Return to Hazards Center Home Page
RISK COMMUNICATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:
ETHNIC AND GENDER RESPONSE TO 1995 REVISED, UPGRADED EARTHQUAKE
PROBABILITIES
Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Return to Quick Response Paper Index
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-9632458. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
At the suggestion of Ms. Sheila Spiro at SCEC (an assistant to Jill Andrews placed in charge of the handbook's distribution), the quick response field trip was conducted in Pasadena, California. Spiro, a long-time resident of Pasadena, reported that the city was ethnically diverse both demographically and culturally. Pasadena (with a population of around 130,000) also was seen as a compact and manageable area for the three days allotted for field trip activities. Field trip expenses were kept low by flying into Burbank instead of Los Angeles, and efficiency in time was achieved by avoiding the congested freeways of Los Angeles. Further, because Pasadena is known as "earthquake central," it was reasoned that if the message was getting out sufficiently, the public in Pasadena would be the first to absorb and respond. Finally, access to officials involved with various stages of the handbook was easier as several work in the Pasadena area.
In order to answer Question #1, which concerned background information about the handbook, unstructured interviews were conducted by the project leader with Ms. Sheila Spiro and Ms. Jill Andrews of SCEC, and Dr. Lucy Jones of the USGS. Research assistants Marleen Gravitz and Jenna Ohlendorf were also in attendance at these meetings and took copious notes from our conversations. Jones was the creator of the handbook, Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country and filled us in on how the idea came about, as well as the processes involved in reaching the final product. She was also instrumental in raising funds for the financing of the handbook and gave valuable advice on ideas for methods of distribution. Sheila Spiro, an independent consultant hired by SCEC to oversee the initial distribution of the handbook, was helpful in assisting us with the logistics of Pasadena and in providing us with information on the progress of the handbook's distribution throughout southern California. Because of Spiro's extensive contacts in Pasadena, we were able to be introduced and included in a staff meeting of all library branch managers in Pasadena. Blanchard-Boehm addressed the group and explained the purpose of our research. At the meeting, we were also given permission to conduct surveys on the premises of all the libraries. Our final interview was with Jill Andrews, Director of Technology Transfer at SCEC. Andrews updated us on the handbook's distribution and spoke of the future direction of the handbook, as well as future activities of SCEC in long-term public education toward earthquake risk.
Data on questions #2 through #5, which concerned public response to the updated earthquake risk in southern California, was gathered by Blanchard-Boehm, Gravitz, and Ohlendorf. We randomly surveyed patrons in attendance at the libraries in Pasadena over three days. The field trip leader justified performing the surveys at library locations because the southern California library system is the preferred means through which the handbook is being distributed. Most of the library traffic occurred at the central library in downtown Pasadena, thus most of our survey data was gathered at that location, although we did make a point to visit and survey several other libraries in the neighborhoods. In total, we distributed and collected 187 surveys. A copy of the survey instrument is found in Appendix C to this report.
After the Northridge earthquake, Jones began an earthquake book for children. Ironically, she appeared on television (ABC) on January 14, 1994, with the school class that one of her children attends to discuss earthquakes and her book, and then three days later on January 17th, the Northridge quake occurred - many thought that she had "predicted" the earthquake.
In part because of her children's book, and also because of her extensive background in earthquake monitoring and prediction, Jones agreed to write an earthquake information handbook for the general public that would serve as the primary vehicle for informing and educating the public in southern California of its increased risk to impending earthquakes. The 28-page handbook took about a year to develop. Jones avoided the use of probabilities, instead focusing on maps and basic explanations that teach people how earthquakes occur, where they might occur in the future, and what to do to prepare. The contents of the handbook include: (1) "The Earthquake Hazard: Confronting the Inevitable"; (2) The Earthquake Risk: Taking Control"; and (3) "Earthquake ABCs: Reviewing the Basics." A great deal of thought went into headlines and titles. There is extensive use of active verbs to evoke emotion and action, as well as emotional pictures to convey the intensity of the images. A psychologist, who treats those with earthquake phobia and anxiety, assisted with the preparedness section of the handbook. Basically, people are afraid because they perceive that they have no control - knowing what to do and how to prepare gives them a degree of control and thus a somewhat more secure feeling. This handbook arms the public with information, and thus a feeling of a greater degree of control over their fates.
Distribution eventually became the responsibility of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). The method finally chosen was to distribute the booklet through the southern California library system of more than 400 libraries (84 in the Los Angeles area alone). This cost-effective method would allow the handbook to reach all of the southern California counties. Additionally, Jones (USGS), and Andrews (SCEC) felt that library patrons who picked up the handbook would read it, use it as a reference tool, and not throw it away. SCEC also left other methods of distribution open. Spiro and Andrews both reported that the public had been contacting SCEC directly for a copy (or copies) of Roots. At the time of our study, data provided by Spiro showed that SCEC had distributed around 170,000 copies in this manner. Examples of those who obtained copies directly from SCEC included "Neighborhood Connections," an organization that coordinates neighborhood associations, and "Leisure World," a chain of retirement homes. Other organizations included local government unitss, such as Fire Departments, and service organizations, such as the Boy Scouts. The City of Los Angeles bought 47,000 copies, while Burbank purchased 40,000.
Media publicity began on October 16, 1995, with a press conference for the public on the increased earthquake risk, the release of the handbook, and directions for obtaining a copy at the nearest library. There appeared to be mixed results on the effectiveness of the media campaign, mainly because the distribution of the handbook occurred later than expected. According to Jones, the distribution to the first library system took place the Thursday before (on October 12th) - there were 200 copies sent to each branch. The public service announcements occurred on all three major television networks and on as many radio stations. The handbook's distribution was announced on Spanish radio and TV, as well. In all, there were 400 press releases sent to all southern California counties with a copy of Roots attached.
The first media blitz did not seem as effective as it could have been, mainly because copies of the handbook were not in place beforehand. For the week after the press conference, many libraries still did not have copies and thus public interest dropped off substantially. At a staff meeting of all the branch librarians in the Pasadena area, branch librarians commented that they had not been informed of the availability of the handbook in their own libraries. Dorothy Potter, Principle Reference Librarian at the Pasadena Central Library, reported that there were no copies of the handbook available at the time of the media campaign.
When asked to give the "chances," the probability, that a major earthquake would strike their home in the next ten years, again, about two-thirds perceived that the chances would be high or extremely high (Table 4).
Of those who did not have a copy, but planned to get one, almost all knew the location of the handbooks (Table 8).
When asked to give the "chances," the probability, that a major earthquake would strike their home in the next ten years, again, about 81% of Black respondents perceived that the chances would be high or extremely high, followed by Asian (62%), White (62%) and Hispanic (53%) respondents (Table 4).
Of those that did not have a copy, but planned to get one, almost all knew the location of the handbooks (Table 8).
When asked to give the "chances," the probability, that a major earthquake would strike their home in the next ten years, again, a higher percentage of women felt that the chances would be "extremely high" or "high" for a total of 76% for the two categories. The total response from men for both categories was 51% (Table 12).
Of those who did not have a copy, but planned to get one, 90% of the women knew where to get a copy as compared to 77% of men (Table 16).
The information handbook, Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country, has been designed, created, and marketed as THE primary source from which the public will learn of its increased risk to the earthquake hazard in southern California. As mentioned earlier, there were mixed results in the early media campaign and initial distribution of the publication. On the one hand, it can be assumed that the media campaign created an interest and awareness that resulted in an initial distribution of the handbook to over a quarter of a million people (library and non-library distribution) in southern California. However, it was also observed that the media campaign and distribution were not well-coordinated, resulting in untold lost opportunities in educating and informing the public of its increased earthquake risk. SCEC had expected a slow response by the public, however, that was not the case. After the Monday, October 16th, press conference, at which every major radio and TV station was in attendance, the public responded enthusiastically in large numbers wanting copies from their local libraries; however, in many cases, the copies were not there.
It would seem logical that learning about ethnic and gender differences in risk communication and them implementing programs that take these differences into account could be extremely effective in improving communication of information and risk to individuals. A variety of "tailor-made" approaches to communicating risk might be more cost-effective than a few "blanket" attempts at educating a large population. It would be worthwhile for hazards researchers to pursue understanding ethnic and gender differences in how individuals learn about their risk associated with hazards, and to use this new knowledge to develop new and improved ways of communicating risk across all hazards.
Table 1
Percent of Respondents Who Participated in the Survey
(by Ethnic Group)
White Asian Hispanic Black Other
Percent Responding 39 16 12 12 4
NOTE: Seventeen percent of the sample declined to report their ethnic
classification.
Table 2
Percent of Respondents Who Have Heard of the Revised, Upgraded Earthquake
Probabilities for Southern California, and Percent of Respondents
Reporting Type of Source Used to Obtain Information
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent who "heard" the low-key warning message
58 43 46 59 52
Percent reporting the primary source of hearing the message
TV 64 85 60 85 73
Radio 12 8 20 23 14
Newspaper 45 8 0 15 30
Brochures 2 0 10 0 5
Family and Friends 5 8 10 0 8
Percent giving a secondary source of hearing the message
TV 26 8 20 23 19
Radio 26 31 60 50 33
Newspaper 33 23 30 39 30
Brochures 7 15 10 15 8
Family and Friends 17 23 40 14 22
Table 3
Percent of Respondents Who Determined the Messaged Consistent and
Understandable
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent judging the consistency of message across sources
CONSISTENT 56 33 50 54 47
CONFLICTING 17 25 20 31 26
NO OPINION 27 42 30 15 27
Percent judging the level of difficulty in understanding message
VERY EASY 32 15 20 8 21
EASY 42 53 70 58 52
SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 20 23 0 17 17
VERY DIFFICULT 2 0 10 0 3
UNSURE 5 8 0 17 13
Table 4
Perceptions of Vulnerability to Future Earthquakes
Measured by the Beliefs of a Future Earthquake,
Estimates of Chances (Probabilities),
and Estimates of Dollar Damage
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent respondents estimating the likelihood of home being seriously
damaged by a major earthquake in the next 10 years
VERY LIKELY 13 20 23 14 15
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 49 57 46 73 51
SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY 23 17 14 14 22
NOT VERY LIKELY 15 4 18 0 12
Percent respondents estimating the "chances" of a major earthquake
seriously damaging their home in the next 10 years
EXTREMELY HIGH 28 31 24 43 30
HIGH 34 31 29 38 29
MODERATE 15 8 10 10 13
LOW 10 12 14 0 12
EXTREMELY LOW 13 19 24 10 16
Percent respondents estimating the dollar damage to their home and
contents from a major earthquake strike in the next 10 years
$0-1,000 12 4 24 0 13
$1,001-5,000 4 13 24 0 10
$5,001-10,000 12 9 10 14 11
$10,001-20,000 7 4 0 7 5
$20,001-50,000 19 30 14 43 24
$50,001-100,000 24 22 19 21 20
$100,001+ 22 17 9 14 17
Percent respondents estimating the damage of the next major earthquake
relative to the 1994 Northridge earthquake
GREATER 22 31 41 32 28
ABOUT THE SAME 35 48 27 27 33
LESS THAN 13 0 5 18 10
DON'T KNOW 29 20 27 23 29
Table 5
Percent of Respondents' Preparedness to Future Earthquakes Measured by
Home Mitigation Long-Term, Higher-Cost Measures
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent that took measures to protect the house and its foundation
YES 53 32 32 32 38
NO 47 68 68 68 62
If "NO", give main reason why not
TOO EXPENSIVE 42 43 43 53 44
WON'T HELP 19 29 14 6 15
INSURANCE PROTECTS 10 0 0 12 6
PROCRASTINATED 26 29 43 29 33
TOO BUSY 3 0 0 0 3
Table 6
Percent of Respondents' Preparedness to Future Earthquakes
