The Study of Household Preparedness: Preparing California for Earthquakes
A Report by the Alfred Alquist Seismic Safety Commission to the California State Legislature
Released March 5, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Earthquake Preparedness Survey (CEPS) was conducted by the UCLA School of Public Health and Survey Research Center for the State of California. The objective was to provide baseline data describing how prepared California households are for earthquakes and where they get their information about preparedness and mitigation. In developing the questionnaire for the survey, UCLA created a number of other products. These products are listed on page 21 at the end of the report. They are referenced when appropriate in the text. Telephone interviews were conducted with a representative sample of 2,081 households in California between June 26 and December 18, 2008. The sample was stratified into: the ten northern California counties at greatest risk of earthquakes, the six southern California counties at greatest risk, and the remaining 42 lower-risk counties.

FINDINGS
1. California residents are exposed to numerous ongoing programs and recommended actions designed to increase household earthquake preparedness and mitigation
2. The many actions recommended for increasing earthquake preparedness and mitigation can be consolidated into the “Get Ready” Pyramid
3. Californians in high risk areas are not getting ready in proportion to the differential risks they face
4. People who have done things to get ready have done them for a variety of reasons and not just because of earthquakes
5. Most of the actions Californians have taken are simple preparations; relatively few households have acted to mitigate losses and reduce injuries
6. Some Californians believe earthquake myths that could lead to loss of life and injuries in an earthquake
7. Messages on earthquake preparedness and mitigation developed specifically for dissemination in California have low market penetration
8. In the absence of an actual disaster, “information received” and “information observed” are most likely to increase household investment in earthquake preparedness and mitigation
9. Many of the messages delivered to Californians about earthquake preparedness and mitigation are diluted and take a “one-size-fits-all” approach
10. Intuition has most frequently been used as the basis for developing the content and dissemination of earthquake preparedness and mitigation programs in California; evidence-based knowledge about how to motivate people to get ready has been underutilized

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Coordinate the content and dissemination efforts of information providers so that they constitute an ongoing stream of communication across time and targets
2. Prompt household action by increasing the visibility of preparedness and mitigation activities throughout the State of California
3. Disseminate a standardized message to households about earthquake preparedness and mitigation
4. Provide additional customized messages targeted to special sub-populations
5. Supplement information with other strategies to help Californians who have difficulty preparing for earthquakes
6. Use evidence-based information to develop and disseminate information about earthquake preparedness and mitigation to households

Submitted by Kate Long, California Emergency Management Agency