CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This section will provide the related literatures and related studies that are used in
proving significant data for the advocacy.

Related Literature

Disaster Preparedness provides for the key strategic actions that give
importance to activities revolving around community awareness and understanding;
contingency planning; conduct of local drills and the development of a national disaster
response plan. Risk-related information coming from the prevention and mitigation
aspect is necessary in order for the preparedness activities to be responsive to the
needs of the people and situation on the ground. Also, the policies, budget and
institutional mechanisms established under the prevention and mitigation priority area
will be further enhanced through capacity building activities, development of
coordination mechanisms. Through these, coordination, complementation and
interoperability of work in DRRM operations and essential services will be ensured.
Behavioral change created by the preparedness aspect is eventually measured by how
well people responded to the disasters. At the frontlines of preparedness are the local
government units, local chief executives and communities. Disaster Response gives
importance toactivities during the actual disaster response operations from needs
assessment to search and rescue to relief operations to early recovery activities are
emphasized. The success and realization of this priority area rely heavily on the
completion of the activities under both the prevention and mitigation and preparedness
aspects, including among others the coordination and communication mechanisms to
be developed. On-the-ground partnerships and the vertical and horizontal coordination
work between and among key stakeholders will contribute to successful disaster
response operations and its smooth transition towards early and long term recovery
work. The Rehabilitation and Recoverypriority area cover areas like employment and
livelihoods, infrastructure and lifeline facilities, housing and resettlement, among others.
These are recovery efforts done when people are already outside of the evacuation
centers. There are compelling reasons why the Philippines should adopt disaster risk
reduction and management(DRRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA). It is
exposed to disasters and hazards due to its geography and geology as well as the
presence of internal disputes in some areas. Tropical cyclones and its sequential effects
of rain and windstorms, as well as floods are the most prevalent types of hydro-
meteorological hazards in the country. Between 1997 and 2007, eightyfour (84) tropical
cyclones entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR). These typhoons resulted
to a total of 13,155 in human casualty and more than 51 million families have been
affected. Economic losses due to typhoon damages in agriculture, infrastructures and
private properties are estimated to reach P158.242-B. Some of the most devastating
floods and landslides are triggered by these typhoons that happened also within this
period. The El Nino Southern Oscillation which is a periodic disaster recorded high
economic costs in just a single occurrence. In 2010, out of the almost PhP 25-M worth
of damages to properties caused by natural disasters,tropical cyclones contributed to
more than half. These affected more than 3 million people in that year alone.
Environmental factors such as denuded forests aggravate flood risks. The pace of
deforestation since the 1930s accelerated in the 1950s and 1960s, before falling slightly
in the 1980s. Even now, the effects of loose soil and reduced forest cover from past
forestry activities are felt in frequent landslides and floods. Recent events show that the
annual monsoon season in the country has brought severe flooding in most areas. In
2011, most of the disasters that claimed the lives of people and affected properties and
livelihoods of the most vulnerable were brought about by increased rainfall which
caused massive flash flooding in areas which don’t normally experience such. Between
January to September 2011, more than 50 incidents of flash flooding and flooding and
more than 30 landslides occurred, mostly caused by increased rainfall and illegal
logging. Typhoon Sendong alone caused the lives of more than 1,000 people and
damaged properties amounting to billions of pesos. In addition, the Philippines is
situated along a highly seismic area lying along the Pacific Ring of Fire and is highly-
prone to earthquakes. According to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology (PHIVLOCS), the country experiences an average of five (5) earthquakes a
day (Department of Internal and Local Government of the Philippines, 2012).

Over the past 20 years disasters have affected 4.4 billion people, caused $2
trillion of damage and killed 1.3 million people. These losses have outstripped the total
value of official development assistance in the same period. Natural disasters
disproportionately affect people living in developing countries and the most vulnerable
communities within those countries. Over 95 per cent of people killed by natural
disasters are from developing countries (Extreme Weather and Natural Disasters,
2012).

Disaster risk reduction is at the core of the mission of the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO. WMO, through its scientific and technical programs, its network of
Global Meteorological Centers and Regional Specialized Meteorological and Climate
Centers, provide scientific and technical services. This includes observing, detecting,
monitoring, predicting and early warning of a wide range of weather–, climate- and
water-related hazards. Through a coordinated approach, and working with its partners,
WMO addresses the information needs and requirements of the disaster risk
management community in an effective and timely fashion. Every year, disasters related
to meteorological, hydrological and climate hazards cause significant loss of life, and set
back economic and social development by years, if not decades. Between 1980 and
2007, nearly 7500 natural disasters worldwide took the lives of over 2 million people and
produced economic losses estimated at over 1.2 trillion US dollars. Of this, 90 per cent
of the natural disasters, 71 per cent of casualties and 78 per cent of economic losses
were caused by weather-, climate- water-related hazards such as droughts, floods,
windstorms, tropical cyclones, storm surges, extreme temperatures, landslides and wild
fires, or by health epidemics and insect infestations directly linked to meteorological and
hydrological conditions. Over the past five decades, economic losses related to hydro-
meteorological hazards have increased, but the human toll has fallen dramatically. This
is thanks to scientific advances in forecasting, combined with proactive disaster risk
reduction policies and tools, including contingency planning and early warning systems
in a number of high risk countries (World Meteorological Organization, 2011).

