knowledge on earthquake preparedness among the school students of dhaka city bangladesh

Knowledge on earthquake preparedness among the school

students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh

Farhana RahmanID: 14-98179-3

Department of Public HealthAmerican International University-Bangladesh

(AIUB)

Submission date: January 8, 2016

Letter of Endorsement

The research report entitled "knowledge on earthquake preparedness among the school

students of Dhaka City, Bangladesh" towards the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Masters in Public Health (MPH) by Farhana Rahman, ID: 14-98179-3. The research report has been accepted and has been presented to the panel of Examiners for review.

(Any options, suggestions made in this report are entirely that of the author of the proposal. The

university does not condone nor reject any of these opinions or suggestions).

---------------------------------------

Prof. Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam (Ph.D)Adjunct faculty, AIUB

SupervisorDepartment of Public Health

MPH Program, AIUB

Date of Submission: ..........................

IntroductionAn earthquake is the perceptible shaking of the surface of the earth, resulting from the sudden release of energy in the earth's crust that creates seismic waves. (Knowledge, Wikipedia).

The seismicity, seismism or seismic activity of an area refers to the frequency, type and size of earthquakes experienced over a period of time (Seismicity, Wikipedia).

.Foreshock: A foreshock is an earthquake that is smaller than a mainshock, precedes it, and is causally related to it. (CDMP, 2008)

Introduction (Contd.)

. Aftershock: An earthquake of similar or lesser intensity that follows the main earthquake (CDMP, 2008).

Epicenter: The place on the earth’s surface directly above the point on the fault where the earthquake ruptures began. Once fault slippage begins, it expands along the fault during the earthquake and can extend hundreds of miles before stopping. (CDMP,2008)


Seismic Waves: Vibrations that travel outward from the earthquake fault at speeds of several miles per second.

Although fault slippage directly under a structure can cause considerable damage, the vibrations of seismic waves cause most of the destruction during earthquakes CDMP, 2008).

Magnitude: The amount of energy released during an earthquake, which is computed from the amplitude of the seismic waves. (CDMP, 2008)


Intensity: Intensity is defined on the observations of damaged structures, presence of secondary effects and degree to which quake was felt by individuals. There are twelve level of intensity as per Modifided Mercalli Intensity Scale.

Richter scale: The magnitude of seismic energy released during an earthquake is measured by the Richter scale. (CDMP, 2008)

BackgroundBeing the capital of Bangladesh, Dhaka is the primal city in terms of its political, cultural and economic importance.

The city, forming the wider metropolitan area, is home to an estimated 12.3 million as of 2007 (ADP (2009).

In the generalized tectonic map of Bangladesh, Dhaka is near by the Modhupur Fault and Plate Boundary Fault 3. A low to moderate level of earthquake may cause severe damages to the life and property that may go beyond the existing capacity of Dhaka City Corporation (DCC)

Background (Contd.)And a strong earthquake affecting a major urban center like Dhaka may result in damage and destructions of massive proportions and may have disastrous consequences for the entire nation.

Schools play a vital role in every community and region.

Earthquake damages residential buildings and infrastructures alike.

Background (Contd.)Many schools in the earthquake prone regions are vulnerable to earthquakes and are susceptible to severe damages often killing the students and teachers during an earthquake.

In May 2008, Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan, China killed about 7,000 students trapped in damaged school buildings.

In the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan 43 schools in Nantou and Taichung area were completely destroyed and a total of 700 schools nationwide were damaged to different extent.

Background (Contd.)According to experts, reported UNB, although Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to earthquake due to its geological location, the government’s preparedness is too inadequate to address any of its aftermath.

They noted that a single building collapse (Rana Plaza in Savar) killed nearly 300 people while the government is struggling to carry out search and rescue operation.

Justification• From the literature review, it was found that significant

number of lives lost due to the hit of the earthquake in the school time.

• Since it is not possible to predict earthquake, awareness (what to do) with regard to this devastating phenomena can save the live and livelihood to a great extend of the dwellers living at risk.

• Taking care of the structural and nonstructural elements, earthquake vulnerability can be reduced a lot.

• This is why the study was done to measure how much aware the students are as well as how much the students know about the earthquake preparedness.

Hypothesis: Knowledge regarding earthquake preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city is poor.

General Objective: To assess the level of knowledge on earthquake preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh.

Specific Objective

• To assess the level of knowledge regarding predisaster preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh

• To assess the level of knowledge during earthquake preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh.

• To assess the level of knowledge regarding post earthquake preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh

• To relate the socio-demographic characteristics of the school students of Dhaka city with their level of knowledge regarding earthquake preparedness.

List of variables

Dependent Variable: Knowledge of school students regarding earthquake preparedness

Independent Variable:I. Sociodemographic variablesII. Factor related variablesIII. Knowledge based variables

Conceptual framework Dependent Variable Independent Variable

Sociodemographic variables

Age Gender Educational level Group Religion Monthly family income Father’s educational level Mother’s educational level

Knowledge based variables

Basic knowledge about

earthquake

Predisaster planning

Preparedness during

earthquake

Preparedness after earthquake

Factor related variables

Housing type of the school Housing type of the home Source of information Having previous earthquake

experience Having earthquake safety

workshop/ drill exercise Fire safety drill exercise Organizer of the workshop

Knowledge of school students regarding earthquake preparedness

Literature Review

To understand the proposed problem, formulation of the background information and for selecting methods and materials

A considerable number of articles published in various national and international journals, reports, textbooks was read.

Methods and Materials

• Study design: The study was a cross sectional study.

• Study population: All present students of grade IX and grade X from selected schools in Mohakhali, Dhaka during the data collection period served as study participants

• Study duration: Study period was June, 2015 to December, 2015

• Sample Size: 105

Study Locale

• This study was done in several schools located in Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

• Schools, located in Mohakhali, who gave permission for the data collection was the study area of this research.

• All these three schools located near the BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Figure: Study location-Mohakhali,

Dhaka

Sample size calculationSample size was calculated from study population by using

the formula: n= z2pq / d2

Where,

n= desired sample size. p= 0.5 (as there is no reasonable estimate of any

prevalence rate, we use 50%). q = 1-p = 1-0.5 = 50%d =degree of error (absolute precision of the study

assumed 0.05) z = the reliability co efficient at the 95% C.I = 1.96. Thus required sample size is 385. We took (feasible) 105 samples for this study.

Research instrument development• Pretested semi-structured Interview Questionnaire• Both close ended and open ended questions was used.

• Close ended questions comprised almost 80% of the total questions and rest 20% were open ended.

• Questionnaire was divided into four parts named domain A, domain B, domain C, domain D

• The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated into Bangla for the better understanding of the participants.

Data Collection• Before get started, permission for data collection was

taken from every school. • Data was collected from school students in the school

premises by face to face interview using pre-tested semi structured questionnaire

• Every student were invited to participate in the interview. • An informed consent was taken from those who agreed

to participate in the research study. • One interview took 1 hour and 30 minutes. • 105 interviews were collected in 4 Weeks. • Before finishing each interview schedule was checked

and rechecked for completeness and consistency of collected data.

Data Analysis After data collection, the data were entered in computer

and stored after proper coding for each variable was done. Data were checked properly to find out any missing data.

The data were analyzed in computer with SPSS 20.0 version.

Then data analysis was done according to the specific objectives of the study.

Then relationship between the variables was established by mean, median, mode and standard deviation.

Chi distribution was done to find out the association between variables.

Then MLR (Multiple Logistic Regression) was done to assess the strength of association between the variables

Data interpretation and presentation

Data were interpreted and presented by

table, graphs, chart, statistical interference

Results and findings

Frequency table of age

Age Frequency Percentage (%)

13-14 45 42.9

15-16 60 57.1

Total 105 100

*Mean 14.59, (SD±0.793)

Frequency table of sex

Sex Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 42 40

Female 63 60

Total 105 100

Distribution of respondents according to their level of education.

42%

58%

Educational Level

Grade 9Grade 10

Distribution of respondents according to subject group

49%

23%

29%

Subject Group

ScienceArtsCommerce

Distribution of respondents according to their family income

15000-25000

25001-35000

35001-45000

45001-55000

55001-65000

65001-75000

750001-85000

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Family income

Family income

Distribution of respondents according to religion

81%

11% 9%

Religion

MuslimHinduChristian

Distribution of respondents according to their father’s educational level

3% 6% 5%

16%

47%

15% 9%

Father's level of education

IlliteratePrimarySecondaryHigher SecondaryGraduatePost graduatemufti

Distribution of respondents according to their mother’s educational level

Primary

Seco

ndary

Higher S

econdary

Graduate

Post gra

duate0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00%

Mother's education level

Mother's education level

Frequency table of the housing type of respondent’s school

Housing type of school Frequency Percentage (%)

Semi-Brick house 3 2.9

2 storeyed building 52 49.53 storeyed building 50 47.6

Total 105 100

Frequency table of the housing type of respondent’s home

Housing type of home Frequency Percentage (%)

Semi-Brick house/ tin shade building

34 32.4

1 storeyed building 11 10.52 storeyed building 6 5.73 storeyed building 14 13.34 storeyed building 16 15.35 storeyed building 12 11.4more than 5 storeyed building

12 11.4

Total 105 100

Distribution of respondents according to earthquake experience

100%

Earthquake experience

YesNo

Distribution of respondents according to earthquake safety drill exercise

experience

82%

18%

Trained with earthquake safety

YesNo

Frequency table of drill exercise interval

Drill exercise interval Frequency Percentage (%)

Every six months 34 32.4

Once in a life time 52 49.5

never 19 18.1

Total 105 100

Distribution of respondents according to fire safety training

100%

Fire safety training

YesNo

Distribution of respondents according to source of information on earthquake.

Distribution of respondents according to their level of knowledge regarding important terminologies of earthquake

Very poorPoor Average Good0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Knowledge of important terminologies of earthquake

Knowledge of im-portant termi-nologies of earth-quake

Distribution of respondents according to their level of knowledge regarding risk &

consequences of earthquake

5%

62%

33%

knowledge regarding Risk & Consequences of earthquake

Very poorPoorAverage

Frequency table of knowledge of vulnerability in infrastructural equipment & materials

Vulnerability in

infrastructural

equipment &

materials

Frequency Percentage (%)

Very poor 30 28.6

Poor 35 33.3

Average 30 28.6

Good 10 9.5

Total 105 100

Frequency table of knowledge of main reasons for casualties

Main Reasons for

Casualties


Very poor 15 14.3

Poor 45 42.9

Average 30 28.5

Good 10 9.5

Very good 5 4.8

Total 105 100

Frequency table of pre-disaster planning knowledge

Pre-disaster

planning knowledge


Very poor 5 4.8

Poor 70 66.7

Average 25 23.8

Good 5 4.8

Total 105 100

Frequency table of preparedness knowledge during earthquake

Preparedness

knowledge during

earthquake


Very poor 25 23.8

Poor 40 38.1

Average 40 38.1

Total 105 100

Frequency table of preparedness knowledge after earthquake

Preparedness

knowledge after

earthquake


Very poor 20 19.0

Poor 20 19.0

Average 45 42.9

Good 20 19.0

Total 105 100

Association between gender and overall earthquake preparedness knowledge

Gender

Knowledge on earthquake preparednessTotal X2 P-Value

Poor Good Frequency %

Frequency % Frequency %

Male 32 35.6 10 66.7 42 40.05.185 0.023

Female 58 64.4 5 33.3 63 60.0

Total 90 100 15 100 105 100*Continuity correction with 2 tailed significant

Association between family income and overall earthquake preparedness

knowledge

Family

income

Knowledge on earthquake preparednessTotal X2

P-Value



15,000 –

40,00068 75.6 15 100.0 83 79.0 4.639 0.031

40,001 –

80,00022 24.4 0 0.0 22 21.0

Total 90 100 15 100 105 100*Continuity correction with 2 tailed significant

Association between earthquake experience and overall earthquake preparedness knowledge

Earthquake

experience

Knowledge on earthquake preparedness Total X2

P-Value



Yes 90 100.0 15 100.0 105 100.0No statistics are

computed

because

earthquake

experience is a

constant

No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 90 100 15 100 105 100

Association between earthquake drill exercise experience and overall earthquake

preparedness knowledge

Earthquake

Drill

Exercise

experience

Knowledge on earthquake preparedness Total X2

P-Value



At least

once71 78.9 15 100.0 86 79.0 3.866 0.049

Never 19 21.1 0 0.0 19 21.0

Total 90 100 100 100 105 100

*Continuity correction with 2 tailed significant

Association between source of information and overall earthquake preparedness knowledge

Source

Of

information

Knowledge on earthquake

preparedness Total X2

P-

Value

Poor GoodFrequency %Frequency % Frequency %

Media 44 48.9 3 20.0 47 44.8

4.340 0.037Teacher 46 51.1 12 80.0 58 55.2

Total 90 100 15 100 105 100* Fisher’s exact test with 2 tailed significant

Multiple Logistic Regression

• Dependent variable: Knowledge of earthquake preparedness • Independent variables: Age range

Gender School type & medium Subject group Family monthly income Religion Source of information Previous earthquake experience Having earthquake drill experience How often earthquake drill exercises were

held

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .594a .353 .347 .568

2 .651b .423 .412 .539

3 .670c .449 .433 .529

4 .696d .485 .465 .515

a. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise

b. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range

c. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender

d. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information

ANOVAe

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 18.171 1 18.171 56.276 .000a

Residual 33.258 103 .323

Total 51.429 104

2 Regression 21.767 2 10.884 37.427 .000b

Residual 29.661 102 .291

Total 51.429 104

3 Regression 23.111 3 7.704 27.477 .000c

Residual 28.317 101 .280

Total 51.429 104

4 Regression 24.948 4 6.237 23.554 .000d

Residual 26.480 100 .265

Total 51.429 104

a. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise

b. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range

c. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender

d. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information

e. Dependent Variable: Knowledge of Earthquake in Likert Scale

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

95.0% Confidence Interval for

B

B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 (Constant) 3.596 .183 19.623 .000 3.233 3.959

How Often Drill

Exercise

-.371 .049 -.594 -7.502 .000 -.469 -.273

2 (Constant) 4.117 .229 18.016 .000 3.664 4.571

How Often Drill

Exercise

-.351 .047 -.562 -7.425 .000 -.445 -.257

Age Range -.377 .107 -.266 -3.517 .001 -.589 -.164

3 (Constant) 4.493 .282 15.909 .000 3.933 5.053

How Often Drill

Exercise

-.284 .056 -.455 -5.110 .000 -.394 -.174

Age Range -.473 .114 -.335 -4.149 .000 -.699 -.247

Gender -.288 .131 -.201 -2.189 .031 -.548 -.027

4 (Constant) 3.977 .337 11.794 .000 3.308 4.646

How Often Drill

Exercise

-.260 .055 -.416 -4.742 .000 -.368 -.151

Age Range -.366 .118 -.259 -3.096 .003 -.600 -.131

Gender -.351 .130 -.246 -2.702 .008 -.609 -.093

Source of

information

.110 .042 .214 2.634 .010 .027 .192

a. Dependent Variable: Knowledge of Earthquake in Likert Scale

Excluded Variablese

Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation

Collinearity StatisticsTolerance

1 Age Range -.266a -3.517 .001 -.329 .986Gender -.054a -.589 .557 -.058 .758School Type & Medium .003a .032 .975 .003 .676

Subject Group -.030a -.380 .705 -.038 .994Family Monthly Income (Tk.) -.010a -.113 .910 -.011 .885

Religion .059a .705 .482 .070 .902Source of information .255a 3.355 .001 .315 .985Drill Exercise Experince -.005a -.053 .958 -.005 .622

2 Gender -.201b -2.189 .031 -.213 .645School Type & Medium -.143b -1.450 .150 -.143 .575

Subject Group -.022b -.288 .774 -.029 .993Family Monthly Income (Tk.) .013b .159 .874 .016 .879

Religion .009b .113 .911 .011 .873Source of information .173b 2.106 .038 .205 .807Drill Exercise Experince .168b 1.604 .112 .158 .510

3 School Type & Medium -.051c -.450 .654 -.045 .436

Subject Group .025c .324 .747 .032 .917Family Monthly Income (Tk.) -.035c -.430 .668 -.043 .818

