Use of the safety check feature by region

A first glance at the results, which will be more systematized in D3.3b (see source document for full reference), indicates that the conversion rate is not linked to the magnitude. For instance, the M7.3 earthquake in the Celebes Sea leads to a conversion rate of only 0.3%, whereas the conversion rate for the M5.6 in Italy is 20.7%. Indeed what matters for the eyewitnesses is not the magnitude in itself but the intensity they felt and the generated fear. Fear and risk culture could explain the use of safety check, for instance in Romania where the citizens have a strong cultural memory of earthquakes (Pavel 2016 - see source document for full reference) linked in particular to strong quakes in 1940, 1977 and 1991. This is a preliminary result that needs to be confirmed. Safety check use could also depend on whether social media such as Facebook and Google person finder have launched their own tools and whether these networks are used in normal time by the impacted population. This could also have to do with costs associated with SMS services. Long-term analysis of how people living in a region with a high seismic activity (such as Italy) use the safety check would be interesting.

Cultural Factors: Ethnicity, Density of active citizenship, Socio-economic status, Communication, Individual/collective memory

Hazards: Natural hazards

Disaster Phases: Response

Types of Actors Concerned: Non-active citizens, Active citizens, NGOs

Recommendations:

• Develop a personal “culture of preparedness”
• The use of new technologies (e.g. Bluetooth) can improve communication strategies in disaster management situations
• Use cultural factors to improve the effectiveness of disaster communication