IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v106y2021i3d10.1007_s11069-021-04564-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public cognition and response to earthquake disaster: from the 2008 Mw7.9 Wenchuan to the 2013 Mw6.6 Lushan earthquakes in Sichuan Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Benyong Wei

    (China Earthquake Administration
    China Earthquake Administration)

  • Guiwu Su

    (China Earthquake Administration
    China Earthquake Administration)

  • Fenggui Liu

    (People’s Government of Qinghai Province and Beijing Normal University
    Qinghai Normal University)

  • Qing Tian

    (Beijing Normal University)

Abstract

China is one of the countries most affected by earthquakes. Improving public cognition and response to earthquake disaster (EDCR) is an effective means to reduce seismic risk and losses. The 2013 Lushan earthquake area was also stricken by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Most of the residents in this area have been affected by both earthquakes, which provides a rare opportunity to gain insight into the interaction between public’s EDCR and their earthquake disaster experience. Using a questionnaire survey on over 200 local residents selected by stratified sampling method, this paper investigates the public’s cognition and response capability with regard to earthquake disaster in the 2013 Mw6.6 Lushan earthquake area, Sichuan Province, China, with a particular emphasis on exploration on the relationship between people’s earthquake disaster experience and their disaster cognition and response behaviors. The results show that the overall EDCR level of local residents is moderate—their average cognition and response score for earthquake disaster is only 0.60. The number of earthquakes experienced, education, and family income level are the three most important factors that significantly impact an individual’s overall EDCR capability. Those who have experienced more earthquakes better adapt to the impacts of disaster. Especially, the experience learned from the 2008 Mw7.9 Wenchuan earthquake played a positive role in the cognition and response of the public to the 2013 Lushan earthquake. In addition, people with higher education could master more knowledge of earthquake disaster and better control their emotions. Similarly, respondents with a higher family income had more resources and ways to engage in more reasonable response behaviors to manage disaster effects. Based on these findings, it is suggested that local policy-makers implement targeted earthquake disaster education and knowledge dissemination strategies, especially develop and expand various experiential learning modes (e.g., emergency exercise/drilling, situational learning, virtual reality, scenario approach, safety/disaster experience center, participatory activities) for the local public and beyond to more effectively strengthen their cognition of disaster and response capability.

Suggested Citation

  • Benyong Wei & Guiwu Su & Fenggui Liu & Qing Tian, 2021. "Public cognition and response to earthquake disaster: from the 2008 Mw7.9 Wenchuan to the 2013 Mw6.6 Lushan earthquakes in Sichuan Province, China," 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. 106(3), pages 2751-2774, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:106:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04564-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-021-04564-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-021-04564-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-021-04564-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Wright & Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2002. "An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1107-1122, December.
    2. Lei Sun & Guiwu Su & Qing Tian & Wenhua Qi & Fenggui Liu & Min Qi & Ruoyu Li, 2019. "Religious belief and Tibetans’ response to earthquake disaster: a case study of the 2010 Ms 7.1 Yushu earthquake, Qinghai Province, China," 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. 99(1), pages 141-159, October.
    3. Onuma, Hiroki & Shin, Kong Joo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2016. "Household preparedness for natural disasters:Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan," MPRA Paper 77634, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Michael K. Lindell & Sudha Arlikatti & Carla S. Prater, 2009. "Why People Do What They Do to Protect Against Earthquake Risk: Perceptions of Hazard Adjustment Attributes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1072-1088, August.
    5. Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    6. J. C. Gaillard & Jake Rom D. Cadag & Mercy M. F. Rampengan, 2019. "People’s capacities in facing hazards and disasters: an overview," 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. 95(3), pages 863-876, February.
    7. Javiera V. Castañeda & Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto, 2020. "Understanding the culture of natural disaster preparedness: exploring the effect of experience and sociodemographic predictors," 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. 103(2), pages 1881-1904, September.
    8. Ziqiang Han & Xiaoli Lu & Elisa I. Hörhager & Jubo Yan, 2017. "The effects of trust in government on earthquake survivors’ risk perception and preparedness in China," 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. 86(1), pages 437-452, March.
    9. Elaine Vaughan, 1995. "The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 169-180, April.
    10. George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zhixing Ma & Shili Guo & Xin Deng & Dingde Xu, 2021. "Community resilience and resident's disaster preparedness: evidence from China's earthquake-stricken areas," 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. 108(1), pages 567-591, August.
    2. Nicolás Bronfman & Paula Repetto & Paola Cordón & Javiera Castañeda & Pamela Cisternas, 2021. "Gender Differences on Psychosocial Factors Affecting COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Yan Deng & Guiwu Su & Na Gao & Lei Sun, 2019. "Perceptions of earthquake emergency response and rescue in China: a comparison between experts and local practitioners," 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. 97(2), pages 643-664, June.
    4. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    5. Javiera V. Castañeda & Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto, 2020. "Understanding the culture of natural disaster preparedness: exploring the effect of experience and sociodemographic predictors," 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. 103(2), pages 1881-1904, September.
    6. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    7. James R. Meldrum & Patricia A. Champ & Hannah Brenkert‐Smith & Travis Warziniack & Christopher M. Barth & Lilia C. Falk, 2015. "Understanding Gaps Between the Risk Perceptions of Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) Residents and Wildfire Professionals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1746-1761, September.
    8. Piers Fleming & Ellen Townsend & Joost A. van Hilten & Alexa Spence & Eamonn Ferguson, 2012. "Expert relevance and the use of context-driven heuristic processes in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 857-873, August.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 971-979, August.
    10. Yuyao Feng & Guowen Li & Xiaolei Sun & Jianping Li, 2022. "Identification of tourists’ dynamic risk perception—the situation in Tibet," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    12. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    14. Sıdıka Tekeli‐Yeşil & Necati Dedeoğlu & Charlotte Braun‐Fahrlaender & Marcel Tanner, 2010. "Factors Motivating Individuals to Take Precautionary Action for an Expected Earthquake in Istanbul," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1181-1195, August.
    15. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    19. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    20. Hannah Aoyagi & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2015. "Toxic Releases and Risk Disparity: A Spatiotemporal Model of Industrial Ecology and Social Empowerment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, June.

    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:spr:nathaz:v:106:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04564-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.