu, Toshio Okazumi, and Yoshikazu Shimizu. (2012). “Report of the project on
establishment of flood disaster preparedness indices – FDPI.” International center for Water
Hazard and Risk Management- ICHARM under the auspices of UNESCO, Public works
research institute- PWRI.
David King, (2001). “Uses and limitations of socioeconomic indicators of community
© ASCE

vulnerability to natural hazards: data and disasters in Northern Australia.” Kluwer academic
publishers, Netherlands.
Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S.E. (1984). “Date with an earthquake: Coping with a probable,
unpredictable disaster.” Personality and social psychology Bulletin, 13, 546-555.
Lehman, D.R. and Taylor, S.E. (1987). “Stress, appraisal and coping with a probable
unpredictable disaster.” New York, NY: Springer.
Kenneth Heller and Douglas B. Alexander. (2005). “Social and personal factors as predictors of
earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect,
age and education.”
Kirsten Finnis, (2004). “Creating a resilient New Zealand.” University of Otago. Commissioned
by Ministry of civil defense and emergency management. August 2004.
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, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59522-1_4
© ASCE
View publication stats Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

Asce India Dpi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asce India Dpi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Disaster Preparedness Index: A Valid and Reliable Tool to Comprehend Disaster

Conference Paper · December 2018

Rohith V R Sreevalsa Kolathayar

Kedarisetty Priyatham s. Nikil

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Integrated Hazard mapping for Coimbatore city View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Disaster Preparedness Index: A Valid and Reliable Tool to Comprehend Disaster

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

preparedness measure (PM) was proposed.

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

Table 1 Percentage of participants undertaking each of the disaster preparedness activities

3 Developed a family emergency plan 28.3 X3

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

Table 3. Score ranges and distribution of the Disaster Index

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

View publication stats Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies

You might also like