Natural Hazards

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 1175–1192 | Cite as

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Earthquake Behaviour Coding Methodology: analysis of Christchurch Public Hospital video data from the 22 February Christchurch earthquake event

  • Emily S. Lambie
  • Thomas M. Wilson
  • Erik Brogt
  • David M. Johnston
  • Michael Ardagh
  • Joanne Deely
  • Steven Jensen
  • Shirley Feldmann-Jensen
Original Paper

Abstract

Earthquake epidemiological research indicates that the behavioural response influences the nature and severity of injuries sustained. However, there is no observational evidence of the actions individuals engage in during and immediately following earthquake shaking, and the context in which earthquake injuries and deaths are caused. Closed Circuit Television Earthquake Behaviour Coding Methodology has been developed as a tool to classify human behaviour during and immediately following earthquake shaking using real event video data. The coding methodology was applied to security video data captured during the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 ‘Christchurch’ earthquake event from the Christchurch Public Hospital which experienced shaking intensity of MM9 lasting approximately 12–15 s. We applied this coding methodology to determine: demography, trans-event behavioural responses, post-event behavioural responses, influence of social context on behaviour, and influence of behaviour on injuries. A total of 213 individuals from 31 different camera views were analysed. Sixty-six per cent of the individuals were adult-aged females. The primary trans-event responses were to hold (26%) onto furniture, walls, and/or other people close to them and to look around (30%). No individuals were observed to perform all ‘Drop, Cover, Hold’ actions, the recommended action during strong earthquake shaking in New Zealand. Post-event behaviour included: running, walking, providing assistance, moving towards others, visual communication, and some individuals gave instructions. Social contextual behaviour varied depending on the role of the adult. There were no serious injuries linked to behaviour. The results of this initial study indicate the coding methodology can record the distribution of and variation in human behaviours. Therefore, objective observation of earthquake video data can provide a useful quantitative measure of human behaviour. Significantly, the process will enable researchers to look more closely at behaviours, as well as the social and physical contexts associated with injury risk during and immediately following earthquake shaking.

Keywords

Earthquake Behavioural response Injury risk Protective action recommendations Observational data 