Measured by Short-Term, Lower-Cost Household Activities
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Sought information from formal sources
42 21 27 29 33
Sought information from informal sources
49 40 48 47 45
Stockpiled emergency supplies
67 50 64 46 59
Devised an earthquake plan for family
41 27 41 68 41
Knows what to do before, during and after an earthquake
93 67 77 86 81
Purchased earthquake insurance
39 21 18 19 28
Table 7
Percent of Respondents' Perceptions of Household Preparedness to Future
Earthquakes and Knowledge of Neighbors' Preparedness
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent that reported the readiness of their own household
VERY PREPARED 11 0 9 5 6
SOMEWHAT PREPARED 58 37 64 43 50
NOT VERY PREPARED 29 50 18 33 34
NOT PREPARED AT ALL 4 13 9 19 9
Percent that know of others who have prepared
67 30 55 46 53
Table 8
Percent of Respondents' Knowledge of Earthquake Handbook Availability
and Location of Handbook Level of Difficulty of Handbook
(by Ethnic Group and Total Sample)
White Asian Hispanic Black TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent that know about the handbook
YES 28 17 18 43 21
NO 72 83 82 57 79
If "YES," percentage that already obtained a copy
63 33 40 60 56
If, "No, but plan to get one," percent that know where to obtain a copy
94 83 75 75 85
If, "YES," that reported the level of difficulty of the handbook
VERY EASY 38 20 0 67 35
EASY 31 40 50 33 35
SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 13 0 0 0 7
VERY DIFFICULT 0 0 0 0 0
NOT READ YET 19 40 50 0 23
Table 9
Percent of Respondents Who Participated in the Survey
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN
Percent Responding 48 52
Table 10
Percent of Respondents Who Have Heard of the Revised, Upgraded Earthquake
Probabilities for Southern California, and Percent of Respondents
Reporting Type of Source Used to Obtain Information
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent who "heard" the low-key warning message
60 47 52
Percent reporting the primary source of hearing the message
TV 72 72 73
RADIO 11 15 14
NEWSPAPER 26 37 29
BROCHURES 0 5 3
INTERPERSONAL 2 13 8
Percent giving a secondary source of hearing the message
TV 28 12 20
RADIO 39 24 33
NEWSPAPER 33 31 30
BROCHURES 11 8 8
INTERPERSONAL 20 23 22
Table 11
Percent of Respondents Who Determined the Messaged Consistent and
Understandable
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent judging the consistency of message across sources
CONSISTENT 50 54 47
CONFLICTING 21 21 26
NO OPINION 30 26 27
Percent judging the level of difficulty in understanding message
VERY EASY 37 8 21
EASY 33 74 52
SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 13 18 17
VERY DIFFICULT 4 0 3
NOT SURE 13 0 7
Table 12
Perceptions of Vulnerability to Future Earthquakes Measured by the
Beliefs of a Future Earthquake, Estimates of Chances (Probabilities),
and Estimates of Dollar Damage
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent respondents estimating the likelihood of home being seriously
damaged by a major earthquake in the next 10 years:
VERY LIKELY 17 15 15
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 46 65 51
SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY 21 17 22
NOT VERY LIKELY 16 3 12
Percent respondents estimating the "chances" of a major earthquake serio
usly damaging their home in the next 10 years:
EXTREMELY HIGH 24 40 30
HIGH 27 36 29
MODERATE 20 6 13
LOW 11 8 12
EXTREMELY LOW 18 10 16
Percent respondents estimating the dollar damage to their home and contents
from a major earthquake strike in the next 10 years:
$0-1,000 14 8 13
$1,001-5,000 5 11 10
$5,001-10,000 19 8 11
$10,001-20,000 2 0 5
$20,001-50,000 24 28 24
$50,001-100,000 21 24 20
$100,001+ 16 20 17
Percent respondents estimating the damage of the next major earthq
uake relative to the 1994 Northridge earthquake:
GREATER 29 29 28
ABOUT THE SAME 40 29 33
LESS THAN 11 10 10
DON'T KNOW 20 33 29
Table 13
Percent of Respondents' Preparedness to Future Earthquakes
Measured by Home Mitigation Long-Term, Higher-Cost Measures
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent that took measures to protect the house and its foundation
YES 37 41 38
NO 63 59 62
If, "NO," give main reason why not:
TOO EXPENSIVE 47 43 44
WON'T HELP 13 17 15
INSURANCE PROTECTS 4 7 6
PROCRASTINATED 33 33 33
TOO BUSY 2 0 3
Table 14
Percent of Respondents' Preparedness to Future Earthquakes
Measured by Short-Term, Lower-Cost Household Activities
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Sought information from formal sources
27 40 33
Sought information from informal sources
44 48 45
Stockpiled emergency supplies
57 60 59
Devised an earthquake plan for family
46 40 41
Knows what to do before, during and after an earthquake
83 83 81
Purchased earthquake insurance
27 31 28
Table 15
Percent of Respondents' Perceptions of Household Preparedness to
Future Earthquakes and Knowledge of Neighbors' Preparedness
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent that reported the readiness of their own household
VERY PREPARED 9 5 6
SOMEWHAT PREPARED 50 52 50
NOT VERY PREPARED 30 34 34
NOT PREPARED AT ALL 11 10 9
Percent that know of others who have prepared
59 48 53
Table 16
Percent of Respondents' Knowledge of Earthquake Handbook Availability
and Location of Handbook Level of Difficulty of Handbook
(by Gender)
MEN WOMEN TOTAL SAMPLE
Percent that know about the handbook
YES 19 29 21
NO 81 71 79
If "YES," percent that already obtained a copy
38 67 56
If "NO," but plan to get one, percent that know where to obtain a copy
77 90 85
If, "YES," percent that reported level of difficulty of the handbook
VERY EASY 44 33 34
EASY 33 33 35
SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 0 10 7
VERY DIFFICULT 0 0 0
NOT READ YET 22 24 23
APPENDIX C
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Survey for Quick Response Grant
RISK COMMUNICATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
LOCATION: _________________________________________________
Q-1 Have you heard of a recently revised prediction that increases
the chances of a major earthquake happening in southern California?
1 YES
[IF YES] About when did you hear this prediction?
______________ [date]
[INTERVIEWER:
CONTINUE ON TO QUESTION, Q-2]
2 NO
[INTERVIEWER: IF NO,
GO TO QUESTION, Q-6 ]
Q-2 How did you hear about the prediction?
________TELEVISION
________RADIO
________NEWSPAPER
________BROCHURES
________FAMILY AND FRIENDS
________OTHER______________________________________
Q-3 Are there any other ways that you heard about the prediction?
________TELEVISION
________RADIO
________NEWSPAPER
________BROCHURES
________FAMILY AND FRIENDS
________OTHER______________________________________
Q-4 Do you feel that the information was consistent information, or do
you feel that the information conflicts among sources?
CONSISTENT CONFLICTING NO OPINION
Q-5 How easy to understand was this information?
1 VERY EASY
2 EASY
3 SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT
4 VERY DIFFICULT
5 unsure
Q-6 How likely do you think it is that your own home will be seriously
damaged by a major earthquake in the next ten years. Would you say "very
likely," "somewhat li kely," "somewhat unlikely," or "not very likely."
1 VERY LIKELY
2 SOMEWHAT LIKELY
3 SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY
4 NOT VERY LIKELY
Next, I'll ask you to give me a 1 out of so many chances for an earthquake
happening in the next ten years. I'm looking for a number.
First, here's a statement:
Q-7 Some people have estimated the chances of a strong earthquake
(of the size that struck San Francisco in 1906) happening in southern
California in the next ten years as 1 out of 5.