Recent disasters in Haiti and Pakistan in 2010 showed the need to “use
knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all
levels” as articulated in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015. The role of
education for disaster risk reduction strategies can thus be presented according to three
types of activities: 1) Save lives and prevent injuries should a hazardous event occur, 2)
Prevent interruptions to the provision of education, or ensure its swift resumption in the
event of an interruption, and 3) Develop a resilient population that is able to reduce the
economic, social and cultural impacts should a hazardous event occur. Education for
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) takes into account the relationships between society,
environment, economy, and culture and their impacts. It also promotes critical thinking
and problem-solving as well as social and emotional life skills that are essential to the
empowerment of groups threatened or affected by disasters.ESD, through its
interdisciplinary and holistic approach to learning, helps create resilient societies. It
encourages a long-term perspective in decision-making processes, critical thinking, and
holistic and innovative approaches to problem-solving. ESD, therefore, contributes to
DRR while DRR increases the relevance and the quality of education in disaster-prone
areas.UNESCO gives specialized policy advice and technical assistance to affected
governments, UN agencies and non-profit organizations in reactivating education
system in post-disaster situations. It also plays a catalytic role, including advocacy,
networking and participation in inter-agency activities, to ensure that educational needs
are met in post-disaster settings. It is actively involved in post-disaster program such as
the Myanmar Education Recovery Program (MERP) in the Asia-Pacific region.UNESCO
has been playing a valuable role within the UN International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (ISDR) Thematic Platform on Knowledge and Education. With its ISDR
partner agencies, UNESCO promotes the integration of Disaster Risk Reduction in
national educational plans, school curricula and national strategies, as well as
supporting natural disaster preparedness. UNESCO has promoted Education for
Disaster Risk Reduction at a number of international events, including the workshop on
“ESD and disaster risk reduction: building disaster-resilient societies”, organized during
the 2009 Bonn World Conference on ESD (UNESCO, 2011).

Much can be done to minimize the impacts of natural disasters. The Australian
Government recognizes that in order to be sustainable, key sectors of development—
such as health, education, water and sanitation, and food security—must ensure that
their activities and infrastructure are disaster-resilient. Australia, along with most of our
developing country partners, is a signatory to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–
2015 Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters, the international
blueprint for disaster risk reduction. It highlights that disaster risk reduction, along with
climate change adaptation, is an essential aspect of sustainable development
(Australian Aid, 2011).

In the period 2000-2009 as many as 85 per cent of the people reported affected by
disasters belonged to the Asia-Pacific Region, where Australia provides most of its
international development assistance (International Federation of the Red Crescent,
World Disaster Report, 2010).

Disasters often follow natural hazards. A disaster's severity depends on how

much impact a hazard has on society and the environment. The scale of the impact in
turn depends on the choices we make for our lives and for our environment. These
choices relate to how we grow our food, where and how we build our homes, what kind
of government we have, how our financial system works and even what we teach in
schools. Each decision and action makes us more vulnerable to disasters - or more
resilient to them. Disaster risk reduction is the concept and practice of reducing disaster
risks through systematic efforts to analyse and reduce the causal factors of disasters.
Reducing exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerability of people and property, wise
management of land and the environment, and improving preparedness for adverse
events are all examples of disaster risk reduction. Disaster risk reduction includes
disciplines like disaster management, disaster mitigation and disaster preparedness, but
DRR is also part of sustainable development. In order for development activities to be
sustainable they must also reduce disaster risk. On the other hand, unsound
development policies will increase disaster risk - and disaster losses. Thus, DRR
involves every part of society, every part of government, and every part of the
professional and private sector (National Meteorological and Hydrological Services,
2010).

Related Studies

Foreign Studies

A problem with conceiving of disaster in this way is that it becomes too easy
to imagine disaster events as isolated moments or periods lying outside the influence of
development planning. It is argued here that disasters are, on the contrary, an outcome
of processes of risk accumulation deeply embedded in contemporary and historical
development decisions. Disaster risk results from a combination of hazards (potentially
damaging events or processes) and people’s vulnerability to those hazards. Both
hazards and vulnerability are to varying extents products of development processes. A
further common perception is that disasters are usually large-scale events involving a
single hazard, such as a flood or an earthquake. As far as scale is concerned, there is
at present no agreed threshold at which point a collection of discrete losses or
disruptions can reach disaster status. Political spin can either exaggerate or play down
the scale of a disaster, with an eye respectively on donor aid or on private sector
investment flows. The sole publicly accessible global database on disasters and their
impacts, EM-DAT, uses an absolute definition which is statistically convenient but
inevitably arbitrary.Scale needs to be seen in relation to the population and economic
size of animpacted country for meaningful international comparisons to be made. A
disaster with major sub-national impacts may appear relatively unimportant at national
or international level. Scale is particularly important for small island developing states
(Prevention Web, 2012).

