5.5 I SSUES OF P ERCEPTION RELATED WITH V ULNERABILITY R EDUCTION
5.5.2 Intention to Support the Improvement of Evacuation Infrastructure and Facilities
Examining further people´s perception of evacuation difficulties and traffic jam problems, the UNU‐
EHS/KOGAMI Household Survey conducted in 2009 indicated that the majority of the respondents (74%) evaluated the current infrastructure and facilities as not sufficient or not sufficient at all (Figure 5‐21). This shows that the limited access to evacuation routes and places is also realized by the people.
100
Figure 5-21 Perception of existing evacuation facilities and infrastructures (proportion of the respondents in %)
Source: Own analysis based on the UNU‐EHS/KOGAMI Household Survey 2009
Also, the perception of the improvement of evacuation infrastructures through widening the existing roads and construction of escape buildings / evacuation shelters shows the agreement of the majority of the respondents (Figure 5‐22).
Figure 5-22 Perception of improvement of evacuation infrastructures by widening roads and constructing evacuation shelters (proportion of respondents in %)
Source: Own analysis based on the UNU‐EHS/KOGAMI Household Survey 2009 0,0
5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0
very insufficient
insufficient sufficient very sufficient dont know
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perception of road widening
Perception of shelter construction
strongly agree agree
indifferent disagree
strongly disagree
101
In general, widening existing roads seems to be a more acceptable measure for tsunami risk reduction to the majority of the people compared to shelter construction. There are less people who agree or strongly agree on construction of shelters compared to road widening. This may be explained by a quite controversial opinion on the strength and safety of shelters (high buildings) facing strong earthquakes, which have not been proven yet in Padang. Some respondents with answer categories of “disagree” or “strongly disagree” mentioned that they are worried that the high buildings as shelters would collapse due to earthquake and worsen the situation.
Moreover, when it came to more proactive participation, there were various responses (Figure 5‐23).
In fact, the majority of the respondents would remain passive and did not see where they could support this process.
Figure 5-23 Intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructures and facilities (proportion of the respondents in %)
Source: Own analysis based on the UNU‐EHS/KOGAMI Household Survey 2009
After the development of evacuation awareness and evacuation knowledge indices (See Sub‐ 5.5.1, their influence on the intention of proactive vulnerability‐reducing action, intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructures and facilities was tested using the data of the UNU‐
EHS/KOGAMI Household Survey 2009. The profile of the variables and the correlation analysis results can be found in Annex.
The analysis found out that both the evacuation awareness index and evacuation knowledge index are both correlated with the intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructures.
Interestingly, the evacuation knowledge index correlates with the intention to support improvement even slightly stronger (Kendall´s tau‐b coefficient=0.140, significant at p<0.01) than the evacuation awareness index (Kendall´s tau‐b coefficient=0.127, significant at p<0.01), while the evacuation awareness correlates stronger with perception of improvement of evacuation infrastructures
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
cannot support anything
just observe and see what I can do
give time to participate in
planning
participate in working together
102
through widening of roads and construction of shelters. The results seem to suggest that awareness is more associated with subjective judgement (perception) of the measures and although awareness also correlates positively with intention to support improvement, additional knowledge plays a role so that the person would be able to acknowledge and commit to his/her role in the development of the evacuation measures.
Figure 5-24 Correlation of socio-economic and cognitive factors with the intention to support the improvement of evacuation infrastructures (Kendall´s tau-b coefficient, significant at p<0.05)
Source: Own analysis
Furthermore, Figure 5‐25 suggests that awareness has weaker influence on proactive action which requires more labour efforts and probably special skills (“working together”) compared to the influence of evacuation knowledge that has shown stronger correlation.
Figure 5-25 Association of intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructures with evacuation awareness and evacuation knowledge indices
Source: Own analysis based on UNU‐EHS/KOGAMI Household Survey 2009
Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to test the influence of both independent variables of the evacuation awareness index and the evacuation knowledge index on the dependent
Intention
Socio-economic Human-cognitive factors
Hh income education
Intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructure Evacuation awareness index
0.411
0.163
Evacuation knowledge index 0.146
0.113
0.236
0.113
0.127 0.140
103
variable of intention to support the improvement of evacuation infrastructures (reference category:
“cannot support anything”). The result shows that the model’s fitting composed of the two independent variables is significant (p<0.000) compared to the null model. The Pearson (p=0.285) and Deviance (p=0.437) statistics do not suggest lack of fit in the model. The Chi‐Quadrat statistics test comparing the model with reduced variables suggests that the influence of both variables ,evacuation awareness and evacuation knowledge, scored for the overall model is significant (p<0.01). However, for each category, the influence of one or another index may become insignificant. The following table shows the odd ratios of the index based on the intention categories referring to “cannot support anything”. It confirms that the intention to “participate in working together” is associated significantly with evacuation knowledge.
Table 5-12 Significance and confidence interval of the odds ratio of the association of evacuation awareness and knowledge indices with intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructures
Intended participation in improving evacuation infrastructures (reference category: "cannot support anything")
significance Exp(B)
95% confidence interval for Exp(B)
upper lower
just observe and see what I can do
Awareness index 0,000 10,712 3,126 36,702
Knowledge index 0,224 1,828 0,691 4,84
give time to participate in planning
Awareness index 0,000 31,122 6,253 154,886
Knowledge index 0,510 1,517 0,439 5,241
participate in working together
Awareness index 0,630 1,467 0,308 6,987
Knowledge index 0,000 10,551 3,195 34,851
Source: Own analysis
However, a similar case is the analysis of the model for intention to evacuate‐ This model predicted the intention of the smaller groups poorly. As seen in Table 5‐10, the intention to participate categories of “give time to participate in planning” and “participate in working together” was wrongly predicted as other (larger) categories. Acknowledging other unknown influencing parameters, we could still argue that overall there is significant positive influence of evacuation awareness and knowledge on proactive intention (intention to support the improvement of evacuation infrastructures).
104
Table 5-13 Classification table of observed and predicted values of the intention to support improvement of evacuation infrastructures
Observed Predicted
cannot support anything
just observe and see what
I can do
give time to participate in
planning
participate in working together
% of correct prediction
Cannot support anything 209 30 0 2 86,7%
Just observe and see what I can do
109 49 0 3 30,4%
Give time to participate in planning
51 26 0 0 0,0%
Participate in working together 59 21 0 0 0,0%
46,2%
Source: Own analysis