Ward 23 in the City of Cape Town South Africa is situated within 16 km of Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (KNPS). Massive investments were made to provide the 13 800 residents of Ward 23 with information on emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures in case of a general-emergency event at KNPS. However, it is not known whether these efforts to inform and prepare the proximal residents for a general emergency have been effective or not. The objective of this study was to investigate the level of knowledge of and preparedness for an emergency exhibited by residents of Ward 23. Data was collected through the distribution of semi-structured questionnaires to 204 residents at the study site to ascertain their views on the provision and accessibility of emergency information and to find out whether they utilised this information to prepare themselves. The results revealed that the majority of interviewed residents had very poor knowledge concerning emergency procedures, and few had made any effort to prepare themselves. The majority of better-informed and prepared residents tended to reside closer to KNPS. The poor levels of knowledge and preparedness are attributed to residents’ lack of awareness concerning the availability of information, misconceptions regarding a nuclear hazard and a general emergency event or a lack of incentive to inform themselves due to a perceived high sense of security and the improbability of such an event occurring. To improve resident knowledge and preparedness, efforts should be made to advertise the availability and importance of such emergency information and enhance incentives for residents to inform themselves.
Nuclear energy, whilst being a critical source of energy, also has the potential to be a devastating hazard (Koronowski & Romm
The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (KNPS) is situated approximately 30 km from central Cape Town. Approximately 140 000 people reside within the immediate 16 km radius of the KNPS, known as the Formal Emergency Planning Zone (FEPZ). Institutions such as Eskom and the City of Cape Town Disaster Risk Management Centre (CoCT DRMC) invested much effort and resources into preparing for a potential general emergency. This includes developing evacuation models, integrated disaster-management plans amongst local-government institutions and emergency services as well as safety-and-preparedness guidelines for the public to inform and prepare themselves in order to reduce the risk of them being exposed to radiological hazards. However, despite the availability of this information through various mediums, it is unknown whether residents of the FEPZ utilise the information to better inform and prepare themselves for a general emergency event.
This article aims to present the findings of an exploratory research project amongst residents residing in the proximity of KNPS, investigating the levels of knowledge and preparedness concerning a general hazard. Specifically the main objectives of the article were to:
ascertain the level of the residents’ knowledge of and familiarity with general emergency-related information, plans and procedures
identify their attitude and perception of access to and the availability of general emergency-related information as well as whether it is beneficial to them
examine what practices, strategies and plans residents would follow in a general emergency event
determine whether a geographic distance-decay style of relationship exists between respondents’ levels of informedness and preparation and their geographical proximity to KNPS.
The findings of this investigation will be discussed and compared to local and international literature to interpret the results. Finally, several recommendations for stakeholders will be put forward to address the issues raised in this article.
Nuclear energy has been regarded as popular source of energy generation for the last 60 years with 434 nuclear power stations operating globally at present (International Atomic Energy Agency
Before the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl disasters, the improbability of a general emergency event was so high that it was considered unnecessary by most nuclear power stations or their regulatory bodies to develop any emergency or evacuation plans (Carter & Thompson
Subsequently, nuclear-related stakeholders globally put a much greater effort into formulating strategies and procedures to respond to a general emergency event (Council for Excellence in Government
Unfortunately, despite the previous paradigm shifts in thinking about general emergencies and disaster reduction, Japan was caught unprepared during the 2011 FNPS meltdown (Funabashi & Kitazawa
Along with South Africa’s national energy provider and nuclear regulator, Eskom, the CoCT DRMC has shown commitment to formulating general emergency strategies and procedures. These include several integrated plans and models to assist in preparing evacuation and disaster-response strategies in case of a general emergency (Eskom
However, the recent general emergency in Japan has brought about a rise in concern about and criticism against the KNPS (Froggatt, Hazemann & Schneider
Ward 23 forms part of the City of Cape Town District Municipality, lying approximately 12 km north of central Cape Town and directly south of the KNPS. According to South African census data from 2011, the ward’s population is approximately 34 000 (Department of Strategic Development Information and GIS
The predominant race is white (European) South African (76%).
Of those aged 20 years and older, 82% have completed high school and some form of tertiary education (45%).
Of the labour force (ages 15 to 64), 95% is employed.
Concerning income, 83% of the population earn above ZAR 3200 per month. Furthermore, 21.5% of the ward’s population earn between ZAR 12 801 and 25 600, and 22.8% earn between ZAR 25 601 and 51 200.
The majority of the ward’s area is farmland or undeveloped land (City of Cape Town
Map of study site, Ward 23.
Whilst development has been kept to a minimum due to the proximity of KNPS, development along the coast has grown rapidly. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of households and the population grew by 75% and 70%, respectively. Ward 23 was selected as the study site because the ward is situated almost wholly within KNPS’s 16 km Formal Emergency Planning Zone with its five suburbs situated next to the station as seen in
Approximate distances between Koeberg Nuclear Power Station and the suburbs in Ward 23.
Suburb | Approximate suburb distance from KNPS | |
---|---|---|
Kilometres | Miles | |
Duynefontein | 2-2.6 | 1.24-1.62 |
Van Riebeeckstrand | 2.5-4.12 | 1.55-2.56 |
Melkbosstrand | 4.52-6.86 | 2.81-5.18 |
Bloubergstrand | 12.66-15.30 | 7.87-9.51 |
Blouberg | 15.31-16.54 | 9.51-10.28 |
FEPZ | 16 |
9.9 |
FEPZ, Formal Emergency Planning Zone; KNPS, Koeberg Nuclear Power Station.
