Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Emergency preparedness amongst

university students
Brent Doberstein

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Household eart hquake preparedness in Serbia – a st udy from select ed municipalit ies
Doc. dr Vladimir M . Cvet ković, Fakult et bezbednost i, Univerzit et u Beogradu, Marina Dabet ic e…

Are Schools Prepared for Emergencies? A Baseline Assessment of Emergency Preparedness at Scho…
Linda Bourque

Knowledge and behaviors of parent s in planning for and dealing wit h disast ers and emergencies at sc…
Marizen Ramirez
 International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Emergency preparedness amongst university students

Alexa Tanner n, Brent Doberstein
University of Waterloo, Department of Geography and Environmental Management University of Waterloo, Department of Geography, 200 University Avenue
West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this study was to examine the level of emergency preparedness among University of
Received 7 July 2015 Waterloo, Ontario, Canada students. The research examined both purposeful preparedness and coin-
Received in revised form cidental preparedness, students' sense of responsibility, and barriers preventing further preparedness.
7 August 2015
Information was collected through an online survey, completed by 80 participants, conducted during the
Accepted 22 August 2015
Spring 2013 academic term. The study found that the majority of students felt that they were the most
important actors in personal wellbeing during the first 72 h post-incident; however, most were not
Keywords: prepared to deal independently with a disaster for the recommended 72 h period. Most students did
Post-secondary students have basic coincidental preparedness supplies, but not full emergency preparedness kits. The results
Emergency preparedness
showed that students do experience barriers limiting further preparedness, which may be alleviated
72 h kits
through increased administrative support by the University and other community emergency pre-
Coincidental preparedness
paredness agencies.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction contribute to the discussion of raising students' resilience to ha-

Natural disasters are a worldwide phenomenon; over the past
10 years there has been an average financial loss of $190 billion
globally per year from natural catastrophes [12]. Given the extent
of loss due to natural disasters, research and practice has been
undertaken to address disaster risk reduction and increasing levels
of emergency preparedness. However, one population that has
been left unstudied is post-secondary university students, a group
that is thought to have a lower level of resilience than the general
population, in part, due minimal cultures of preparedness [6,7].
The purpose of this study was to examine emergency pre-
paredness of post-secondary university students by evaluating the
type and quantity of emergency preparedness supplies the students
had in their homes. The relationship between an individual's sense
of vulnerability, sense of responsibility, and the availability of pre-
paredness supplies was also examined. Barriers preventing further
preparedness, and the role of the University institution, were re-
viewed to help understand how future preparedness efforts could
be improved. It was anticipated that most students inadvertently
have emergency preparedness supplies within their homes; how-
ever, they are not prepared to handle emergency situations.
By examining the emergency preparedness supplies students
coincidentally have in their homes, the results of this research
zards. By raising resilience to hazards, students' vulnerability will
be lowered, increasing self-sufficiency when an emergency occurs.
This will aid in student safety and will help ease pressure on
emergency response personal [6]. This research identifies the gaps
in emergency preparedness among students, which can then be
addressed in emergency preparedness activities.
The limited literature done on emergency preparedness beha-
vior among post-secondary university students suggests that stu-
dents are more vulnerable to natural disasters than the general
population and are overlooked in preparedness efforts. Students
are generally less prepared to deal with emergencies, less likely to
have emergency preparedness supplies for 72 h post-disaster, have
minimal prior experience and have a lower sense of responsibility
[2,6,7,11,17]. However, there is limited scholarly data focused on
emergency preparedness related to university students, many of
whom are newcomers to their community, with no context spe-
cific knowledge or experience of the local hazards. This lack of
relevant previous research supports the need to examine emer-
gency preparedness of students at the University of Waterloo in
Canada, to develop a better understanding of students' prepared-
ness levels and the barriers preventing them from having all-ha-
zard emergency preparedness supplies suitable for 72 h.

n
2. Literature review
Correspondence to: University of Calgary, Department of Geography University
of Calgary, Department of Geography, 2500 University Drive, Calgary, Canada AB
T2N 1N4. Fax: þ 1 226 868 1877. Existing research on student emergency preparedness has fo-
E-mail address: alexa.tanner@ucalgary.ca (A. Tanner). cused primarily on post-secondary students in the United States.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007
2212-4209/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: A. Tanner, B. Doberstein, Emergency preparedness amongst university students, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007i
2 A. Tanner, B. Doberstein / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
The US Federal Emergency Management Agency [6] found that
university students were more vulnerable to disasters than the
general population. FEMA also found that students are generally
unaware of the risks they face, and that post-secondary institu-
tions have trouble targeting and creating action plans for this
population. It was recommended that student groups and family
representatives be included in emergency planning [5].
Two studies [2,17] shed some light on the issue of student
emergency preparedness or lack thereof. In a study conducted at
the University of Texas, students felt that emergency preparedness
should be covered in orientation and that students should be
provided with checklists on what to include in a 72-h emergency
kit [17]. These results align with research done on the University of
South Florida campus, where researchers found that the student
population, despite their higher levels of vulnerability, were the
most overlooked group when compared to other community
groups when considering emergency preparedness [2]. This higher
level of vulnerability among students was due to low-rent student
housing [2], lower income levels, limited experience with disasters
and the younger age demographic of university students [11] .
Combined, these two studies suggest that students are an over-
looked population and that further emergency preparedness ef-
forts need to target this group.
Due to students' generally higher levels of vulnerability, lower
senses of responsibility for preparedness, and dependence on fa-
mily members, it was suggested by Edwards [4] that university
campuses should prepare for emergencies in a similar way as cities
do. The author proposed that universities need an integrated
emergency response plan coordinated with the local community
to plan for an emergency response and provide mutual aid in
times of need. This would include cooperation between the uni-
versity and surrounding communities for items such as shelter
space, equipment, specialized knowledge and food/water stock-
piles [4]. It was also recommended that universities use business
continuity techniques to plan for potential disruptions in class
instruction and facility damage and to have an emergency op-
erations centre stocked and ready for use. To involve students, it
was recommended that there be training and exercises that stu-
dents could participate in Ref. [4].
Diekman et al. [3] found that within the general US population,
most households had not followed authorities' suggestions with
respect to emergency preparedness activities. Households were
found to have a low level of knowledge surrounding emergency
preparedness kits, and few had designated and organized emer-
gency preparedness supplies. Similarly, [11] directly compared
tornado preparedness among nonstudent renters, nonstudent
homeowners and student renters in Pennsylvania, US. The re-
search compared tornado preparedness among the three groups,
finding that homeowners were the most prepared for a tornado
and secondary events, followed by renters and lastly students. This
was partly explained by students' limited experience with dis-
asters, along with students' generally lower levels of disaster
preparedness and knowledge. A later study focusing on hurricanes
at the University of South Florida found that 58% of students were
“not quite ready” for a hurricane despite the fact that 77% of stu-
dents surveyed had previous hurricane experience [2]. These
findings are concerning as it has been documented that students
have lower levels of emergency preparedness than the general
population [8,11], helping place student preparedness (or lack
thereof) into context and strengthening the support of the need of
further research into students' lack of preparation.
A final study focusing specifically on university student pre-
paredness in the US was done by Claborn [1]. In this research, it
was found that students had lower levels of emergency supplies
than the general population; approximately 75% of students had
enough blankets, approximately 58% reported that they had a
Please cite this article as: A. Tanner, B. Doberstein, Emergency preparedness amongst university students, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007i
3-day supply of food, but most concerningly, only 40% had a 3 day
supply of drinking water and very few students had access to a
landline phone or radio. The research also revealed that the overall
level of emergency preparedness, and proportion of homes with a
72 h kit, was relatively low.
Based on this literature review, it is apparent that relatively
little is known about specific emergency preparedness of post-
secondary students. Little is known about the barriers students
face and their base level of preparedness. Preliminary work has
been completed within the context of the United States' student
population; however, little has been done in context of Canada or
other cultures. Based on this, the research below examines the
emergency preparedness of students at a Canadian institution in
Southern Ontario, the University of Waterloo with a student po-
pulation of 39,500 [13].
