SOME KEY FINDINGS AND PROPOSALS FOR THE PROTECTION OF URBAN CENTERS

by Nicholas Petropoulos 

I. Introduction.

Following the 1999 Athens earthquake,  there arose an urgent need to take more systematic measures for the protection of large urban centers, especially in the Athens area in view of the fact that the area shelters about 35 percent of the Greek population and constitutes the seat of the federal government.  One of the ramifications of this concern on the part of the government was the subsidization of relevant research both in the geotechnical and the social-psychological domains.
The data for the present presentation come fron one of the projects in the social science domain which was subsidized by the Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (EPPO) and implemented by the Emergencies Research Center of Athens (ERC).  The project was an empirical social survey of the interventions, self-evaluations and proposals of 16 different categories of respondents  (See Graph 1 for size of larger groups) following the 1999 Athens EQ where 143 people lost their lives, 750 were wounded and 80,000 people were left homeless. 

The purpose of the study, which was conducted during 2001-2003 with the use of questionnaire interviews, was (1) to assess the process of restoration, the organization of  rescue activities and their psycho-social impacts, the management of earthquake information and the organization of civil protection services and  (2) to submit proposals for the improvement of  civil protection of large urban centers.

1. Size of Selected Samples in the 1999 Athens EQ Study

In today's presentation,   I will  focus on some of the key findings  and will conclude with a  number of  principal proposals for EQ planning  and mitigation. More specifically, I will present the differences among groups of respondents regarding evaluations and also search the correlates of these differences for larger samples, using the Spearman correlation coefficient for quantitative and the chi-square for quantitative variables.  The analysis is restricted on the zero-order level (comparing two variables at the time) and not multivariate, which is a limitation of the present study. Also, I would like to   remind the audience that the analysis and interpretations which follow are  my own and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the funding and implementing organizations.  Alternative interpretations to the findings are welcome from colleagues and practitioners and will  constitute bases for further exploration.

                                                                       Nicholas Petropoulos, Ph.D.

                                                                       Head of Research Project

                                                                      10 September 2008

[1] Based on the research project, "The Parnitha Earthquake: Self-Evaluation and Proposals of Organizations for the Organization of Civil Protection"  done by N. Petropoulos  in collaboration with A. Zisiadis, K. Ioannidis, T. Papadopoulos and D. Pyrros. The project was funded by the Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (E.P.P.O.) and implemented by the Emergencies Research Center (E.R.C). The presentation was made during the First Athens Meeting of the Joint, Greek and Turkish, Research Group (4-8 February 2004, Faculty of Geology, University of Athens) in the context of the bilateral program, "Comparative Methodologies Development for Comprehensive Urban Earthquake Intervention: The Cases of Istanbul and Athens"; the bilateral program was subsidized by the Scientific Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT)  of  Greece

[2] The 16 categories and their final size were as follows:  Local Government (92), Rescue Workers (76), Scientists (62), Journalists (26),  NGO workers (16),  Heads of post-earthquake "temporary" settlements (11),  Civil Planning Emergency Unit directors {PSEA} (10),  Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization Scientists/Officials (10),  Rescue Organization Officials (8), former members of the Interministerial Coordination Committee (5),  Department Directors of the Services for the Rehabilitation of EQ victims (4),  Heads of the Sectors for Rehabilitation of EQ Victims (5),  officials of the Attica Prefectures (3),  Key personnel of the General Secretariat for Civil Protection (2), an official of the Regional Attica government (1) and  officials  of the foreign rescue teams (1).  The "Merged Sample" (N=167)  which is used in the analysis includes  the local government respondents, the NGO workers, the heads of the temporary settlements, the Civil Planning Emergency Unit directors, the EPPO scientists/officials, the former members of the Interministerial Coordination Committee, the Earthquake Rehabilitation directors, the heads of the Rehabilitation Sectors, the Prefecture, General Secretariat and Regional officials. 

The Athens 1999 Earthquake:  Some Key Findings and Proposals for the Protection  of Urban Centers (click here to download the complete document)