Why Do People Take Fewer Damage Mitigation Actions Than Survival Actions? Other Factors Outweigh Cost

Abstract

People who prepare for earthquakes complete more emergency survival actions (e.g., get water supplies) than damage mitigation actions (e.g., strengthen foundations). The usual explanation for this difference is that mitigation actions cost more than emergency survival actions. However, research has not tested this idea with regard to citizens’ perception of the cost of particular actions or shown whether this pattern differs for households and businesses. Two studies recorded household and business completion of mitigation and survival actions, their estimate of action costs, their causal attributions for not acting, and their time orientation. Actions were distinguished as mitigating damage to buildings (e.g., foundations) or to contents (e.g., bookcases). Participants completed fewer expensive actions than inexpensive actions. However, perceived cost related to only 4 out of 12 incomplete actions with households, and for businesses cost related to only two actions at Time 1 and none at a 3-month follow-up. Participants attributed their inaction less to cost than to other factors (they had not thought about it and it was not a priority), and reported a short-term time orientation. The results suggest that in citizens’ understanding of their motives for not preparing, other factors outrank cost, particularly for survival actions and contents mitigation.