3. Study area
The University of Waterloo is a post-secondary university lo-
cated in Southern Ontario, a region at particular risk for meteor-
ological events such as severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and
winter/ice storms. These events have a higher risk of occurring and
have been known to cause damage in the Waterloo Region [15].
Due to the likelihood of a meteorological event and other, lower
probability, disasters occurring, each resident has been asked by
the region's emergency management agency to have an emer-
gency preparedness kit containing supplies such as flashlights,
battery operated radios, medical supplies, shelter, water and food
for a minimum of 72 h [15]. These personal preparedness kits are
meant to help individuals respond to, and remain self-sufficient in
the event of a disaster. The items recommended in the emergency
preparedness kits are designed to take an all-hazards approach by
providing basic, life-sustaining supplies.
The University of Waterloo student population, along with the
staff and faculty who are employed by the university, represents a
significant proportion of the City of Waterloo's population. The
University of Waterloo has four campuses, all of which are located
in Southern Ontario. The City of Waterloo has approximately
123,000 residents, while the University of Waterloo's student po-
pulation on the main campus is over 39,500 students [13]. Of the
student population, there is on-campus housing for approximately
6000 students, the majority of whom are in first year [16]. Given
the limited availability of on-campus student housing, especially
for upper year students, the majority of students live off-campus,
indicating the need for comprehensive emergency planning and
communication between on-campus and off-campus emergency
management organizations.
Given the University of Waterloo's risk for hazardous events
and its significant campus population, this study examines the
sense of responsibility students living off-campus feel towards
emergency preparedness, asking specifically about relevant
emergency preparedness items students have in their homes –
both purposefully and coincidentally. The relationship between
individual sense of vulnerability, sense of responsibility and the
availability of preparedness supplies are also examined, along with
barriers preventing further preparedness.
4. Research methods
The research was carried out using a structured internet based
survey (n ¼114 total, n ¼80 valid surveys) with an inductive, mixed
methods approach. The survey consisted of 19 closed ended
questions and 1 open ended question, and there was an effort
made to identify target students: those who lived off-campus in
 A. Tanner, B. Doberstein / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
non-parental housing. An internet based survey was selected as it
allowed for the greatest number of students to be reached, while
giving participants the greatest flexibility in deciding when they
chose to participate. Given the time limitations of the research and
the privacy of student information, truly random sampling was not
possible and a non-representative convenience sample was most
appropriate.
The population for this research was university students en-
rolled at the University of Waterloo who were at age of consent,
living off-campus, and away from their family homes. Research
participants were recruited primarily through in-class announce-
ments. Four in-class announcements in four different classes were
made, all of which included posting a link to the survey on the
class's online site. Participants were also recruited through various
posters put up throughout the University of Waterloo's campus.
An information sheet was handed out in the on-campus “Student
Life Centre” (i.e. a student-oriented building which houses student
clubs, a restaurant, and social space) by the researcher during
three separate, four hour time slots during a two week period, on
different times and days of the week. In total, 114 surveys were
completed, of which 34 fell outside of boundary conditions (i.e. did
not live in off-campus non-parental housing), leaving a total of 80
valid research participants.
Data was analyzed using statistical methods to understand
general themes among survey participants. Appropriate statistics,
either chi square or t-tests, were used to test the significance of
observed differences. Based on the results of the data analysis,
conclusions and recommendations were made.
5. Results
5.1. Demographics
This study focused on University of Waterloo students who
were living off-campus and outside of the family home. Of the 80
survey participants who fell within the boundary conditions, 46.3%
(n ¼37 people) were male while the remaining 53.8% (n ¼43
people) were female. Five respondents (6.3%) had a dependent
under their care. 76.3% (n ¼61) of the respondents were enrolled
in the Faculty of Environment, 12.5% (n ¼10) were from the Faculty
of Arts, 8.8% (n ¼2) were in the Faculty of Math and one re-
spondent was from the Faculty of Science. The majority of re-
spondents were in their second year of study (68.8%, n ¼55). 15%
(n ¼12) reported being in their fourth year, while the remaining
students were split between first and third year and graduate
studies. Because of the restrictions imposed by boundary condi-
tions, and due to the non-random nature of the sampling strategy,
the results cannot be said to be generalizable to the wider Uni-
versity of Waterloo student population.
Table 1
Responsibility of students' wellbeing.
In the event of an emergency, who is responsible for your wellbeing? Rank in the order of importance (1 most important, 5 least important).
Myself
My parents
University of Waterloo staff (ex. UW police, admin)
The Region of KW (ex. Waterloo region emergency management, fire services)
Community agencies (ex. red cross, crisis counseling agencies)
Please cite this article as: A. Tanner, B. Doberstein, Emergency preparedness amongst university students, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007i
3
5.2. Wellbeing responsibility
Respondents were asked who they felt was responsible for
their wellbeing during an emergency (see Table 1). 71.1% (n ¼54)
of students felt that they were most responsible for their own
wellbeing during an emergency, while 10.8% (n ¼8) of respondents
indicated that their parents had primary responsibility. The second
most important actor in students' wellbeing during an emergency
was reported to be the respondents' parents, stated by 36.5%
(n ¼27) of respondents. After respondents' parents, students were
divided in who they felt was responsible for their wellbeing, with
similar numbers reporting the University of Waterloo and the
Region of Kitchener-Waterloo. Although community agencies,
such as the Red Cross, were only identified as critical by a few
respondents, their role in student wellbeing was generally con-
sidered to be important.
5.3. Emergency preparedness
Respondents were asked if they had an emergency prepared-
ness kit or emergency preparedness supplies in their home. As
reported above, while 69.2% (n ¼ 54) of respondents felt that they
were personally responsible for their own wellbeing in the event
of an emergency, 72.5% (n ¼58) of respondents had no emergency
preparedness kit or specific emergency preparedness supplies on
hand. Gender, past experience with a natural disaster, and year of
academic study had no statistically significant effect on the degree
to which students reported having emergency preparedness kits.
As a follow up question, respondents were asked if they had
individual items in their homes which could be used if an emer-
gency was experienced. In essence, participants were asked if they
had the individual components of an emergency preparedness kit
despite not actively preparing for an emergency. The results in-
dicated that most students did have some elements of an emer-
gency preparedness kit which could be used if they experienced a
disaster. These results did not differ by gender or sense of personal
responsibility. Those students who reported feeling personally
responsibly for their own wellbeing during a disaster reported no
more emergency preparedness supplies or kits than those who did
not. One area worth highlighting is that only 27.5% of all re-
spondents reported having a battery operated/ wind up radio. This
is a crucial item in an emergency preparedness kit and the results
show that currently very few students have access to one. How-
ever, radio applications can be downloaded onto smart phones for
radio access, for the length of the phone's battery and while cel-
lular and/or Internet networks are functional.
As food and water are two key elements in emergency pre-
paredness, these items were explored in greater detail. When
asked how much bottled water respondents had, 45.6% (n ¼36)
reported that they had less than two litres of bottled water in their
homes. This did not differ by gender, year of academic study or
sense of personal responsibility. When respondents were asked if
they had non-perishable food in their home, and if so, how much,
78.8% (n ¼63) of respondents indicated that they did have food
1 2 3 4 5
54 (71.05%) 3 (3.95%) 3 (3.95%) 2 (2.63%) 14 (18.42%)
8 (10.81%) 27 (36.49%) 4 (5.4%) 18 (24.32%) 17 (22.97%)
3 (4.11%) 17 (23.29%) 24 (32.88%) 14 (19.18%) 15 (20.55%)
5 (6.84%) 18 (23.66%) 30 (41.1%) 19 (26.03%) 1 (1.37%)
8 (10.52%) 9 (11.84%) 15 (19.73%) 19 (25%) 25 (32.89%)
4 A. Tanner, B. Doberstein / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
that would not spoil in their home. With 80.4% (n ¼45) of re-
spondents reported having enough food for at least 72 h.
Respondents were asked “In general, how well prepared do you
feel to deal with a disaster?”. Just over a third of respondents
(36.7%, n ¼ 29) reported feeling very well prepared or well pre-
pared and 20.2% (n ¼16) felt unprepared or very unprepared. The
majority of students (43%, n¼ 34) were neutral on their level of
preparedness. When broken down by year of study, students in
lower years of academic study generally reported higher percep-
tions of preparedness than upper year students. 42.9% (n ¼ 24) of
first and second year students felt very well prepared or well
prepared to deal with a disaster compared to 21.7% (n ¼5) of re-
spondents in their third year or above. Most students (65.2%,
n ¼15) in their third year or above, reported feeling neutral, not
prepared nor unprepared, in comparison to 33.9% (n ¼19) of first
and second year students. These observed differences approached
statistical significance (p ¼0.08).
Despite students' general feeling of neutrality on being pre-
pared (not prepared or unprepared), when asked how long stu-
dents felt prepared to deal with a disaster if authorities couldn't
provide much assistance, 47.5% (n ¼38) felt that they were only
prepared for up to two days, 32.5% (n ¼26) of students felt pre-
pared to deal with a natural disaster without much assistance for
up to 3 days, while only 20% (n ¼16) felt prepared to last three or
more days. However, when this was split by gender, female re-
spondents reported feeling prepared for a much shorter period of
time than their male counter parts. 35.1% (n ¼13) of males felt
prepared for three or more days compared to 7% (n¼ 3) of females,
a statistically significant difference (p ¼ .02).
5.4. Further preparedness
The final set of questions asked respondents if there were any
barriers preventing them from having further emergency pre-
paredness supplies. 48.8% (n ¼39) of respondents felt that there
were barriers preventing further preparedness. This did not differ
by gender, past experience with a disaster or year of study.
Of those students who said that barriers did exist, short term
accommodation (51.2%, n ¼22), cost (46.5%, n¼ 20), lack of pre-
vious experience (46.5%, n ¼20) and feeling that items would
never be used (46.5%, n¼ 20) were the top barriers identified.
Students who felt most responsible for their own wellbeing
reported fewer barriers than the average respondent. They also
reported a greater level of awareness about emergency pre-
paredness kits; only 18.5% of those who felt most responsible for
their own wellbeing indicated awareness was a barrier, compared
to 32.6% of the general sample. However, 44.4% of respondents
who felt most responsible for their wellbeing indicated space was
a barrier, compared to 34.9% of the general sample (all differences
statistically significant).
A general theme in the answers to the question “Is there any-
thing else that you feel is important in student emergency pre-
paredness?” was the need for education and awareness. This in-
cluded information about what should be in a first aid kit, getting
an email from the University of Waterloo administration regarding
emergency preparedness, and what to do in an evacuation and
information on the importance of having emergency preparedness
kits in the home, including details of what should be included and
planned for.
6. Discussion
Survey participants were university students at a Canadian
institution, the majority of whom were second year environment
students taking a course on Natural Hazards. It could be argued
Please cite this article as: A. Tanner, B. Doberstein, Emergency preparedness amongst university students, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007i
that these students would have a higher awareness and interest in
the topic of natural hazards and, as such, might be better prepared
than the typical student. Because of this, it is suggested that the
results be taken as a 'best case scenario' in terms of knowledge
about, and interest in, disasters and preparedness. It is expected
that the university population as a whole is less prepared than
these results show, although confirming that was beyond the
scope of this research.
The results indicate some variability between segments of the
student sample. Respondents in earlier years of academic study
perceived themselves to be more prepared than those in upper
years. The reason for this variation was beyond the scope of the
study and is an area of potential future study; however, one reason
could be the levels of maturity and forward thinking more ap-
parent in older and/or upper year students. Upper year students
possibly have more permanent living arrangements and greater
experience with living on their own, and thus, are better able to
understand what is truly needed in an emergency and to more
accurately perceive how they could improve their preparedness.
The theoretical work on self-authorship by Baxter Magolda may
provide some insight into this [9,10].
The differences observed between female and male students in
their sense of preparedness, while just approaching statistical
significance, is consistent with previous studies on emergency
preparedness behavior [14,17]. The year of study and gendered
differences found in this study are important factors that uni-
versity administrations should recognize when providing educa-
tion on emergency preparedness. Specific messaging that targets
the younger university population and incorporates gendered
differences in preparedness are needed.