The Dominican Republic occupies two-thirds of the Island of Hispaniola in the

Major Antilles below the Tropic of Cancer in the Caribbean Region. Covering an area of
48,670 square kilometers and including the islands of Saona, Beata, Catalina and other
smaller islands, the Island is shared with the Republic of Haiti with a 383 kilometers “
porous” border to the west. A tropical country, it has eight extensive rugged mountain
ranges that span the country, separated by relatively fertile valleys, sierras and
limestone regions. With an average precipitation of around 1,500 mm, the country has
large bodies of subterranean water, fourteen principal river basins, over 400 rivers
systems and streams that feed the country’s reservoirs, power hydroelectric plants and
feed extensive irrigation systems. The Dominican Republic is subject to a number of
different hazards including hydro meteorological events such as tropical storms,
depressions and hurricanes, floods, landslides and droughts, as well as seismic events
including earthquakes and tsunamis, and finally diseases including dengue, malaria and
most recently an outbreak of cholera crossing the Haitian border into Dominican territory
in late 2010. EM-DAT registers 47 natural events during 1980-2011, of which 21 were
caused by storms, followed by 18 floods, five epidemics and one earthquake. Jointly
these events have caused the death of 1,486 and affected 2.7 million people, whilst
causing close to US$ 2.61 billion in economic damages. Statistics from the 2009 Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction indicate that, in terms of severe
exposure, 6.3 per cent of the population is located in high-risk earthquake hazard zones
subject to significant loss, followed by 5.9 per cent in hurricane zones and 5.4 per cent
in drought zones. Additional estimates indicate that up to 80 per cent of the population
may be at risk of suffering both directly and indirectly from one or more disasters.
Notably, the Dominican Republic has the highest number of deaths per million
inhabitants and highest mortality risk to disaster in the Caribbean after Haiti, placing it
high on regional rankings for total disaster losses (International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies, 2011).

Local Studies

The evidence gathered during the course of this research clearly points to
positive outcomes for children as a result of the integration of DRR into education. While
it was not always possible to document the specific outcomes, for example, in the two
country case studies where disasters had not struck since the time of implementation, it
was very clear that significant change has occurred at both the national and the local
levels, which is leading to increased education and greater preparedness and resiliency
among communities. Specific outcomes documented included greater preparedness
among children, the ability to identify and address risk outside of disasters, continuity of
education, and a greater sense of security and confidence. Further outcomes at the
community level include safer school buildings and greater awareness of risk
management. Clearly, outcomes are important, but there is also a growing trend to
redesign evaluations to focus not only on inputs-outputs-outcomes, but also on the
changes in decision-making processes that have facilitated the outcomes; in other
words, how results are being achieved. This study found that there were quite a lot of
lessons to be learned about how outcomes for children were being achieved
(Villanueva, 2011).

A review of DRR-related educational documentation and of the 30 case studies

featured in this report reveals a range of approaches to the inclusion of disaster risk
reduction in school curricula. The most frequently found approach is that of infusion or
permeation whereby DRR themes and topics appear within the curriculum of specific
school subjects. This usually happens following a curriculum review whereby the
curriculum is scrutinized for its DRR relevance and potential. The nature of the scrutiny
ranges from the literal (i.e., a discussion of earthquakes in the Geography curriculum
provides an opportunity for DRR) to the holistic (i.e., identifying opportunities for DRR
not necessarily grounded in manifest disaster-related topics in a syllabus but in the
intrinsic potential of the subject itself, e.g., seeing the opportunities for reinforcing a
culture of safety through, say, drama, mathematics or music). A literal reading of
curriculum tends to result in limited infusion, i.e., DRR is integrated into a narrow band
of subjects, typically the physical sciences (Geography and Science) in which study of
natural hazards has a longstanding place. A holistic reading of curriculum potential
opens up the possibility of DRR integration within and across all or most subjects.
Limited infusion is more likely to expose DRR to the cultural assumptions of the
restricted range of subjects in which it appears. With Geography and Natural Science
the most regularly chosen carrier subjects, the culture of the classroom is likely to orient
learning outcomes towards the acquisition of knowledge and limited skills (i.e., skills
traditionally associated with those subjects). This in turn may well preclude the
realization of the practical and community-linked disaster mitigation and resilience goals
and dispositions of DRR. Values and attitudes associated with DRR are also less likely
to receive a thorough airing within a subject culture of ‘objectivity’. Limited infusion
more often than not relies on the presence of pre-existing disaster-related topics in the
curriculum, thus lending an arbitrary rather than a holistic or goals-derived orientation to
DRR curriculum development strategies (Gupta, 2011).

Hypothesis
Definition of Terms

This section provides the terms used in the study with their corresponding
meanings.

Disaster- is a sudden event, such as an accident or natural catastrophe that causes

great damage or loss of life (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 2013).

Disaster Risk Reduction- is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks
through systematic efforts to analyze and reduce the causal factors of disasters.
Reducing exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerability of people and property, wise
management of land and the environment, and improving preparedness for adverse
events are all examples of disaster risk reduction(National Meteorological and
Hydrological Services, 2010).

Disaster Preparedness- It provides for the key strategic actions that give
importance to activities revolving around community awareness and understanding;
contingency planning; conduct of local drills and the development of a national disaster
response plan(Department of Internal and Local Government of the Philippines, 2012).

Earthquake- is any movement or shaking of the ground which lasts anywhere from a
few seconds to a couple of minutes. Earthquakes are among the most terrifying natural
disasters. This is because earthquakes are unpredictable; they can strike anytime
without any warning (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 2013).

Flashflood- is flash flood is a rapid flooding of geomorphic low-lying areas: washes,

rivers, dry lakes and basins. It may be caused by heavy rain associated with a severe
thunderstorm, hurricane, tropical storm, or melt water from ice snow flowing over ice
sheets or snowfields (New Oxford Dictionary of English,2013).

IMPACT OF A COMMUNITY DISASTER

AWARENESS
IMPACT OF A COMMUNITY DISASTER AWARENESS TRAINING PROGRAM IN TURKEY: DOES IT INFLUENCE
HAZARD-RELATED COGNITIONS AND PREPAREDNESS BEHAVIORS A. NURAY KARANCI, BAHATTIN AKSIT
AND GULAY DIRIK Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey A community disaster training
program focusing on earthquakes, floods and landslides was implemented in Cankiri, Turkey, in 2002. It
covered mitigation, preparedness and response aspects of natural disaster management. Four thousand
community members participated in the training program delivered by 95 local trainers. This study
evaluated the impact of participation in this program. One year later, 400 randomly selected
participants in the training program and a comparable sample of 400 community members who did not
participate in any disaster training program (nonparticipants) were surveyed. Disaster-related cognitions
(i.e., disaster expectation, worry about future disasters, loss estimations if a disaster occurs, beliefs in
the possibility of mitigation and preparedness) and reported preparedness behaviors were assessed.
The relationship of sociodemographic, previous disaster experience, anxiety and locus of control
variables with disaster-related cognitions and behaviors was examined. Results showed that participants
in the training program had more disaster expectation, worry and loss estimation and more
preparedness behaviors. Results of regression analyses, examining the relationship of the variables of
the study with disaster cognitions, affect and actual preparedness behaviors showed that gender,
education, being a participant in the training program, anxiety and locus of control are important
variables related to different kinds of disaster-related cognitions. However, reported preparedness
behaviors were quite low and this result needs to be viewed with caution. These results have important
implications for the modification of programs for targeting sustainable behavioral change, which is likely
to reduce the impact of future disasters. The importance of the participation of the local community for
the execution of successful disaster mitigation and preparedness measures has been repeatedly SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2005, 33(3), 243-258 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) 243 Dr. A.
Nuray Karanci, Bahattin Aksit and Gulay Dirik, Departments of Psychology and Sociology, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers. Key words: disaster
awareness, community training, preparedness behavior. Please address correspondence and reprint
requests to: Dr. A. Nuray Karanci, Middle East Technical University, Department of Psychology, 06531,
Ankara, Turkey. Phone: 90 312 210 3127; Fax: 90 312 210 1288; Email: ¸ stressed (Karanci & Aksit, 2000;
Perry & Lindell, 2003). Increasing hazard and risk awareness and strengthening beliefs in the possibility
of taking mitigation and preparedness measures can be an initial stage in motivating community
members for the development and the application of appropriate preparedness behaviors (Lopez-
Vazquez & Marvan, 2003; Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990; Mulilis & Duval, 1997). Numerous methods of
community training, varying from simple booklets about hazards to workshops, seminars and applied
training courses in disaster mitigation and preparedness have been utilized (Asgary & Willis, 1997;
Bowen & Faison, 2002). However, evaluation of the effects of such programs in increasing community
resilience is scarce and has produced mixed results (Bowen & Faison, 2002; Morrissey & Reser, 2003;
Ronan & Johnston, 2003). It is necessary to evaluate the impact of such training programs by assessing
the cognitive and behavioral changes that follow them in order to develop guidelines for increasing their
impact and to find methods that will facilitate cognitive and, more importantly, behavioral change and
thereby elicit preparedness behaviors. The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of
participating in a basic disaster awareness training program for earthquakes, landslides and floods on
cognitive and behavioral measures related to disaster mitigation and preparedness. More specifically,
the effects of such a training program on disaster-related cognitions (i.e., expectations and worry about
future disasters, loss estimation, beliefs in mitigation and preparedness) and preparedness behaviors
were examined one year after the training program. The differences between the participants of the
training program and a control group of nonparticipants were examined in order to understand the
impact of the training. Furthermore, we examined the predictors of disaster-related cognitions and
preparedness behaviors. The literature on persuasive communication proposes that when individuals
are persuaded that they are at risk of confronting events that will threaten their wellbeing they will
engage in adaptive behaviors (Duval & Mulilis, 1999; Janis, 1967). Thus, according to this view, if
individuals perceive a risk of disasters and believe that their well-being will be threatened then they are
likely to engage in mitigation or preparedness behaviors. However, contrary to this view, previous
experience with disasters has not been found to be a good predictor of preparedness behaviors (Rincon,
Linares, & Greenberg, 2001; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). Therefore, simply being aware of risks does not
seem to be a strong factor for the initiation of responsible adaptive behaviors. The personrelative-to-
event (PrE) model can be used to modify the persuasive communication viewpoint (Duval & Mulilis,
1999). According to the PrE model, adaptive behavior is related to two kinds of appraisals. The first one
is related to the evaluation of the event and the second one is about the evaluation of personal 244
DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY resources. The model proposes that when the appraised severity and
probability of the event exceed the appraised personal-coping resources adaptive behavior is not likely
to follow. However, when the person assesses his/her own resources as sufficient relative to the
perceived threat entailed in the event then adaptive behavior will follow. Thus, in disaster awareness
programs it seems important to highlight and develop an awareness of risks involved in disaster events
and also to empower the person with relevant skills to cope with the event, so that the person evaluates
his/her resources relative to the dangers posed by the event as sufficient to deal with the threat. Duval
and Mulilis found that earthquake preparedness behaviors increased for persons who evaluated their
resources as high in comparison to the magnitude of their threat perceptions, supporting the PrE model.
Furthermore, perceptions of responsibility for the mitigation of hazards have been found to have a
moderating effect for adaptive behavior when personal resources are viewed as sufficient (Mulilis &
Duval, 1997). Within the framework of this model, two dimensions need to be stressed in community
disaster training programs. The first one is to provide information on threat so that threat perception
due to possible future disasters is raised. The second area is to increase the personal resources of the
participants in dealing with the threat, so that the individual feels capable of dealing with a possible
future disaster event. Lastly, training programs need to give community members a sense of
responsibility for mitigation and preparedness. Previous research in Turkey showed that although
earthquake survivors believe in the general possibility of mitigation and preparedness, they believe that
they themselves have fewer resources as compared to the state institutions for taking such actions.
Furthermore, they attribute responsibility for mitigation and preparedness to external sources, such as
the state, municipality, engineers, and so on (Karanci & Aksit, 1999; Karanci & Aksit, 2000). Research on
predictors of preparedness behavior for disasters showed that age, income, education, locus of control,
beliefs in control, perceived threat and distress were significant predictors of preparedness behaviors
for hurricanes and earthquakes (Kasapoglu & Ecevit, 2003; Rincon, Linares, & Greenberg, 2001; Rüstemli
& Karanci, 1999). Rüstemli and Karanci found that anxiety about future earthquakes and perceived
control were significant predictors of preparedness behaviors among the survivors of the Erzincan,
Turkey earthquake. Kasapoglu and Ecevit reported that education, employment, social security and
knowledge were important predictors of preparedness for future earthquakes among the survivors of
the 1999 Marmara earthquake. Thus, these findings seem to lend partial support to the PrE model, by
showing that being aware of threat and having personal resources – such as income, education, belief in
personal control and knowledge about disasters – are important factors for facilitating preparedness
behaviors. DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY 245 METHOD BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT STUDY The
study site This study is the follow-up phase of an applied field study, conducted in Cankiri, a province
with a population of 250,000, located in central Turkey. Cankiri was hit by an earthquake of magnitude
5.9 on the Richter scale in June 2000, nearly ten months prior to the initiation of the disaster awareness
training program. The earthquake led to damage in nearly 3,000 buildings and caused 3 deaths.
Furthermore, the study was initiated a year after the devastating 1999, Marmara, Turkey earthquake.
This earthquake severely affected five industrial cities in Turkey and led to a death toll of 17,000 and
collapse of 50,000 buildings (Ecevit & Kasapoglu, 2002; Kasapoglu, Ecevit & Ecevit, 2004). Thus, the
community training program was initiated when there was a heightened awareness and keen interest in
disasters in Turkey. Disaster awareness training program In the initial phase of the community training
program, a large multisectoral meeting was held in Cankiri, with the support of the Governor, in order to
stress the importance of local participation and training in disaster management and to recruit local
people who would be trained to become voluntary local trainers. As a result of discussions with local
partners, earthquakes, floods and landslides were depicted as the most important types of hazards for
Cankiri. Individuals from the public sector, municipalities, nongovernmental organizations and
professional chambers were asked to volunteer to become local trainers, to be trained by central
trainers. It was stressed that subsequently they would be asked to deliver the training program to adult
community members. Based on the information given above on the probability of high risk disasters in
the province of Cankiri, the training of trainers handbook for earthquakes used previously in another
community participation study (Karanci & Aksit, 1999) was revised and expanded to include floods and
landslides. A booklet to be distributed to adult community members who would participate in the
awareness program was also similarly revised. The handbook contained information on preparedness
and mitigation measures. It clearly specified the method of conducting the training and emphasized
activities to get the active involvement of participants. The handbook also contained sections with in-
depth information for the trainer. There was also a ten-page simple brochure to be given to community
members during the eight hours’ training. The content of the handbook and the brochure was based on
previous similar publications (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]). An eight hours’
training of trainers program was given to 117 potential local trainers by the present authors. Out of the
117 potential local trainers who 246 DISASTER AWARENESS IN TURKEY DISASTER AWARENESS IN
TURKEY 247 participated in the training of trainers program, 95 agreed to be local trainers. A contract
was signed with these local trainers, based on a requirement to train at least 50 adults from the
community by the end of March 2002. Thus, a total of 4,750 adults from the community were targeted.
They were each given a training of trainers handbook, 50 brochures to be distributed to community
members participating in their training groups and 50 questionnaires outlining some dimensions of
disaster experience and mitigation and preparedness beliefs of those who would attend their groups.
They were asked to distribute these surveys at the end of their training groups and then to collect and
return them to the project coordinators. The project researchers required the trainers to give out
questionnaires in order to provide some control over the local trainers. These surveys asked for consent
for future contact in an evaluation study and requested consenting participants to give their contact
phone numbers and addresses so that they could be contacted in the future. A total of 4000 community
members participated in the training program and they all gave their consent for future contact (Aksit,
Karanci, & Anafarta, 2002). One year after the completion of the program 400 individuals were
randomly selected from the questionnaires completed and contacted for the present study. THE
SAMPLE The sample consisted of 800 adults (female = 202, male = 598) living in Cankiri. Half of the
sample was drawn randomly from among the 4,000 participants of the disaster awareness training
program (participants), while the other half were 400 adults, randomly chosen from among individuals
living in similar neighborhoods, but not exposed to a disaster awareness training program, forming a
control group (nonparticipants). Ninety percent of the sample was employed, 48% owned the house
they were living in and 53.6% had had a previous natural disaster experience. Table 1 shows the
characteristics of the participant and nonparticipant samples. As can be seen, those who had
participated in training were slightly older and had less education. Apart from these differences, the two
groups were comparable. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS The first part of the instrument identified
sociodemographic variables (gender, age, marital status, education, employment status, household size,
house ownership status (owner versus rental) and household property (measured as the total number
