Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:53:41.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Impact of a National Earthquake Campaign on Public Preparedness: 2011 Campaign in Israel as a Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2015

Gilead Shenhar*
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel Disaster Medicine Department, Tel Aviv University, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Irina Radomislensky
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel
Michael Rozenfeld
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel
Kobi Peleg
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel Disaster Medicine Department, Tel Aviv University, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv, Israel.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Gilead Shenhar, EMBA, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research, Tel Hasomer Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, 52621 Israel (e-mail: shenharg@bezeqint.net).

Abstract

Objective

The most effective way to reduce the number of expected victims and amount of damage from earthquakes is by effective preparedness. The Israeli government launched a national campaign to change its citizens’ behavior. This study assessed the effectiveness of the campaign on the Israeli population.

Methods

The survey was conducted 2 weeks after the campaign ended. It was based on a randomly selected representative sample of the adult Israeli population.

Results

Of the 42% of the Israeli public exposed to the campaign, 37% estimated that a strong earthquake might occur in Israel during the coming years. Only 23% of those who were exposed to the campaign (9% of the Israeli public) said that the campaign improved their awareness; 76% reported that after their exposure to the campaign they did nothing to prepare. However, exposure to the campaign significantly increased the knowledge of dealing with earthquakes (30% vs 21% among those not exposed).

Conclusions

Although the campaign increased knowledge and awareness, it did not achieve the goal of improving public preparedness. The campaign was not effective by itself, and it should be part of a multiyear activity. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:138-144)

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ten Brink, U. Integrated geophysical study of the Dead Sea rift for hazard assessment, and water and mineral resources. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey; 2006. http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/projects/project_get.php?proj=2921API&style=html. Accessed August 1, 2012.Google Scholar
2. National Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness. Preparedness framework for a devastating earthquake in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel: Office of the Prime Minister; 2011. http://www.eqred.gov.il/eqred/info/info.htm. Accessed July 17, 2014.Google Scholar
3. Becker, J, Johnston, D, Paton, D, Ronan, K. How people use earthquake information and its influence on household preparedness in New Zealand. J Civil Engineer Architect. 2012; 6(6):673-681.Google Scholar
4. Mulilis, J P, Duval, TS. Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: a person‐relative‐to‐event (PrE) model of coping with threat. J Applied Soc Psychol. 1995; 25(15):1319-1339.Google Scholar
5. Nathe, S, Gori, P, Mileti, D. Public education for earthquake hazards. Natural Hazards Informer; 1995. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/informer/infrmr2/infrm2wb.htm. Accessed August 26, 2012.Google Scholar
6. Quarantelli, EL. A half century of social science disaster research: selected major findings and their applicability. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware; 2003.Google Scholar
7. Dynes, RR. The impact of disaster on the public and their exceptions. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware; 1995.Google Scholar
8. Snyder, LB, Hamilton, MA. A meta-analysis of US health campaign effects on behavior: emphasize enforcement, exposure, and new information, and beware the secular trend. In: Hornik R, ed. Public Health Communications: Evidence for Behavior Change. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum; 2002: 357-383.Google Scholar
9. Friend, K, Levy, DT. Reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption associated with mass-media campaigns. Health Educ Res. 2002; 17(1):85-98.Google Scholar
10. Williams, AF, Lund, AK, Preusser, DF, Blomberg, RD. Results of a seat belt use law enforcement and publicity campaign in Elmira, New York. Accid Anal Prev. 1987; 19(4):243-249.Google Scholar
11. Glider, P, Midyett, SJ, Mills-Novoa, B, Johannessen, K, Collins, C. Challenging the collegiate rite of passage: a campus-wide social marketing media campaign to reduce binge drinking. J Drug Educ. 2001; 31(2):207-220.Google Scholar
12. Wakefield, MA, Loken, B, Hornik, RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behavior. Lancet. 2010; 376(9748):1261-1271.Google Scholar
13. Velan, B, Boyko, V, Shenhar, G, Lerner-Gevab, L, Kaplan, G. Analysis of public responses to preparedness policies: the cases of H1N1 influenza vaccination and gas masks distribution. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013; 2(1):11.Google Scholar
14. Witte, K, Allen, M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000; 27(5):591-615.Google Scholar
15. Earthquake, don’t let it catch you unprepared [in Hebrew]. Public Service Announcement. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of National Infrastructures; 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie2A0NiqeQ0&feature=player_detailpage. Accessed June 15, 2014.Google Scholar
16. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Standard of living: income and expenses. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics; 2012. http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/?MIval=cw_usr_view_SHTML&ID=313. Accessed August 13, 2012.Google Scholar
17. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Population by religion. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics; 2012. http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton63/st02_02.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2012.Google Scholar
18. Noar, SM. A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: where do we go from here? J Health Commun. 2006; 11(1):21-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Biggest quake in Japanese history triggers widespread destruction and nuclear threat. New York, New York: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; March 13, 2011.Google Scholar
20. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Damaged Fukushima nuclear plant cause for concern. New York, New York: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; March 20, 2011.Google Scholar
21. US Government Accountability Office. Influenza pandemic: lessons from the H1N1 pandemic should incorporate into future planning. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office; June 2011. GAO-11-632.Google Scholar