GHI & CDRA Release Global Study of Earthquake Safety Practitioners
GeoHazards International (GHI) and the Center for Disaster and Risk Analysis (CDRA) at Colorado State University have completed an eighteen-month study for the Global Earthquake Model Foundation (GEM). This study examined earthquake risk reduction programs, the needs of practitioners, and barriers to risk reduction in eleven cities around the world.
The study covered eleven sites in seven countries.
Providing risk information to people in seismically active areas is critical for community leaders to make smart decisions about the policies and practices they should pursue to build communities that are safer and more resilient from earthquakes. GEM is an initiative help fill this need by to calculating earthquake risk worldwide and making this information available to anyone with an Internet connection through an open, web-based platform.
GHI recently contributed to this effort in partnership with CDRA by completing a project in which the project team investigated the needs of selected GEM beneficiaries and described how GEM could most effectively communicate its earthquake risk information to promote mitigating action. To achieve these goals, the project team traveled to eleven cities in seven countries (Bhutan, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, Peru, Turkey, and the United States) to interview more than one hundred and thrity government officials, school and hospital administrators, and business and nonprofit leaders working on earthquake safety in their communities.
The project team analyzed the responses from these interviews and organized the findings into three categories: existing earthquake risk reduction programs and activities; earthquake risk reduction resource needs; and barriers to implementing risk reduction activities. The project team then drafted a series of recommendations, which were meant to turn the findings into actionable steps that GEM could take to support earthquake practitioners in seismically prone communities around the world. Across the eleven cities, practitioners reported that they lack one central technical tool or resource that provides a comprehensive portrait of earthquake risk in their cities
The results of this study are available below.