Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Personal and
Group Response
to Hazards
CHAPTER 13
INTRODUCTION
BEFORE THE EVENT
The mitigation and survival of any natural hazard
ultimately depends upon the individual, family, or
community. An individual has the choice to heed
warnings, to prepare for an impending disaster, and to
respond to that event. In the end, the individual, family
unit or local community endures the most of a disaster
in the form of property loss, injury, loss of friends or
relatives, or personal death. If these small social units
could recognize the potential for hazards in their
environment, and respond to their occurrence before
they happened, then there would be minimal loss of
life and property. Unfortunately, not everyone heeds
advice or recognizes warning signs, not necessarily
because of stupidity, but for very important personal
and socio-economic reasons. The reaction of individuals,
families, and community groups after a disaster also
determines their ability to survive physically and
mentally. Some individuals and families can overcome
all bureaucratic obstacles in rebuilding. Others end up
with shattered lives despite all the support available to
them. This chapter will describe and account for some
of these personal and group reactions.
(Burton et al., 1978)
War
nings and evacuation
People react differently to their perception of a hazard.
While some may not know that an earthquake is about
to occur until they hear the rumbling and feel the
shaking of the ground, most will know that they live in
an earthquake-prone area. For example, there are
23 000 000 people living along the San Andreas Fault
in southern California. The bulk of this population
knows that a major earthquake is overdue, but contin-
ues to live there despite the risk. People are faced with
the same decision in Wellington, New Zealand, where
the occurrence of a major earthquake could destroy
most of the city at any time. Wellington is expanding
along its fault zone. In both cases, it is the 'sense of
place' or 'home' that overrides all common sense about
the threat of the hazard. People born in an area tend
to want to stay there. Home is familiar, it has people
one knows and associates with at a personal level.
There is some sort of historic identity with the area,
which is difficult to give up, and which is defended
against change. There is a need to maintain links with
the past or with ancestors, to sustain one's roots. People
require an association with place and history. No threat
of a hazard will make them leave, and they will ratio-
nalize the threat to minimize its occurrence. Residents
