IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3369-d523431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People’s Response to Potential Natural Hazard-Triggered Technological Threats after a Sudden-Onset Earthquake in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Fatma Lestari

    (Occupational Health & Safety Department, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Java Barat 16424, Indonesia
    Disaster Risk Reduction Center, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java 16424, Indonesia)

  • Yasuhito Jibiki

    (Next Generation Volcano Researcher Development Program, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8577, Japan)

  • Daisuke Sasaki

    (International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8577, Japan)

  • Dicky Pelupessy

    (Disaster Risk Reduction Center, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java 16424, Indonesia
    Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java 16424, Indonesia)

  • Agustino Zulys

    (Disaster Risk Reduction Center, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java 16424, Indonesia
    Chemistry Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java 16424, Indonesia)

  • Fumihiko Imamura

    (International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8577, Japan)

Abstract

(1) Background: We aim to examine whether people activate initial protection behavior, adopt evacuation behavior, worry about the possibility of a tsunami, and consider natural hazard-triggered technological (Natech) situations in a sudden-onset earthquake. The literature suggests that risk perception is a significant predictor of people’s response to potential Natech threats. We aim to empirically verify the variables relating to people’s responses. (2) Methods: We conducted a household survey following a January 2018 earthquake in Indonesia. (3) Results: Immediately after the earthquake, almost 30% of the respondents assembled at the evacuation point. However, sequential steps of people’s response were not observed: evacuation immediately after the earthquake was due to worry about the possibility of a tsunami, but this worry was not related to Natech damage estimation. The relevant factors for evacuation behavior were information access, worry about the possibility of a tsunami, and knowledge of groups and programs related to disaster risk reduction (DRR). The survey location (two villages), perceived earthquake risk, and DRR activity participation are less relevant to the behavior of assembling at the evacuation point. (4) Conclusions: Contrary to the existing literature, our results do not support that higher risk perception is associated with evacuation behavior, or that immediate evacuation is related to foreseeing cascading sequential consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Fatma Lestari & Yasuhito Jibiki & Daisuke Sasaki & Dicky Pelupessy & Agustino Zulys & Fumihiko Imamura, 2021. "People’s Response to Potential Natural Hazard-Triggered Technological Threats after a Sudden-Onset Earthquake in Indonesia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3369-:d:523431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3369/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3369/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martha Fani Cahyandito, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Community Development and Environmental Protection Program in Oil and Gas Industry in Indonesia: Policy, Institutional, and Implementation Review," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(1), pages 115-126, March.
    2. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    3. Fabrizio Terenzio Gizzi & Jonghun Kam & Donatella Porrini, 2020. "Time windows of opportunities to fight earthquake under-insurance: evidence from Google Trends," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikio Ishiwatari & Daisuke Sasaki, 2023. "Special Issue “Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: An Interdisciplinary Approach”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-4, February.
    2. Fatma Lestari & Dina Lusiana Setyowati & Adonis Muzanni & Abdul Kadir & Isradi Zainal & James Evert Adolf Liku & Anisa Kusumadewi Zulfikar & Iin Pratama Sari & Widya Mulya & Lina Yuliana & Iwan Zulfik, 2023. "Industrial and Environmental Disaster Risk Assessment for Hazardous Materials in Balikpapan City, East Kalimantan, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Annabelle Workman & Penelope J. Jones & Amanda J. Wheeler & Sharon L. Campbell & Grant J. Williamson & Chris Lucani & David M.J.S. Bowman & Nick Cooling & Fay H. Johnston, 2021. "Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Julia S. Becker & Sally H. Potter & Lauren J. Vinnell & Kazuya Nakayachi & Sara K. McBride & David M. Johnston, 2020. "Earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand: a survey of public perspectives to guide warning system development," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. David V. Pynadath & Bistra Dilkina & David C. Jeong & Richard S. John & Stacy C. Marsella & Chirag Merchant & Lynn C. Miller & Stephen J. Read, 2023. "Disaster world," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 84-117, March.
    4. Choi, Sunkyung & Maharjan, Rajali & Hong, Tran Thi Nhat & Hanaoka, Shinya, 2024. "Impact of information provision on tsunami evacuation behavior of residents and international tourists in Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 264-273.
    5. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Jeet Bahadur Sapkota & Kyosuke Kurita & Pramila Neupane, 2021. "Progress after the 2015 Nepal Earthquake: Evidence from Two Household Surveys in One of the Hardest-Hit Mountain Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Ji Yun Lee & Fangjiao Ma & Yue Li, 2022. "Understanding homeowner proactive actions for managing wildfire risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(2), pages 1525-1547, November.
    8. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    9. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    10. Taixiang Duan & Hechao Jiang & Xiangshu Deng & Qiongwen Zhang & Fang Wang, 2020. "Government Intervention, Risk Perception, and the Adoption of Protective Action Recommendations: Evidence from the COVID-19 Prevention and Control Experience of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Raul P. Lejano & Muhammad Saidur Rahman & Laila Kabir, 2020. "Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2360-2372, November.
    12. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2014. "Improving Flood Risk Communication by Focusing on Prevention‐Focused Motivation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 309-322, February.
    13. Morshedi, Mohamad Ali & Kashani, Hamed, 2022. "Assessment of vulnerability reduction policies: Integration of economic and cognitive models of decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    14. Ye, Maoxin & Lyu, Zeyu, 2020. "Trust, risk perception, and COVID-19 infections: Evidence from multilevel analyses of combined original dataset in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    15. Yingying Sun & Katsuya Yamori, 2018. "Risk Management and Technology: Case Studies of Tsunami Evacuation Drills in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, August.
    16. Anna-Maria Aksan & William F. Vásquez, 2019. "Quality Perceptions and Water Treatment Behavior at the Household Level," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-33, July.
    17. Ao Zhang & Hao Yang & Zhenlei Tian & Shuning Tong, 2022. "Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-29, September.
    18. Jennifer M. First & Kelsey Ellis & Mary Lehman Held & Florence Glass, 2021. "Identifying Risk and Resilience Factors Impacting Mental Health among Black and Latinx Adults following Nocturnal Tornadoes in the U.S. Southeast," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    19. Wei Qi & Xiumei Guo & Xia Wu & Dora Marinova & Jin Fan, 2018. "Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2269-2289, September.
    20. Junji Urata & Adam J. Pel, 2018. "People's Risk Recognition Preceding Evacuation and Its Role in Demand Modeling and Planning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 889-905, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3369-:d:523431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.