Research Article Multi-hazard Awareness, Risk Perception and Fear to Earthquakes: The Case of High-school Students in Mexico City Jaime Santos-Reyes*, Grupo de investigación: “SARACS”, SEPI-ESIME, Zac., Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CDMX 07738, Mexico 1. INTRODUCTION Natural hazards in combination with a community that lacked an adequate preparation for such events, have caused a considerable damage to people, property, and economical losses [1,2]. For exam- ple, those communities in seismic prone regions, worldwide, are vulnerable to earthquakes given the fact that they lack earthquake resistant homes, earthquake early warning systems, among others [1,2] (i.e., earthquakes still cannot be predicted [3,4]). In addition to the individual natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes), there is an increasing evidence that hazards are found in combina- tion with other threats, i.e., natural, environmental, psychosocial, technological, sociological, etc. [5–13]. The interconnectedness of these multi-hazards has been recognised in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015 and the Sustainable Development Goals [11]. These organizations, among others, have encouraged communities to develop an adaptation strategy to deal with such threats [11,14]. In order to be able to develop such strategies, it becomes neces- sary to be aware of such multi-hazards and the risk associated with them. Within this context, risk perception plays a fundamental role in adopting some form of protective action to mitigate the impact of these hazards [11,15]. However, it has been found that there is not a proportional relationship between the level of risk perception and the rate of taking protective actions, i.e., higher level of risk perception is not always linked to protective action (“risk percep- tion paradox”) [11,15]. Risk perception has also been envisaged as having cognitive and emotional components [16]; for example, the six ‘basic’ emotions proposed by Ekman [17]: i.e., fear, anger, happiness, sadness, dis- gust, surprise. Several studies have been conducted and reported in the literature on emotional and behavioural reactions to earth- quakes [18–24]. In the present case study, we are dealing with fear to earthquakes; according to the Oxford dictionary, fear is defined as “the bad feeling that you have when you are in danger, when some- thing bad might happen, or when a particular thing frightens you” [25]. In this context, fear to earthquakes may be defined as a feeling that something bad might happen to those experiencing one. In relation to earthquakes, previous research has shown that fear has been the most frequent emotion experienced by individuals during earthquake occurrence [18–20,23]. However, results have also shown that other emotions are experienced by earthquake sur- vivors, e.g., in a study conducted on the Umbria-Marche earthquake in Italy, 13.1% of the respondents experienced ‘surprise’, 12.1% ‘sad- ness’, etc. [23]. Hence, it may be argued that during an earthquake occurrence, people experience several types of emotions. Research has also been conducted on issues related to hazard aware- ness, preparedness, vulnerability and resilience, among others, and widely reported in the literature [e.g. 26–32]. For example, in a multi-hazard awareness study conducted in Morocco; it has been found that floods and earthquakes represent the top two threats to local communities [26]. The paper presents the results of a cross-sectional study on the hazards awareness and risk perception for the case of high school students in Mexico City. The paper gives an account of the key findings of the research project. A R T I C L E I N F O Article History Received 18 December 2019 Accepted 16 September 2020 Keywords Earthquake multi-hazards awareness risk perception negative emotions Mexico City A B S T R A C T A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2015 for the case of students at a high school in Mexico City; the sample size was N = 302. The aim of the study was to assess the level of hazard awareness, risk perception, and the negative emotion related to fear during earthquakes. Some of the main findings were the following: (a) regarding the multi-hazards (natural, environmental, psychosocial, technological, sociological) considered in the study, earthquakes and ‘crime & delinquency’ were perceived as the top two threats to the participants of the study, and in that order; (b) the perceived hazards that may cause physical harm were earthquakes and ‘crime & delinquency’ and in that order; (c) women fear the most during an earthquake [χ2 (2, n = 301) = 17.614, p < 0.001]. © 2020 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press B.V. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). *Email: jrsantosr@hotmail.com Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response Vol. 10(3); October (2020), pp. 91–96 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/jracr.k.200923.001; ISSN 2210-8491; eISSN 2210-8505 https://www.atlantis-press.com/journals/jracr http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3758-9862 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ mailto:jrsantosr%40hotmail.com?subject= https://doi.org/10.2991/jracr.k.200923.001 https://www.atlantis-press.com/journals/jracr 92 J. Santos-Reyes / Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 10(3) 91–96 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS A cross-sectional survey has been conducted to several preparatory schools in Mexico City in 2015; the schools were in different parts within the city (i.e., in the three geotechnical zones). However, only the collected data of one of these schools are presented here, and with a sample size, N = 302. The survey questionnaire included over fifty questions, however, only a few have been considered herein, and some of them are based on Ronan et al. [32]. The results presented here include those associated with hazard awareness, risk perception, and some psychological issues in relation to negative emotions (i.e., fear) during earthquake occurrence. In order to analyse the descriptive information, frequency analysis has been conducted. Further, the validity of the working hypoth- esis, on the other hand, was considered at a significance level of α = 0.05. Furthermore, the relationship between the independent and dependent variables have been assessed by applying the con- tingency tables and Pearson’s chi-square tests. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample con- sidered in the present analysis. It can be seen that the range of the age of the respondents varied from 14 to 19 years old (M = 16.39; SD = 1.203). The percentage of men was higher than women (i.e., 55.0% vs. 45.0%). Finally, in the capital city, the schooling system covers two shifts: i.e., the morning and afternoon shifts. In general, the morn- ing shift covers from 07:00 to 14:00 h (55.3%); the afternoon shift, on the other hand, covers from 16:00 to 22:00 p.m. (44.7%). 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Multi-hazard Awareness To assess the multi-hazard awareness of respondents of the present study, the following question was included in the questionnaire: “which are the two most likely hazards that could affect you at school and home?”. The types of hazards considered as possible response to the question were the following: natural hazards (“earthquakes”, “floods”, “hurricanes”, “landslides”, “volcanic eruptions”), environ- mental (“environmental pollution”), psychosocial (“bullying”), and sociological (“crime & delinquency”). It should be highlighted that all these hazards are present in the Capital City [33] (see Section 3.5 for further details). The results are shown in Table 2. When considering natural hazards, the perceived two hazards that may affect the participants at home were earthquakes (85.5%) and floods (16%). However, when considering all types of hazards con- sidered in the analysis, the results show that the two perceived haz- ards that could affect the participants were earthquake (85.5%) and ‘crime & delinquency’ (64.1%). In general, respondents perceived that earthquakes represents the major threat to them when at home. But, what about the two perceived hazards at school? Again, the results show that earthquakes are the cause of concern by the respondents, with 81.6%; this was followed by ‘crime & delin- quency’ and ‘bullying’, both with 47.3%, when considering all types of hazards (Table 2). In summary, the results highlighted that the following types of hazards were those that participants most worry about both at home and at school: natural (earthquake), environmental (environ- mental pollution), psychosocial (bullying), and sociological (‘crime & delinquency’). 3.2. Multi-hazard Risk Perception In an attempt to assess the perceived vulnerability and risk, the following question included in the questionnaire: “should one of these events occur in the future, how likely is it that it could hurt you or your family?” It should be emphasised that within the response options, a technological hazard was included this time (i.e., ‘Fire & Explosion’). The results are shown in Table 3. The possible responses to the question were the following: “1 = Unlikely”, “2 = A chance”, and “3 = Likely”. The top four hazards that have been perceived as having a “better than a chance” to cause physical harm to the participants of the Table 1 | Demographic characteristics of the participants of the study, N = 302 Variables N (%) Age (years) 14 12 (4.0) 15 69 (22.8) 16 75 (24.8) 17 95 (31.5) 18 38 (12.6) 19 13 (4.3) Gender Women 136 (45.0) Men 166 (55.0) Schooling mode system Morning 167 (55.3) Afternoon 135 (44.7) Table 2 | Perceived multi-hazards at home and school Hazards at home Hazards at school Hazard % Hazard % Floods 16 Floods 8.2 Hurricanes 2.3 Hurricanes 2.0 Earthquake 85.5 Earthquake 81.6 Landslide 6.6 Landslide 1.6 Volcanic eruption 3.1 Volcanic eruption 1.6 Environmental pollution 20.7 Environmental pollution 10.6 Crime & delinquency 64.1 Crime & delinquency 47.3 Bullying 1.6 Bullying 47.3 Table 3 | Perceived event occurrence and physical risk perception Hazard % “Likely” Mean SD Floods 24.1 2.04 0.664 Earthquake 87.6 2.85 0.427 Landslide 10.7 1.66 0.663 Volcanic eruption 14.0 1.75 0.687 Environmental pollution 69.2 2.66 0.534 Crime & delinquency 81.9 2.80 0.458 Fire & explosion 65.6 2.60 0.602 J. Santos-Reyes / Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 10(3) 91–96 93 study were: earthquakes (SD = 2.85), ‘crime & delinquency’ (SD = 2.80), environmental pollution (SD = 2.66), and ‘fire & explosion’ (SD = 2.60) (see Section 3.5 for a discussion on these findings). On the other hand, the bottom three were floods, volcanic erup- tion, and landslide. 3.3. Experiencing Earthquakes The questionnaire included a question intended to elucidate whether the participants have experienced earthquakes. In par- ticular, respondents were asked the following question: “Have you experienced an earthquake?” The possible answers were either “Yes” or “No”. The results showed that most of the participants have experienced an earthquake (98.7%; 298/302). This may be explained given the fact that in 2014, an unusual number of earthquakes occurred in that particular year (it should be highlighted that the study was conducted in 2015) [33]. For example, there were three relatively strong earthquakes with mag- nitudes ranging from M5.4, M5.9, and M7.9 [33]. These events caused panic and anxiety among the residents of the city; however, there were neither property damages, nor life threatening situation. 3.4. Level of Fear during Earthquakes One of the factors related to psychological issues that has been addressed in the study is that related to the level of fear during earthquakes. In the context of the previous question (Section 3.3), students were asked the following question: “what was your level of fear during that earthquake?” Respondents were asked to rate their answers according to the following options: 1 = “Not at all”, 2 = “Little”, 3 = “A lot” (That is, ‘fear’ was measured with three levels; however, it should be highlighted that in similar studies, the inten- sity of fear was measured as a continuous variable, for example in Prati et al. [24], respondents were asked to rate their perceived intensity of fear on a scale ranging from “0 to 100” [p. 104].). Overall, the frequency data show that most of the participants experienced “Little” fear during the earthquake (59.8%; 180/302) (Figure 1). Further, almost 40% of the participants of the study reported no fear at all (20.6%; 62/302) and 19.6% reported “A lot” of fear (59/302). In order to assess the relationship of the variables considered in the study (gender, age, and the schooling mode system, see Table 1), cross-tabulations were constructed, and the results are shown in Tables 4–7 (The percentages given in these tables are within the variables shown in columns; the total percentages in columns may not add up to 100% because of decimal rounding. Further, differ- ences in total n = 302 are due to missing values in items.). When conducting chi-square tests, the results showed that neither the variable age [χ2 (2, n = 301) = 0.969, p = 0.616, Cramer’s V = 0.057], nor the schooling mode system [χ2 (2, n = 301) = 2.605, p = 0.272, Cramer’s V = 0.093] were associated with the level of fear during earthquakes. Figure 1 | Responses to the question related to fear during an earthquake occurrence. Table 4 | Results of the relationship between gender and the level of fear to earthquakes Variables Male Female Total N (%) N (%) N (%) “Not at all” 41 (30.1) 21 (12.7) 62 (20.6) “Little” 78 (57.4) 102 (61.8) 180 (59.8) “A lot” 17 (12.5) 42 (25.5) 59 (19.6) Table 5 | Results of the relationship between the age category and the level of fear Variables ≤16 ≥17 Total N (%) N (%) N (%) “Not at all” 33 (21.3) 29 (19.9) 62 (20.6) “Little” 95 (61.3) 85 (58.2) 180 (59.8) “A lot” 27 (17.4) 32 (21.9) 59 (19.6) Table 6 | Results of the relationship between the schooling mode system and the level of fear Variables Morning shift Afternoon shift Total N (%) N (%) N (%) “Not at all” 30 (18.1) 32 (23.7) 62 (20.6) “Little” 106 (63.9) 74 (54.8) 180 (59.8) “A lot” 30 (18.1) 29 (21.5) 59 (19.6) Table 7 | Results of the relationship between the gender and the level of fear of the participants of the study when controlling for the age group category Variables Male Female N (%) N (%) ≤16 “Not at all” 20 (31.3) 13 (14.3) “Little” 37 (57.8) 58 (63.7) “A lot” 7 (10.9) 20 (22.0) ≥17 “Not at all” 21 (29.2) 8 (10.8) “Little” 41 (56.9) 44 (59.5) “A lot” 10 (13.9) 22 (29.7) 94 J. Santos-Reyes / Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 10(3) 91–96 However, it was found that the variable related to gender was asso- ciated with the level of fear of earthquakes of the participants of the study, χ2 (2, n = 301) = 17.614, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.242. In particular, it was found that women feared “A lot” during the experienced earthquake when compared with men (i.e., 25.4% vs. 12.5%). To further investigate the influence of the variable related to the category of age, a multivariable analysis (i.e., by ‘controlling’ for the age categories) was conducted, and the results are shown in Table 7. It has been found that only those participants (men and women) with the age category ≥17 years old were associated with “Little” fear during the earthquake, χ2 (2, n = 146) = 10.408, p = 0.005, Cramer’s V = 0.267. In particular, the results highlighted that men experienced “Little” fear when compared to women (i.e., 29.2% vs. 10.8%). 3.5. Discussion Regarding the multi-hazard awareness and risk perception, the results showed that respondents’ perceptions may be regarded as consistent with what has been happening in the City; i.e., prior to 2015 when the study was conducted (Section 2) (It may be argued that these results are relevant even today). That is, the residents of the Capital City have been exposed to these multi-hazards [33–43]. For example, earthquakes and ‘crime & delinquency’ were the top two hazards that were perceived as threats at home and school. These were followed by environmental and technological hazards. Each of these will be briefly discussed. Effectively, Mexico City (and those communities living along the Pacific coast of the country) is prone to earthquakes [19,33]. For example, one of the strongest earthquakes that hit the capital city was in 1985 (M8.1); it is believed that thousands of people were killed [19,33]. That is, earthquakes occur all the time. This finding has demonstrated that students were aware of such events at the time of the study. For example, the two most recent strong earth- quakes that occurred on 07 (M8.2) and 19 (M7.1) September 2017. It is thought the 19 September earthquake affected more than 28 million people, 54,000 schools, 5700 hospitals, etc. [44]. Therefore, the findings are consistent with the perceived earthquake threats of the participants of the study. ‘Crime & delinquency’, on the other hand, was the second hazard that was perceived as a threat to the participants of the study at home and school. There has not been (and there is not) a day without news on the mass media related to crime in the Capital City; several studies on this have been reported in the literature [33,35,38–40]. It is believed that during 1990–2005, the pattern of violent crime rate decreased during this period [39]. However, since December 2006 when the Federal Government launched what is now called the “Drug war” [i.e., a military offensive against the so called ‘Drug Traffic Organizations’ (DTOs)], there has been a surge in violent crime rates [39]. Enamorado et al. [39] reported that in 2005, “the total rate of homicides was close to 11 per 100,000 individuals”; further, the authors reported that “by 2010, it was 18.5 per 100,000 individuals” (p. 129). Furthermore, it is believed that in 2005, the number of people being killed by non-drug related crime was 7000 [39]. According to the 2015 Child and Youth Survey [40], 75.4% of the children (6–9 years old), 59.7% (10–13), and 70.3% (14–17) felt unsafe on the streets. Further, the study concluded that most Mexicans felt unsafe on the streets and this is more accentuated in children and young boys. Hence, regarding ‘crime & delinquency’, the results of the study are consistent with what has been happening and reported in the literature. The results also showed that one of the worries of the students is that related to the ‘environmental pollution’ in the Capital City. Several studies have given an account on this and reported in the literature [9,34,36,41,43]. Further, on 20 November 1989, an ‘environmental contingency’ plan was implemented in the city. An environmental contingency has been defined as “an eventual and transitory situ- ation declared by the authorities, when a high concentration of O3 and/or PM10 or PM2.5 pollutants occurs or is anticipated, based on objective analyses, forecasts or monitoring of environmental air pollution, derived from human activities or natural phenomena that affect the health of the population or the environment” [43]. For example, one of the measures taken has been that motor cars are not allowed to transit in the city during certain days [41,43] (other measures such as children staying indoors, etc., can be found in Gobierno [43]). Again, the results are consistent with environ- mental hazards in the city. Finally, the fourth technological hazard that students were worried about is that related to ‘Fire & Explosion’. This is a typical case of what is called ‘low frequency-high impact’ events (it may be argued that earthquakes follow this pattern too). There have been several fire and explosion events in the metropolitan area of the Capital City. For example, four of the major events occurred in the period between 2000 and 2008; other examples are given in Santos-Reyes and Gouzeva [33] and Lozanao et al. [42]. In 2000, a fire and explo- sion occurred involving ten trucks; in 2008, there was a spill of a hazardous material (i.e. Kerosene) that forced the evacuation of 150 families in the metropolitan area of the city. Again, the participants of the study showed their level of awareness of the existing techno- logical hazards, such as ‘fire & explosion’. It is worth mentioning that research on the psychological issues related to emotions started since the 70s. For example, Ekman [17] proposed the ‘basic’ emotions, namely: fear, happiness, surprise, anger, sadness, and disgust. Some authors have used these ‘basic’ emotions to understand the emotional response of people during an earthquake occurrence [19,23,24]. However, in our study we did not used these categories of emotions, but the perceived level of fear during an earthquake occurrence was assessed with the following responses: “Not at all”, “Little”, and “A lot” (Section 3.4). According to the frequency data in our case study, 19.6% of the respondents reported “A lot” of fear during an earthquake (59.8% responded “little” and 20.6% “not at all”). Similar findings have been reported in a study that was conducted in New Zealand. That is, about 14% of children reported often feeling ‘upset or scare’ when thinking or talking about earthquakes; 25% reported no upset, and 60% reported some level of fear [32]. When conducting chi-square tests, it has been found that gender was significantly associated with fear. That is, women fear “A lot” of J. Santos-Reyes / Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 10(3) 91–96 95 earthquakes when compared to men. When considering the age of the respondents, on the other hand, the age category ≥17 years old was associated with “Little” fear of earthquakes. The limitations of the study were the following: first, the design of the study was non probability, which means that the findings should not be generalised to the whole population of high school students of the Capital City; second, the sample size of the pres- ent study was relatively small, i.e., N = 302; future research may involve the analysis of the collected data on several high schools in the City. Third, the present study was conducted with no earth- quake disaster as a precedent; that is, prior to 2015 (when the study was conducted) several minor earthquakes occurred but not damage was reported [33]. Further research may include the analysis by considering the geo- technical seismic zones of the capital city where the school facilities are located. 4. CONCLUSION The paper has presented the results of a cross-sectional study on the participants’ level of multi-hazard awareness, risk perception and emotional reaction related to fear during earthquakes. The study was conducted in 2015; the sample size was N = 302, and for the case of a high school located in Mexico City. The key findings/ conclusions are summarised as follows: (a) The perceived two hazards that may affect students at home and school were earthquakes and ‘crime & delinquency’ and in that order. (b) The perceived two hazards that may cause physical harm (Table 3) to the participants and family were earthquakes and ‘crime & delinquency’ and in that order. (c) Most of the participants of the study have experienced an earthquake 97.8% (298/302). (d) Regarding the negative emotion related to fear during earth- quakes, 19.6% experienced “A lot” of fear, 59.8% “little” and 20.6% feared “not at all” of earthquakes. (e) The chi-squared results showed that women experienced “A lot” of fear during earthquakes when compared to men. (f ) When considering the multi-hazards (natural, environmental, psychosocial, technological, sociological) considered in the present study, earthquakes were perceived as the top threat to the students considered in the analysis. (g) More generally, these findings may assist key decision makers on disaster reduction in the Capital City to device programmes aiming at better educating children to multi- hazards. By doing this, children may be better prepared to mitigate the impact of earthquakes. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The author declares no conflicts of interest. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded by SIP-IPN under the following grants: CONACYT No.248219 & SIP-IPN: No. 20201790. REFERENCES [1] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk man- agement. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR; 2015. [2] International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). World disasters report. Geneva: IFRC; 2014. [3] Kagan YY. Assessment of schemes for earthquake prediction: are earthquakes predictable? Geophys J Int 1997;13:505–25. [4] Knopoff L. Earthquake prediction: the scientific challenge. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:3719–20. [5] Cutter SL, Mitchel JT, Scott MS. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown county, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 2000;90:713–37. [6] O’Brian K, Pelling M, Patwardhan A, Hallegatte S, Maskrey A, Oki T, et al. Toward a sustainable and resilient future. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Quin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, et al., editors. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012, pp. 437–86. [7] Health and Safety Professionals Alliance (HaSPA). Psychological hazards: bullying, aggression, and violence. The core body of knowledge for generalist OHS professionals. Tullamarine, VIC: Safety Institute of Australia; 2012. [8] Meier RF, Short Jr JF. Crime as hazard: perceptions of risk and seriousness. Criminology 1985;23:389–400. [9] Kar J, Vaughan MA, Liu Z, Omar AH, Trepte CR, Tackett J, et al. Detection of pollution outflow from Mexico City using CALIPSO lidar measurements. Remote Sens Environ 2015;169:205–11. [10] Sanchez EY, Represa S, Mellado D, Balbi KB, Acquesta AD, Colman Lerner JE, et al. Risk analysis of technological hazards: simulation of scenarios and application of a local vulnerability index. J Hazard Mater 2018;352:101–10. [11] Sullivan-Wiley KA, Short Gianotti AG. Risk perception in a multi-hazard environment. World Dev 2017;97:138–52. [12] Granados HD, Jenkins S. Chapter 13 - Extreme volcanic risks 1: Mexico City. Volcanic Hazards Risks Disasters 2015:315–54. [13] Zobin VM, Martínez A. Quantification of the 1998–1999 explosion sequence at Popocatepetl volcano, Mexico. J Volcano Geother Res 2010;194:165–73. [14] Shaw R, Izumi T. Civil society organization and disaster risk reduction: the Asian Dilemma. Japan: Springer Science Business; 2014. [15] Lindell MK, Perry RW. The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 2012;32:616–32. [16] Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 2001;127:267–86. [17] Ekman P. An argument for basic emotions. Cogn Emotion 1992;6:169–200. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.9.3719 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.9.3719 https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00219 https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00219 https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00219 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00346.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00346.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.03.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.03.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.03.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.03.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396453-3.00013-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396453-3.00013-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2010.05.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2010.05.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2010.05.008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 96 J. Santos-Reyes / Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 10(3) 91–96 [18] Alexander D. Behaviour during earthquakes: a southern Italian example. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 1990;8:5–29. [19] Santos-Reyes J, Gouzeva T. Mexico City’s residents emotional and behavioural reactions to the 19 September 2017 earthquake. Environ Res 2020;186:109482. [20] Bourque LB, Russell LA, Goltz JD. Human behaviour during and immediately after the earthquake. In: Bolton PA, editor. The Loma Priets, California Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Public response. Professional paper 1553-B. Washington, DC: United States Geological Survey; 1993, pp. B3–B22. [21] Goltz JD, Bourque LB. Earthquakes and human behaviour: a sociological perspective. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2017;21:251–65. [22] Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu HC, Huang SK, Johnston DM, Becker JS, et al. Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan. Disasters 2016;40:85–111. [23] Prati G, Catufi V, Pietrantoni L. Emotional and behavioural reac- tions to tremors of the Umbria-Marche earthquake. Disasters 2012;36:439–51. [24] Prati G, Saccinto E, Pietrantoni L, Pérez-Pastor C. The 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes: modelling human behaviour. Nat Hazards 2013;69:99–113. [25] Oxford Dictionary. Definition of fear. 2020. Available from: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_ english/fear_1#:~:text=noun-,noun,child%20was%20shaking%20 with%20fear. [26] Ivčević A, Bertoldo R, Mazurek H, Siame L, Guignard S, Moussa AB, et al. Local risk awareness and precautionary behaviour in a multi-hazard region of North Morocco. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2020;50:101724. [27] Granger K, Jones T, Leiba M, Scott G. Community risk in cairns: a provisional multi hazard risk assessment (AGSO Cities Project Report No. 1). Canberra, Australia: Australian Geological Survey Organization; 1999. [28] Beck E, André-Poyaud I, Davoine PA, Chardonnel S, Lutoff C. Risk perception and social vulnerability to earthquakes in Grenoble (French Alps). J Risk Res 2012;15:1245–60. [29] Shaw R, Shiwaku K, Kobayashi H, Kobayashi M. Linking expe- rience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prev Manage 2004;13:39–49. [30] Marincioni F, Appiotti F, Ferretti M, Antinori C, Melonaro P, Pusceddu A, et al. Perception and communication of seismic risk: the 6 April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake case study. Earthquake Spectra 2012;28:159–83. [31] Rao LL, Hana R, Ren XP, Baia XW, Zhenga R, Liu H, et al. Disadvantage and prosocial behavior: the effects of the Wenchuan earthquake. Evol Human Behav 2011;32:63–9. [32] Ronan KR, Johnston DM, Daly M, Fairley R. School children’s risk perceptions and preparedness: a hazards education survey. Austral J Disaster Trauma Stud 2001;1:32. [33] Santos-Reyes J, Gouzeva T, Santos-Reyes G. Earthquake risk per- ception and Mexico City’s public safety. Proc Eng 2014;84:662–71. [34] Son Y, Osornio-Vargas AR, O’Neill MS, Hystad P, Texcalac- Sangrador JL, Ohman-Strickland P, et al. Land use regression models to assess air pollution exposure in Mexico City using finer spatial and temporal input parameters. Sci Total