Outcome Expectancy of Strengthening
The statistically significant differences between perceptions of damage before and after anticipated and actual structural strengthening indicates that positive outcome expectancy is an important component of the structural preparedness process. On average, participants predicted future damage for a hypothetical MM8 earthquake between moderate (4) and minor (3) before strengthening, and between minor (3) and minimal (2) after strengthening. However, participants that had adopted strengthening already (prepared participants) showed higher levels of outcome expectancy than aware but unprepared participants. This aligns with prior research that proposes that actions are more likely to be taken if people believe that these preparations will prevent damage (i.e., positive outcome expectancy) (
Şakioroğlu 2011). Having a positive outcome expectancy would allow people to move to the intention to prepare phase (Fig.
5), which later has to be further motivated by information providers (e.g., EQC, Wellington City Council, builders, or engineers) to achieve final adoption. Also, because beliefs about damage mitigation have been associated with education and knowledge on proposed mitigation (
Rüstemli and Karanci 1999), we suggest that it is possible that prepared participants showed more positive outcome expectancy because they were more informed about strengthening than those who said they were aware of the possibility but had not undertaken any. Here, information providers and social factors play a key role in motivating final adoption. Importantly, our study has demonstrated a relationship between outcome expectancy and mitigation preparation actions, providing a useful addition to the literature, which tends to focus on survival actions.
Although prior research has reported that people who anticipate damage from a future event are more likely to do something to be better prepared (
Ge et al. 2011;
Scovell et al. 2020), this study showed that not all participants who anticipate damage to their houses have undertaken strengthening. Aware but unprepared participants showed a positive outcome expectancy of strengthening but have not completed strengthening of their houses. This is further compounded by the fact that aware but unprepared participants are less likely to consider using strengthening than not-aware and unprepared participants. In this case, positive outcome expectancy about damage reduction has not been enough to influence strengthening alone; other factors therefore need to be considered, such as providing people with information (Fig.
5). Although the benefits of using strengthening to reduce damage might be clear to participants, previous research suggests that it is possible that aware but unprepared participants are uncertain about the financial benefits (
McClure et al. 2015). Clarification on the cost/benefits of strengthening could therefore be used to influence preparedness.
It is noteworthy that although prepared participants have higher levels of outcome expectancy, their levels of safety (i.e., how safe they would feel staying home during a major earthquake) are similar to those stated by unprepared participants. This could suggest that prepared participants are also somewhat hesitant about the beneficial outcomes of undertaking strengthening, or potentially that they perceive earthquake risk as higher. Also, prepared participants indicated that they are not sure whether they would have to undertake more strengthening to ensure an improved level of performance. This finding is different to what was found by Paton (
2013) on survival actions, where it was stated that after fully implementing adjustments, people believed no further actions are required. However, survival actions should be sustained over time to be effective (
Paton 2013) unlike structural strengthening, which can be taken once depending on the expected outcomes (i.e., building damage).
Regardless of the use (or not) of strengthening techniques, participants expected a seismic performance lower than Level 5, life safety (i.e., they expected a better seismic performance of their house than what the current seismic standards ensure). This is similar to results from a Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (
2021) survey on the earthquake-prone building system, which found people’s expectations went beyond the EPB system’s focus on managing risks to human life to include building resilience. Our survey highlights that expectations of damage of homeowners therefore do not appear to align with the objectives of current New Zealand building codes, which aim to achieve life safety. This can be aggravated by the fact that some homeowners likely undertook strengthening expecting a certain level of performance, which might not be achieved because current strengthening solutions might just aim to meet life safety standards.
Communication (e.g., among engineering, builders, and homeowners’ communities) of what to expect from voluntarily preparing houses to better face major earthquakes is urgently needed so owners can understand what life safety means, if their house currently meets that standard, and what they can do to strengthen their house to or beyond that standard. Given that houses in Wellington have seismically performed well during recent strong earthquakes—meeting the life safety criteria as there have been no fatalities—worries about economic potential losses are potentially more of a significant consideration (
Schierle 2003;
Thomas and Shelton 2012). These concerns can be tackled by aiming for more than life safety. In an outcome expectancy context, that means understanding some of those benefits beyond life safety (i.e., functional recovery), which can then be used to motivate structural preparedness as a way of achieving those benefits/aims/outcomes. Additionally, open communication between communities, engineers and builders would help homeowners to understand future damage and avoid once again a lack of trust in the engineering community after a major event (
Egbelakin and Wilkinson 2010;
McClure et al. 2007b;
Vinnell et al. 2019b). Good examples where this communication happens are heritage buildings, where research has shown that heritage buildings are desired to be preserved by the community and hence they may be strengthened beyond life safety (
Beaupre et al. 2014).