checked by the respondent from a list of 10 household appliances or consumer items, such as
refrigerator, dishwasher, television, etc.), whereas the second part had questions on disaster experience
(whether they had experienced a disaster in their lives, if yes, its type and degree of loss from the
disaster), five questions on cognitions/eDisaster Preparedness: Concepts, Guidance, and Research
motions related to hazard awareness and mitiDisaster Preparedness: Concepts, Guidance, and Research
Introduction Preparedness for disasters is critical for households, businesses, and communities, but
many remain unprepared. As recent disasters serve to highlight the need for individual responsibility,
local coordination, and continuity plans to ensure the ability to respond to and recover from major
events, the federal government has prioritized national preparedness as a goal without developing a
system to achieve and maintain it. Furthermore, public entities have been charged with assessing their
state of readiness and identifying strengths and areas of weakness as a requirement for receiving federal
funding and Homeland Security grants. In response, some communities have chosen to utilize voluntary
accreditation programs such as the Emergency Management Accreditation Program in order to assess
their ability to respond to disaster while others have relied on internal resources. The end result is an
inconsistent, non-standardized series of self-reports that may or may not reveal an entity’s true state of
disaster preparedness. In an effort to move toward the development of reliable, valid preparedness
metrics, we provide a summary of the concepts, guidance, and research that informs an understanding
of what it means to be prepared as a household, a business, and a community. This research will be
useful for groups responsible for public education campaigns, business continuity programs, and
emergency responders, as well as those who have an interest in developing a standardized index to
measure disaster preparedness. This report describes concepts and measures that social scientists and
practitioners employ in assessing preparedness activities carried out by households, public agencies,
private sector entities and communities. It also reviews key guidance on how to enhance preparedness
efforts. The report is based on a systematic review of research instruments, preparedness guidance, and
literature from a variety of sources, including archived research data, guidance from federal agencies,
documents promoting best practices for preparedness in households, businesses, and communities, and
the substantial scholarly literature that exists on preparedness and planning. We also conducted a
survey of business journals published in the past five years in order to assess the extent to which
research-based guidance is available to business continuity professionals (see Appendix A and B for
methods related to these scans; see Appendix C for a complete listing of the articles in each of the
business continuity journals surveyed). In assessing surveys on preparedness practices, we used two
major archives containing preparedness assessment surveys. The first archive, which was assembled by
the UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters, focuses on public preparedness for earthquakes in
California; a second archival source included surveys that were conducted by the Disaster Research
Center at the University of Delaware and that focused on businesses and disasters. In total we reviewed
and compared items for 14 different surveys from these two sources (summaries of individual survey
items, see Appendix J). 2 Preparedness guidance reviewed for this report included documents from
federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), as well as non-governmental agencies and other organizations, including
the American Red Cross (ARC), the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), the National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA), and the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). Many of
these documents contain checklists designed to provide guidance on recommended preparedness
measures for households, businesses, and communities. We analyzed the survey questions and
preparedness guidance by looking for key themes and recommended preparedness measures, in order
to identify preparedness goals (referred to here as dimensions) and activities associated with
preparedness. Major dimensions of preparedness were sometimes explicitly discussed in guidance
documents on preparedness. We used these dimensions to further categorize the activities that were
included in the checklists and survey questions that focused on preparedness. The research instruments
and the preparedness guidance used in this study are cataloged in the appendices of this document and
are organized by unit of analysis—that is, households, businesses, and communities. Surveys are
followed by guidance documents and are analyzed based upon dimensions and activities that appeared
in the various documents surveyed. (See Appendices D-I.) Organization of This Report This report is
organized into three sections. In the first section, we identify preparedness dimensions and activities
that cross all three units of analysis. These broad descriptions serve as a framework to categorize the
variety of activities commonly associated with disaster preparedness. Here we supply a number of
definitions for preparedness and contrast preparedness with mitigation, in order to clarify overlapping
borders of the two types of activities. We make use of these definitions to set boundaries for the various
dimensions that are used to analyze the data found in the research instruments and the preparedness
guidance. In the second section we turn to a discussion on the metrics used to measure and evaluate
preparedness activities identified in the survey instruments and preparedness guidance. Here we utilize
the dimensions identified in the first section to categorize and discuss the specific preparedness
activities that are associated with households, businesses, and communities and comment on the
metrics used to assess preparedness at the various units of analysis. Throughout this section, we refer to
a set of appendices which catalog the metrics found in the research instruments and preparedness
guidance based upon the dimensions we identified in the first section. In the third section we focus on
general principles of preparedness that are applicable to any unit of analysis, for all types of hazards. In
contrast with the two earlier sections of the report, the third section focuses on how preparedness
activities should be carried out, as opposed to what should be done. We make use of the multiple
dimensions 3 and activities described in sections one and two to develop a comprehensive picture of
what it means to be prepared for disaster. What is Disaster Preparedness? Social scientists, emergency
managers, and public policy makers generally organize both research and guidance around four phases
of disaster loss reduction: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. According to a newly-
released report by the National Research Council (NRC 2006), the core topics of hazards and disaster