References

  1. Ardagh MW, Richardson SK, Robinson V, Than M, Gee P, Henderson S, Khodarverdi L, Mckie J, Robertson G, Schroeder P, Deely JM (2012) The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February, 2011. Lancet 379(9831):2109–2115. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60313-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardagh MW, Standring S, Deely JM, Johnston D, Robinson V, Gulliver P, Richardson S, Dierckx A, Than M (2015) A sex disparity among earthquake victims. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. doi:10.1017/dmp.2015.81 Google Scholar
  3. Bannister S, Gledhill K (2012) Evolution of the 2010–2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence. N Z J Geol Geophys 55(3):295–304. doi:10.1080/00288306.2012.680475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker JS, Coomer MA, Potter SH, McBride SK, Lambie ES, Johnston DM, Cheesman B, Guard J, Walker A (2016a) Evaluating New Zealand’s “ShakeOut” national earthquake drills: a comparative analysis of the 2012 and 2015 events. In Proceedings of the 2016 NZSEE Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1–3 April 2016Google Scholar
  5. Becker JS, Coomer MA, McBride SK, Lambie E (2016b) New Zealand ShakeOut 2015: an evaluation based on observer surveys. GNS Science Report 2016/23Google Scholar
  6. Bourque LB, Russell LA, Goltz JD (1993) Human behaviour during and immediately after the earthquake. In: Bolton PA (ed) The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989: public response, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp B3–B22Google Scholar
  7. Briggs S (2006) Earthquakes. Surg Clin North Am 86:537–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2007) Research methods in education, 6th edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Craggs R, Wood MM (2005) Evaluating discourse and dialogue coding schemes. Comput Linguist 31(3):289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cubrinovski M, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Green R, Bray J, Wood C, Pender M, Allen J, Bradsh A, Rix G, Taylor M, Robinson K, Henderson D, Giorgini S, Ma K, Winkley A, Zupan J, O’Rourke T, DePascale G, Wells D (2011) Geotechnical aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44(4):205–226Google Scholar
  11. De Bruycker M, Greco D, Lechat MF, Annino I, De Ruggiero N, Triassi M (1985) The 1980 earthquake in Southern Italy—morbidity and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 14(1):113–117. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3988425
  12. Doocy S, Daniels A, Packer C, Dick A, Kirsch TD (2013) The human impact of earthquakes: a historical review of events 1980–2009 and systematic literature review. PLOS Currents Disasters. Edition 1. doi:10.1371/currents.dis.67bd14fe457f1db0b5433a8ee20fb833.
  13. Glass RI, Urrutia JJ, Sibony S, Smith H, Garcia B, Rizzo L (1977) Earthquake injuries related to housing in a Guatemalan village. Science 197(4304):638–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goltz JD, Russell LA, Bourque LB (1992) Initial behavioural response to a rapid onset disaster: a case study of the October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquakeGoogle Scholar
  15. GNS Science (2016) M 6.3, Christchurch, 22 February 2011. GeoNet. http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/M%2b6.3%2C%2bChristchurch%2C%2b22%2bFebruary%2b2011. Accessed 30 June 2016
  16. Guha-Sapir D, Vos F (2011) Earthquakes, an epidemiological perspective on patterns and trends. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress modelling and mitigation. Springer, New York, pp 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnston D, Standring S, Ronan K, Lindell M, Wilson T, Cousins J, Aldridge E, Ardagh MW, Deely JM, Jensen S, Kirsh T, Bissell R (2014) The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury. Nat Hazards 73(2):627–637. doi:10.1007/s11069-014-1094-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaiser A, Holden C, Beavan J, Beetham D, Benites R, Celentano A, Collett D, Cousins J, Cubrinovski M, Dellow G, Denys P, Fielding E, Fry B, Gentenberger M, Langridge R, Massey C, Motagh M, Pondard N, McVerry G, Ristau J, Sitrling M, Thomas J, Uma SR, Zhao J (2012) The Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: preliminary report. N Z J Geol Geophys 55(1):67–90. doi:10.1080/00288306.2011.641182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koch H, Matzner T, Krumm J (2013) Privacy enhancing of smart CCTV and its ethical and legal problems. Eur J Law Technol 4(2):1–6Google Scholar
  20. Lambie ES, Wilson TM, Johnston DM, Jensen S, Brogt E, Doyle EH, Lindell M, Helton WS (2016) Human behaviour during and immediately following earthquake shaking: developing a methodological approach for analyzing video footage. Nat Hazards 80(1):249–283. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1967-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindell M, Prater C, Wu H, Huang SK, Johnston DM, Becker JS, Shiroshita H (2015) Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch New Zealand and Hitachi Japan. Disasters. doi:10.1111/disa.12133 Google Scholar
  22. MCDEM (2015) Shakeout: drop cover hold advice. Retrieved 10 April, 2016 from: http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Shakeout2015/Drop-Cover-Hold-the-right-action.pdf
  23. McIntosh JK, Jacques C, Mitrani-Reiser J, Kirsch TD, Giovinazzi S, Wilson TM (2012) The impact of the 22 February 2011 earthquake on Christchurch Hospital. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for earthquake engineering annual meeting, Wellington, NZGoogle Scholar
  24. Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (2015) Working from the same page: consistent messages for CDEM. Part B: Earthquakes. Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  25. Moran S (2015) Surveillance ethics. Philos Now 110:1–5Google Scholar
  26. Najafi I, Safari S, Sharifi A, Sanadgol H, Hosseini M, Rashid-Farokhi F et al (2009) Practical strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality of natural catastrophes: a retrospective study based on bam earthquake experience. Arch Iran Med 12(4):347–352Google Scholar
  27. Ohta Y, Ohashi H (1985) Field survey on occupant behaviour in an earthquake. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 3(1):147–160Google Scholar
  28. Peek-Asa C, Kraus JF, Bourque LB, Vimalachandra D, Yu J, Abrams J (1998) Fatal and hospitalized injuries resulting from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Int J Epidemiol 27:459–465CrossRefGoogle 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(1):62–6. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730942&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 29 July 2016
  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) Human casualties earthquakes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter K, Shoaf K, Seligson H (2006) Value of injuries in the northridge earthquake. Earthq Spectra 22(2):555–563. doi:10.1193/1.2194529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prati G, Catufi V, Pietrantoni L (2012) Emotional and behavioural reactions to tremors of the Umbria-Marche earthquake. Disasters 36(3):439–451. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01264.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prati G, Saccinto E, Pietrantoni L, Pérez-Testor C (2013) The 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes: modelling human behaviour. Nat Hazards 69(1):99–113. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0688-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramirez M, Peek-Asa C (2005) Epidemiology of traumatic injuries from earthquakes. Epidemiol Rev 27:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson S, Ardagh M (2013) Innovations and lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes: emergency department staff narratives. Disaster Prev Manag 22(5):405–414. doi:10.1108/DPM-09-2013-0167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richardson S, Ardagh M, Grainger P, Robinson V (2013) A moment in time: emergency nurses and the Canterbury earthquakes. Int Nurs Rev 60:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robson C (1993) Real world research. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, pp 221–222Google Scholar
  39. Shoaf KI, Sareen HR, Nguyen LH, Bourque LB (1998) Injuries as a result of California earthquakes in the past decade. Disasters 22(3):218–235. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spence R, So E (2009) Estimating shaking-induced casualties and building damage for global earthquake events. Final technical report, NEHRP Grant Number 08HQGR0102, Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd., Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Uzun N, Savrun FK, Kiziltan ME (2005) Electrophysiologic evaluation of peripheral nerve injuries in children following the Marmara earthquake. J Child Neurol 20(3):207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wood MM (2015) Epidemiology of deaths and injuries during earthquakes. In: Background papers and supplementary technical information. Retrieved from http://www.geohaz.org/#!background-papers-and-supplementary-tech/g7uev. Accessed 29 July 2016

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily S. Lambie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas M. Wilson
    • 2
  • Erik Brogt
    • 3
  • David M. Johnston
    • 1
  • Michael Ardagh
    • 4
    • 5
  • Joanne Deely
    • 4
    • 5
  • Steven Jensen
    • 6
  • Shirley Feldmann-Jensen
    • 6
  1. 1.Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchMassey University/GNS ScienceWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Geological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.Academic Services GroupUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  4. 4.University of OtagoChristchurchNew Zealand
  5. 5.Canterbury District Health BoardChristchurchNew Zealand
  6. 6.California State UniversityLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations