Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 249–283 | Cite as

Human behaviour during and immediately following earthquake shaking: developing a methodological approach for analysing video footage

  • Emily Lambie
  • Thomas M. Wilson
  • David M. Johnston
  • Steven Jensen
  • Erik Brogt
  • Emma E. H. Doyle
  • Michael K. Lindell
  • William S. Helton
Original Paper

Abstract

To reduce earthquake casualties, it is important to understand how human behaviour, during and immediately following earthquake shaking, exposes the individual to increased risk of injury. Research on human behaviour during earthquake shaking has identified three main influences: the environment the individual is located in immediately before and during the earthquake, in terms of where the individual is and who the individual is with at the time of the earthquake; individual characteristics, such as age, gender, previous earthquake experience and earthquake attributes, including intensity and duration of earthquake shaking. However, little research has systematically analysed the immediate human responses to earthquake shaking, mostly due to data constraints and/or ethical considerations. Research on human behaviour during earthquakes has relied on simulations or post-event, reflective interviews and questionnaire studies. Such studies are subject to potential limitations such as the quality of the participant’s memory, recall bias or (perceived) realism of a simulation. Thus, to better understand the relationship between human behaviour and injury, researchers need a robust and repeatable methodology. This paper discusses the development of a systematic process and coding scheme to analyse earthquake video footage of human behaviour during strong earthquake shaking. The coding scheme was developed in a two-part process, combining a deductive and inductive approach. Previous research studies of human behavioural response during earthquake shaking provided the basis for the coding scheme. This was then iteratively refined by applying the coding scheme to a broad range of video footage of people exposed to strong shaking during the Canterbury 2010–2011 earthquake sequence.

Keywords

Earthquake Behavioural response Casualties Observational data 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Valerie Sotardi who performed inter-reliability testing for this research group and would like to acknowledge the help of her discussion and perspective which improved the content of this manuscript. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for excellent comments and reviews that have improved the manuscript. We greatly acknowledge funding support from GNS Science core funding as part of SIH project, the University of Canterbury Natural Hazard Research Platform contract C05X0804 and the University of Canterbury Mason Trust.

References

  1. Alexander D (1990) Behaviour during earthquakes: a southern Italian example. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 8:5–29Google Scholar
  2. Altman J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49(3):227–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archea J, Kobayashi M (1984) The behaviour of people in dwellings during the Off-Urakawa earthquake of March 21, 1982. In: Proceedings of the eighth world conference in earthquake engineering V5. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 1101–1107Google Scholar
  4. Aroni S, Durkin M (1985) Injuries and occupant behavior in earthquakes. In: Joint US–Romanian seminar on earthquakes and energy, Bucharest, Romania, vol 2. Architectural Research Centers Consortium, Washington, DC, pp 3–40Google Scholar
  5. Bödvarsdóttir I, Elklit A (2004) Psychological reactions in Icelandic earthquake survivors. Scand J Psychol 45:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourque L, Russell L, Goltz J (1993) Human behaviour during and immediately after the earthquake. In: Bolton P (ed) The loma priets, California earthquake of october 17, 1989—Public Response. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Canter D, Breaux J, Sime J (1980) Domestic, multiple occupancy and hospital fires. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behavior. Wiley, New York, pp 117–136Google Scholar
  8. Cardeña E, Spiegel D (1993) Dissociative reactions to the San Francisco Bay area earthquake of 1989. Am J Psychiatry 150:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2007) Research methods in education, 6th edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. Coughlin SS (1990) Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 43(1):87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craggs R, Wood M (2005) Evaluating discourse and dialogue coding schemes. Comput Linguis 31(3):289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bruycker M, Greco D, Lechat MF et al (1985) The 1980 earthquake in Southern Italy—morbidity and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 14:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dowrick DJ (1996) The modified Mercalli earthquake intensity scale: revisions arising from recent studies of New Zealand earthquakes. Bull NZ Nat Soc Earthq Eng 29(2):92–106Google Scholar
  15. Glass RI, Urrutia JJ, Sibony S et al (1977) Earthquake injuries related to housing in a Guatemalan village. Science 197:638–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goltz JD, Mileti DS (2011) Public response to a catastrophic Southern California earthquake: a sociological perspective. Earthq Spectra 27:487–504. doi: 10.1193/1.3575728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goltz JD, Russell LA, Bourque LB (1992) Initial behavioural response to a rapid onset disaster: a case study of the October 1, Whittier Narrows earthquake. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 10:43–69Google Scholar
  18. Halle JW, Sindelar PT (1982) Behavioral observation methodologies for early childhood education. Top Early Child Spec Educ 2(1):43–54. doi: 10.1177/027112148200200109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston D, Standring S, Ronan K et al (2014) The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1094-7 Google Scholar
  20. Kanter RK (2010) Child mortality after Hurricane Katrina. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 4:62–65. doi: 10.1017/S1935789300002433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koyama M, Okada S, Ohta Y (2011) Major factors controlling earthquake casualties as revealed via a diversified questionnaire survey in Ojiya City for the 2004 Mid-Niigata earthquake. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Hum. casualties earthquakes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32:616–632. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindell M, Prater C, Wu H et al (2015) Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch New Zealand and Hitachi Japan. Disasters. doi: 10.1111/disa.12133 Google Scholar
  25. Mahue-Giangreco M, Mack W, Seligson H, Bourque LB (2001) Risk factors associated with moderate and serious injuries attributable to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Los Angeles, California. Ann Epidemiol 11:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MCDEM (2015) Drop cover hold advice. Published in New Zealand by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, with advice from GNS Science. http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/get-ready/at-home-get-ready-get-thru/drop-cover-and-hold-is-still-the-right-action-to-take/. Accessed 22 September 2015
  27. Norris C, Mccahill M, Wood D (2004) Editorial. The growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space. Surveill Soc 2:110–135Google Scholar
  28. Ohta Y, Ohashi H (1985) Field survey on occupant behaviour in an earthquake. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 3:147–160Google Scholar
  29. Peek-Asa C, Ramirez M, Seligson H, Shoaf K (2003) Seismic, structural, and individual factors associated with earthquake related injury. Inj Prev 9:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petal M (2009) Evidence-based public education for disaster prevention: causes of deaths and injuries in the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  31. Petal M (2011) Earthquake casualties research and public education. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Hum. casualties earthquakes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pomonis A, Coburn AW et al. (1992) Part three: casualty estimation in the collapse of reinforced concrete buildings, human casualties in building collapse—second year report, Cambridge, UK, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  33. Porter K, Shoaf K, Seligson H (2006) Value of injuries in the Northridge earthquake. Earthq Spectra 22:555–563. doi: 10.1193/1.2194529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prati G, Catufi V, Pietrantoni L (2012) Emotional and behavioural reactions to tremors of the Umbria–Marche earthquake. Disasters 36:439–451. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01264.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prati G, Saccinto E, Pietrantoni L, Pérez-Testor C (2013) The 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes: modelling human behaviour. Nat Hazards 69:99–113. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0688-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahimi M (1993) An examination of behavior and hazards faced by physically disabled people during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Nat Hazards 7:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramirez M, Peek-Asa C (2005) Epidemiology of traumatic injuries from earthquakes. Epidemiol Rev 27:47–55. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxi005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramirez M, Kano M, Bourque LB, Shoaf KI (2005) Child and household factors associated with fatal and non-fatal pediatric injury during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 23:129Google Scholar
  39. Robson C (1993) Real world research. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 221–222Google Scholar
  40. Roces MC, White ME, Dayrit MM, Durkin ME (1992) Risk factors for injuries due to the 1990 earthquake in Luzon, Philippines. Bull World Health Organ 70:509–514Google Scholar
  41. Rosoff H, John R, Burns WJ, Maya I (2011) Scenario simulation group reactions to the aftermath of the Great ShakeOut magnitude 7.8 earthquake. Earthq Spectra 27:597–614. doi: 10.1193/1.3574450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shoaf KI, Sareen HR, Nguyen LH, Bourque LB (1998) Injuries as a result of California earthquakes in the past decade. Disasters 22:218–235. doi: 10.1111/1467-7717.00088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Lambie
    • 1
  • Thomas M. Wilson
    • 2
  • David M. Johnston
    • 1
  • Steven Jensen
    • 3
  • Erik Brogt
    • 4
  • Emma E. H. Doyle
    • 1
  • Michael K. Lindell
    • 5
  • William S. Helton
    • 6
  1. 1.Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchMassey University/GNS ScienceWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Geological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.California State UniversityLong BeachUSA
  4. 4.Academic Services GroupUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  5. 5.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  6. 6.PsychologyUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations