The earthquake awareness levels of undergraduate students

Natural disasters cause serious effects on economic, social and sociological areas in Turkey. Earthquakes are one of the major natural disasters in Turkey. They affect social and economic life and education negatively. The more preparedness and awareness are provided against natural disasters, the safer society will be. This study was carried out in order to determine the views of undergraduate students about earthquake awareness attitudes and to examine them in terms of various variables. The research was conducted as a screening design from quantitative research models. In the study, a scale was applied as a data collection tool. The study group of the research consists of 619 undergraduate students studying at undergraduate level in various faculties at Düzce University in the academic year 2018-2019. "Earthquake Awareness Scale", developed by the researcher, was applied to these students. According to the results of the study, there was a significant difference in the effects of earthquake sub-factor of the scale in terms of gender of the students. There was no significant difference between grade levels and earthquake awareness levels of undergraduate students in all sub-factors of the scale. In the effects of earthquake subfactor, a significant difference is seen in earthquake awareness of the students in terms of their residences. No significant difference was found in the other sub-factors of the scale according to the residence. There was no significant difference in the earthquake awareness of the undergraduate students in any subfactors of the earthquake awareness levels according to the number of floors of the students' residences. As a result of the study, it was proposed to organize trainings and conferences on natural disasters, especially earthquakes.


