4.5 Article

Demographic Characteristics, Sources of Information, and Preparedness for Earthquakes in California

Journal

EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 1909-1930

Publisher

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INST
DOI: 10.1193/013014EQS024M

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. California Emergency Management Agency [6025-7]
  2. Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission [6025-7]
  3. Institute for Business and Home Safety
  4. Southern California Association of Governments
  5. Department of Community Health Sciences in the Fielding School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
  6. Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center in the Fielding School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
  7. National Institute of Building Sciences, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines how demographic characteristics of California residents and their sources of information combine to predict earthquake preparedness and hazard mitigation. Telephone interviews were conducted in English or Spanish in 2008 with a sample of 2,081 California households selected by random-digit-dialing, supplemented with random sampling from geographic areas with higher proportions of Blacks/African Americans. Home ownership and higher income result in both more preparedness and more access to information. Although renters have equal access to most sources of information they are less likely than owners to have stockpiled supplies, invested in planning or nonstructural mitigation, or to know what to do during an earthquake. Insurance representatives and employers influenced more preparedness and hazard mitigation than groups that focus on increasing earthquake preparedness. The exception is the California Volunteers, who are the only group that has influenced preparedness by Spanish-speaking Hispanic immigrant populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available