Environ 2018;639:40–8. [35] Murphy TE, Rossi MA. Following the poppy trail: origins and con- sequences of Mexican drug cartels. J Dev Econ 2020;143:102433. [36] Silva-Quiroz R, Rivera AL, Ordoñez P, Gay-Garcia C, Frank A. Atmospheric blockages as trigger of environmental contingencies in Mexico City. Heliyon 2019;5:e02099. [37] Urquieta E, Varon J. Mexico City’s Petroleos Mexicanos explo- sion: disaster management and air medical transport. Air Med J 2014;33:309–13. [38] Baysan C, Burke M, González F, Hsiang S, Miguel E. Non-economic factors in violence: evidence from organized crime, suicides and climate in Mexico. J Econ Behav Organ 2019;168:434–52. [39] Enamorado T, López-Calva L, Rodríguez-Castelán C, Winkler H. Income inequality and violent crime: evidence from Mexico’s drug war. J Dev Econ 2016;120:128–43. [40] Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informatica (INEGI). Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Publica (ENVIPE), Mexico: INEGI; 2015. [41] Davies LW. The effect of driving restrictions on air quality in Mexico City. J Polit Econ 2008;116:38–81. [42] Lozano A, Muñoz A, Antún JP, Granados F, Guarneros L. Analysis of hazmat transportation accidents in congested urban areas, based on actual accidents in Mexico. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2010;2:6053–64. [43] Gobierno CDMX. Announcement of the program to prevent and respond to atmospheric environmental contingencies in Mexico City. Gaceta CDMX; 2019 (In Spanish). Available from: http:// www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/ultima-hora/calidad-aire/ pcaa/Gaceta_Oficial_CDMX.pdf. [44] Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association (GEER). Geotechnical engineering reconnaissance of the 19 September 2017 Mw 7.1 Puebla-Mexico City earthquake, version 2.0. Report No. GEER-055A. 2017. Available from: http://geerassociation.org/ administrator/components/com_geer_reports/geerfiles/UNAM_ GEER_Sept2017_v2_Final.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109482 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109482 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109482 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.007 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12133 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12133 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12133 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12133 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01264.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01264.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01264.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0688-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0688-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0688-9 https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/fear_1%23:~:text%3Dnoun-%2Cnoun%2Cchild%2520was%2520shaking%2520with%2520fear https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/fear_1%23:~:text%3Dnoun-%2Cnoun%2Cchild%2520was%2520shaking%2520with%2520fear https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/fear_1%23:~:text%3Dnoun-%2Cnoun%2Cchild%2520was%2520shaking%2520with%2520fear https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101724 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.652649 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.652649 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.652649 https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560410521689 https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560410521689 https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560410521689 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3672928 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3672928 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3672928 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3672928 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.484 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.484 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.102433 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.102433 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02099 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02099 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02099 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2014.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2014.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2014.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.018 http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/ultima-hora/calidad-aire/pcaa/Gaceta_Oficial_CDMX.pdf http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/ultima-hora/calidad-aire/pcaa/Gaceta_Oficial_CDMX.pdf http://www.aire.cdmx.gob.mx/descargas/ultima-hora/calidad-aire/pcaa/Gaceta_Oficial_CDMX.pdf http://geerassociation.org/administrator/components/com_geer_reports/geerfiles/UNAM_GEER_Sept2017_v2_Final.pdf http://geerassociation.org/administrator/components/com_geer_reports/geerfiles/UNAM_GEER_Sept2017_v2_Final.pdf http://geerassociation.org/administrator/components/com_geer_reports/geerfiles/UNAM_GEER_Sept2017_v2_Final.pdf