Now, think about the chances of a 1906 San Francisco-type earthquake
causing more than 10 percent damage to your own home in the next 10
years? Again, one out of how many would be your estimate of the chances.
1 out of __________ (number)
Q-8 What do you think the dollar damage would be to the contents of
your house as well as the house itself?
$____________________ (dollar value of damage to the house
and contents)
Q-9 How damaging do you think the next earthquake will be relative to
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake? Do you think that the next one will be
greater, about the same, or less damaging?
GREATER ABOUT THE SAME LESS DON'T KNOW
Q-10 Where do you think the location will be of the next major
earthquake in southern California?
________________________________________________________________________
[RECORD LOCATION]
Q-11 Now, here are some general statements that some people made about
scientists, technology, and earthquakes. Again, please tell me if you
agree, disagree, or have no opinion
AGREE DISAGREE NO OPINION
There is nothing I can
do about earthquakes 1 2 3
so there is no reason
to prepare for one.
Scientists will
eventually be able to 1 2 3
predict earthquakes.
Any preparations I make
for earthquakes will play
an important part in saving 1 2 3
my life or property during
an earthquake in the FUTURE.
Preparations I made in the
PAST played an important
part in saving my life 1 2 3
or property during
an earthquake.
Chance or luck will
play an important part 1 2 3
in saving my life or
property during an earthquake.
Psychics can predict 1 2 3
earthquakes.
Scientists should continue
to try to predict 1 2 3
earthquakes.
Q-12 How damaging do you think the next earthquake will be relative to
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake? Do you think that the next one will be
greater, about the same, or less damaging?
GREATER ABOUT THE SAME LESS DON'T KNOW
Q-13 Have you done anything to minimize the amount of damage an
earthquake might cause to your home?
YES
If YES, what did you do? COST WHEN (date)
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
NO
There are alot of reasons why someone may not take an action.
Do you have any specific reason(s) why you haven't taken steps to
protect you home?
(ASK FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON:)
1 TOO EXPENSIVE
2 WON'T HELP
3 INSURANCE WILL COVER COSTS
4 NEVER GOT AROUND TO IT
5 DON'T HAVE THE TIME
6 NOT NECESSARY-Won't happen again soon.
7 OTHER
(what?)__________________________
Q-14 Can you tell me, YES or NO, if you've done any of the following to
prepare for earthquakes?
Did you,
YES NO SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM FORMAL SOURCES?
(like the Red Cross, government agencies, earthquake
organizations)
Did you,
YES NO SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM INFORMAL SOURCES?
(like family and friends)
YES NO Did you, stockpile emergency supplies?
YES NO Did you, develop an earthquake plan either at home, in
your neighborhood, or at school or work?
YES NO Did you, find out what to do during an earthquake, or
immediately after?
(like duck and cover drills)
YES NO Did you buy earthquake insurance?
YES NO Are there any other measures that you took that I
didn't mention?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Q-15 YES NO
Do you know anyone such as a neighbor, friend or relative
who has done anything to get ready for the next earthquake?
Q-16 How prepared do you think your household is for an earthquake?
Would you say,
_________________VERY PREPARED
_________________SOMEWHAT PREPARED
_________________NOT VERY PREPARED
_________________NOT PREPARED AT ALL
Q-17 And finally, have you heard about the new earthquake information
guide book from the southern California Earthquake Center?
_________________YES
_________________NO
Q-18 Do you have a copy of the information guide book?
_________________YES
________________ NO, but plan to get one
_________________NO
{probe} Do you know where to get one?
______YES,
[record location that they tell you]:_________
______NO
How easy to understand was this information guide? Would you say,
1 VERY EASY
2 EASY
3 SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT
4 VERY DIFFICULT
5 unsure
[Note if the person is male or female.]__________M_____________F
Thank you so much for your time. your answers will be very
helpful to this study.
NOTES (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION):
Return to Hazards Center Home Page