sociemgt653group4

Proposed study between GuatEmAlan Earthquakes

GROUP FOUR: Kerri Orazi klorazi@marauder.millersville.edu

(724) 972-6369 Pittsburgh, PA

Scott Shenk sashenk@marauder.millersville.edu

(717) 201-9810 Lancaster, PA

Joyce Kirk joyce.kirk@yahoo.com

(843) 860-2919 Charleston, SC

Megan Fasick mafasick@marauder.millersville.edu

(717) 872-3011 Millersville, PA

Ashley Shoemaker ashoemaker@marauder.millersville.edu

(410) 960-1259 Hanover, PA

COURSE NAME: Masters of Science Emergency Management (MSEM)

COURSE CODE: EMGT 653.50

SUPERVISOR: Professor Alison Herring

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 29 April, 2010

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

problem statement................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Overview......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Research Question/Hypothesis........................................................................................................................................... 3

OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Overall Objective..................................................................................................................................................................... 4

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE......................................................................................................................................... 5

research design and methods......................................................................................................................................... 5

Population and Study Sample.............................................................................................................................................. 5

Sample Size and Selection of Sample............................................................................................................................... 5

Sources of Data.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Collection of Data................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study................................................................................. 6

Budget and Motivation........................................................................................................................................................ 6

references...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix 1: Questionnaire........................................................................................................................................................

ABSTRACT

The earthquake that struck Guatemala on February 4, 1976 caused much destruction, as well as, death and injury to nearly 100,000 of its citizens. While the government’s response was executed swiftly, despite some early delays there is much to be gleaned from this disaster. The earthquake made clear social inequities; the hazards of poor building codes; issues with underdeveloped infrastructure; and exacerbated political and economic problems. The goal of this research project is to compare and contrast the 1976 earthquake with the recent earthquake 2009 using social vulnerability theory. The group will conduct research using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The group will conduct face-to-face interviews, telephone surveys, and review documents and news clippings related to both disasters. Once the group has completed its research, the group will evaluate both earthquakes to determine what has been improved upon, and what still could be improved. Ultimately the group will issue an analysis, and recommendations for further improvements.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Overview

Nearly thirty years after the 1976 Guatemala earthquake another earthquake with almost identical conditions took place in the same region in 2009. With little empirical research available on the 2009 earthquake, Group Four is attempting to determine if the mitigation measures proposed following the 1976 earthquake were implemented, to what degree they were implemented, and if those measures reduced earthquake vulnerability during the 2009 Guatemalan earthquake.

Research Question/Hypothesis

Following the 1976 earthquake;

· Did Guatemalans adapt aseismic building practices, such as foregoing the use of adobe housing and tile roofing which crushed many victims in the 1976 earthquake?

· Did the Guatemalans develop a business interruption plan and infrastructure sustainability plan following the 1976 earthquake in order to avoid another economic collapse?

· What efforts were made to organize the influx of relief aid so that all volunteers, materials, and monies would be utilized to their fullest extent in order to avoid the many duplicate wasted relief aid and materials that created many problems during the 1976 earthquake?

· How did the political system reorganize itself following the 1976 earthquake? Was genocide of the native population determined? What political efforts were made to reduce violence and sustain peace in the region following the earthquake? How long did political violence or peace take place? What was the immediate political culture of the region preceding the 2009 earthquake?

OBJECTIVES

Objectives

The overall objective of the group’s research is to compare the impacts Guatemalan earthquakes of 1976 and 2009, using the lens of social vulnerability theory. More specifically, the group will examine the vulnerable populations effected by each earthquake, and attempt to determine if the issues identified by our literature review are still present, and to what extent they exacerbated the impact of the 2009 earthquake. Our group hopes to determine not only where improvements have been made, but also, where improvement needs to be made. Ultimately, the group like to create list of recommendations for the Guatemalan government, which if implemented could reduce vulnerability.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Background

A few hours after midnight, February 4^th, 1976, the ground began to shake and terror filled the hearts of villagers in Guatemala. An earthquake so severe it measured 7.6 on the Richter scale tore through the ground causing damage so merciless an estimated 23,000 people lost their lives and another 75,000 people were injured. A quarter of a million homes were destroyed and over a million people were without shelter. With almost 50% of the medical treatment facilities destroyed, there was nearly no infrastructure to support the reduction in mortality. The majority of homes, constructed from adobe, were reduced to crumbles under the wrath of the quivering earth. The lack of ability by societies to adapt to immediate change brought upon them by mass destruction, alters every since of normalcy, disrupts tradition and culture, dislocated families and upsets social order.

Every aspect of life as villagers knew it had been transformed into an unfamiliar battleground for life necessities. Emergency care was unavailable, mass mortuary disposal was arranged due to fear of widespread disease outbreak, food supply lines were destroyed as well as roads for ingress and egress to various villages. Artificial bodies of water were created during the shifting of the plates which frightened villagers who feared the flooding that would now occur with the rainy season. One of the most highly damaged towns survived off of tourism; with one 45 second earth quake, the town was in ruins and consequently so was their economy.

Recovery was slow due to the lack of resources available to the villagers to rebuild, plan, strategize for mitigation and prepare for future incidents; unaware the next earthquake would take place a little over three decades later in November, 2009.

Significance

Through the eyeglasses of the Social Vulnerability Theory Group Four proposes to conduct in-depth qualitative and quantitative research to examine parallels, contradictories and paradigms between the social application of the 1976 Guatemalan Earthquake and the earthquake of 2009 to address the implications of social readiness, preparation and mitigation to reduce losses of life, property and decrease social, political and economic disruption due to natural disaster events. While there were lessons learned and documented from the 1976 event, such as how to structurally build homes in a manner that would withstand the quakes, tending to children’s needs first proved to hold together a family unit better than splitting or dealing with older villagers first, or how burning those killed versus burying in mass graves actually reduced the risk of epidemic disease outbreak.

Group four is interested in evaluating the gaps, redundancies, errors, misconceptions and best practices that were documented during those horrible earthquakes through survivor interviews, data mining reference material on the event and comparing the statistical data available. We feel social protection could be increased by identifying these items and cultivating heightened awareness among the cultures most vulnerable to repeated earthquakes. Providing social policies for safety and equality, conducting geographical studies and cross referencing those with age, gender and cultural profiles preparedness planning can be streamlined, and mitigation efforts can begin. Governments that lack infrastructure have no solid foundation to start any type of recovery. Utilizing the social vulnerability theory, empirical research and applying the data towards policy formation, logistical sustainability, basic need support and critical data exchange methods during a disaster need to be evaluated from not only a regional level, but also down to the household unit level to identify roles and responsibilities for application and the establishment of recovery needs and imperative prioritization.

Allowing our team of experts to conduct this much needed and extremely useful comparison and contrast of these two events will provide valuable data to disaster researchers and emergency management planners globally to exemplify the relevance of examining our past to answer questions in our future.

RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS

Population and Study Sample

The target population for our research includes individuals and families who survived the earthquake of 1976 and/or 2009. The study will include residents of Guatemala City, as well as the rural areas.

Sample Size and Selection of Sample

The sample size will be dictated by the number of responses received. The research will attempt to achieve an equal number of responses relating to the 1976 and 2009 earthquakes, recognizing that survivors of the 1976 earthquake might be deceased.

Sources of Data

The data will come from paper questionnaires as well as an online survey. The research recognizes that not all Guatemalans, in particular those residing in remote rural areas, will not have internet access, hence the paper questionnaires.

Collection of Data

Both the online survey and paper questionnaires will be available in Spanish and K’iche’. Answers will be assigned point values and calculated.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE STUDY

When conducting research, it is highly important to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study that you are exploring. If these aspects are identified before conducting the research, Emergency Managers can take this information and modify their plan or strategy according to what they know, in an effort to accommodate the weaknesses and utilize the strengths of the research being conducted.

Strengths

· It is helpful to our research that the effects of the two earthquakes that we are comparing occurred in the same location. Though more than 30 years has passed between the two earthquakes the geological conditions should have remained relatively the same.

· The group is taking several different approaches to gain first hand data from residents of the areas hit the most: face-to-face interviews along with phone interviews.

· The research that we will be conducting is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.

Weaknesses

· The research that our group is conducting is following in the same footsteps as the research that was done on the 1976 Guatemala earthquake. However, we are a different team approaching a different disaster.

· Due to the fact that the more recent earthquake took place one year ago, there is little document research on the disaster. Most of the information that we uncover will be due to the firsthand knowledge we uncover.

· It may be difficult to conduct interviews with people that were in charge during the 1976 earthquake considering the amount of time that has passed.

· It may be difficult to gain access to the documents Guatemala has in regards to its governmental, geological, and emergency planning.

Budget

BUDGET SUMMARY

Category	Total
I. Personnel
A. Salary and wages B. Translators/Guides	$ 30,000.00 $ 5,000.00
II. Non Personnel
A. Rental/Lease/Purchase of Equipment	$ 16,000.00
B. Office Supplies	$ 2,000.00
C. Travel	$ 3,000.00
	$56,000.00

BUDGET DETAIL

Category

Total

I. Personnel

A. Salaries and wages

I. 5 Researchers @ 1,000/month for 6 months

B. Translators/Guides

I. 1 Translator/Guide @ 1,000/month for 6 months

$30,000

$5,000

II. Non Personnel

A. Lodging/Rental/Lease/Purchase

I. Housing 6 months @ 1,000/month

II. Computers 4 computers @ 500 each

III. Food @ 500/month

IV. Office Equipment

V. Misc

B. Office Supplies

I. Paper

II. Printers 2 @ 500

III. Misc

C. Travel

I. Rental vehicle 1 @ 1,000

II. Gasoline Est. for 6 months

$6,000

$3,000

$1,000

$200

$1,000

$800.00

$1,500

REFERENCES

Albala-Bertrand J.M. (1993). The Political Economy of Large Natural Disasters. Clarendon Pres Oxford. 19-23.

Bates, F.L., Farrell, W.T., Klein, R.E. (1979). Disaster and the Guatemalan Government’s Response. University Georgia. 87-88.

Glass, R. I., Urrita, J. J., Smith, H., Garcia, B. & Rizzo, L. (1977). Earthquake injuries

related to housing in a Guatemalan village. Science News, 197(4304), 638-643.

Goyet, Claude de Ville de. Epidemics caused by dead bodies: a disaster myth that does not want to die. Rev

Pan Am Salud Publica/Pan Am J Public Health 15(5), (2004)

Fredereck, B., et. al., Changes in Housing Characteristics in Guatemala following the February 1976 Earthquake and their Implications for Future Vulnerability. (1979.)

Hingson, L. L. (1977). The Guatemala earthquake of 4 February 1976: Case study of a

disaster relief agency's operations. Mass Emergencies, 2, 83-94.

Jones, B., Tomazevic, M., Social and Economic Aspects of Earthquakes (1982.)

Killian, C.D., Bates, F.L., Klein, R.E. (1976). The Impact of Emergency Food on Food Prices and Production.

298-300.

May, R. A. (1999). Surviving all changes is your destiny: Violence and popular

movements in Guatemala. Latin American Perspectives, 26(2), 68-91.

Olcese, O. (1977). The Guatemala earthquake disaster of 1976: A review of its effects

and of the contribution of the United Nations family. United Nations Development

Programme Guatemala, 1, 1-85.

Olson, R. S. (1977). The Guatemala earthquake of 4 February 1976:

Social science observations and research suggestions. Mass Emergencies, 2, 69-81.

Olson, R. S., & Olson, R. A. (1977). The Guatemala earthquake of 4 February 1976:

Observations and research suggestions. Mass Emergencies, 2, 69-81.