University administrations should recognize the importance of
providing direct and specific information about appropriate
emergency preparedness actions. This includes building awareness
of the hazards students may face and correct procedures to take.
Information about emergency preparedness items students should
have in their home should also be provided on a regular (yearly)
basis. The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides a
detailed guide for establishing, and implementing an emergency
preparedness plan in higher education settings, and highlights the
need to include a wide range of university community members in
the planning process [5].
As has been shown, overall emergency preparedness is low
among students, even when students feel personally responsible
for their own wellbeing. In part to overcome this, the University
administration, the student union and local emergency manage-
ment agencies should also be in discussion regarding responsi-
bility of emergency preparedness and management of students.
This would establish stronger ties between different groups,
community agencies, and allow for connections to be made prior
to an incident occurring. This would lower vulnerability and in-
crease proactive behavior.
One area of concern was the finding that while just under 70%
of respondents felt that they were responsible for their own
wellbeing, a similar proportion (just over 70%) had no emergency
preparedness kits or designated supplies. This clearly indicates
that although the majority of students feel that they are re-
sponsible for themselves, very few have the supplies needed to be
able to sustain themselves in a disaster. Parents were seen as the
second most important actor in students' wellbeing during a dis-
aster; however, many parents live long distances away and would
not be able to provide assistance during or immediately after a
disaster. This suggests that unless something is done to increase
student preparedness, university staff, the municipality of Kitch-
ener-Waterloo, and community agencies such as the Red Cross will
need to be ready to respond to and address the short term needs
of the student population.
 A. Tanner, B. Doberstein / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
That said, many students did have elements of emergency
preparedness kits within their homes which could be drawn upon
if needed. However, some of the key items of such kits (e.g. potable
water, battery operated/ wind up radios, a list of emergency con-
tact numbers, extra cash and basic first aid materials) were those
items that the fewest students had. Interestingly, when this list is
compared to the reported barriers, few of these items have specific
barriers preventing them from being purchased. The most com-
monly reported barriers were factors such as short term accom-
modation, cost, and a sense that the items would never be used.
The preparedness kit items that were missing tended to be those
that were small in size, relatively inexpensive, with long life spans,
and which could be used for multiple purposes other than disaster
scenarios. This would indicate that awareness campaigns, educa-
tional initiatives, direct item giveaway programs and/or incentives
could have a positive influence on students' preparedness.
Another area of concern was the finding that only about half of
the students felt that they were prepared to deal with a disaster if
authorities were unable provide assistance for three days or more
(i.e. more than 72 h). Government agencies ask citizens to have
enough supplies to live for 72 h without assistance to allow time
for the organization of emergency supply distribution and to focus
on initial emergency response. The results of this study show that
there will be a high need for assistance, especially potable water-
related, early in disaster recovery; more water, food, and other
emergency supplies may be required than anticipated by emer-
gency management agencies.
Based on the analysis and discussion, a few points can be
summarized. First, students, for the most part, are relatively un-
prepared to deal with a disaster without needing outside assis-
tance. Second, students feel personally responsible for their own
wellbeing, despite their lack of preparedness. Third, students will
need significant outside help during a disaster, both during the
first 72 h and in later recovery efforts. Finally, University autho-
rities and other disaster preparedness agencies need to address
these gaps, recognizing that there are differences within the stu-
dent population that need to be addressed in the planning process.
7. Conclusion
The University of Waterloo is located in Southern Ontario, a
region known for its risk of meteorological hazards. Due to this
and the risk of other disasters, residents are asked to have emer-
gency preparedness kits suitable to sustain themselves, and their
families, for a minimum of 72 h. This study focused on University
of Waterloo student population, living off-campus, away from
their family home. University students are an important popula-
tion to study because of their limited emergency preparedness,
low level of resilience and their exclusion from previous study. By
excluding this population, the university administration is una-
ware of emergency preparedness amongst its population, risking
students' wellbeing and the universities reputation if a disaster
were to occur.