Because the EQC and the Wellington City Council (i.e., information providers and social factors) were selected as primary sources of information about strengthening by unprepared participants, these organizations play a critical role in advocating preparedness for future earthquakes. Their role in information provision should continue. In addition, the way homeowners of residential houses (i.e., smaller buildings) seek or receive information about strengthening is more transmitted by word of mouth rather than official policies such the one for EPBs—hence, the importance of engaging with information providers, such as builders, that can be contacted directly by homeowners. For instance, builders can be asked to carry out different work—like painting or renovations—and then they could pass on information to owners about the potential works that could be undertaken to seismically strengthen houses. As our results have shown, builders were the first source of information for prepared participants; consequently, builders could not only help with providing information but also have a direct role in the decision and adoption of strengthening because they are the ones mainly carrying out the actual work.
Trust in sources of information is crucial in building linkages between intentions to seek information and adjustment adoption (
Paton et al. 2005). Unprepared participants could have been affected by an external locus of control, which makes individuals think that none of the things that they do will minimize the damaging consequences of earthquakes and hazards (
Crozier et al. 2006) because they have lower levels of outcome expectancy than prepared participants. This bias can be corrected by emphasizing the role of human decisions in limiting damage (
McClure et al. 2007b). The more strongly that people believe actions will be effective, the more likely they are to take those actions (
Paton et al. 2010). Thus, in earthquake preparedness training programs and communication to encourage actions such as building strengthening, information should be presented about how and why each preparation activity is effective at reducing earthquake impacts (
Şakioroğlu 2011).
The literature has demonstrated that clear information and advice from expert sources (e.g., through public education programs) can result in the adoption of a particular behavior and the outcome of increased safety because people interpret this information and its recommendations to estimate whether they expect that outcome to occur (
Paton et al. 2010). Providing information based on sound risk communication may change perceptions of risk, outcome expectancy, and likelihood of a hazard occurrence (
Paton et al. 2005). The strengthening reported in our study was implemented mainly by builders and engineers, highlighting that these professions play a crucial role in information dissemination and facilitation of strengthening (i.e., green path on the conceptual framework in Fig.
5). Further research should be undertaken to understand if the strengthening employed by these professionals, which seeks to bring old houses up to current standards, will meet homeowners’ expectations of building performance in a future earthquake. Standardized proposed strengthening for residential houses would help to meet homeowners’ expectations of damage, which is important for increasing trust toward engineering solutions and perceptions of outcome expectancy, and which in turn can motivate the use of structural strengthening.
Outcome Expectancy and Prior Experience
Both prepared participants and aware but unprepared participants did not show different levels of outcome expectancy based on their prior experience of damage. This can be explained by the lack of significant prior experience of damage to houses, as mentioned by Miranda et al. (
2021). When damage was treated as dichotomous (i.e., undamaged or minimal damage), there was also no significant difference in outcome expectancy with respect to damage experience. Consequently, we suggest that the effects of damage experience largely do not influence the outcome expectancy of structural strengthening, at least when this damage is not major.
The lack of relationship between prior experience and outcome expectancy could be explained by the time difference between data collection and the occurrence of the last major earthquake, which may have influenced earthquake-related cognitions (
Rüstemli and Karanci 1999). However, homeowners expect more damage to their houses in a future major earthquake compared with what they have experienced, which suggests that they are aware of the potential occurrence of a stronger earthquake. Rüstemli and Karanci (
1999) suggests that the severity of past experience may not affect how a person orients themselves both cognitively and behaviorally in respect to future hazard events. The last earthquake experienced by most participants was the Kaikōura Earthquake (2016), which resulted in no to minimal damage to residential houses in Wellington (
Kaiser et al. 2017). This experience could have increased optimism bias, where participants thought a future event might produce similar benign effects and did not see a benefit from strengthening their houses (i.e., a lack of positive outcome expectancy), or normalization bias, where participants felt that the last earthquake was not too damaging resulting in beliefs of not needing to strengthen their house (
Celsi et al. 2005;
Spittal et al. 2005). This is in contrast with more damaging events, such as the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, where preparation actions to mitigate damage increased for a short period of time after the earthquakes (
McClure et al. 2013).
Given that major earthquakes may not be experienced within a person’s lifetime, people may not have the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures for themselves (
Simpson-Housley and Curtis 1983). Consequently, people rarely have any chance to gain first-hand experience of either the consequences they may encounter or the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures for themselves. Other sources of information should therefore be provided to homeowners to prompt preparedness (i.e., gray path on conceptual framework in Fig.
5), such as information about the benefits of strengthening houses (i.e., explaining and creating positive outcome expectancy). Greater dissemination of earthquake strengthening options and their effects on the likely seismic performance of houses is needed to not only encourage preparedness but also increase the levels of trust toward providers of information (i.e., also gray path on conceptual framework in Fig.
5). This information could increase the uptake of retrofitting and, in turn, allow homeowners to reduce costs on reparability following a catastrophic event, which is one of the objectives of building a resilient community.