research include: hazards research, which focuses on pre-disaster hazard vulnerability analysis and
mitigation; and disaster research, which focuses on post-disaster emergency response and recovery.
Preparedness intersects with both of these two areas, serving as a temporal connector between the pre-
impact and post-impact phases of a disaster event. Preparedness is typically understood as consisting of
measures that enable different units of analysis—individuals, households, organizations, communities,
and societies—to respond effectively and recover more quickly when disasters strike. Preparedness
efforts also aim at ensuring that the resources necessary for responding effectively in the event of a
disaster are in place, and that those faced with having to respond know how to use those resources. The
activities that are commonly associated with disaster preparedness include developing planning
processes to ensure readiness; formulating disaster plans; stockpiling resources necessary for effective
response; and developing skills and competencies to ensure effective performance of disaster-related
tasks. The concept of disaster preparedness encompasses measures aimed at enhancing life safety when
a disaster occurs, such as protective actions during an earthquake, hazardous materials spill, or terrorist
attack. It also includes actions designed to enhance the ability to undertake emergency actions in order
to protect property and contain disaster damage and disruption, as well as the ability to engage in post-
disaster restoration and early recovery activities. Preparedness is commonly viewed as consisting of
activities aimed at improving response activities and coping capabilities. However, emphasis is
increasingly being placed on recovery preparedness—that is, on planning not only in order to respond
effectively during and immediately after disasters but also in order to successfully navigate challenges
associated with short- and longer-term recovery. The Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR), which
was developed by FEMA and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) identifies
thirteen elements that should be addresses by states in their preparedness efforts. Those elements are:
• Laws and Authorities • Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment • Hazard Mitigation • Resource
Management • Direction, Control, and Coordination 4 • Communications and Warning • Operations and
Procedures • Logistics and Facilities • Training • Exercises, Evaluations, and Corrective Actions • Crisis
Communications, Public Education, and Information • Finance and Administration Mitigation and
preparedness are sometimes conflated with one another (as they are in the list above), in part because
they are intertwined in practice. Indeed, definitions contained in key resource documents reviewed for
this project illustrate this conceptual blurring. For instance, the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) defines preparedness as: activities, programs, and systems developed and implemented prior to
a disaster/emergency that are used to support and enhance mitigation of, response to, and recovery
from disaster/emergencies (NFPA 1600). FEMA defines preparedness as: the leadership, training,
readiness and exercise support, and technical and financial assistance to strengthen citizens,
communities, state, local, and tribal governments, and professional emergency workers as they prepare
for disasters, mitigate the effects of disasters, respond to community needs after a disaster, and launch
effective recovery efforts (www.fema.gov). Both these definitions make reference to mitigation, but
disaster scholars and emergency management professionals generally define mitigation as actions that
are taken well in advance of disasters that are designed either to avoid or reduce disaster-related
damage. Mitigation measures include appropriate land-use and coastal zone management practices,
mandatory and voluntary building codes, and other long-term loss reduction efforts. In some cases,
mitigation can also include moving neighborhoods and communities to other locations in order to avoid
future losses. Mitigation activities can take the form of specific projects, such as elevating homes for
flood protection, as well as process-related activities, such as hazard and vulnerability analyses, that are
designed to lead to future mitigative actions. However, some discussions, such as those cited above, also
use the term “mitigation” to refer to actions taken after an event occurs that are designed to contain
impacts so that they do not become more severe. In this sense, some would see efforts to contain an oil
spill as a “mitigative” measure, even though spill containment is commonly thought of as an element in
oil spill emergency response. Providing additional clarification, the National Research Council report
states that “hazard mitigation consists of practices that are implemented before impact and provide
passive protection at the time impact occurs. In contrast, emergency preparedness practices involve the
development of plans and procedures, the recruitment and training of staff, and the acquisition of
facilities, equipment, and materials needed to provide 5 active protection during emergency response”
(NRC 2006, p. 86 emphasis in the original). Passive mitigation activities can be further separated into
categories such as “process mitigation” or “indirect” activities that lead to policies, practices and
projects that reduce risk. Such activities might also be referred to as “non-structural” mitigation
activities. These include: efforts to assess hazards, vulnerability and risk; conduct planning to identify
projects, policies and practices and set priorities; educate decisionmakers and build constituencies and
political will; efforts to facilitate the selection, design, funding and construction of projects; land-use
planning to limit or prevent development in floodplains, building codes to reduce losses from
earthquake and hurricanes and fires, and designing buildings to facilitate surveillance. (NIBS/MMC;
USACE; Waugh, 2000). In contrast, “project mitigation” or “structural” mitigation activities include
measures to avoid or reduce damage resulting from hazard events. They include projects to elevate,
acquire and/or relocate buildings, lifelines and structures threatened by floods, strengthen buildings to
resist earthquake or wind forces, and to improve drainage and land conditions and the building of dams
and levees to prevent flooding (NIBS/MMC; Waugh, 2000). (The USACE considers disaster-proofing
buildings and removing buildings from hazard zones non-structural mitigation activities). The NRC report
highlights the importance of both emergency preparedness and disaster recovery preparedness and
emphasizes that response and recovery preparedness involve distinct sets of activities. Emergency
preparedness provides short-term solutions during an emergency response that will support the longer
term efforts of disaster recovery. Disaster recovery preparedness practices involve participating in
activities and gathering materials needed “to provide rapid and equitable disaster recovery after an