Introduction
Natural disasters have strong and negative effects on human activities. They cause some serious effects on both economic, social and sociological life in Turkey. Disasters are natural events that cannot be coped with, causing physical, economic and social losses for people, affecting societies by stopping or interrupting normal life and human activities (Akar, 2013;Ergünay, 1996). Natural disasters can be listed as avalanches, floods, landslides, droughts, volcano eruptions, frost, storms, earthquakes and so on (Moe & Pathranarakul, 2006;Şahin & Sipahioğlu, 2007). The effects of natural disasters on human life are increasing day by day. The loss of life caused by natural disasters in the world in 2009 was four times higher than in the 1980s. It was determined that 950 natural disasters occurred in 2010 were much higher than the previous 30-year average (Munich, 2010). Earthquakes are one of the major natural disasters in Turkey. Earthquakes are geological and geomorphological disasters. They are the short-term natural events that take their sources from the Earth's depths and cause sudden vibrations and quakes (Güngördü, 2010;İzbırak, 1991;Şahin & Sipahioğlu, 2007). According to their character of occurrences, earthquakes can be grouped as tectonic, collapse and volcanic. Among these, tectonic earthquakes have the largest impact area and the greatest intensity (Erinç, 2000;Güngördü, 2010;Ilgar, 2017;Şahin & Sipahioğlu, 2007). When the tectonic earthquake is compared to others, the earthquake region is much wide than the volcanic earthquakes and its severity and destructiveness are much more effective. The region where the tectonic earthquakes are most common in the world is the Pacific Ocean, also called the Pacific Fire Circle (Doğanay & Sever, 2016;Güngördü, 2010;Ilgar, 2017). It is followed by an Alpine-Himalayan-Caucasian Belt. Turkey is the second major earthquake zone on the Mediterranean Earthquake Belt (Şahin & Sipahioğlu, 2007;Yazıcı & Koca, 2014). In Turkey, compressed by Arab-African plates from the South and Eurasia from the North, there are lots of active faults (Öztürk et al., 2008). In Turkey, North Anatolian Fault (NAF), the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) and West Anatolian Fault (WAF) and their surroundings are areas where the risk of earthquakes is quite high. These fault lines are still very active today. Almost all the earthquakes in Turkey are of tectonic origin and occur mostly in and around these three major earthquakes faults. Therefore, in Turkey, in Aegean Region, Marmara Region, North Anatolia Region, Hatay and its surroundings and Eastern Anatolia Region, lots of earthquakes occur often (Atalay, 1987;Sahin & Sipahioğlu, 2007;Levy et Solvar, 2000as cited in Ocalan, 2005. Four major earthquakes occurred in the last century (1943,1957,1967,1999) can be considered disasters in Turkey (TUBITAK, 2001).
Almost 90% of Turkey, about 90% of Turkey's population, about 70% of the urban population, about 90% of industrial areas and almost 70% of power plants are in earthquake areas. (Erdik 2002). In the last century, earthquakes occurred in Turkey, according to official figures, almost 100 thousand people have passed away and around 200 thousand people were injured (Taymaz, 2001). Factors such as inappropriate settlement choice, unstudied infrastructure, poor construction stock and disruptions in controls increase disaster losses. Earthquakes can have important effects on population distribution and economic activities (Pelling et al., 2002). 1999 Düzce earthquake is an important experience of this. After 1999 Gölcük and Düzce earthquakes, importance of disaster management activities in Turkey and studies in this area has increased. The Gölcük earthquake caused the death of around 18 thousand people, nearly 50 thousand people were injured and almost 120 thousand people became homeless (Başıbüyük, 2004;Erdik et al., 2004). Disaster Management is a concept that emphasizes to prevent disasters and minimize their losses. All institutions and organizations need to put their efforts and resources against disasters to plan and implement what needs to be done (Ergünay, 1996). It is of great importance that the entire society, especially those with high earthquake risk, should be made aware of the disasters and be prepared in this regard.
Earthquakes affect social and economic life and education negatively. Physical environments of education, teachers, students and families may face significant difficulties (Yıldız, 2000). Earthquakes adversely affect motivation and success in educational environments (Sert, 2002).
To prepare against earthquakes which have serious effects and damages on Turkey, the importance of educational institutions is indisputable. Disaster training in education institutions, especially earthquake, requires a very serious attitude. If the earthquake training is not carried out correctly and effectively, the lack of information will cause the continuation of traditional views on earthquakes and important mistakes (Ross & Shuell, 1993;Tsai, 2001). Being aware of the earthquake requires having the right information to create this awareness, as well as having the right attitudes to determine how to act against the earthquake (Demirci & Yıldırım, 2015). Countries and regions include courses for natural disasters in educational institutions in order to know the natural disaster that they can face and to raise awareness of the society. For example, in North America, 41.2% of colleges and universities have courses on natural disasters. In these courses, more regional examples are given (Cross, 2000, p. 77).
Raising awareness against earthquakes that have serious effects in Turkey and maintaining it is highly important in minimizing the damages of a potential earthquake. By increasing the level of knowledge against natural disasters, societies can be ready against earthquakes with all their institutions before the earthquake happens (Demirci & Yıldırım, 2015). Knowing how to act during and after an earthquake is necessary to reduce potential damage. It is known that earthquakerelated damages are much less in societies that have enough information of the earthquake risk and possible damages of them in comparison with the societies that do not have necessary information (Panic et al., 2013). The more preparedness and awareness are provided against natural disasters, the more secure the society will be. For this reason, educational institutions serve as a bridge between students, families and the society in order to raise awareness and make society ready for natural disasters (Johnston et al., 2011). Therefore, it is very crucial to determine the earthquake awareness of the university students who will create an important workforce of a country in the future. It is very important to enhance the knowledge of university students on natural disasters and especially for earthquake and to plan future studies for students in universities to make this knowledge permanent and practicable. For these reasons, it is important to determine the level of earthquake awareness and point of view of university students to raise awareness against earthquake. This study was carried out in this direction.

Purpose of the Study
This study was carried out in order to determine the views of undergraduate students about earthquake awareness and to examine in terms of various variables (gender, class, faculty, residence, the number of floors of the residences and faculties).

Method
In this section, the research model, study group, data collection tools, data collection and data analysis are emphasized.

Research Model
The research was conducted as a survey research method from quantitative research models. Survey is a group of studies aimed at collecting data to reveal some of the special features (Büyüköztürk et al., 2018). In the study, scale was applied as a data collection tool. In this way, the survey model aims to reveal the situation that is the subject of the study as it is (Ekiz, 2015;Karasar, 2016). This method is a preferred research method in social sciences (Borg & Gall, 1971). For this reason, this study is an important tool in obtaining statistical data survey (Arseven, 2001) and a scale was prepared for the research. Literature review was done for the prepared scales. While preparing the scale, both geography teachers' and undergraduate students' opinions were taken. In addition, opinions of experts from Karabük and Düzce University were collected for field and statistical studies.

Participants
The study group of the research consists of 204 (33%) male and 415 (67%) female students who were randomly selected among the undergraduate students of Düzce University in the academic year 2018-2019. Demographic data of the study group is given in Table 1. The questionnaire was applied face to face on a voluntary basis. Since volunteering is essential, the results of the surveys can be more realistic (Kerski, 2000). It can be said that students who are interested in natural disasters voluntarily participate and fill the questionnaire, not the ones who feel it as a necessity as the questionnaire has been delivered through an official channel. It has also made it easier for the students to fill in the questionnaire more easily and to make corrections. Since the volunteers participated to the study, it is thought that the data obtained from the participants can be more sincere (Arseven, 2001

Instrument
A scale titled "Earthquake Awareness Scale" was prepared for the study. The scale was applied to 728 undergraduate students (227 male and 501 female) and reliability studies were conducted. As a result of this preliminary application, the 8th item, the load value of which is less than ,30, and is insufficient to discriminate, was removed from the questionnaire (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2004). Earthquake Awareness Scale, which consisted of 20 items at the beginning, was determined as 19 items. As a result of the reliability study, the scale was found to be subsuming under three factors. As a result of this application, the reliability of the scale was ensured. These factors were determined as Distribution of Earthquake Zones, the Effects of Earthquake and Earthquake Education factors. The variance explained by these 3 factors is 61.74%. KMO value of the scale was found to be ,87. As a result of reliability analysis, Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as ,868. In such scales, the results where KMO results are above 70 are suitable for the application (Arseven, 2001;Büyüköztürk, 2018;Karasar, 2016;Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2005;Şencan, 2005;Tavşancıl, 2005). In addition, the reliability of the scale was re-established by the CFA study. The lisrel 8.80 program was used for DFA.

Data Analysis
Statistical analyzes were performed using SPSS 22.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science for Personal Computers). Descriptive statistics for the analysis of the problem sentence and subproblems of the research, t-test for unrelated samples and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for unrelated samples were used. Scheffe Post Hoch test was used for comparisons between groups. The scoring range of Likert-scale survey items is given in Table 2.  Table 3 shows the descriptive data of the views of undergraduate students regarding the "distribution of earthquake zones" factor. As can be seen in Table 3, the most favorable opinion was: "I have knowledge about natural disasters that can be seen in Turkey" ( ̅ =3.88 / I agree) and most of them don't answer this item: "I have knowledge about places that are in more earthquake risk in the world." ( ̅ =3.40 / neutral). The average of the students' views on the distribution of earthquake zones was ( ̅ =3.73) for "I agree" option. According to the data in this table, it can be said that the awareness level of the undergraduate students regarding the distribution of earthquake zones is high. Table 4 shows the descriptive data of the views of undergraduate students about the "the Effects of Earthquake" factor. According to Table 4, the most favorable opinion of the students was "The city I live in is at risk of earthquakes" ( ̅ =4.57 / I totally agree), while the lowest participation was stated for this item: "I have knowledge about the importance of having the earthquake bag before the earthquake " ( ̅ =4,00 / I agree). The average of students' views on Effects of Earthquake was ( ̅ =4.25) for "I totally agree" option. According to the data in this table, undergraduate students' level of knowledge about the Effects of Earthquake is high. Table 5 shows the descriptive data of the views of undergraduate students regarding the "Earthquake Education" factor. Table 5 shows that the highest participation was for the "University informs me about the things that should be done in case of earthquake" item ( ̅ =2,6 = 2,64 / undecided), while the lowest participation was for the "University education makes me aware of natural disasters" item ( ̅ =2, 74 / neutral). The average of students' views on Earthquake Education was ( ̅ =2.69) for "neutral" option. According to the data in this table, it can be said that the undergraduate students find the Earthquake Education inadequate. When the Table 6 is examined, it is seen that the independent groups t test results show whether the earthquake awareness levels of undergraduate students differ according to the gender. According to the table, there was no significant difference between the gender of the students and the factor of distribution of earthquake zones, which is the first sub-factor of Earthquake Awareness Levels [t (617) = 0.689; p> .05]. When the effects of earthquake factor, which is the second sub-factor, is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference in terms of gender of the students [t (617) = -3,148; p<.05]. When the earthquake education factor, which is the third sub-factor, is examined, there is no significant difference in terms of gender of students [t (617) = 1,026; p> .05]. When the whole scale is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between the gender and earthquake knowledge level of the students [t (617) = -0,515; p> .05].  When Table 7 is examined, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows whether there is a significant difference between the grade levels and Earthquake Awareness Levels of the students. According to Table 7, there is no statistically significant difference between the distribution of earthquake zones and grade levels among the sub-factors of the earthquake awareness levels of students [F (3,615) = 2,004; p> .05]. There is also no significant difference between the effect of earthquake factor and the students' grade levels [F (3,615) = 0,444; p> .05]. There is no significant difference between earthquake education factor, which is the third sub-factor, and grade levels of students [F (3,615) = 1,853; p> .05]. There was no significant difference between the overall scale and the students' grade levels [F (3,615) = 0,484; p> .05].

