LastQuake app safety tips usage for first time users

Results showed that 59% of the viewers are new users, compared to 44% found in the preliminary analysis. The high share of new users is linked to the way people navigate in a new app. Indeed, after downloading the app, users tend to explore the various functionalities and the menu, and thus the safety tips. When the preliminary analysis was made, safety tips were a new feature which had also raised regular users’ interest. LastQuake users tend to download the app after an earthquake or series of earthquakes that concern them. By consulting the safety tips after downloading the app, they access timely information about behaviours to adopt. It also prepares them in case of aftershock. When internalising the monitoring system, EMSC was also able to determine how the users accessed the safety check. The vast majority (97%) of users find the safety tips through LastQuake main menu. 2.4% accessed them through the seismic events page and 0.1% have taken advantage of a safety check notification to consult this timely advice. This is partly due to the fact that few earthquakes met safety notifications launch criteria. Indeed, safety notifications are designed for rare, potentially frightening or destructive seismic events. The fact that most users visit the page simply when navigating on the app implies that safety tips are also useful during preparedness phase This is an opportunity to raise preparedness and confirm that safety tips should be accessible at all time. The monitoring system revealed that among all the views, only 33% are complete. We consider as complete a visit during which the user actually went through the 5 safety tips and didn’t close the page before seeing the whole content. New users were found to be more “serious” in the way they consult the safety tips, as they are proportionally more numerous than experienced users (35.3% compared to 31.2%) to go through the five advices. Users who access the safety tips through an event page were found to be more interested in this advice. 39.5% of them consulted the safety in a complete way, against 33.43% when accessing via the main menu. We can assume that most users who access the safety through the event page are potentially witnesses and thus directly concerned by the earthquake. They have an immediate interest for information about safe behaviours to adopt. This result also suggests that after a significant earthquake, there is a window for prevention, whether for local who need timely information, or for other users who showed interest for the event. It is then a window for risk prevention and to allow witnesses to make informed choices (Reynolds and Seeger, 2005). A cultural dimension could as well explain the variations in complete consultations of safety tips. Indeed, significant differences were found among the 23 countries with high number of visits (500 minimum). Users from Iraq, Chile, Macedonia and Italy were found to, proportionally; visit more incompletely the safety tips, contrary to British, Bulgarians, Iranians, Greeks and people in Mayotte. Mayotte and Great Britain are areas where seismic activity is rare, where inhabitants are not used to earthquakes. This can explain a higher need for information. However, all the other countries characterize by relatively frequent felt earthquakes. Risk culture and risk perception could thus explain variations of seriousness in the way people use this prevention tool. Risk culture, as identified in D8.1, may vary between these countries and explain a different appeal for safety advice. Depending not only on what other material of this type they can access in their language but also on general interest for risk prevention, users may not show the same involvement in their safety tips exploration.

Note: See source document for full reference.

Cultural Factors: Worldviews, Local knowledge

Hazards: Natural hazards

Disaster Phases: Preparedness, Response

Types of Actors Concerned: Non-active citizens, NGOs