incident no longer poses an imminent threat to health and safety” (NRC 2006, p. 86). Recognizing that
the immediate post-disaster emergency period is not the time to begin developing disaster recovery
strategies, the city of Los Angeles has included a “recovery and reconstruction” element in its
emergency operations plan. One key resource for disaster recovery preparedness is “hazard insurance,
designed to provide financial protection from economic losses caused by a disaster event” (NRC 2006, p.
19). There are a few activities discussed in the disaster literature that appear to span both mitigation
and preparedness phases. One example is the development of warning systems, evacuation plans,
disaster communications, and public education, which some sources (USACE; Waugh, 2000) view as
mitigative because such practices must be implemented long before a hazardous event. As systems or
plans, they serve as passive protection to support emergency response and recovery. At the same time,
warning systems and plans can also be seen as a key element in disaster preparedness, since part of
being prepared involves knowing how to respond when warnings are issued. Emergency preparedness
activities differ according to which social unit, (households, businesses, communities, public or
governmental entities) is involved. For 6 instance, for local emergency management agencies, disaster
preparedness focuses on establishing authorities and responsibilities for emergency actions and
resources to support those actions. Preparing for disasters includes leadership, training, readiness and
exercise support as well as technical and financial assistance (www.fema.gov). For local emergency
management agencies and other crisis-relevant organizations, preparedness means developing
emergency operations plans and then training, exercising and testing in order to be ready to respond to
a disaster, crisis, or other type of emergency situation (www.fema.gov, Haddow and Bullock 2006).
Other aspects of preparedness include the designing, equipping, and managing emergency operations
centers (EOCs); developing partnerships with various community sectors (e.g., businesses, community-
based organizations); and educating the public on disaster loss reduction. Disaster preparedness for
business organizations often focuses on activities designed to prevent physical damage and inventory
loss, protect critical business records, and avoid downtime. Common preparedness measures center on
information security and continuity of operations following a hazardous event. Business continuity
planners conduct impact analyses to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and to establish backup
resources in order to continue the flow of products to customers and clients. For households, disaster
preparedness includes a range of measures and activities, including developing household disaster
response plans, learning about evacuation routes and procedures, and knowing how to undertake
expedient emergency measures, such as boarding up windows when a hurricane threatens or shutting
off gas lines when an earthquake strikes. Elements and Dimensions of Disaster Preparedness As used in
the disaster literature, the concept of preparedness has a variety of dimensions that are in turn
supported by a number of activities.1 Dimensions of preparedness consist of the various goals or end-
states that preparedness seeks to achieve. Activities are concrete actions that need to be taken in order
to meet those goals. Sources vary in terms of how dimensions and activities are defined.
Recommendations on public education campaigns for households emphasize four dimensions of
preparedness; as noted above, FEMA’s CAR specifies thirteen areas for targeted preparedness efforts;
standards for business and industry focus on twelve different dimensions, while efforts to create
accreditation standards for communities have highlighted fifteen, and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) has identified 37 “target capabilities” for allhazard preparedness. 1 We use the terms
“dimensions” and “activities” to discuss preparedness concepts. Other guidance and survey material
examined in this work chose other ways to describe these concepts. For instance, in his research on Bay
Area businesses, Mileti identifies preparedness as a “concept” and a number of activities such as
planning, mutual aid, drills, and training are identified as “variables.” The Emergency Management
Accreditation Program (EMAP) discusses “program areas” in contrast with dimensions. FEMA’s
Capabilities Assessment for Readiness (CAR) describes “attributes” of preparedness and “characteristics”
that fulfill these attributes. 7 Despite these differences, common themes appear both in research on
preparedness and in guidance documents. In the following section, we will discuss key dimensions of
preparedness and their associated activities, with an emphasis on dimensions and activities that cut
across different units of analysis. As shown in Table 1, at the most general level, it is possible to identify
eight dimensions or desired end-states for preparedness activities: (1) hazard knowledge; (2)
management, direction, and co-ordination of emergency operations; (3) formal and informal response
agreements; (4) resource acquisition aimed at ensuring that emergency functions can be carried out
smoothly; (5) life safety protection; (6) property protection; (7) emergency coping and restoration of key
functions; and (8) initiation of recovery activities. Descriptions that follow focus on each of these key
dimensions and their associated activities. Hazard Knowledge: Hazard Identification and Risk, Impact,
and Vulnerability Analysis All preparedness activities must be based on knowledge about hazards, the
likelihood of different types of disaster events, and likely impacts on the natural and built environment,
households, organizations, community institutions and communities. Types of information that provide
a focus for preparedness activities include the potential for detrimental impacts of the hazards on health
and safety, continuity of operations and government, critical facilities and infrastructure, delivery of
services, the environment, economic and financial conditions, and regulatory and contractual
obligations. Loss estimation tools such as HAZUS and HAZUS-MH were designed specifically to help
communities envision the potential impacts of future disasters and mitigate and prepare for such
events. Community-based disaster scenarios also provide a solid basis for preparedness efforts.
Community outreach and the development of plans for crisis communications and public information
are vital for the continuity of operations in businesses and to ensure public trust within a community.
Partnerships between public and private entities that have been established and maintained prior to a
disaster event will influence the sharing of resources through mutual aid and enable a capability to
deliver emergency public information through previously identified channels. Activities include the
identification of publics that will be in need of information and developing communications plans and
identifying private resources that can be used in service to the community for response and recovery.