case study on a earthquake

Learning from Megadisasters: A Decade of Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake

March 11, 2021 Tokyo, Japan

Authors: Shoko Takemoto,  Naho Shibuya, and Keiko Sakoda

Today marks the ten-year anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE), a mega-disaster that marked Japan and the world with its unprecedented scale of destruction. This feature story commemorates the disaster by reflecting on what it has taught us over the past decade in regards to infrastructure resilience, risk identification, reduction, and preparedness, and disaster risk finance.  Since GEJE, the World Bank in partnership with the Government of Japan, especially through the Japan-World Bank Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries has been working with Japanese and global partners to understand impact, response, and recovery from this megadisaster to identify larger lessons for disaster risk management (DRM).

Among the numerous lessons learned over the past decade of GEJE reconstruction and analysis, we highlight three common themes that have emerged repeatedly through the examples of good practices gathered across various sectors.  First is the importance of planning. Even though disasters will always be unexpected, if not unprecedented, planning for disasters has benefits both before and after they occur. Second is that resilience is strengthened when it is shared .  After a decade since GEJE, to strengthen the resilience of infrastructure, preparedness, and finance for the next disaster, throughout Japan national and local governments, infrastructure developers and operators, businesses and industries, communities and households are building back better systems by prearranging mechanisms for risk reduction, response and continuity through collaboration and mutual support.  Third is that resilience is an iterative process .  Many adaptations were made to the policy and regulatory frameworks after the GEJE. Many past disasters show that resilience is an interactive process that needs to be adjusted and sustained over time, especially before a disaster strikes.

As the world is increasingly tested to respond and rebuild from unexpected impacts of extreme weather events and the COVID-19 pandemic, we highlight some of these efforts that may have relevance for countries around the world seeking to improve their preparedness for disaster events.

Introduction: The Triple Disaster, Response and Recovery

On March 11th, 2011 a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Japan, near the Tohoku region. The force of the earthquake sent a tsunami rushing towards the Tohoku coastline, a black wall of water which wiped away entire towns and villages. Sea walls were overrun. 20,000 lives were lost. The scale of destruction to housing, infrastructure, industry and agriculture was extreme in Fukushima, Iwate, and Miyagi prefectures. In addition to the hundreds of thousands who lost their homes, the earthquake and tsunami contributed to an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, requiring additional mass evacuations. The impacts not only shook Japan’s society and economy as a whole, but also had ripple effects in global supply chains. In the 21st century, a disaster of this scale is a global phenomenon.

The severity and complexity of the cascading disasters was not anticipated. The events during and following the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) showed just how ruinous and complex a low-probability, high-impact disaster can be. However, although the impacts of the triple-disaster were devastating, Japan’s legacy of DRM likely reduced losses. Japan’s structural investments in warning systems and infrastructure were effective in many cases, and preparedness training helped many act and evacuate quickly. The large spatial impact of the disaster, and the region’s largely rural and elderly population, posed additional challenges for response and recovery.

Ten years after the megadisaster, the region is beginning to return to a sense of normalcy, even if many places look quite different. After years in rapidly-implemented temporary prefabricated housing, most people have moved into permanent homes, including 30,000 new units of public housing . Damaged infrastructure has been also restored or is nearing completion in the region, including rail lines, roads, and seawalls.

In 2014, three years after GEJE, The World Bank published Learning from Megadisasters: Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake . Edited by Federica Ranghieri and Mikio Ishiwatari , the volume brought together dozens of experts ranging from seismic engineers to urban planners, who analyzed what happened on March 11, 2011 and the following days, months, and years; compiling lessons for other countries in 36 comprehensive Knowledge Notes . This extensive research effort identified a number of key learnings in multiple sectors, and emphasized the importance of both structural and non-structural measures, as well as identifying effective strategies both pre- and post-disaster. The report highlighted four central lessons after this intensive study of the GEJE disaster, response, and initial recovery:

1) A holistic, rather than single-sector approach to DRM improves preparedness for complex disasters; 2) Investing in prevention is important, but is not a substitute for preparedness; 3) Each disaster is an opportunity to learn and adapt; 4) Effective DRM requires bringing together diverse stakeholders, including various levels of government, community and nonprofit actors, and the private sector.

Although these lessons are learned specifically from the GEJE, the report also focuses on learnings with broader applicability.

Over recent years, the Japan-World Bank Program on Mainstreaming DRM in Developing Countries has furthered the work of the Learning from Megadisasters report, continuing to gather, analyze and share the knowledge and lessons learned from GEJE, together with past disaster experiences, to enhance the resilience of next generation development investments around the world. Ten years on from the GEJE, we take a moment to revisit the lessons gathered, and reflect on how they may continue to be relevant in the next decade, in a world faced with both seismic disasters and other emergent hazards such as pandemics and climate change.

Through synthesizing a decade of research on the GEJE and accumulation of the lessons from the past disaster experience, this story highlights three key strategies which recurred across many of the cases we studied. They are:

1) the importance of planning for disasters before they strike, 2) DRM cannot be addressed by either the public or private sector alone but enabled only when it is shared among many stakeholders , 3) institutionalize the culture of continuous enhancement of the resilience .

For example, business continuity plans, or BCPs, can help both public and private organizations minimize damages and disruptions . BCPs are documents prepared in advance which provide guidance on how to respond to a disruption and resume the delivery of products and services. Additionally, the creation of pre-arranged agreements among independent public and/or private organizations can help share essential responsibilities and information both before and after a disaster . This might include agreements with private firms to repair public infrastructures, among private firms to share the costs of mitigation infrastructure, or among municipalities to share rapid response teams and other resources. These three approaches recur throughout the more specific lessons and strategies identified in the following section, which is organized along the three areas of disaster risk management: resilient infrastructure; risk identification, reduction and preparednes s ; and disaster risk finance and insurance.

Lessons from the Megadisaster

Resilient Infrastructure

The GEJE had severe impacts on critical ‘lifelines’—infrastructures and facilities that provide essential services such as transportation, communication, sanitation, education, and medical care. Impacts of megadisasters include not only damages to assets (direct impacts), but also disruptions of key services, and the resulting social and economic effects (indirect impacts). For example, the GEJE caused a water supply disruption for up to 500,000 people in Sendai city, as well as completely submerging the city’s water treatment plant. [i] Lack of access to water and sanitation had a ripple effect on public health and other emergency services, impacting response and recovery. Smart investment in infrastructure resilience can help minimize both direct and indirect impacts, reducing lifeline disruptions. The 2019 report Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity found through a global study that every dollar invested in the resilience of lifelines had a $4 benefit in the long run.

In the case of water infrastructure , the World Bank report Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services: The Case of Japan documents how Sendai City learned from the disaster to improve the resilience of these infrastructures. [ii] Steps included retrofitting existing systems with seismic resilience upgrades, enhancing business continuity planning for sanitation systems, and creating a geographic information system (GIS)-based asset management system that allows for quick identification and repair of damaged pipes and other assets. During the GEJE, damages and disruptions to water delivery services were minimized through existing programs, including mutual aid agreements with other water supply utility operators. Through these agreements, the Sendai City Waterworks Bureau received support from more than 60 water utilities to provide emergency water supplies. Policies which promote structural resilience strategies were also essential to preserving water and sanitation services. After the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake (GHAE), Japanese utilities invested in earthquake resistant piping in water supply and sanitation systems. The commonly used earthquake-resistant ductile iron pipe (ERDIP) has not shown any damage from major earthquakes including the 2011 GEJE and the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. [iii] Changes were also made to internal policies after the GEJE based on the challenges faced, such as decentralizing emergency decision-making and providing training for local communities to set up emergency water supplies without utility workers with the goal of speeding up recovery efforts. [iv]

Redundancy is another structural strategy that contributed to resilience during and after GEJE. In Sendai City, redundancy and seismic reinforcement in water supply infrastructure allowed the utility to continue to operate pipelines that were not physically damaged in the earthquake. [v] The Lifelines report describes how in the context of telecommunications infrastructure , the redundancy created through a diversity of routes in Japan’s submarine internet cable system  limited disruptions to national connectivity during the megadisaster. [vi] However, the report emphasizes that redundancy must be calibrated to the needs and resources of a particular context. For private firms, redundancy and backups for critical infrastructure can be achieved through collaboration; after the GEJE, firms are increasingly collaborating to defray the costs of these investments. [vii]

The GEJE also illustrated the importance of planning for transportation resilience . A Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management shows the role that both national policy and public-private agreements can play. In response to the GEJE, Japan’s central disaster legislation, the DCBA (Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act) was amended in 2012, with particular focus on the need to reopen roads for emergency response. Quick road repairs were made possible after the GEJE in part due to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)’s emergency action plans, the swift action of the rapid response agency Technical Emergency Control Force (TEC-FORCE), and prearranged agreements with private construction companies for emergency recovery work. [viii] During the GEJE, roads were used as evacuation sites and were shown effective in controlling the spread of floods. After the disaster, public-private partnerships (PPPs) were also made to accommodate the use of expressway embankments as tsunami evacuation sites. As research on Resilient Infrastructure PPPs highlights, clear definitions of roles and responsibilities are essential to effective arrangements between the government and private companies. In Japan, lessons from the GEJE and other earthquakes have led to a refinement of disaster definitions, such as numerical standards for triggering force majeure provisions of infrastructure PPP contracts. In Sendai City, clarifying the post-disaster responsibilities of public and private actors across various sectors sped up the response process. [ix] This experience was built upon after the disaster, when Miyagi prefecture conferred operation of the Sendai International Airport   to a private consortium through a concession scheme which included refined force majeure definitions. In the context of a hazard-prone region, the agreement clearly defines disaster-related roles and responsibilities as well as relevant triggering events. [x]

Partnerships for creating backup systems that have value in non-disaster times have also proved effective in the aftermath of the GEJE. As described in Resilient Industries in Japan , Toyota’s automotive plant in Ohira village, Miyagi Prefecture lost power for two weeks following GEJE. To avoid such losses in the future, companies in the industrial park sought to secure energy during power outages and shortages by building the F-Grid, their own mini-grid system with a comprehensive energy management system. The F-Grid project is a collaboration of 10 companies and organizations in the Ohira Industrial Park. As a system used exclusively for backup energy would be costly, the system is also used to improve energy efficiency in the park during normal times. The project was supported by funding from Japan’s “Smart Communities'' program. [xi] In 2016, F-grid achieved a 24 percent increase in energy efficiency and a 31 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to similarly sized parks. [xii]

Schools are also critical infrastructures, for their education and community roles, and also because they are commonly used as evacuation centers. Japan has updated seismic resilience standards for schools over time, integrating measures against different risks and vulnerabilities revealed after each disaster, as documented in the report Making Schools Resilient at Scale . After the 2011 GEJE, there was very little earthquake-related damage; rather, most damage was caused by the tsunami. However, in some cases damages to nonstructural elements like suspending ceilings in school gymnasiums limited the possibility of using these spaces after the disaster. After the disaster, a major update was made to the policies on the safety of nonstructural elements in schools, given the need for higher resilience standards for their function as post-disaster evacuation centers [xiii] .

Similarly, for building regulations , standards and professional training modules were updated taking the lessons learned from GEJE. The Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer Built Environment: The Case of Japan report highlights that, legal framework like, The Building Standard Law/Seismic Retrofitting Promotion Law, was amended further enhance the structural resilience of the built environment, including strengthening structural integrity, improving the efficiency of design review process, as well as mandating seismic diagnosis of large public buildings. Since the establishment of the legal and regulatory framework for building safety in early 1900, Japan continued incremental effort to create enabling environment for owners, designers, builders and building officials to make the built environment safer together.

Cultural heritage also plays an important role in creating healthy communities, and the loss or damage of these items can scar the cohesion and identity of a community. The report Resilient Cultural Heritage: Learning from the Japanese Experience shows how the GEJE highlighted the importance of investing in the resilience of cultural properties, such as through restoration budgets and response teams, which enabled the relocation of at-risk items and restoration of properties during and after the GEJE. After the megadisaster, the volunteer organization Shiryō-Net was formed to help rescue and preserve heritage properties, and this network has now spread across Japan. [xiv] Engaging both volunteer and government organizations in heritage preservation can allow for a more wide-ranging response. Cultural properties can play a role in healing communities wrought by disasters: in Ishinomaki City, the restoration of a historic storehouse served as a symbol of reconstruction [xv] , while elsewhere repair of cultural heritage sites and the celebration of cultural festivals served a stimulant for recovery. [xvi] Cultural heritage also played a preventative role during and after the disaster by embedding the experience of prior disasters in the built environment. Stone monuments which marked the extent of historic tsunamis served as guides for some residents, who fled uphill past the stones and escaped the dangerous waters. [xvii] This suggests a potential role for cultural heritage in instructing future generations about historic hazards.

These examples of lessons from the GEJE highlight how investing in resilient infrastructure is essential, but must also be done smartly, with emphasis on planning, design, and maintenance. Focusing on both minimizing disaster impacts and putting processes in place to facilitate speedy infrastructure restoration can reduce both direct and indirect impacts of megadisasters.  Over the decade since GEJE, many examples and experiences on how to better invest in resilient infrastructure, plan for service continuity and quick response, and catalyze strategic partnerships across diverse groups are emerging from Japan.

Risk Identification, Reduction, and Preparedness

Ten years after the GEJE, a number of lessons have emerged as important in identifying, reducing, and preparing for disaster risks. Given the unprecedented nature of the GEJE, it is important to be prepared for both known and uncertain risks. Information and communication technology (ICT) can play a role in improving risk identification and making evidence-based decisions for disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Communicating these risks to communities, in a way people can take appropriate mitigation action, is a key . These processes also need to be inclusive , involving diverse stakeholders--including women, elders , and the private sector--that need to be engaged and empowered to understand, reduce, and prepare for disasters. Finally, resilience is never complete . Rather, as the adaptations made by Japan after the GEJE and many past disasters show, resilience is a continuous process that needs to be adjusted and sustained over time, especially in times before a disaster strikes.

Although DRM is central in Japan, the scale of the 2011 triple disaster dramatically exceeded expectations. After the GEJE, as Chapter 32 of Learning From Megadisasters highlights, the potential of low-probability, high-impact events led Japan to focus on both structural and nonstructural disaster risk management measures. [xviii] Mitigation and preparedness strategies can be designed to be effective for both predicted and uncertain risks. Planning for a multihazard context, rather than only individual hazards, can help countries act quickly even when the unimaginable occurs. Identifying, preparing for, and reducing disaster risks all play a role in this process.

The GEJE highlighted the important role ICT can play in both understanding risk and making evidence-based decisions for risk identification, reduction, and preparedness. As documented in the World Bank report Information and Communication Technology for Disaster Risk Management in Japan , at the time of the GEJE, Japan had implemented various ICT systems for disaster response and recovery, and the disaster tested the effectiveness of these systems. During the GEJE, Japan’s “Earthquake Early Warning System” (EEWS) issued a series of warnings. Through the detection of initial seismic waves, EEWS can provide a warning of a few seconds or minutes, allowing quick action by individuals and organizations. Japan Railways’ “Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System” (UrEDAS) automatically activated emergency brakes of 27 Shinkansen train lines , successfully bringing all trains to a safe stop. After the disaster, Japan expanded emergency alert delivery systems. [xix]

The World Bank’s study on Preparedness Maps shows how seismic preparedness maps are used in Japan to communicate location specific primary and secondary hazards from earthquakes, promoting preparedness at the community and household level. Preparedness maps are regularly updated after disaster events, and since 2011 Japan has promoted risk reduction activities to prepare for the projected maximum likely tsunami [xx] .

Effective engagement of various stakeholders is also important to preparedness mapping and other disaster preparedness activities. This means engaging and empowering diverse groups including women, the elderly, children, and the private sector. Elders are a particularly important demographic in the context of the GEJE, as the report Elders Leading the Way to Resilience illustrates. Tohoku is an aging region, and two-thirds of lives lost from the GEJE were over 60 years old. Research shows that building trust and social ties can reduce disaster impacts- after GEJE, a study found that communities with high social capital lost fewer residents to the tsunami. [xxi] Following the megadisaster, elders in Ofunato formed the Ibasho Cafe, a community space for strengthening social capital among older people. The World Bank has explored the potential of the Ibasho model for other contexts , highlighting how fueling social capital and engaging elders in strengthening their community can have benefits for both normal times and improve resilience when a disaster does strike.

Conducting simulation drills regularly provide another way of engaging stakeholders in preparedness. As described in Learning from Disaster Simulation Drills in Japan , [xxii] after the 1995 GHAE the first Comprehensive Disaster Management Drill Framework was developed as a guide for the execution of a comprehensive system of disaster response drills and establishing links between various disaster management agencies. The Comprehensive Disaster Management Drill Framework is updated annually by the Central Disaster Management Council. The GEJE led to new and improved drill protocols in the impacted region and in Japan as a whole. For example, the 35th Joint Disaster simulation Drill was held in the Tokyo metropolitan region in 2015 to respond to issues identified during the GEJE, such as improving mutual support systems among residents, governments, and organizations; verifying disaster management plans; and improving disaster response capabilities of government agencies. In addition to regularly scheduled disaster simulation drills, GEJE memorial events are held in Japan annually to memorialize victims and keep disaster preparedness in the public consciousness.

Business continuity planning (BCP) is another key strategy that shows how ongoing attention to resilience is also essential for both public and private sector organizations. As Resilient Industries in Japan demonstrates, after the GEJE, BCPs helped firms reduce disaster losses and recover quickly, benefiting employees, supply chains, and the economy at large. BCP is supported by many national policies in Japan, and after the GEJE, firms that had BCPs in place had reduced impacts on their financial soundness compared to firms that did not. [xxiii] The GEJE also led to the update and refinement of BCPs across Japan. Akemi industrial park in Aichi prefecture, began business continuity planning at the scale of the industrial park three years before the GEJE. After the GEJE, the park revised their plan, expanding focus on the safety of workers. National policies in Japan promote the development of BCPs, including the 2013 Basic Act for National Resilience, which was developed after the GEJE and emphasizes resilience as a shared goal across multiple sectors. [xxiv] Japan also supports BCP development for public sector organizations including subnational governments and infrastructure operators. By 2019, all of Japan’s prefectural governments, and nearly 90% of municipal governments had developed BCPs. [xxv] The role of financial institutions in incentivizing BCPs is further addressed in the following section.

The ongoing nature of these preparedness actions highlights that resilience is a continuous process. Risk management strategies must be adapted and sustained over time, especially during times without disasters. This principle is central to Japan’s disaster resilience policies. In late 2011, based on a report documenting the GEJE from the Expert Committee on Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Management, Japan amended the DCBA (Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act) to enhance its multi-hazard countermeasures, adding a chapter on tsunami countermeasures. [xxvi]

Disaster Risk Finance and Insurance

Disasters can have a large financial impact, not only in the areas where they strike, but also at the large scale of supply chains and national economy. For example, the GEJE led to the shutdown of nuclear power plants across Japan, resulting in a 50% decrease in energy production and causing national supply disruptions. The GEJE has illustrated the importance of disaster risk finance and insurance (DRFI) such as understanding and clarifying contingent liabilities and allocating contingency budgets, putting in place financial protection measures for critical lifeline infrastructure assets and services, and developing mechanisms for vulnerable businesses and households to quickly access financial support. DRFI mechanisms can help people, firms, and critical infrastructure avoid or minimize disruptions, continue operations, and recover quickly after a disaster.

Pre-arranged agreements, including public-private partnerships, are key strategies for the financial protection of critical infrastructure. The report Financial Protection of Critical Infrastructure Services (forthcoming) [xxvii] shows how pre-arranged agreements between the public sector and private sector for post-disaster response can facilitate rapid infrastructure recovery after disasters, reducing the direct and indirect impacts of infrastructure disruptions, including economic impacts. GEJE caused devastating impacts to the transportation network across Japan. Approximately 2,300 km of expressways were closed, representing 65 percent of expressways managed by NEXCO East Japan , resulting in major supply chain disruptions [xxviii] .  However, with the activation of pre-arranged agreements between governments and local construction companies for road clearance and recovery work, allowing damaged major motorways to be repaired within one week of the earthquake. This quick response allowed critical access for other emergency services to further relief and recovery operations.

The GEJE illustrated the importance of clearly defining post-disaster financial roles and responsibilities among public and private actors in order to restore critical infrastructure rapidly . World Bank research on Catastrophe Insurance Programs for Public Assets highlights how the Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency  (JRTT) uses insurance to reduce the contingent liabilities of critical infrastructure to ease impacts to government budgets in the event of a megadisaster. Advance agreements between the government, infrastructure owners and operators, and insurance companies clearly outline how financial responsibilities will be shared in the event of a disaster. In the event of a megadisaster like GEJE, the government pays a large share of recovery costs, which enables the Shinkansen bullet train service to be restored more rapidly. [xxix]

The Resilient Industries in Japan   report highlights how diverse and comprehensive disaster risk financing methods are also important to promoting a resilient industry sector . After the GEJE, 90% of bankruptcies linked to the disaster were due to indirect impacts such as supply chain disruptions. This means that industries located elsewhere are also vulnerable: a study found that six years after GEJE, a greater proportion of bankruptcy declarations were located in Tokyo than Tohoku. [xxx] Further, firms without disaster risk financing in place had much higher increases in debt levels than firms with preexisting risk financing mechanisms in place. [xxxi] Disaster risk financing can play a role pre-disaster, through mechanisms such as low-interest loans, guarantees, insurance, or grants which incentivize the creation of BCPs and other mitigation and preparedness measures.  When a disaster strikes, financial mechanisms that support impacted businesses, especially small or medium enterprises and women-owned businesses, can help promote equitable recovery and help businesses survive. For financial institutions, simply keeping banks open after a major disaster can support response and recovery. After the GEJE, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and local banks leveraged pre-arranged agreements to maintain liquidity, opening the first weekend after the disaster to help minimize economic disruptions. [xxxii] These strategies highlight the important role of finance in considering economic needs before a disaster strikes, and having systems in place to act quickly to limit both economic and infrastructure service impacts of disasters.

Looking to the Future

Ten years after the GEJE, these lessons in the realms of resilient infrastructure, risk identification, reduction and preparedness, and DRFI are significant not only for parts of the world preparing for tsunamis and other seismic hazards, but also for many of the other types of hazards faced around the globe in 2021. In Japan, many of the lessons of the GEJE are being applied to the projected Nankai Trough and Tokyo Inland earthquakes, for example through modelling risks and mapping evacuation routes, implementing scenario planning exercises and evacuation drills , or even prearranging a post-disaster reconstruction vision and plans. These resilience measures are taken not only individually but also through innovative partnerships for collaboration across regions, sectors, and organizations including public-private agreements to share resources and expertise in the event of a major disaster.

The ten-year anniversary of the GEJE finds the world in the midst of the multiple emergencies of the global COVID-19 pandemic, environmental and technological hazards, and climate change. Beyond seismic hazards, the global pandemic has highlighted, for example, the risks of supply chain disruption due to biological emergencies. Climate change is also increasing hazard exposure in Japan and around the globe. Climate change is a growing concern for its potential to contribute to hydrometeorological hazards such as flooding and hurricanes, and for its potential to play a role in secondary or cascading hazards such as fire. In the era of climate change, disasters will increasingly be ‘unprecedented’, and so GEJE offers important lessons on preparing for low-probability high-impact disasters and planning under uncertain conditions in general.

Over the last decade, the World Bank has drawn upon the GEJE megadisaster experience to learn how to better prepare for and recover from low-probability high-impact disasters. While we have identified a number of diverse strategies here, ranging from technological and structural innovations to improving the engagement of diverse stakeholders, three themes recur throughout infrastructure resilience, risk preparedness, and disaster finance. First, planning in advance for how organizations will prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters is essential, i.e. through the creation of BCPs by both public and private organizations. Second, pre-arranged agreements amongst organizations for sharing resources, knowledge, and financing in order to mitigate, prepare, respond and recover together from disasters and other unforeseen events are highly beneficial. Third, only with continuous reflection, learning and update on what worked and what didn’t work after each disasters can develop the adaptive capacities needed to manage ever increasing and unexpected risks. Preparedness is an incremental and interactive process.

These lessons from the GEJE on the importance of BCPs and pre-arranged agreements both emphasize larger principles that can be brought to bear in the context of emergent climate and public health crises. Both involve planning for the potential of disaster before it strikes. BCPs and pre-arranged agreements are both made under blue-sky conditions, which allow frameworks to be put in place for advanced mitigation and preparedness, and rapid post-disaster response and recovery. While it is impossible to know exactly what future crises a locale will face, these processes often have benefits that make places and organizations better able to act in the face of unlikely or unpredicted events. The lessons above regarding BCPs and pre-arranged agreements also highlight that neither the government nor the private sector alone have all the tools to prepare for and respond to disasters. Rather, the GEJE shows the importance of both public and private organizations adopting BCPs, and the value of creating pre-arranged agreements among and across public and private groups. By making disaster preparedness a key consideration for all organizations, and bringing diverse stakeholders together to make plans for when a crisis strikes, these strengthened networks and planning capacities have the potential to bear benefits not only in an emergency but in the everyday operations of organizations and countries.

Back to Top

Additional Resources

Program Overview

• Japan-World Bank Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries

Reports and Case Studies Featuring Lessons from GEJE

• Learning from Megadisasters: Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake  (PDF)
• Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  (PDF)
• Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services: The Case of Japan  (PDF)
• Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management  (PDF)
• Resilient Infrastructure PPPs  (PDF)
• Making Schools Resilient at Scale  (PDF)
• Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer Built Environment: The Case of Japan  (PDF)
• Resilient Cultural Heritage: Learning from the Japanese Experience  (PDF)
• Information and Communication Technology for Disaster Risk Management in Japan
• Resilient Industries in Japan : Lessons Learned in Japan on Enhancing Competitiveness in the Face of Disasters by Natural Hazards (PDF)
• Preparedness Maps for Community Resilience: Earthquakes. Experience from Japan  (PDF)
• Elders Leading the Way to Resilience  (PDF)
• Ibasho: Strengthening community-driven preparedness and resilience in Philippines and Nepal by leveraging Japanese expertise and experience  (PDF)
• Learning from Disaster Simulation Drills in Japan  (PDF)
• Catastrophe Insurance Programs for Public Assets  (PDF)
• PPP contract clauses unveiled: the World Bank’s 2017 Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions
• Learning from Japan: PPPs for infrastructure resilience

Audiovisual Resources on GEJE and its Reconstruction Processes in English

• NHK documentary: 3/11-The Tsunami: The First 3 Days
• NHK: 342 Stories of Resilience and Remembrance
• Densho Road 3.11: Journey to Experience the Lessons from the Disaster - Tohoku, Japan
• Sendai City: Disaster-Resilient and Environmentally-Friendly City
• Sendai City: Eastern Coastal Area Today, 2019 Fall

[i]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.63

[ii]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.63

[iii]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.8

[iv]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.71

[v]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.63

[vi]   Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  report, p.115

[vii] Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  report, p.133

[viii]   Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management  report, p.30

[ix]   Resilient Infrastructure PPPs  report, p.8-9

[x]   Resilient Infrastructure PPPs  report, p.39-40

[xi]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p.153.

[xii]   Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  report, p. 132

[xiii]   Making Schools Resilient at Scale  report, p.24

[xiv]   Resilient Cultural Heritage  report, p.62

[xv]   Learning from Megadisasters  report, p.326

[xvi]   Resilient Cultural Heritage  report, p.69

[xvii]   Learning from Megadisasters  report, p.100

[xviii] Learning from Megadisasters  report, p.297.

[xix]  J-ALERT, Japan’s nationwide early warning system, had 46% implementation at GEJE, and in communities where it was implemented earthquake early warnings were successfully received. Following GEJE, GOJ invested heavily in J-ALERT adoption (JPY 14B), bearing 50% of implementation costs. In 2013 GOJ spent JPY 773M to implement J-ALERT in municipalities that could not afford the expense. In 2014 MIC heavily promoted the L-ALERT system (formerly “Public Information Commons”), achieving 100% adoption across municipalities. Since GEJE, Japan has updated the EEWS to include a hybrid method of earthquake prediction, improving the accuracy of predictions and warnings.

[xx]  Related resources: NHK, “#1 TSUNAMI BOSAI: Science that Can Save Your Life”  https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/3004665/  ; NHK “BOSAI: Be Prepared - Hazard Maps”  https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/2084002/

[xxi]  Aldrich, Daniel P., and Yasuyuki Sawada. "The physical and social determinants of mortality in the 3.11 tsunami." Social Science & Medicine 124 (2015): 66-75.

[xxii]   Learning from Disaster Simulation Drills in Japan  Report, p. 14

[xxiii]  Matsushita and Hideshima. 2014. “Influence over Financial Statement of Listed Manufacturing Companies by the GEJE, the Effect of BCP and Risk Financing.” [In Japanese.] Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineering 70 (1): 33–43.  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jscejsp/70/1/70_33/_pdf/-char/ja .

[xxiv]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p. 56

[xxv]  MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications). 2019. “Survey Results of Business Continuity Plan Development Status in Local Governments.” [In Japanese.] Press release, MIC, Tokyo.  https://www.fdma.go.jp/pressrelease/houdou/items/011226bcphoudou.pdf .

[xxvi]   Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management  report, p.17.

[xxvii]  The World Bank. 2021. “Financial Protection of Critical Infrastructure Services.” Technical Report – Contribution to 2020 APEC Finance Ministers Meeting.

[xxviii]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p. 119

[xxix]  Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. 2019. “The Role of Insurance Industry to Strengthen Resilience of Infrastructure—Experience in Japan.” APEC seminar on Disaster Risk Finance.

[xxx]  TDB (Teikoku DataBank). 2018. “Trends in Bankruptcies 6 Years after the Great East Japan Earthquake.” [In Japanese.] TDB, Tokyo.  https://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/p170301.pdf .

[xxxi]  Matsushita and Hideshima. 2014. “Influence over Financial Statement of Listed Manufacturing Companies by the GEJE, the Effect of BCP and Risk Financing.” [In Japanese.] Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineering 70 (1): 33–43.  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jscejsp/70/1/70_33/_pdf/-char/ja .

[xxxii]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p. 145

Warning message

Welcome back! Log in to access your website

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS EXPLAINER
• 06 February 2023
• Update 07 February 2023
• Update 09 February 2023

Turkey–Syria earthquake: what scientists know

• Miryam Naddaf

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

A magnitude-7.8 earthquake hit southeastern Turkey and parts of Syria in the early hours of the morning of 6 February. At least 17,000 people are known to have lost their lives, with thousands more injured. The quake was followed by a magnitude-7.5 event some 9 hours later, as well as more than 200 aftershocks.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 614 , 398-399 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00364-y

Updates & Corrections

Update 07 February 2023 : This story has been updated with the latest death toll.

Update 09 February 2023 : This story has been updated again with the latest death toll at the time of publishing.

Kelam, A. A. et al. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 154 , 107129 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

What Turkey’s earthquake tells us about the science of seismic forecasting

• Architecture
• Engineering

From the archive: Mendelian inheritance, and an enigmatic echo

News & Views 30 JAN 24

From the archive: the tenacity of eels, and weatherproofing St Paul’s

News & Views 08 AUG 23

World’s first house made with nappy-blended concrete

News 20 MAY 23

Seismological evidence for a multifault network at the subduction interface

Article 17 APR 24

Mid-ocean ridge unfaulting revealed by magmatic intrusions

Article 10 APR 24

Taiwan hit by biggest earthquake in 25 years: why scientists weren’t surprised

News 03 APR 24

Why it was right to reject the Anthropocene as a geological epoch

Correspondence 30 APR 24

China's Moon atlas is the most detailed ever made

News 25 APR 24

W2 Professorship with tenure track to W3 in Animal Husbandry (f/m/d)

The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Göttingen invites applications for a temporary professorship with civil servant status (g...

Göttingen (Stadt), Niedersachsen (DE)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

W1 professorship for „Tissue Aspects of Immunity and Inflammation“

Kiel University (CAU) and the University of Lübeck (UzL) are striving to increase the proportion of qualified female scientists in research and tea...

University of Luebeck

W1 professorship for "Bioinformatics and artificial intelligence that preserve privacy"

Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein (DE)

Universität Kiel - Medizinische Fakultät

W1 professorship for "Central Metabolic Inflammation“

W1 professorship for "Congenital and adaptive lymphocyte regulation"

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Earthquake case studies

Earthquake case studies Below are powerpoint presentations discussing the primary and secondary effects and immediate and long-term responses for both the Kobe, Japan and Kashmir, Pakistan earthquakes.

Effects of the Italian earthquake – http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-italian-earthquake-the-aftermath/6997.html Responses to Italian earthquake – http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-italian-earthquake-the-emergency-response/6998.html The Kobe earthquake – http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-kobe-earthquake/3070.html General effects & responses & Kobe (Rich) & Kashmir (Poor)

O Ltb Eartqaukes Cs from donotreply16 Kobe earthquake (Rich country)

Koberevision from cheergalsal Haiti 2010 – Poor country Picture Facts On 12th January, an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale struck close to Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince The earthquake occurred at a destructive plate margin between the Caribbean and North American Plates, along a major fault line. The earthquakes focus was 13km underground, and the epicentre was just 25km from Port-au-Prince Haiti has suffered a large number of serious aftershocks after the main earthquake

Primary effects About 220,000 people were killed and 300,000 injured The main port was badly damaged, along with many roads that were blocked by fallen buildings and smashed vehicles Eight hospitals or health centres in Port-au-Prince collapsed or were badly damaged. Many government buildings were also destroyed About 100,000 houses were destroyed and 200,000 damaged in Port-au-Prince and the surrounding area. Around 1.3 million Haitians were displaced (left homeless)

Secondary effects Over 2 million Habitats were left without food and water. Looting became a serious problem The destruction of many government buildings hindered the government’s efforts to control Haiti, and the police force collapsed The damage to the port and main roads meant that critical aid supplies for immediate help and longer-term reconstruction were prevented from arriving or being distributed effectively Displaced people moved into tents and temporary shelters, and there were concerns about outbreaks of disease. By November 2010, there were outbreaks of Cholera There were frequent power cuts The many dead bodies in the streets, and under the rubble, created a health hazard in the heat. So many had to be buried in mass graves

Short-term responses The main port and roads were badly damaged, crucial aid (such as medical supplies and food) was slow to arrive and be distributed. The airport couldn’t handle the number of planes trying to fly in and unload aid American engineers and diving teams were used to clear the worst debris and get the port working again, so that waiting ships could unload aid The USA sent ships, helicopters, 10,000 troops, search and rescue teams and $100 million in aid The UN sent troops and police and set up a Food Aid Cluster to feed 2 million people Bottled water and water purification tablets were supplied to survivors Field hospitals were set up and helicopters flew wounded people to nearby countries The Haitian government moved 235,000 people from Port-au-Prince to less damaged cities

Long-term responses Haiti is dependent on overseas aid to help it recover New homes would need to be built to a higher standard, costing billions of dollars Large-scale investment would be needed to bring Haiti’s road, electricity, water and telephone systems up to standard, and to rebuild the port Sichuan, China 2008 – Poor country case study Picture On 12th May at 14:28pm, the pressure resulting from the Indian Plate colliding with the Eurasian Plate was released along the Longmenshan fault line that runs beneath. This led to an earthquake measuring 7.9 on the Richter scale with tremors lasting 120 seconds.

Primary effects · 69,000 people were killed · 18,000 missing · 374,000 were injured · between 5 -11 million people were missing · 80% of buildings collapsed in rural areas such as Beichuan county due to poorer building standards · 5 million buildings collapsed

Secondary effects · Communication were brought to a halt – neither land nor mobile phones worked in Wenchuan · Roads were blocked and damaged and some landslides blocked rivers which led to flooding · Fires were caused as gas pipes burst · Freshwater supplies were contaminated by dead bodies

Immediate responses · 20 helicopters were assigned to rescue and relief effects immediately after the disaster · Troops parachuted in or hiked to reach survivors · Rescuing survivors trapped in collapsed buildings was a priority · Survivors needed food, water and tents to shelter people from the spring rains. 3.3 million new tents were ordered.

Long-term responses · Aid donations specifically money – over £100 million were raised by the Red Cross · One million temporary small were built to house the homeless · The Chinese government pledged a $10 million rebuilding funds and banks wrote off debts by survivors who did not have insurance

Science | April 24, 2024

How the Great Alaska Earthquake Shook Up Science

Sixty years ago, the largest earthquake in U.S. history shocked geologists. It’s still driving scientific discoveries today

Christian Elliott

On March 27, 1964, the largest earthquake in U.S. history struck Alaska. With a magnitude of 9.2, it was the second-most-powerful quake ever recorded on Earth. In Anchorage, streets split in half and an entire neighborhood slid into the sea. Along the Alaskan coast, massive tsunamis destroyed ports and washed entire villages away. The disaster caused $3 billion in damage, when adjusted for inflation, and permanently changed the people and landscape of Alaska, which had gained statehood just five years before. Businesses left. Entire communities had to relocate and rebuild.

But perhaps the Great Alaska Earthquake’s most significant and lasting impact was on science. It struck at a key moment in scientific history, right in time to reshape our understanding of earthquakes, tsunamis and the nature of very ground beneath our feet. Even today, scientists studying the quake’s impacts are making unexpected discoveries in surprisingly disparate fields. A look back at the quake, 60 years after it happened, reveals just how much it transformed our understanding of geology and geophysics.

The earthquake drove plate tectonics into the mainstream

In the disaster’s immediate aftermath, the U.S. Geological Survey flew field geologists to Alaska to investigate the quake’s origins. Over weeks and months, those scientists carefully measured the impact on the landscape, discovering vast expanses of Alaska had experienced massive uplift and subsidence, permanently rising up or dropping down as the ground shook and buckled. A section of coastline they measured near Kodiak had risen by roughly 30 feet. Some 185 miles to the northeast, near Anchorage, the land had dropped by about ten feet. Those detailed measurements provided the first real-world evidence for plate tectonics, a theory that was then vigorously debated. That theory holds that the Earth’s crust is made up of plates floating on the hot mantle, and where those plates converge, sliding over or under each other, major earthquakes strike that can warp and reshape the landscape. Before the 1964 earthquake, scientists lacked the data needed to prove the existence of subduction zones—areas like that off the Alaskan coast where the Pacific oceanic plate subducts, or slides under, the North American continental plate. After the Alaskan quake, they had it: carefully documented, irrefutable evidence visible across tens of thousands of square miles of forest, coast and village that the crust had shifted in a way that couldn’t be explained by anything other than plate convergence. An even larger earthquake, magnitude 9.5, had shaken Chile four years earlier, but its aftermath had not been studied as meticulously.

“So, the ’64 earthquake and the 1960 earthquake in Chile really got geologists to puzzle,” says Diane Doser, a retired earthquake seismologist who worked at the University of Texas at El Paso and studied the Alaska quake extensively. “The way geology worked at this point in time wasn’t sufficient to explain what had been observed. But these newfangled ideas about plate tectonics explained some of what they saw during these earthquakes.”

Using the ideas of plate tectonics and the uplift and subsidence data, geologists worked backward, correctly determining the two plates had slipped by as much as 60 feet along the subduction zone, causing the quake. At the same time, scientists worldwide were rapidly making other advancements in geophysics that helped them understand how the Earth moved. Researchers were building out a global network of seismographs, which measure ground motion, to monitor nuclear weapons testing. The instruments had the side benefit of collecting data on earthquakes, too. Researchers were also developing techniques to date the same types of rock found on different continents, and demonstrate they had split up and moved great distances atop the tectonic plates over millions of years.

“All this came together in a kind of smoking gun way that it’s subduction, this is a real thing,” says Michael West, Alaska’s state seismologist. Since ’64, subduction zones have been discovered in places like Indonesia, Japan and Chile, where major earthquakes later occurred. “I think it’s fair to say that in the 1964 earthquake was an important piece of transitioning the theory of plate tectonics to the fact of plate tectonics.”

Digging into the dirt revealed a history of quakes

While field geologists mapped uplift and subsidence patterns across Alaska, they discovered something else. Coastal forests in areas that had experienced sudden subsidence, dropping below sea level during the quake, were now inundated with seawater and ocean sediment. When the field scientists dug deep into the mud in those forests, they discovered alternating layers of buried plants and ocean sediment. The variation was proof that the same areas that subsided in 1964 had done so many times before during major earthquakes over thousands of years. Forests grew. Earthquakes occurred, and the forests were drowned and covered with ocean sediment. And forests grew again.

“These places have gone from underwater, to above water, to underwater over the course of hundreds and thousands of years with each earthquake,” says West. “I think of it almost a little bit like the tide coming in and out on a beach. Except it’s the beach itself moving up and down.”

By drilling deep sediment cores in these ghost forests and using new techniques to date the layers of organic material within, scientists were able to discover past earthquakes going back millennia. The field of paleoseismology was born. And when those same scientists repeated their methods further south in the Pacific Northwest, they discovered that the Cascadia subduction zone off the U.S. West Coast had caused similar massive earthquakes in the past—and that the region should expect its own “ Big One .”

“The reason that historical record matters is that’s how we figure out the statistics of earthquakes in the future,” says West. “And even if geologic history doesn’t interest you, what you really do care about is: How often should we expect an earthquake like that?”

Paleoseismology, pioneered in Alaska, forms the basis for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Seismic Hazard Maps, which include probability estimates for earthquakes across the country. Governments and companies rely on those maps to figure out where it’s safe to build, what types of structures to construct and what insurance rates should be.

Studying surprise tsunamis led to an underwater discovery

Tsunamis claimed the vast majority of the Great Alaska Earthquake’s approximately 130 victims. Scientists generally understood tsunamis in 1964—when a massive earthquake strikes offshore, motion at the seafloor displaces the seawater above, pushing it up and out toward land. Typically, those tectonic tsunamis strike within tens of minutes or hours after the earthquake, depending on how far they have to travel.

But in 1964, massive tsunamis swept through communities before the ground even stopped shaking. Only after decades of research—and new techniques like computer modeling and detailed seafloor mapping using high-precision sonar systems—could scientists explain why. Alaska’s coastline is shaped by glaciers, which carve out fjords and drain silt into the sea. Given a large enough earthquake, as in 1964, that buildup of thousands of years’ worth of silt can shake loose. The resulting underwater landslides send “local” tsunamis racing through the narrow fjords with little to no warning.

Mapping hazardous areas and modeling potential landslide tsunami impacts is still an area of ongoing research, West says, but the seeds for today’s tsunami research and modeling efforts were planted by the Alaska disaster. In the aftermath, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration opened the National Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska to monitor tsunami hazards. “I think it’s fair to say the 1964 earthquake put landslide tsunamis on the map,” he says.

Decades after the quake, and because of it, a mysterious fungus spread

The Great Alaska Earthquake is still helping solve scientific mysteries today. In 1999, a microscopic fungus called Cryptococcus gattii that typically grows on rotting wood in tropical rainforests suddenly appeared in coastal forests across the Pacific Northwest. Since it can cause fatal infections in humans, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contacted Dave Engelthaler, director of the pathogen and microbiome division of the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Arizona, to track its origins.

Sequencing and dating the fungus, Engelthaler found it had come to the Pacific Northwest from the port city of Recife, Brazil, about a century before. He tracked shipping records and determined it had likely hitched a ride up to Vancouver in cargo ship ballast water just after the Panama Canal opened. The fungus, which adapts well to life in seawater, had been dumped off the Pacific Northwest coast, where it lived quietly and harmlessly for decades. But how it got onto land and contaminated the entire coastline, seemingly all at once, remained a mystery, until Engelthaler realized there was only one event in recent U.S. history that could have moved so much seawater—the tsunamis caused by the Great Alaska Earthquake. After being driven onshore, the fungus adapted to life on land again.

“These are what we call ‘black swan events,’” says Engelthaler, referencing epidemiology’s term for statistically improbable events with serious consequences. “No one could predict this massive earthquake would lead to people getting sick 40, 50, 60 years later from a fungus that doesn't even belong in the area.”

To Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health who researched the Cryptococcus gattii case with Engelthaler, the situation is good reminder to think on multiple timescales, studying past events and considering how they could affect our future. “I’m a big fan of humanity,” he says, “But we tend to get focused on the short term.”

In Alaska, disaster amnesia is a growing problem, says West, the state seismologist. In March, on the 60th anniversary of the Great Alaska Earthquake, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced it planned to eliminate the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, which provides Alaska up to $700,000 per year for tsunami sirens, public education and inundation mapping research work. The generation that remembers the 1964 quake is disappearing, he notes, and that could have consequences, because such an event could happen again. “I’m not exaggerating: We could have an earthquake in southern Alaska that sets us up a tsunami and kills a thousand people in, pick your town, that’s fully doable tomorrow,” he says. “So, there’s got to be a few people out there going, ‘Hey, don’t forget about this.’ That’s my job, to make sure that we don’t forget.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Christian Elliott | READ MORE

Christian Elliott is a science and environmental journalist based in Illinois. He has a master's degree in science journalism from Northwestern University in Chicago.

Case Study: Predicting the Next Big Earthquake

Recent earthquake activity.

USGS Recent Worldwide Earthquake Activity To explore individual earthquakes in more depth, click on the UTC Date-Time field. Show me how Hide Details for accessing USGS Recent Worldwide Earthquake Activity Scroll the list to look over earthquakes that have occurred in the last seven days. To explore individual earthquakes in more depth, follow the COMMENTS links. Scroll to the bottom of the list to view recent Earthquakes plotted on a world map. What is the magnitude of the most recent recorded earthquake? How many earthquakes were recorded for the last seven days? Of those earthquakes, how many were of a magnitude 7.0 or greater? IRIS Seismic Monitor Click on the map to zoom to specific regions. Click on individual earthquakes to see lists of others nearby. Show me how Hide Details for accessing the IRIS Seismic Monitor Click on the map to zoom to specific regions. Click on individual earthquakes to see lists of others nearby. Where are earthquakes concentrated?

Where does Earth Quake?

Predicting the Next Big One!

« Previous Page       Next Page »

• Investigating Earthquakes with ArcExplorer GIS
• Teaching Notes
• Step-by-Step Instructions
• Tool and Data
• Going Further

• About this Site
• Accessibility

Citing and Terms of Use

Material on this page is offered under a Creative Commons license unless otherwise noted below.

Show terms of use for text on this page »

Show terms of use for media on this page »

• None found in this page
• Last Modified: February 27, 2024
• Short URL: https://serc.carleton.edu/18034 What's This?

The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Experiment

September 28, 2004— m 6.0 earthquake captured.

The Parkfield Experiment is a comprehensive, long-term earthquake research project on the San Andreas fault. Led by the USGS and the State of California, the experiment's purpose is to better understand the physics of earthquakes - what actually happens on the fault and in the surrounding region before, during and after an earthquake. Ultimately, scientists hope to better understand the earthquake process and, if possible, to provide a scientific basis for earthquake prediction. Since its inception in 1985, the experiment has involved more than 100 researchers at the USGS and collaborating universities and government laboratories. Their coordinated efforts have led to a dense network of instruments poised to "capture" the anticipated earthquake and reveal the earthquake process in unprecedented detail.

Moderate-size earthquakes of about magnitude 6 have occurred on the Parkfield section of the San Andreas fault at fairly regular intervals - in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. The first, in 1857, was a foreshock to the great Fort Tejon earthquake which ruptured the fault from Parkfield to the southeast for over 180 miles. Available data suggest that all six moderate-sized Parkfield earthquakes may have been "characteristic" in the sense that they all ruptured the same area on the fault. If such characteristic ruptures occur regularly, then the next quake would have been due before 1993.

These pages describe the scientific background for the experiment, including the tectonic setting at Parkfield, the historical earthquake activity on this section of the San Andreas fault, the monitoring and data collecting activities currently being carried out, and plans for future research. Data are available to view in real-time and download.

Scientific Advances

While the greatest scientific payoff is expected when the earthquake occurs, our understanding of the earthquake process has already been advanced through research results from Parkfield. Some of the highlights are described.

Real-time data from instrumentation networks running at Parkfield are available for viewing and downloading.

Parkfield Earthquake Shake Table Exhibit

The Art-Science of Earthquakes by D.V. Rogers November 23, 2009 ( video )

The exhibit was a geologically interactive, seismic machine earthwork temporarily installed in Parkfield in 2008. Rogers presented the history, conceptual premise, documentation of the work, and also put forward the idea of how early 21st century cultural practice could be used to encourage earthquake awareness and preparedness.

Pictures and interactive, 360-degree panorama .

Lessons From the Best-Recorded Quake in History

USGS Public Lecture by Andy Michael October 26, 2006 ( video )

New data from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake provide important lessons about earthquake processes, prediction, and the hazards assessments that underlie building codes and mitigation policies.

Research Scientist: John Langbein , Earthquake Science Center.

Bhuj Earthquake India 2001 – A Complete Study

Bhuj earthquake india.

Gujarat : Disaster on a day of celebration : 51st Republic Day on January 26, 2001

• 7.9 on the Richter scale.
• 8.46 AM January 26th 2001
• 20,800 dead

Basic Facts

• Earthquake: 8:46am on January 26, 2001
• Epicenter: Near Bhuj in Gujarat, India
• Magnitude: 7.9 on the Richter Scale

Geologic Setting

• Indian Plate Sub ducting beneath Eurasian Plate
• Continental Drift
• Convergent Boundary

Specifics of 2001 Quake

Compression Stress between region’s faults

Depth: 16km

Probable Fault: Kachchh Mainland

Fault Type: Reverse Dip-Slip (Thrust Fault)

The earthquake’s epicentre was 20km from Bhuj. A city with a population of 140,000 in 2001. The city is in the region known as the Kutch region. The effects of the earthquake were also felt on the north side of the Pakistan border, in Pakistan 18 people were killed.

Tectonic systems

The earthquake was caused at the convergent plate boundary between the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate boundary. These pushed together and caused the earthquake. However as Bhuj is in an intraplate zone, the earthquake was not expected, this is one of the reasons so many buildings were destroyed – because people did not build to earthquake resistant standards in an area earthquakes were not thought to occur. In addition the Gujarat earthquake is an excellent example of liquefaction, causing buildings to ‘sink’ into the ground which gains a consistency of a liquid due to the frequency of the earthquake.

India : Vulnerability to earthquakes

• 56% of the total area of the Indian Republic is vulnerable to seismic activity .
• 12% of the area comes under Zone V (A&N Islands, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, N.E.States, Uttaranchal)
• 18% area in Zone IV (Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Lakshadweep, Maharashtra, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, W. Bengal)
• 26% area in Zone III (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttaranchal, W. Bengal)
• Gujarat: an advanced state on the west coast of India.
• On 26 January 2001, an earthquake struck the Kutch district of Gujarat at 8.46 am.
• Epicentre 20 km North East of Bhuj, the headquarter of Kutch.
• The Indian Meteorological Department estimated the intensity of the earthquake at 6.9 Richter. According to the US Geological Survey, the intensity of the quake was 7.7 Richter.
• The quake was the worst in India in the last 180 years.

What earthquakes do

• Casualties: loss of life and injury.
• Loss of housing.
• Damage to infrastructure.
• Disruption of transport and communications.
• Breakdown of social order.
• Loss of industrial output.
• Loss of business.
• Disruption of marketing systems.
• The earthquake devastated Kutch. Practically all buildings and structures of Kutch were brought down.
• Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Surendaranagar and Patan were heavily damaged.
• Nearly 19,000 people died. Kutch alone reported more than 17,000 deaths.
• 1.66 lakh people were injured. Most were handicapped for the rest of their lives.
• The dead included 7,065 children (0-14 years) and 9,110 women.
• There were 348 orphans and 826 widows.

Loss classification

Deaths and injuries: demographics and labour markets

Effects on assets and GDP

Effects on fiscal accounts

Financial markets

Disaster loss

• Initial estimate Rs. 200 billion.
• Came down to Rs. 144 billion.
• No inventory of buildings
• Non-engineered buildings
• Land and buildings
• Stocks and flows
• Reconstruction costs (Rs. 106 billion) and loss estimates (Rs. 99 billion) are different
• Public good considerations

Human Impact: Tertiary effects

• Affected 15.9 million people out of 37.8 in the region (in areas such as Bhuj, Bhachau, Anjar, Ganhidham, Rapar)
• High demand for food, water, and medical care for survivors
• Humanitarian intervention by groups such as Oxfam: focused on Immediate response and then rehabilitation
• Of survivors, many require persistent medical attention
• Region continues to require assistance long after quake has subsided
• International aid vital to recovery

Social Impacts

• 80% of water and food sources were destroyed.
• The obvious social impacts are that around 20,000 people were killed and near 200,000 were injured.
• However at the same time, looting and violence occurred following the quake, and this affected many people too.
• On the other hand, the earthquake resulted in millions of USD in aid, which has since allowed the Bhuj region to rebuild itself and then grow in a way it wouldn’t have done otherwise.
• The final major social effect was that around 400,000 Indian homes were destroyed resulting in around 2 million people being made homeless immediately following the quake.

Social security and insurance

• Ex gratia payment: death relief and monetary benefits to the injured
• Major and minor injuries
•  Cash doles
• Government insurance fund
• Group insurance schemes
• Claim ratio

Demographics and labour market

• Geographic pattern of ground motion, spatial array of population and properties at risk, and their risk vulnerabilities.
• Low population density was a saving grace.
• Extra fatalities among women
• Effect on dependency ratio
• Farming and textiles

Economic  Impacts

• Total damage estimated at around $7 billion. However $18 billion of aid was invested in the Bhuj area.
• Over 15km of tarmac road networks were completely destroyed.
• In the economic capital of the Gujarat region, Ahmedabad, 58 multi storey buildings were destroyed, these buildings contained many of the businesses which were generating the wealth of the region.
• Many schools were destroyed and the literacy rate of the Gujarat region is now the lowest outside southern India.

Impact on GDP

• Applying ICOR
• Rs. 99 billion – deduct a third as loss of current value added.
• Get GDP loss as Rs. 23 billion
• Adjust for heterogeneous capital, excess capacity, loss Rs. 20 billion.
• Reconstruction efforts.
• Likely to have been Rs. 15 billion.

Fiscal accounts

• Differentiate among different taxes: sales tax, stamp duties and registration fees, motor vehicle tax, electricity duty, entertainment tax, profession tax, state excise and other taxes. Shortfall of Rs. 9 billion of which about Rs. 6 billion unconnected with earthquake.
• Earthquake related other flows.
• Expenditure:Rs. 8 billion on relief. Rs. 87 billion on rehabilitation.

Impact on Revenue Continue Reading

Comments are closed.

Privacy Overview

Case study: The 2023 Türkiye–Syria earthquake

Case study: The effects of climate change in the Mekong Delta, Viet Nam

The 2023 türkiye– syria earthquake.

As a GCSE geographer you will learn about a range of natural hazards, their causes, impacts and how we can prepare for and respond to them. This article provides a case study of the massive and tragic earthquake that occurred in Türkiye, and the bordering country of Syria, in February 2023.

• Volume 35, 2023/ 2024
• Tectonic hazards
• Natural disasters
• (Global) Physical Geography

Michelle Minton

Earthquakes are not uncommon in this part of the world. However, the one that happened on 6 February 2023 had a magnitude of 7.8 and was the deadliest and strongest recorded in Türkiye since 1939, and was the world’s deadliest since the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

The earthquake’s epicentre was 34 km west of the city of Gaziantep in southern Türkiye, near the northern border of Syria (see back page). Türkiye is vulnerable to earthquakes as it sits on the Anatolian plate, between the large tectonic plates of Eurasia, Arabia and Africa. Within the Anatolian tectonic plate there are two major faults — the North Anatolian fault and the East Anatolian fault, and it is on the latter that the 2023 earthquake occurred.

Your organisation does not have access to this article.

Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise

Related articles:

Changing places: What causes deforestation?

Geography online: Global food insecurity

Case study: What happened at the Burning Man festival in 2023?

Case study: Exploring a small-scale ecosystem

Earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness of university students

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 21 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Demet Turan Bayraktar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2710-5657 1 ,
• Bahar Kefeli Çol   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-4451 1 ,
• Ayşe Gümüşler Başaran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7554-4358 1 &
• Burcu Genç Köse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0358-6401 1  

277 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Health professionals have always had essential duties in earthquake events experienced from the past to the present. Possible earthquake expectations make sustainable earthquake awareness and attitudes of students, who are future healthcare professionals, influential. Therefore, this study aims to determine the relationship between the earthquake knowledge level of university students and their sustainable earthquake awareness levels. A descriptive-cross-sectional study was conducted in April 2023 with 546 students in the School of Health Services. Data were collected using the Student Information Form, Earthquake Knowledge Level Scale, and Sustainable Earthquake Awareness Scale. Percentage means standard deviations, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis analysis, Bonferroni correction, Tamhane’s T2 test, and Spearman correlation analysis were used for data evaluation. Before answering the study questions, informed consent was obtained from the students after obtaining ethical committee approval. Among the participants, 82.1% were female, with a mean age of 20.78 ± 2.17. 55.7% of the students had experienced an earthquake, 19.2% had lost a loved one in an earthquake, and 5.5% had participated in earthquake response efforts. Students’ earthquake knowledge level was found to be above the midpoint, while sustainable earthquake awareness was found to be below the midpoint. The level of earthquake knowledge, knowledge of the distribution of earthquake zones and knowledge of earthquake effects were higher in those who took part in the earthquake. In males, knowledge of the distribution of earthquake zones was significantly higher. Knowledge of earthquake effects was significantly higher in those who experienced an earthquake and those who lost a relative in an earthquake. A positively moderate and significant correlation was found between earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness. The earthquake knowledge level of the students is medium, while their sustainable earthquake awareness needs to be higher. As the level of earthquake knowledge increases, sustainable earthquake awareness rises. The effect of earthquake experience on knowledge and awareness shows that applied training will contribute to sustainable earthquake awareness in society.

Similar content being viewed by others

Intervention and assessment of earthquake knowledge at rural schools near the New Madrid seismic zone, USA

Enhancing earthquake preparedness knowledge and practice among Nepalese immigrants residing in Japan

A study on the types of disaster awareness in nursing students: Q methodology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Disasters are defined as events that create a need for assistance at a national or international level, causing significant damage, destruction, and loss of life, typically occurring suddenly and unexpectedly (Şimşek and Gündüz 2021 ). The importance of mapping and creating safe areas for reducing the adverse effects of disasters is emphasised in studies (Karpouza et al. 2021 , 2023 ). The adverse impact of a disaster is determined by its magnitude and the adaptability and mechanisms of individuals in the face of the disaster. Awareness created within society reduces vulnerability to and risk of disasters (Wei et al. 2020 ). Previous studies have shown that university students have a high level of knowledge about disasters (Bıçakçı et al. 2022 ) and are familiar with basic concepts related to disaster awareness (Gümüş Şekerci et al. 2023 ). Still, their conscious understanding is inadequate (Avcı et al. 2020 ). The lack of knowledge about disasters can lead to significant damages; therefore, education on disaster management should be regularly conducted in schools (Tsai 2001 ), (Ross and Shuell 1993 ). The literature categorises disaster management into pre-disaster risk management and post-disaster crisis management. Pre-disaster risk management includes risk analysis, damage reduction, and preparedness. In the post-disaster phase, intervention, recovery, and reconstruction are crucial (Şahin and Üçgül 2019 ).

One of the disasters that significantly impact human life is an earthquake (Doğan et al. 2021 ). Earthquakes, which cannot be prevented and have unpredictable durations, result in loss of life and property (C. N. Erdoğan and Aksoy 2020 ). An earthquake is defined as the breaking or separation of the Earth’s crust (C. N. Erdoğan and Aksoy 2020 ) (Improta et al. 2023 ), (Bikar et al. 2021 ), and it is known that there are an average of half a million earthquakes worldwide in a year. Still, most of them occur with minor tremors that are not detectable (Taşçı and Özsoy 2021 ). Scientific studies suggest that earthquakes will continue (Yolcu and Bekler 2020 ), (Aksoy and Sözen 2014 ). In Turkey, earthquakes most frequently occur along the Western, Northern, and Eastern Anatolian Fault lines (Doğan et al. 2021 ), (Telli and Altun 2023 ). The devastating earthquake on February 6 affected 11 provinces in Turkey and occurred in two separate earthquakes with short intervals. The first occurred in Pazarcık district of Kahramanmaraş with a magnitude of 7.7, and the second one centred in Elbistan with a magnitude of 7.6. It is reported that a total of approximately 50,783 people lost their lives in these earthquakes (Erdoğan 2023 ).

The level of knowledge individuals have about earthquakes is a factor that influences their preparedness for earthquake actions (Çavuş and Balçın 2020 ), (Ao et al. 2021 ). Being prepared and having sustainable awareness against earthquakes, which pose a significant threat of causing severe damage, is of vital importance (Tsai 2001 ) (Ross and Shuell 1993 ) and plays a crucial role in coping with the impact of disasters (Xu et al. 2019 ). Sustainability, in its literal sense, means not depriving future generations of their ability to meet their needs (Çetin et al. 2020 ). Sustainable earthquake awareness is associated with concepts such as sustainable earthquake education (Akpolat et al. 2021 ), post-earthquake sustainable psychosocial support (Yıldırım 2023 ), and sustainable healthcare services in disasters (Canatan 2020 ). Societies that lack sufficient levels of sustainable earthquake awareness and consciousness may remain weak and ineffective in earthquake preparedness, response, and recovery processes (Yolcu and Bekler 2020 ). Countries should particularly reach the student population to ensure sustainable earthquake awareness (Budak and Kandil 2023 ).

In addition to developing earthquake awareness, it is also essential to cultivate attitudes to be exhibited during an earthquake (Demirci and Yıldırım 2015 ). Beyond the shaking of the earth’s crust, an earthquake is a process that involves many concepts such as material, human, social, psychological and health. To look at this process from different perspectives, to reveal road maps and to find holistic solutions, research on the subject should be handled multi-dimensionally. Increasing individuals’ knowledge levels about disasters and earthquakes will influence their display of positive attitudes during earthquakes. For this purpose, multidisciplinary studies are needed to manage disaster processes (Avcı et al. 2020 ). Healthcare services play a crucial role among these disciplines, and healthcare professionals have significant responsibilities (Seçer et al. 2021 ). In the aftermath of an earthquake, health professionals provide health care by addressing injuries related to the damage caused by the disaster in the short term and chronic medical conditions in the long term. In the literature, there is a lack of sufficient studies on earthquake knowledge levels and sustainable earthquake awareness among university students studying healthcare.

To promote socially sustainable earthquake awareness and appropriate attitudes, it is essential to build earthquake awareness among healthcare students, who will constitute the future healthcare workforce and provide significant services to the community during disasters. Therefore, this study aims to determine university students’ earthquake knowledge levels and sustainable earthquake awareness.

2 Material and method

This research is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in April 2023. The population of the research consists of 780 people, including Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Health Services Vocational School Anaesthesia Department (168), First and Emergency Aid Department (155), Elderly Care Department (152), Medical Laboratory Department (152), Physiotherapy Department (153). The study was completed with 546 students who agreed to participate without choosing a sample. 70% of the universe has been reached. The data was collected via Google Forms.

2.1 Data collection tools

The study data were collected using the Student Information Form, Earthquake Knowledge Level Scale (EKLS), and Sustainable Earthquake Awareness Scale (SEAS).

Student Information From

This form, prepared by the researchers, consists of 8 questions that include age, gender, department of study, grade level, personal experience of experiencing an earthquake, loss of a close relative in an earthquake, and involvement in earthquake-related activities.

Earthquake knowledge level scale (EKLS)

Developed by Genç and Sözen ( 2022 ), this scale aims to assess individuals’ awareness levels regarding earthquakes (Murat & Sözen 2022). The scale consists of 19 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, …, 5 = Strongly Agree). The scale does not include reverse-scored items; the possible scores range from 19 to 95. Higher scores indicate higher awareness levels regarding the topic. The scale has three sub-dimensions: “Distribution of Earthquake Zones Knowledge,” “Earthquake Effects Knowledge,” and “Earthquake Education.” The overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the scale is 0.868. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.950.