Religion .045c .555 .580 .055 .839Source of information .214c 2.634 .010 .255 .779Drill Exercise Experince .064c .514 .608 .051 .360

4 School Type & Medium -.180d -1.553 .124 -.154 .377

Subject Group -.002d -.032 .974 -.003 .899Family Monthly Income (Tk.) .011d .136 .892 .014 .778

Religion .071d .893 .374 .089 .827Drill Exercise Experince .184d 1.465 .146 .146 .323

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exerciseb. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Rangec. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Genderd. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information

e. Dependent Variable: Knowledge of Earthquake in Likert Scale

Output of multiple logistic regression analysis:

4 variables (How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information) statistically significantly added to the prediction with p < 0.05.

The resulting model is as follows:Knowledge = 3.977 - (0.260 x How often drill exercise) –

(0.366 x Age Range) – (0.351 x Gender) + (0.110 x Source of information)

Data quality management• Data quality management was done in every stages of

research.• Variables were set according to the objectives of the study

and questionnaire was developed according to the variables. • Then questionnaire was pretested. • After pretesting, questionnaire was modified according to the

required change. • During the data collection in the field, data was checked and

re-checked for data consistency. • After the data entry, data was checked again for ensuring

there was no missing information as well as inconsistent by comparing the raw data and the entry data.

• Data filtration was also done again after the statistical test. Then the final statistical test was done so that the quality of the data could be maintained properly.

Study Limitation• The study was done in purposively selected area and

the selected sample size was small. • The collected data is only school based and may not

reflect the whole community. Hence the findings of the study may not necessarily reflect the actual scenario.

• The study period was very short for conducting the research work to comply within specific time period.

• The results of this study may not be generalized to Bangladesh as a whole; since data was collected from few schools in Dhaka.

• Small sample size also restrained the researcher from doing various statistical analyses.

Ethical Issue

• Ethical Approval was obtained from Research Committee of American International University, Bangladesh.

• The respondents had right to refuse to answer any question without providing the reason for their decisions and could withdraw from the study at any time.

• The information was dealt with highest confidentiality and used only for this study.

• Privacy of the respondents was maintained during data collection.

Conclusion• Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded

that the knowledge of the school students about earthquake preparedness is very meager.

• All the students experienced earthquake in the earlier time.

• So, awareness of the school students about earthquake was expected high.

• But there was no association found between awareness and the previous earthquake experience.

• Though fire safety training is an important training students should be introduced to, but there was no such training given to the students in the school or in any other organization.

Conclusion (Contd.)• Results showed that students who get earthquake safety training

were more aware than the students who didn’t get any. • A statistically significant association was also found between the

number of the drill exercise and the earthquake preparedness knowledge.

• The students who participated drill exercise periodically were more aware than the students who participated once in the life time.

• Policy has been made by the Bangladesh Government, but the implementation is not enough to increase the awareness among the community.

• More awareness program regarding earthquake preparedness should be made.

• Similar studies could be undertaken to assess the earthquake preparedness knowledge among medical students, community, or other school students situated in other seismic areas.

Recommendation

• Awareness programs should be continued through printing as well as electronic media in order to spread it to all the population

• Drill exercise should be introduced in the community level

• Fire safety as well as first aid drill exercise should be conducted in the school

• Earthquake safety drill exercise should be done periodically in the schools as well as in the community level

• Earthquake as well as disaster preparedness follow up should be done regularly by an agent such as Red Cross or any other agency which is well versed in disaster preparedness.

Acknowledgement

All thanks to the Almighty Allah, the merciful and compassionate by whose boundless grace I have been able to complete this research work.

My special thanks go to my supervisor Professor Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam, Ph.D, for the patient guidance, encouragement and advice he has provided throughout my time as his student. I have been extremely lucky to have a supervisor who cared so much about my work, and who responded to my questions and queries so promptly. From finding an appropriate subject in the beginning to the process of writing thesis, he has offered an unreserved help. He has also provided insightful discussions about the research. I must say without his help, it would not possible to complete my thesis within due date.

I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ahmed Neaz, Associate Prof (Dr) Pradip Sen Gupta, other respected faculties of AIUB, and my classmates of AIUB.

knowledge on earthquake preparedness among the school students of dhaka city bangladesh

Health & Medicine