Findings on the answers of undergraduate students towards Earthquake Awareness Scale
As can be seen in Table 8, the results of one-way ANOVA showing whether there is a significant difference between the residence and earthquake awareness level of the students can be seen. According to the table, there is no statistically significant difference between the knowledge of the distribution of earthquake zones and the residences among the sub-factors of the earthquake awareness levels of the students [F (3,615) = 1,040; p> .05]. There is also a significant difference between the second sub-factor, effect of earthquake information factor and students' residences [F (3,615) = 5,022; p <.05]. According to the Tukey test, which is organized at the source of the difference, there is a difference between those staying in the student house and staying with family in favor of staying with family; and those staying in the student house and staying in the state dormitory in favor of the ones who stay at the student house. There is no significant difference between the earthquake education factor, which is the third sub-factor, and the current residence [F (3,615) = 0.163; p> .05]. There was no significant difference between the overall scale and the current residence [F (3,615) = 2,054; p> .05].  When Table 9 is examined, one-way ANOVA results showing whether there is a significant difference between the number of floors and earthquake knowledge levels of the students are observed. According to the table, there is no statistically significant difference in the number of floors of the residence and earthquake knowledge level of the students for the distribution of the earthquake zones factor [F (3,615) = 1,577; p> .05]. There is no significant difference between the effect of earthquake factor, which is the second sub-factor, and the number of floors of the students' residence [F (3,615) = 0,889; p> .05]. There is no significant difference between earthquake education factor, which is the third sub-factor, and the number of floors of the students' residence [F (3,615) = 1,827; p> .05]. There was no significant difference between the overall scale and the residence of the students [F (3,615) = 2,316; p> .05]. When Table 10 is examined, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows whether there is a significant difference between the number of floors of the students' faculties and their earthquake knowledge levels. According to the table, no statistically significant difference was found between the factor of the distribution of earthquake zones and the number of floors of the faculties among the sub-factors of earthquake awareness level [F (3,615) = 0,220; p> .05]. There was no significant difference between the effects of earthquake factor, which is the second sub-factor, and the number of floors of the students' faculties [F (3,615) = 2,265; p> .05]. There was a significant difference between the third sub-factor, earthquake education factor, and the number of floors in students' faculties [F (3,615) = 5,167; p <.05]. According to the Tukey test on the source of the difference, there is a difference between four-storey and five-storey faculties and the four-storey faculties are in favor. There was no significant difference between the overall scale and the residence of the students [F (3,615) = 1,660; p> .05].
When Table 11 is examined, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows whether there is a significant difference between the faculties and earthquake knowledge levels of the students. According to the table, a statistically significant difference was found between the distribution of earthquake zones factor and the number of floors of the faculties among the sub-factors of earthquake awareness level [F (6,612) = 3,039; p< .05]. According to the Tukey test on the source of the difference, there is a significant difference between the students of engineering faculty and faculty of education students and the difference is in favor of the students of education faculty. There was a significant difference between the effects of earthquake factor and the students' faculties [F (6,612) = 3,288; p< .05]. According to Tukey test on the source of the difference, the difference between the students of the faculty of business administration and the students of the faculty of forestry is in favor of the students of the faculty of business administration. Similarly, there is a significant difference between the students of the faculty of business administration and the students of engineering faculty and it is in favor of the students of faculty of business administration. There is a significant difference between the third sub-factor, earthquake education factor and the students' faculties [F (6,612) = 7,201; p< .05].
According to the Tukey test on the source of the difference, there is a significant difference between faculty of education, faculty of business, faculty of forestry, faculty of health sciences, faculty of theology (religious studies), faculty of science and literature, and faculty of engineering. There was no significant difference between the overall scale and faculties [F (6,612) = 1,428; p> .05].