The students examined in this research largely felt that they,
themselves, were the most important person in dealing with dis-
asters during the first 72 h post-incident. Despite this, it was found
Please cite this article as: A. Tanner, B. Doberstein, Emergency preparedness amongst university students, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.007i
5
that very few students had emergency preparedness kits which
would sustain them without assistance for this time period.
However, when asked about individual items, greater numbers of
students reported having some items which could be drawn on in
a time of need, but few had critical supplies such as enough water,
radios, and whistles. Respondents indicated that barriers did
exist in having further preparedness; however, it was felt that
these could be overcome with awareness, education and easy of
obtaining.
On the basis of the results of this research, there is potential for
the University and the wider emergency management community
to help increase resilience amongst students, subsequently de-
crease vulnerability to disasters by assisting students in becoming
better prepared to deal with emergencies. Activities to help build a
university culture of resilience and ensure plans are in place prior
to an incident occurring are needed, not only on the University of
Waterloo campus but likely on most University campuses.
References
[1] D.M. Claborn, Emergency preparedness of individual students at a large state
university in missouri, J. Instit. Justice Int. Stud. 10 (2010) 33–43.
[2] A. Collins, S. Cramer, J. Norlund, J.L. Simms, M. Kusenbach, G.A. Tobin, Shooting
at Hurricanes: Disaster (mis)Perceptions and (un)Preparedness of Florida
Undergraduates, University of South Florida REU Hurricane Study, Tampa
(2009), p. 1–88.
[3] S.T. Diekman, S.P. Kearney, M.E. O'Neil, K.A. Mack, Qualitative study of
homeowners' emergency preparedness: experiences, perceptions, and prac-
tices, Prehosp. Disaster Med. 22 (06) (2007) 494–501.
[4] F. Edwards, Campus roles in emergency management, in: DRU Workshop 2013
Presentations – Disaster Resistant University Workshop Linking: Mitigation
and Resilience, 2013. Paper 6.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guide for developing high-quality
emergency operations plans for institutions of higher education. 〈http://www.
fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1922-25045-3638/rems_ihe_guide.
pdf〉, 2013 (accessed 08.15).
[6] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building a disaster-resistant uni-
versity handbook. 〈http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id¼ 1565〉,
2003 (accessed 08.15).
[7] N. Kapucu, S. Khosa, Disaster Resiliency and culture of preparedness for uni-
versity and college campuses, Adm. Soc. 45 (1) (2013) 3–37.
[8] J. Levac, D. Toal-Sullivan, T.L. O'Sullivan, Household emergency preparedness:
a literature review, J. Community Health 37 (3) (2012) 725–733.
[9] B. Magolda, A constructivist revision of the measures of epistemological re-
felction, J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 42 (6) (2001) 520–534.
[10] B. Magolda, P. King, Toward reflective conversations: an advising approach
that promotes self-authorship, Peer Rev. 10 (1) (2008) 8–11.
[11] J.P. Mulilis, T.S. Duval, K. Bovalino, Tornado preparedness of students, non-
student renters, and nonstudent owners: issues of PrE theory, J. Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 30 (6) (2000) 1310–1329.
[12] R.E. Munich, Review of natural catastrophes in 2014: Lower losses from
weather extremes and earthquakes (Press release). 〈http://www.munichre.
com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2015/2015-01-07-press-
release/index.html〉, 2015 (accessed 05.2015).
[13] University of Waterloo (n.d.), Visit Waterloo- location 〈https://uwaterloo.ca/
find-out-more/visit-waterloo/location〉, 2014 (accessed 01.2014).
[14] G. Wachinger, O. Renn, C. Begg, C. Kuhlicke, The risk perception paradox-
Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards, Risk Anal.
33 (6) (2013) 1049–1065.
[15] Waterloo Region Emergency Management (2014) Public awareness and edu-
cation. 〈http://www.wrem.ca〉, 2014 (accessed 09.2014).
[16] Waterloo Residences (n.d.) Our residences 〈https://uwaterloo.ca/housing/re
sidences〉, 2015 (accessed 08.2015).
[17] P.G. Watson, V.J. Loffredo, J.C. McKee, When a natural disaster occurs: Lessons
learned in meeting students' needs, J. Prof. Nurs. 27 (6) (2011) 362–369.