Peek-Asa, C, M Ramirez, H Seligson, et al. Seismic, structural, and individual factors associated with

earthquake related injury. doi: 10.1136/ip.9.1.62 Inj Prev 2003 9: 62-66

Premo, D. L. (1981). Political assassination in Guatemala: A case of institutionalized

terror. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 23(4), 429-456.

Tesliuc, E., Lindert, K., Risk and Vulnerability in Guatemala: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment

(2004.)

Appendix 1

Questionnaire

Survey of Guatemala earthquake survivors of 1976 and 2009

=======================================================================

Earthquake: 1976 and/or 2009

Basic Characteristics

Race:

Spanish Descent

Native Guatemalan

Mestizo

Home ownership status:

Own home

Renting or leasing

Living with relatives

Sex:

Male

Female

Age:

19-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81 and above

N/A

Level of education:

8th grade or less

Some high school

High school

Some college

Completed college

Some graduate program

Completed graduate degree

N/A

Job status:

Employed full-time

Employed part-time

Home-maker or retired

Unemployed

N/A

Total household income: (in GTQ)

Less than 10,000

10,000-19,999

20,000-29,999

30,000-49,999

50,000 or more

N/A

Marital status:

Married

Divorced

Widowed

Single, never married

Number of children living in household:

None

One child

Two or more children

N/A

Respondents' Attitudes and Perception of the Impact of the 1976 and/or 2009 Earthquakes

How do you rate your community as a

place to live prior to the earthquake(s)?

Good to excellent

Fair

Poor

How do you rate your community as a place to

live after the earthquake(s)?

Good to excellent

Fair

Poor

DK/NA

How much has the earthquake(s) affected your health?

A fair amount to a great deal

Not very much

Too early to tell or not at all

How would you describe the damage

caused by the earthquake(s) on your home?

Severe damage to total destruction

Slight damage to moderate damage

Very minimal damage

No damage

How would you describe the impact of the

the earthquake(s) on your personal belongings?

Severe damage to total destruction

Slight damage to moderate damage

Very minimal damage

No damage

DK/NA

What do you estimate your monetary losses due

To the earthquake(s) to be?

Under 5,000

5,000 to 9,999

10,000 to 19,999

Over 20,000

DK/NA

Did you receive any emergency relief?

Yes

No

NA

Primary source of emergency relief?

United Nations

International Red Cross

Government

Church

Others: friends & relatives

DK/NA

How soon were you able to get help after

the earthquake(s)?

Few hours to 1 day

2 to 3 days

4 to 6 days

Over 1 week

Never

DK

About how much relief did your family receive? 2

None

Under 500

500 to 999

Over 1,000

Trouble getting food and water?

Yes

No

DK/NA

At any time during the earthquake(s)

did you think you or any

member of your family might die?

Yes

No

DK/NA

Did any member of your family lose his

his/her job because of the earthquake(s)?

Yes

No

Did you get hurt during the earthquake(s)?

Yes

No

DK/NA

Did anyone in your family get hurt?

Yes

No

DK/NA

The biggest problem/obstacle to solving

the earthquake(s) problems in respondents' community

LACK OF MONEY

LACK OF GOVT. INTEREST

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE

INADEQUATE WARNINGS

OTHERS

DK/NA

Some Quality of Life Impacts of Earthquake

General quality of life since the earthquake(s)

EXCELLENT

VERY GOOD

GOOD

POOR

DK/NA

Present health compared to a few months prior

to the earthquake(s)

BETTER THAN BEFORE

SAME AS BEFORE

WORSE THAN BEFORE

CAN'T TELL

Likelihood of staying in the same community

in the next 5 years

DEFINITELY STAYING

PROBABLY STAYING

PROBABLY NOT STAYING

DEFINITELY NOT STAYING

DON'T KNOW/NA

Opinions and Attitudes About the earthquake(s)

People in my community came together to help

each other during the earthquake(s).

STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/NA

Emergency reliefs were fairly and equitably

made available to all of the victims.

STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/NA

The emergency responses were prompt.