Discussion and Conclusion
The average of the opinions of the undergraduate students about the distribution of earthquake zones is "I agree" ( ̅ =3,73), the average of the opinions about effects of earthquake is "I totally agree" ( ̅ =4,5), the average of opinions about earthquake education is "neutral" ( ̅ = 2,69). According to these data, it can be said that the awareness of undergraduate students about earthquake zones and earthquake effects is enough. These results can be supported with Yıldırım and Demirci (2015) and Kaya and Aladağ (2017). According to these results, it can be said that the education of the universities about earthquake is insufficient. Altay (2008) concluded that the subject of earthquake in social studies is not enough. Taymaz (2001) and Ak (2002) found that the training on earthquake at various levels is inadequate. There was no significant difference between the gender and the distribution of earthquake zones, which is the first sub-factor of earthquake awareness levels, and earthquake education factor of undergraduate students [t (617) = 0,689; p> .05]. It is seen that there is a significant difference in the effect of earthquake factor in terms of gender of students [t (617) = -3,148; p <.05]. These results may also be associated with Kayalı (2018) and Aksoy and Sözen (2013). In these studies, gender was accepted as a variable. According to Aksoy and Sözen (2013), there was no significant difference in terms of gender.
There was no significant difference in all sub-factors of undergraduate students' grade levels and earthquake awareness levels of them. Aksoy and Sözen (2013), Kaya and Aladağ (2017), Aydın and Coşkun (2011) also studied on grade levels at various stages and reached similar findings.
In the earthquake awareness of undergraduate students; there was a significant difference in the effects of earthquake factor according to the residence of the students [F (3,615) = 5,022; p < .05]. No significant difference was found in the other sub-factors of the scale in relation to the residence. Aksoy and Sözen (2013) accepted the residence as a variable and there was no significant difference according to residence.
There was no significant difference in the earthquake awareness of the undergraduate students in any sub-factor of the earthquake awareness levels according to the number of floors of the students' residence. Aksoy and Sözen (2013) studied on the number of floors of residences and there was no significant difference in their research.
In the earthquake education sub-factor of the scale regarding the earthquake awareness levels of undergraduate students, a significant difference was found between the four-storey faculty and the five-storey faculty in favor of the four-storey faculty. [F (6,612) = 7,201; p <.05]. In the other sub-factors of the scale, there was no significant difference between the numbers of the floors of the faculties and students' earthquake awareness.
In the earthquake awareness levels of undergraduate students, significant differences were observed in all sub-factors of the scale according to the types of faculties. These differences were mostly in favor of engineering students. Demirci and Yıldırım (2015), Aksoy and Sözen (2013) studied with different types of schools and in Aksoy and Sözen's research (2013) a significant difference was seen according to the type of school.

Suggestions
According to the results of the study, the opinions of the undergraduate students in general indicate that the students are aware of the effects of the earthquake zones and the consequences that the earthquake may have, but the university education is not enough for the preparation of the earthquake. In order to maintain this awareness, it may be suggested to hold trainings and conferences on disasters, especially earthquakes. In addition, it would be beneficial to conduct earthquake evacuation drills in universities and student dormitories. Meeting areas should be identified in these institutions and students should be informed about this.