Sustainable earthquake awareness scale (SEAS)

Developed by Genç and Sözen ( 2021 ), this scale aims to assess individuals’ awareness levels regarding sustainable earthquake practices (Murat & Sözen,. The scale consists of 22 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, …, 5 = Strongly Agree). The lowest possible score is 22, and the highest score is 110. Higher scores indicate higher awareness levels regarding the topic. The scale has three sub-dimensions: “Earthquake-Structure Relationship,” “Earthquake Preparedness Application,” and “Being Prepared for Earthquakes.” The overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the scale is 0.884. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.920.

2.2 Statistical analysis

The statistical data analysis was performed using the SPSS 22 software package. Descriptive statistics such as percentages, means, and standard deviations were used for quantitative data. For non-parametric data, the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis analysis were conducted. Bonferroni correction and Tamhane’s T2 post hoc test were applied for multiple comparisons. The relationship between variables was evaluated using Spearman correlation analysis. In the correlation analysis, a correlation coefficient between 0 and 0.39 was considered a weak relationship, 0.40–0.69 was considered a moderate relationship, 0.70–0.89 was a relationship, and 0.90-1.00 was considered a powerful relationship, considered a strong one. The significance level was set at p  < .05.

2.3 Ethical considerations

This study was conducted by the guidelines and regulations set by a university’s Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee, under the permission and institutional approval of 30.03.2023 with reference number 2023/126.

2.4 Findings

Of the students participating in the study, 82.1% were female, with a mean age of 20.78 ± 2.17. 47.6% of the students were in their first year, while 52.4% were in their second year. The distribution of students by department was as follows: 17.6% in anaesthesia, 21.2% in physiotherapy, 19.0% in elderly care, 23.4% in first aid, and 18.7% in medical laboratory program. 55.7% of the students had experienced an earthquake, 19.2% had lost a relative in an earthquake, and 5.5% had been involved in earthquake response efforts. The mean scores of students on the EKLS and SEAS scales are presented in Table  1 .

Participants’ total and subscale scores on the earthquake knowledge level scale were above the midpoint. The total score and the subscale score of being prepared for earthquakes on the sustainable earthquake awareness scale were below the midpoint, while the subscale scores of earthquake-structure relationship and implementation of earthquake preparedness were at the midpoint. The comparison of independent variables with the earthquake knowledge level scale is shown in Table  2 .

In the study, the total score of the earthquake knowledge level scale was significantly higher in those who participated in earthquake operations ( p  = .030). Gender, department, grade, experience of earthquake, and loss of close ones in the earthquake did not show significant differences ( p  = .656, p  = .105, p  = .996, p  = .136, p  = .444). Among the sub-dimensions, the score of knowledge about the distribution of earthquake zones was significantly higher in men and those who participated in earthquake operations ( p  = .034, p  = .002). Department, class, experience of earthquake, and loss of close ones in the earthquake did not show significant differences ( p  = .066, p  = .416, p  = .779, p  = .824). The sub-dimension of knowledge about the effects of earthquakes showed a considerable difference in department ( p  = .044). However, after Bonferroni correction, the groups had no significant difference. Knowledge about the effects of earthquakes was significantly higher in those who experienced an earthquake, those who lost close ones, and those who participated in earthquake operations ( p  = .000, p  = .000, p  = .001). Gender and class did not differ significantly ( p  = .662, p  = .901). In the sub-dimension of earthquake education, gender, department, class, experience of earthquake, loss of close ones in the earthquake, and participation in earthquake operations did not show significant differences ( p  = .668, p  = .183, p  = .499, p  = .668, p  = .155, p  = .493). The analysis of the participants’ sustainable earthquake awareness scale is shown in Table  3 .

In the study, gender, department, grade, earthquake experience, loss of close ones in the earthquake, and participation in earthquake operations did not significantly affect the total score and sub-dimensions of the sustainable earthquake awareness scale ( p  > .05). Table  4 .

No significant relationship was found between age and earthquake knowledge level ( p  = .558). No significant relationship was found between age and sustainable earthquake awareness ( p  = .997). However, a significant positive moderate-level relationship was found between earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness ( r  = .499, p  < .001).

3 Discussion

Earthquakes have caused numerous casualties and property losses throughout history. The most important task to be undertaken by various institutions is to create earthquake awareness among individuals (Aksoy and Sözen 2014 ) (Kırıkkaya et al. 2011 ). In this study, the total and subscale scores of students on the earthquake knowledge level scale were above the midpoint. Following the major earthquake in Türkiye in February 2023, frequent dissemination of information by earthquake experts through various media channels may have contributed to the increase in students’ knowledge levels. Furthermore, the training provided by the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (also known as AFAD in Turkish) has been effective in increasing the community’s knowledge level and promoting sustainability.

According to the findings of the study, the total score of the earthquake knowledge level scale did not show a significant difference in terms of gender. Some studies in the literature also support this finding, as they did not find a substantial difference in earthquake knowledge scores between genders (Yayla 2016 ), (Öcal 2007 ), (Polat 2014 ). However, in contrast, Soffer et al. (2010) found higher levels of earthquake knowledge among males (Soffer et al. 2011 ). Similarly, in this study, only the knowledge about the distribution of earthquake regions was higher among males. The fact that the education targets the entire community may explain the lack of gender differences. Additionally, gaining experience by participating in earthquake-related activities in the affected regions can enhance knowledge. Following the recent earthquake (February 6, 2023), students studying in the healthcare field voluntarily participated in fieldwork and worked in field hospitals. The high scores on the earthquake knowledge level scale, including total scores and the subscale of knowledge about the distribution of earthquake regions and the effects of earthquakes, among students who participated in earthquake-related activities reflect this involvement. Another study supporting this finding is the one that found higher levels of knowledge among emergency medical service personnel who were involved in earthquake response (Çelebi and Uçku 2017 ). While the subscale of knowledge about the effects of earthquakes was higher among those who experienced earthquakes or lost loved ones in this study, Yayla ( 2016 ) did not find a significant difference among earthquake survivors and individuals who lost loved ones in the Erzincan province (Yayla 2016 ). The passage of years since the destructive Erzincan earthquake in 1939 may explain this difference in findings.

Creating sustainable awareness about natural disasters before earthquakes can help communities be prepared (Sözen 2019 ), (Dölek 2020 ), (Köseoğlu 2015 ), (Demirci and Yıldırım 2015 ). According to the study’s findings, the scores of the sustainable earthquake awareness scale and the preparedness for earthquakes subscale were below the midpoint. This finding is consistent with the survey conducted by Sözen ( 2019 ), which found low levels of sustainable awareness regarding earthquake preparedness among undergraduate students (Sözen 2019 ). The reason for the discrepancy between the high levels of knowledge among students and the low scores on the readiness for earthquakes subscale may be attributed to the inclusion of questions in the scale, such as “We are prepared for a potential earthquake as a country” and “We are prepared for a potential earthquake in our city.” Additionally, significant destruction and loss of life due to the earthquake on February 6 may have made students perceive that the country is not adequately prepared for major earthquakes. However, this finding contradicts the study conducted by Türksever ( 2021 ), which found high levels of sustainable awareness regarding earthquake preparedness among undergraduate students (Türksever 2021 ). This discrepancy may be attributed to the timing of the study, as it was conducted immediately after the earthquake.

A significant positive correlation exists between earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness. It is expected that earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness would influence each other.

4 Conclusion and recommendations

In conclusion, the study found that students had a moderate level of earthquake knowledge, and those who had participated in earthquake-related activities had higher knowledge levels—however, the level of sustainable earthquake awareness and preparedness perception needed to be at the moderate level. There was a positive correlation between earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness.

By initiating a systematic information process in parallel with educational efforts, sustainable awareness can be increased, and a resilient community can be built to withstand earthquakes. Emphasis should be placed on earthquake education to enhance awareness further. It is noted in the literature that randomly teaching information about earthquakes can lead to misconceptions (Gezer and Şahin 2022 ), (Öcal et al. 2016 ). Therefore, it is recommended that experts, in a planned manner, conduct education on earthquake knowledge and sustainable earthquake awareness to enhance learning and understanding. The findings also indicated that experience contributes to increased knowledge levels. Thus, educational programs must be action-oriented and practical to enhance experiential learning.

Akpolat Y, Kaya G, Çalışkan A, Karaağaç Ş (2021) İzmir deprem afetinden etkilenenler üzerine sosyolojik bir araştırma: Depremle Ilgili toplumsal bilinci etkileyen faktörlerin analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 23:723–753. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.841864

Article   Google Scholar  

Aksoy B, Sözen E (2014) Lise öğrencilerinin coğrafya dersindeki deprem eğitimine ilişkin görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi (düzce ili örneği). Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 7. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/usaksosbil/issue/21639/232586

Ao Y, Zhang H, Yang L, Wang Y, Martek I, Wang G (2021) Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Nat Hazards 107:1287–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04632-w

Avcı S, Kaplan B, Ortabağ T (2020) Hemşirelik bölümündeki öğrencilerin afet konusundaki bilgi ve bilinç düzeyleri. Resilience 4:89–101. https://doi.org/10.32569/resilience.619897

Bikar SS, Rathakrishnan B, Kamaluddin MR, Che Mohd Nasir N, Mohd Nasir MA (2021) Social sustainability of post-disaster: how teachers enable primary school students to be resilient in times of ranau earthquake. Sustainability 13:7308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137308

Bıçakçı N, Bıçakçı S, Çetin M (2022) Evaluation of disaster medicine knowledge level and educational approaches of future health professionals. Namik Kemal Tip Dergisi 10. https://doi.org/10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.51422

Budak D, Kandil N (2023) Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Deprem Bilgi Düzeyleri ve Sürdürülebilir Deprem Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Araştırılması: Spor Bilimleri Örneği. Sportıve Cilt:6(Say–:2). https://doi.org/10.53025/sportive.1322709

Canatan H (2020) Afetlerde sürdürülebilir sağlık hizmetleri için güvenli hastane kavramının önemi üzerine bir araştırma. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi 7:55–60. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sagakaderg/issue/53278/670695

Google Scholar  

Çavuş R, Balçın MD (2020) Deprem eğitim Merkezi gezisinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin depreme yönelik tutumlarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 4:55–72. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/guebd/issue/59201/795094

Çelebi İ, Uçku ŞR (2017) Kayseri ili 112 acil sağlık hizmetlerinde görev yapan sağlık personelinin deprem bilgi düzeyi ve etkileyen etmenler. Hastane Öncesi Dergisi 2:91–103. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hod/issue/31941/351631

Çetin D, Yağmur K, Henrıques Correıa, ZC (2020) Sürdürülebilir ve akıllı kentler: Marmara Depremi. İdealkent 11:1933–1958. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.734993

Demirci A, Yıldırım S (2015) İstanbul’da ortaöğretimin deprem bilincinin değerlendirilmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi 44(2):89–118. http://yayim.meb.gov.tr

Doğan M, Nacaroğlu O, Ablak S (2021) Sivrice Depremini yaşamış Ortaokul öğrencilerinin depreme ilişkin metaforik algılarının incelenmesi: Malatya İli örneği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 384–402. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.885116

