I do solemnly declare that the work presented in this dissertation entitled "Earthquake preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh" has been carried out by me and has not been previously submitted to any other university for an academic qualification / certificate / degree. I do hereby warrant that the work has been presented does not breach any existing copyright. I further have undertaken to indemnity the university against any loss or damage arising from breach of the forgoing obligations.

1. Knowledge on
earthquake preparedness among the school
students of Dhaka city, Bangladesh
Farhana Rahman
ID: 14-98179-3
Department of Public Health
American International University-Bangladesh
(AIUB)
Submission date: January 8, 2016

2. Letter of Endorsement
The research report entitled "knowledge on earthquake preparedness among the school
students of Dhaka City, Bangladesh" towards the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
degree of Masters in Public Health (MPH) by Farhana Rahman, ID: 14-98179-3. The research
report has been accepted and has been presented to the panel of Examiners for review.
(Any options, suggestions made in this report are entirely that of the author of the proposal. The
university does not condone nor reject any of these opinions or suggestions).
---------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam (Ph.D)
Adjunct faculty, AIUB
Supervisor
Department of Public Health
MPH Program, AIUB

3. Introduction
An earthquake is the perceptible shaking of the surface
of the earth, resulting from the sudden release of energy
in the earth's crust that creates seismic waves.
(Knowledge, Wikipedia).
The seismicity, seismism or seismic activity of an
area refers to the frequency, type and size of
earthquakes experienced over a period of time
(Seismicity, Wikipedia).
.Foreshock: A foreshock is an earthquake that is
smaller than a mainshock, precedes it, and is causally
related to it. (CDMP, 2008)

4. Introduction (Contd.)
. Aftershock: An earthquake of similar or lesser
intensity that follows the main earthquake (CDMP,
2008).
Epicenter: The place on the earth’s surface directly
above the point on the fault where the earthquake
ruptures began. Once fault slippage begins, it expands
along the fault during the earthquake and can extend
hundreds of miles before stopping. (CDMP,2008)

5. Introduction (Contd.)
Seismic Waves: Vibrations that travel outward from
the earthquake fault at speeds of several miles per
second.
Although fault slippage directly under a structure can
cause considerable damage, the vibrations of seismic
waves cause most of the destruction during earthquakes
CDMP, 2008).
Magnitude: The amount of energy released during an
earthquake, which is computed from the amplitude of
the seismic waves. (CDMP, 2008)

6. Introduction (Contd.)
Intensity: Intensity is defined on the observations of
damaged structures, presence of secondary effects and
degree to which quake was felt by individuals. There are
twelve level of intensity as per Modifided Mercalli
Intensity Scale.
Richter scale: The magnitude of seismic energy
released during an earthquake is measured by the
Richter scale. (CDMP, 2008)

7. Background
Being the capital of Bangladesh, Dhaka is the primal
city in terms of its political, cultural and economic
importance.
The city, forming the wider metropolitan area, is home to
an estimated 12.3 million as of 2007 (ADP (2009).
In the generalized tectonic map of Bangladesh, Dhaka
is near by the Modhupur Fault and Plate Boundary Fault
3.
A low to moderate level of earthquake may cause
severe damages to the life and property that may go
beyond the existing capacity of Dhaka City Corporation
(DCC)

8. Background (Contd.)
And a strong earthquake affecting a major urban
center like Dhaka may result in damage and
destructions of massive proportions and may have
disastrous consequences for the entire nation.
Schools play a vital role in every community and
region.
Earthquake damages residential buildings and
infrastructures alike.

9. Background (Contd.)
Many schools in the earthquake prone regions are
vulnerable to earthquakes and are susceptible to severe
damages often killing the students and teachers during
an earthquake.
In May 2008, Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan, China
killed about 7,000 students trapped in damaged school
buildings.
In the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan 43 schools in
Nantou and Taichung area were completely destroyed
and a total of 700 schools nationwide were damaged to
different extent.

10. Background (Contd.)
According to experts, reported UNB, although
Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to earthquake due to
its geological location, the government’s
preparedness is too inadequate to address any of its
aftermath.
They noted that a single building collapse (Rana
Plaza in Savar) killed nearly 300 people while the
government is struggling to carry out search and
rescue operation.

11. Justification
• From the literature review, it was found that significant
number of lives lost due to the hit of the earthquake in the
school time.
• Since it is not possible to predict earthquake, awareness
(what to do) with regard to this devastating phenomena can
save the live and livelihood to a great extend of the dwellers
living at risk.
• Taking care of the structural and nonstructural elements,
earthquake vulnerability can be reduced a lot.
• This is why the study was done to measure how much
aware the students are as well as how much the students
know about the earthquake preparedness.

12. Hypothesis: Knowledge regarding earthquake
preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city is
poor.
General Objective: To assess the level of knowledge on
earthquake preparedness among the school students of
Dhaka city, Bangladesh.

13. Specific Objective
• To assess the level of knowledge regarding predisaster
preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city,
Bangladesh
• To assess the level of knowledge during earthquake
preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city,
Bangladesh.
• To assess the level of knowledge regarding post earthquake
preparedness among the school students of Dhaka city,
Bangladesh
• To relate the socio-demographic characteristics of the school
students of Dhaka city with their level of knowledge regarding
earthquake preparedness.

14. List of variables
Dependent Variable: Knowledge of school students
regarding earthquake preparedness
Independent Variable:
I. Sociodemographic variables
II. Factor related variables
III. Knowledge based variables

15. Conceptual framework
Dependent VariableIndependent Variable
Sociodemographic variables
 Age
 Gender
 Educational level
 Group
 Religion
 Monthly family income
 Father’s educational level
 Mother’s educational level
Knowledge based variables
 Basic knowledge about
earthquake
 Predisaster planning
 Preparedness during
earthquake
 Preparedness after earthquake
Factor related variables
 Housing type of the school
 Housing type of the home
 Source of information
 Having previous earthquake
experience
 Having earthquake safety
workshop/ drill exercise
 Organizer of the workshop
 Pictorial guideline
Factor related variables
 Housing type of the school
 Housing type of the home
 Source of information
 Having previous earthquake
experience
 Having earthquake safety
workshop/ drill exercise
 Fire safety drill exercise
 Organizer of the workshop
Knowledge of school students
regarding earthquake preparedness

16. Literature Review
 To understand the proposed problem, formulation of the
background information and for selecting methods and
materials
 A considerable number of articles published in various
national and international journals, reports, textbooks was
read.

17. Methods and Materials

18. • Study design: The study was a cross sectional study.
• Study population: All present students of grade IX and
grade X from selected schools in Mohakhali, Dhaka during the
data collection period served as study participants
• Study duration: Study period was June, 2015 to December,
2015
• Sample Size: 105

19. Study Locale
• This study was done in several schools located in
Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
• Schools, located in Mohakhali, who gave permission for
the data collection was the study area of this research.
• All these three schools located near
the BRAC University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh.
Figure: Study location-Mohakhali,
Dhaka

20. Sample size calculation
Sample size was calculated from study population by using
the formula:
n= z2pq / d2
Where,
n= desired sample size.
p= 0.5 (as there is no reasonable estimate of any
prevalence rate, we use 50%).
q = 1-p = 1-0.5 = 50%
d =degree of error (absolute precision of the study
assumed 0.05)
z = the reliability co efficient at the 95% C.I = 1.96.
Thus required sample size is 385.
We took (feasible) 105 samples for this study.

21. Research instrument development
• Pretested semi-structured Interview Questionnaire
• Both close ended and open ended questions was used.
• Close ended questions comprised almost 80% of the total
questions and rest 20% were open ended.
• Questionnaire was divided into four parts named domain
A, domain B, domain C, domain D
• The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and
then translated into Bangla for the better understanding of
the participants.

22. Data Collection
• Before get started, permission for data collection was
taken from every school.
• Data was collected from school students in the school
premises by face to face interview using pre-tested semi
structured questionnaire
• Every student were invited to participate in the interview.
• An informed consent was taken from those who agreed
to participate in the research study.
• One interview took 1 hour and 30 minutes.
• 105 interviews were collected in 4 Weeks.
• Before finishing each interview schedule was checked
and rechecked for completeness and consistency of
collected data.

23. Data Analysis
 After data collection, the data were entered in computer
and stored after proper coding for each variable was done.
 Data were checked properly to find out any missing data.
The data were analyzed in computer with SPSS 20.0
version.
 Then data analysis was done according to the specific
objectives of the study.
 Then relationship between the variables was established by
mean, median, mode and standard deviation.
 Chi distribution was done to find out the association
between variables.
 Then MLR (Multiple Logistic Regression) was done to
assess the strength of association between the variables

24. Data interpretation and presentation
Data were interpreted and presented by
 table,
 graphs,
 chart,
 statistical interference

25. Results and findings

26. Frequency table of age
Age Frequency Percentage (%)
13-14 45 42.9
15-16 60 57.1
Total 105 100
*Mean 14.59, (SD±0.793)

27. Frequency table of sex
Sex Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 42 40
Female 63 60
Total 105 100

28. Distribution of respondents according
to their level of education.
42%
58%
Educational Level
Grade 9
Grade 10

29. Distribution of respondents according
to subject group
48%
23%
29%
Subject Group
Science
Arts
Commerce

30. Distribution of respondents according
to their family income
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Family income
Family income

31. Distribution of respondents according
to religion
81%
11%
8%
Religion
Muslim
Hindu
Christian

32. Distribution of respondents according
to their father’s educational level
3% 6%
5%
16%
47%
15%
8%
Father's level of education
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Higher Secondary
Graduate
Post graduate
mufti

33. Distribution of respondents according
to their mother’s educational level
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Mother's education level
Mother's education level

34. Frequency table of the housing type of
respondent’s school
Housing type of school Frequency Percentage (%)
Semi-Brick house 3 2.9
2 storeyed building 52 49.5
3 storeyed building 50 47.6
Total 105 100

35. Frequency table of the housing type of
respondent’s home
Housing type of home Frequency Percentage (%)
Semi-Brick house/ tin shade
building
34 32.4
1 storeyed building 11 10.5
2 storeyed building 6 5.7
3 storeyed building 14 13.3
4 storeyed building 16 15.3
5 storeyed building 12 11.4
more than 5 storeyed
building
12 11.4
Total 105 100

36. Distribution of respondents according
to earthquake experience
100%
0%
Earthquake experience
Yes
No

37. Distribution of respondents according
to earthquake safety drill exercise
experience
82%
18%
Trained with earthquake safety
Yes
No

38. Frequency table of drill exercise interval
Drill exercise interval Frequency Percentage (%)
Every six months 34 32.4
Once in a life time 52 49.5
never 19 18.1
Total 105 100

39. Distribution of respondents according
to fire safety training
100%
0%
Fire safety training
Yes
No

40. Distribution of respondents according
to source of information on earthquake.

41. Distribution of respondents according to
their level of knowledge regarding important
terminologies of earthquake
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Very
poor
Poor Average Good
Knowledge of important terminologies of
earthquake
Knowledge of
important
terminologies of
earthquake

42. Distribution of respondents according to
their level of knowledge regarding risk &
consequences of earthquake
5%
62%
33%
knowledge regarding Risk & Consequences of
earthquake
Very poor
Poor
Average

43. Frequency table of knowledge of
vulnerability in infrastructural equipment &
materials
Vulnerability in
infrastructural
equipment &
materials
Frequency Percentage (%)
Very poor 30 28.6
Poor 35 33.3
Average 30 28.6
Good 10 9.5
Total 105 100

44. Frequency table of knowledge of main
reasons for casualties
Main Reasons for
Casualties
Frequency Percentage (%)
Very poor 15 14.3
Poor 45 42.9
Average 30 28.5
Good 10 9.5
Very good 5 4.8
Total 105 100

45. Frequency table of pre-disaster
planning knowledge
Pre-disaster
planning knowledge
Frequency Percentage (%)
Very poor 5 4.8
Poor 70 66.7
Average 25 23.8
Good 5 4.8
Total 105 100

46. Frequency table of preparedness
knowledge during earthquake
Preparedness
knowledge during
earthquake
Frequency Percentage (%)
Very poor 25 23.8
Poor 40 38.1
Average 40 38.1
Total 105 100

47. Frequency table of preparedness
knowledge after earthquake
Preparedness
knowledge after
earthquake
Frequency Percentage (%)
Very poor 20 19.0
Poor 20 19.0
Average 45 42.9
Good 20 19.0
Total 105 100

48. Association between gender and overall
earthquake preparedness knowledge
Gender
Knowledge on earthquake preparedness
Total X2 P-Value
Poor Good Frequency %
Frequency % Frequency %
Male 32 35.6 10 66.7 42 40.0 5.185 0.023
Female
58 64.4 5 33.3 63 60.0
Total 90 100 15 100 105 100
*Continuity correction with 2 tailed significant

49. Association between family income and
overall earthquake preparedness
knowledge
Family
income
Knowledge on earthquake preparedness
Total X2
P-Value
Poor Good Frequency %
Frequency % Frequency %
15,000 –
40,000
68 75.6 15 100.0 83 79.0 4.639 0.031
40,001 –
80,000
22 24.4 0 0.0 22 21.0
Total 90 100 15 100 105 100
*Continuity correction with 2 tailed significant

50. Association between earthquake
experience and overall earthquake
preparedness knowledge
Earthquake
experience
Knowledge on earthquake preparedness Total X2
P-Value
Poor Good Frequency %
Frequency % Frequency %
Yes 90 100.0 15 100.0 105 100.0
No statistics are
computed
because
earthquake
experience is a
constant
No 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 90 100 15 100 105 100

51. Association between earthquake drill
exercise experience and overall earthquake
preparedness knowledge
Earthquake
Drill
Exercise
experience
Knowledge on earthquake preparedness Total X2
P-Value
Poor Good Frequency %
Frequency % Frequency %
At least
once
71 78.9 15 100.0 86 79.0
3.866 0.049
Never 19 21.1 0 0.0 19 21.0
Total 90 100 100 100 105 100
*Continuity correction with 2 tailed significant

52. Association between source of information and overall
earthquake preparedness knowledge
Source
Of
information
Knowledge on earthquake
preparedness Total X2
P-
Value
Poor Good
Frequency %Frequency % Frequency %
Media 44 48.9 3 20.0 47 44.8
4.340 0.037Teacher 46 51.1 12 80.0 58 55.2
Total 90 100 15 100 105 100
* Fisher’s exact test with 2 tailed significant

53. Multiple Logistic Regression
• Dependent variable: Knowledge of earthquake preparedness
• Independent variables: Age range
Gender
School type & medium
Subject group
Family monthly income
Religion
Source of information
Previous earthquake experience
Having earthquake drill experience
How often earthquake drill exercises were held

54. Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .594a .353 .347 .568
2 .651b .423 .412 .539
3 .670c .449 .433 .529
4 .696d .485 .465 .515
a. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise
b. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range
c. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender
d. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information

55. ANOVAe
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 18.171 1 18.171 56.276 .000a
Residual 33.258 103 .323
Total 51.429 104
2 Regression 21.767 2 10.884 37.427 .000b
Residual 29.661 102 .291
Total 51.429 104
3 Regression 23.111 3 7.704 27.477 .000c
Residual 28.317 101 .280
Total 51.429 104
4 Regression 24.948 4 6.237 23.554 .000d
Residual 26.480 100 .265
Total 51.429 104
a. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise
b. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range
c. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender
d. Predictors: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information
e. Dependent Variable: Knowledge of Earthquake in Likert Scale

56. Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for
B
B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 3.596 .183 19.623 .000 3.233 3.959
How Often Drill
Exercise
-.371 .049 -.594 -7.502 .000 -.469 -.273
2 (Constant) 4.117 .229 18.016 .000 3.664 4.571
How Often Drill
Exercise
-.351 .047 -.562 -7.425 .000 -.445 -.257
Age Range -.377 .107 -.266 -3.517 .001 -.589 -.164
3 (Constant) 4.493 .282 15.909 .000 3.933 5.053
How Often Drill
Exercise
-.284 .056 -.455 -5.110 .000 -.394 -.174
Age Range -.473 .114 -.335 -4.149 .000 -.699 -.247
Gender -.288 .131 -.201 -2.189 .031 -.548 -.027
4 (Constant) 3.977 .337 11.794 .000 3.308 4.646
How Often Drill
Exercise
-.260 .055 -.416 -4.742 .000 -.368 -.151
Age Range -.366 .118 -.259 -3.096 .003 -.600 -.131
Gender -.351 .130 -.246 -2.702 .008 -.609 -.093
Source of
information
.110 .042 .214 2.634 .010 .027 .192

57. Excluded Variablese
Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
1 Age Range -.266a -3.517 .001 -.329 .986
Gender -.054a -.589 .557 -.058 .758
School Type & Medium .003a .032 .975 .003 .676
Subject Group -.030a -.380 .705 -.038 .994
Family Monthly Income (Tk.) -.010a -.113 .910 -.011 .885
Religion .059a .705 .482 .070 .902
Source of information .255a 3.355 .001 .315 .985
Drill Exercise Experince -.005a -.053 .958 -.005 .622
2 Gender -.201b -2.189 .031 -.213 .645
School Type & Medium -.143b -1.450 .150 -.143 .575
Subject Group -.022b -.288 .774 -.029 .993
Family Monthly Income (Tk.) .013b .159 .874 .016 .879
Religion .009b .113 .911 .011 .873
Source of information .173b 2.106 .038 .205 .807
Drill Exercise Experince .168b 1.604 .112 .158 .510
3 School Type & Medium -.051c -.450 .654 -.045 .436
Subject Group .025c .324 .747 .032 .917
Family Monthly Income (Tk.) -.035c -.430 .668 -.043 .818
Religion .045c .555 .580 .055 .839
Source of information .214c 2.634 .010 .255 .779
Drill Exercise Experince .064c .514 .608 .051 .360
4 School Type & Medium -.180d -1.553 .124 -.154 .377
Subject Group -.002d -.032 .974 -.003 .899
Family Monthly Income (Tk.) .011d .136 .892 .014 .778
Religion .071d .893 .374 .089 .827
Drill Exercise Experince .184d 1.465 .146 .146 .323
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender
d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender, Source of information

58. Output of multiple logistic regression
analysis:
4 variables (How Often Drill Exercise, Age Range, Gender,
Source of information) statistically significantly added to
the prediction with p < 0.05.
The resulting model is as follows:
Knowledge = 3.977 - (0.260 x How often drill exercise) –
(0.366 x Age Range) – (0.351 x Gender) + (0.110 x
Source of information)

59. Data quality management
• Data quality management was done in every stages of
research.
• Variables were set according to the objectives of the study
and questionnaire was developed according to the variables.
• Then questionnaire was pretested.
• After pretesting, questionnaire was modified according to the
required change.
• During the data collection in the field, data was checked and
re-checked for data consistency.
• After the data entry, data was checked again for ensuring
there was no missing information as well as inconsistent by
comparing the raw data and the entry data.
• Data filtration was also done again after the statistical test.
Then the final statistical test was done so that the quality of
the data could be maintained properly.

60. Study Limitation
• The study was done in purposively selected area and the
selected sample size was small.
• The collected data is only school based and may not
reflect the whole community. Hence the findings of the
study may not necessarily reflect the actual scenario.
• The study period was very short for conducting the
research work to comply within specific time period.
• The results of this study may not be generalized to
Bangladesh as a whole; since data was collected from
few schools in Dhaka.
• Small sample size also restrained the researcher from
doing various statistical analyses.

61. Ethical Issue
• Ethical Approval was obtained from Research
Committee of American International University,
Bangladesh.
• The respondents had right to refuse to answer any
question without providing the reason for their decisions
and could withdraw from the study at any time.
• The information was dealt with highest confidentiality
and used only for this study.
• Privacy of the respondents was maintained during data
collection.

62. Conclusion
• Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded
that the knowledge of the school students about
earthquake preparedness is very meager.
• All the students experienced earthquake in the earlier
time.
• So, awareness of the school students about earthquake
was expected high.
• But there was no association found between awareness
and the previous earthquake experience.
• Though fire safety training is an important training
students should be introduced to, but there was no such
training given to the students in the school or in any
other organization.

63. Conclusion (Contd.)
• Results showed that students who get earthquake safety training
were more aware than the students who didn’t get any.
• A statistically significant association was also found between the
number of the drill exercise and the earthquake preparedness
knowledge.
• The students who participated drill exercise periodically were more
aware than the students who participated once in the life time.
• Policy has been made by the Bangladesh Government, but the
implementation is not enough to increase the awareness among the
community.
• More awareness program regarding earthquake preparedness
should be made.
• Similar studies could be undertaken to assess the earthquake
preparedness knowledge among medical students, community, or
other school students situated in other seismic areas.

64. Recommendation
• Awareness programs should be continued through printing as
well as electronic media in order to spread it to all the
population
• Drill exercise should be introduced in the community level
• Fire safety as well as first aid drill exercise should be
conducted in the school
• Earthquake safety drill exercise should be done periodically in
the schools as well as in the community level
• Earthquake as well as disaster preparedness follow up should
be done regularly by an agent such as Red Cross or any
other agency which is well versed in disaster preparedness.

65. Acknowledgement
All thanks to the Almighty Allah, the merciful and compassionate by
whose boundless grace I have been able to complete this research
work.
My special thanks go to my supervisor Professor Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam,
Ph.D, for the patient guidance, encouragement and advice he has
provided throughout my time as his student. I have been extremely
lucky to have a supervisor who cared so much about my work, and who
responded to my questions and queries so promptly. From finding an
appropriate subject in the beginning to the process of writing thesis, he
has offered an unreserved help. He has also provided insightful
discussions about the research. I must say without his help, it would not
possible to complete my thesis within due date.
I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ahmed Neaz,
Associate Prof (Dr) Pradip Sen Gupta, other respected faculties of
AIUB, and my classmates of AIUB.