Showing papers on "Natural disaster published in 1981"

Citizen Evacuation in Response to Nuclear and Nonnuclear Threats

Abstract: : The study compares evacuations in nuclear and nonnuclear threats. Two issues in particular are examined: (1) citizen warning source and perceived credibility of warnings; and (2) citizen evacuation decision-making processes. We review citizens source of first warning, and perceived credibility of different warning sources. Cross-hazard comparisons are made among total evacuees, reasons given for evacuating and not evacuating, and citizen beliefs about the nature of the threat. Three types of hazard are chosen for comparisons; nuclear, volcano and riverine flood. The nuclear emergency used for analysis was the March 28, 1979 reactor accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), Pa. With regard to warning source, in the case of TMI most respondents first heard of the incident via mass media; virtually all others reported they first heard from a personal or nongovernmental source. Almost no respondents cited officials as a first source. The pattern of first information receipt in natural disasters was quite distinct. Most citizens heard first from emergency response authorities, and the next most frequently cited source was personal contacts. The mass media accounted for only a small proportion of first contacts. Citizen belief in real situational danger and advisories from officials were the most frequently cited reasons for leaving among evacuees in both nuclear and nonnuclear incidents. Also, for both TMI and the natural disasters, most of those who chose not to evacuate said that they believed they were in no real danger.

A Perspective On Disaster Planning 3rd Edition

Abstract: In other words, this report attempts to make a reader aware of the major factors that have to be taken into account in disaster planning, what misconceptions about stress behavior have to be avoided in disaster plans, why certain problems are likely to arise despite what planners may do, and what can or cannot be planned.What is presented is a general way of thinking about community disaster problems. The assumption is that the specifics of any given disaster plan have to be filled in by each particular reader depending on the nature of his community, the likelihood of threats to it, and the resources that are available.