Dölek İ (2020) Afetler ve afet yönetimi. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık, Ankara. s.205 – 31

Erdoğan B (2023) Depremin Sosyolojisi: 6 şubat felaketinin toplumsal ve kültürel boyutları. TRT Akademi 8:718–725. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1306900

Erdoğan CN, Aksoy ÖN (2020) Deprem Stresi ile baş etme stratejileri balıkesir örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Akademi Dergisi 3:88–103. https://doi.org/10.38004/sobad.704072

Genç M, Sözen E (2021) The sustainable scale of earthquake awareness, development, validity and reliability study. Int Electron J Environ Educ 11:24–41. https://doi.org/10.18497/iejeegreen.794680

Genç M, Sözen E (2022) Development of an earthquake knowledge assessment scale: validity and reliability study. Ahi evran üniversitesi kırşehir eğitim fakültesi dergisi. 23:2745–2781. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1049922

Gezer M, Şahin İF (2022) Deprem eğitimi: Sosyal Bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının Depreme İlişkin bilgi düzeyleri. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 24:97–106. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.941878

Gümüş Şekerci Y, Ayvazoğlu G, Çekiç M (2023) Üniversite öğrencilerinin temel afet bilinci ve farkındalık düzeylerinin saptanması. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 12:74–81. https://doi.org/10.37989/gumussagbil.1136227

Improta L, Cirella A, Pezzo G, Molinari I, Piatanesi A (2023) Joint inversion of geodetic and strong motion data for the 2012, mw 6.1-6.0, may 20th and may 29th, northern Italy earthquakes: source models and seismotectonic interpretation. J Geophys Research: Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB026278 . e2022JB026278

Karpouza M, Chousianitis K, Bathrellos GD et al (2021) Hazard zonation mapping of earthquake-induced secondary effects using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Nat Hazards 109:637–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04852-0

Karpouza M, Bathrellos GD, Kaviris G, Antonarakou A, Skilodimou HD (2023) How could students be safe during flood and tsunami events? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 95:103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103830

Kırıkkaya EB, Ünver AO, Çakın O (2011) Teachers views on the topic of disaster education at the field on elementary science and technology curriculum. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 5:24–42

Köseoğlu AM (2015) Afet yönetimi insani yardım: Lojistik süreçler ve uygulamalar, 1. Basım. Nobel kitapevi, Ankara. s.174–295

Öcal A (2007) İlköğretim aday öğretmenlerinin deprem bilgi düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285744704

Öcal A, Yıldırım E, Yakar H, Erdi E (2016) Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının afetlere yönelik inanışlarının incelenmesi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 6:59–72. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kusbd/issue/25163/265817#article_cite

Polat T (2014) Erzincan Yavuz Selim mahallesinde ikamet eden ulaşılabilen 18 yaş ve üstü bireylerin temel afet bilinci bilgi düzeylerinin saptanması. Yüksek lisans tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü

Ross KE, Shuell TJ (1993) Children’s beliefs about earthquakes. Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770207

Şahin Ş, Üçgül İ (2019) Türkiye’de afet yönetimi ve iş sağlığı güvenliği. Afet ve Risk Dergisi 2:43–63. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.498594

Seçer İ, Şahin S, Aydın OA (2021) Sağlık çalışanlarında afet bilinci. 4. Uluslararası 14. Ulusal sağlık ve hastane idaresi kongresi. Conference Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357834129

Şimşek P, Gündüz A (2021) Türkiye’de afet hemşireliği. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Dergisi 47:469–476. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.981301

Soffer Y, Goldberg A, Adini B, Cohen R, Ben-Ezra M, Palgi Y, Essar N, Bar-Dayan Y (2011) The relationship between demographic/educational parameters and perceptions, knowledge and earthquake mitigation in Israel. Disasters 35:36–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01191.x

Sözen E (2019) Lisans öğrencilerinin deprem farkındalıkları ile sürdürülebilir deprem farkındalıkları arasındaki ilişki düzeyleri. Artvinli E (ed) [E book]. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi. https://ucek2019.ogu.edu.tr

Taşçı GA, Özsoy F (2021) Deprem travmasının Erken dönem psikolojik etkileri ve olası risk faktörleri. Cukurova Med J 46:488–494. https://doi.org/https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cumj/issue/62101/841197

Telli SG, Altun D (2023) Türkiye’de deprem sonrası çevrimiçi öğrenmenin vazgeçilmezliği. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi 6:125–136. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1268747

Tsai CC (2001) Ideas about earthquakes after experiencing a natural disaster in Taiwan: an analysis of students’ worldviews. Int J Sci Educ 23:1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016085

Türksever Ö (2021) Öğretmen adaylarının deprem farkındalıkları ile depreme karşı hazırlık durumu düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. Tarih Okulu Dergisi 14:2681–2701. https://doi.org/10.29228/joh.51799

Wei B, Su G, Li Y (2020) Evaluating the cognition and response of middle/high school students to earthquake-a case study from the 2013 mw6. 6 lushan earthquake-hit area, China. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 51:101825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101825

Xu D, Yong Z, Deng X, Liu Y, Huang K, Zhou W, Ma Z (2019) Financial preparation, disaster experience, and disaster risk perception of rural households in earthquake-stricken areas: evidence from the wenchuan and lushan earthquakes in China’s sichuan province. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:3345. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183345

Yayla U (2016) Deprem bilgi düzeyi ve depreme hazırlıklı olma durumu: Erzincan Ili. Yüksek lisans tezi, Gümüşhane Üniversitesi

Yıldırım S (2023) 6 şubat Kahramanmaraş depreminin psikososyal etkisi ve depremzedelere yönelik sürdürülebilir müdehalenin önemi üzerine bir gözlem araştırması. Anasay 133–153. https://doi.org/10.33404/anasay.1286368 .

Yolcu M, Bekler T (2020) Deprem kültürü ve farkındalık çalışmaları: Şili ve elazığ depremlerinin karşılaştırılması. Lapseki Meslek Yüksekokulu Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi 1:71–82. https://doi.org/https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ljar/issue/59169/819563

Download references

Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

Demet Turan Bayraktar, Bahar Kefeli Çol, Ayşe Gümüşler Başaran & Burcu Genç Köse

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demet Turan Bayraktar .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Turan Bayraktar, D., Kefeli Çol, B., Gümüşler Başaran, A. et al. Earthquake knowledge level and sustainable earthquake awareness of university students. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06595-0

Download citation

Received : 25 July 2023

Accepted : 29 March 2024

Published : 21 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06595-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Earthquake education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• 0 Shopping Cart

L’Aquila Earthquake

In 2009 an earthquake struck central Italy with devastating consequences.

L’Aquila Earthquake 2009

The l’aquila earthquake – background.

On 6 April 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck L’Aquila in central Italy, killing 309 people. The main shock happened in the early morning hours at 3.32 am when most people were sleeping, extensively damaging the 13th-century city of L’Aquila, located only about 60 miles (100 km) northeast of Rome. The earthquake was Italy’s most devastating since the 1980 Irpinia earthquake.

A map showing the location of L’Aquila, Italy.

The earthquake resulted from normal faulting on the northwest-southeast-trending Paganica Fault. Several neighbouring faults are related to extensional tectonic forces associated with the opening of the Tyrrhenian Basin to the west.

There had been several thousand foreshocks and aftershocks since December 2008, more than thirty of which had a Richter magnitude greater than 3.5.

Primary Effects

The earthquake caused damage to between 3,000 and 11,000 buildings in the medieval city of L’Aquila. Many buildings also collapsed. Approximately 1,500 people were injured. Twenty of the 309 victims were children. In addition, around 40,000 people were made homeless.

The European Union estimated the total damage caused by the earthquake was US$1.1 billion.

L’Aquila’s historic buildings were severely damaged, resulting in most inhabitants abandoning their homes and the city. Fallen masonry resulted in many streets being blocked. The hospital where many of the injured were taken was damaged by a magnitude 4.8 aftershock an hour after the main earthquake.

L’Aquila Earthquake Damage

Many of L’Aquila’s medieval buildings were damaged. For example, the apse of the Basilica of Saint Bernardino of Siena, L’Aquila’s largest Renaissance church, was seriously damaged, and its campanile collapsed.

However, it was L’Aquila’s modern buildings that experienced more significant damage. The earthquake-proof new wing of L’Aquila Hospital experienced extensive damage and was closed.

Approximately 40,000 people who were made homeless by the earthquake found accommodation in tented camps. In addition, 10,000 were housed in hotels on the coast.

Secondary Effects

Some effects of the earthquake occurred later and indirectly as a result of the initial earthquake itself. The secondary effects included aftershocks triggering landslides and rockfalls, causing damage to housing and transport. A landslide and mudflow were caused by a burst main water supply pipeline near the town of Paganio. The number of students at L’Aquila University has decreased since the earthquake. The lack of housing for all residents meant house prices and rents increased. Much of the city’s central business district was cordoned off due to unsafe buildings. Some ‘red zones’ still exist, which has reduced the amount of business, tourism and income.

Immediate Responses

There was a range of immediate responses . For those made homeless, hotels provided shelter for 10,000 people, and 40,000 tents were distributed. Some train carriages were used as shelters. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, reportedly offered some of his homes as temporary shelters.

The Italian Red Cross was searching for survivors supported by seven dog units, 36 ambulances, and a temporary hospital within an hour. In addition, the Red Cross distributed water, hot meals, tents and blankets. The British Red Cross raised £ 171,000 in support.

Mortgages and bills for Sky TV, gas and electricity were suspended. The Italian Post Office offered free mobile calls, raised donations and gave free delivery for products sold by small businesses. L’Aquila was declared a state of emergency, which sped up international aid to the area from the EU and the USA. The EU granted US$ 552.9 million from its Solidarity Fund for major disasters to begin rebuilding L’Aquila. The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), a UK group, did not provide aid because it considered Italy a more developed country with the resources to offer help and the help of the EU.

Long-term Responses

Long-term responses included a torch-lit procession, which took place with a Catholic mass on the anniversary of the earthquake as an act of remembrance. Residents did not have to pay taxes during 2010. Students were given free public transport discounts on educational equipment and were exempt from university fees for three years. Homes took several years to rebuild, and historical centres are expected to take approximately 15 years to rebuild. Additionally, in October 2012, six scientists and one government official were found guilty of manslaughter as they had not predicted the earthquake. They were accused of giving residents a false sense of confidence and seriously underestimating the risks. They each received six years in prison and were ordered to pay several million euros in damages. However, in November 2014, the Italian courts overturned the verdict for the six scientists.

Premium Resources

Please support internet geography.

If you've found the resources on this page useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated.

Related Topics

Use the images below to explore related GeoTopics.

Previous Topic Page

Topic home, next topic page, share this:.

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated.

Search Internet Geography

Top posts and pages.

Latest Blog Entries

Pin It on Pinterest

• Click to share
• Print Friendly