The FNPS boundary is not a perfect 16 km radius from the KNPS, appearing ‘jagged’ to take streets and properties into account.
A purposive-sampling technique was employed by the researcher in the study site. The sampling criteria included only adults (18 years and over) who resided (or considered themselves residents) in one of the five suburbs of Ward 23. Minors (below 18 years), daily commuters or day visitors into the ward were excluded from the sampling. The respondents were divided into five geographical strata based on the five suburbs located in the study site, which would allow for:
maximising respondent variation within the purposive sample (Koerber & McMichael
observing any relationship or differences between respondents’ proximity to KNPS and their levels of knowledge and preparedness.
A semi-structured, qualitative questionnaire was developed and distributed to residents over the course of four weeks. The questionnaire consisted of 33 questions, which included open-ended, polar and Likert-scale based questions. Polar and Likert-scale type questions had an adjoining section for respondents to explain their selected answers more descriptively. The questionnaires were styled on the KAP method (World Health Organization
‘Knowledge’-oriented questions assessed respondents’ awareness of and familiarity with information provided in general emergency guidelines and plans. These questions assessed how much respondents knew and the accuracy of their knowledge of the information available.
‘Attitude’-oriented questions focussed on analysing respondents’ perceptions and opinions on particular issues and matters.
The ‘Practices’-oriented questions explored the measures that respondents would take in preparing themselves and their households as well as the course of action they would take in a general emergency.
Sampling took place in each of the suburbs, the researcher going from door to door to interview residents one at a time.
A total of 230 questionnaires were completed via door-to-door distribution. Questionnaires with errors, incomplete answers, inconsistencies, lack of depth or ‘prank answers’ were removed from the data consolidation. In total, 203 questionnaires were acceptable for consolidation (
Total number of questionnaires consolidated for findings.
Ward 23 suburbs | Total number of questionnaires consolidated |
---|---|
Duynefontein | 33 |
Van Riebeeckstrand | 37 |
Melkbosstrand | 50 |
Bloubergstrand | 31 |
Blouberg | 52 |
Data have been consolidated and are presented in a qualitative and descriptive format in the ‘Analysis of findings’ section. Some data were quantified into charts in order better to examine and display response proportions and variation between different suburbs. A discussion of the consolidated data will be presented in the following section. The data was compared with relevant literature.
Almost half of respondents in Ward 23 were unaware of general emergency-related information or quarterly forums that have been made available to the public (
Respondents’ familiarity with information related to general emergencies.
Similar trends were observed concerning respondents’ knowledge of and familiarity with notification about general emergencies (
Respondents’ knowledge of methods of general-emergency notification.
Respondents’ knowledge of procedure for evacuating school children.
Respondents’ knowledge of evacuation routes out of Formal Emergency Planning Zone.
Respondents’ knowledge of location of emergency assembly points and mass-care centres.
Explanations given by respondents for the poor familiarity amongst the majority of respondents across Ward 23 with information related to general emergencies included the following:
Some respondents were not aware of the availability or existence of such information.
Some respondents considered the information too long and boring to read.
Some acknowledge that ‘I have never got around to reading it’.
Some believed that the information was unnecessary or would not assist them.
Respondents did not believe that information was accurate or reliable, or they believed that information was used to create false sense of security.
Some respondents did not keep the information at hand or lost it.
Some respondents admit to throwing it away.
During interaction with respondents, it was revealed that they hold serious misconceptions about the potential hazard to which they were exposed. Many respondents appeared to believe that a general-emergency event, or ‘if something went wrong’ at KNPS, would cause an ‘atomic-bomb style’ explosion in which everything around KNPS would be ‘incinerated’ and irradiated for several kilometres within minutes. Therefore, many respondents believed that there was no need to be informed or prepared because they would be unable to escape in time and perish anyway.
As seen in
Respondents’ self-rating of their perception of safety residing in the Formal Emergency Planning Zone.
Their positive opinions were based on their belief that KNPS is well managed and ‘in good hands’ as well as knowing someone (friend, neighbour, spouse, family member or themselves) who either had worked or was currently working at KNPS. Notably, the majority of respondents throughout the ward was more concerned about the threat of crime, car accidents and other everyday hazards to their personal safety. They perceived these hazards to be more likely to occur than a general emergency at KNPS.
The majority of respondents situated further away from KNPS, particularly in Blouberg and Bloubergstrand, had a negative perception of the availability and accessibility of information sources related to a general emergency (
Respondents’ perception of the accessibility and availability of information related to general emergencies.
Despite many respondents stating that information was available and accessible, some believed that the information provided was insufficient. Several respondents felt that the information was poor and lacked detail whilst others complained that it was too complicated and confusing. Inversely, others felt that it was sufficiently informative and easy to understand. It was observed that the majority of respondents residing in suburbs closer to KNPS felt that information was sufficiently informative and adequate whilst those further away had mostly an opposite perception.
Whether sufficient information was provided or not, many respondents felt that it was unnecessary to be well informed because of the low probability of such an event, because emergency personnel would instruct them what to do or because there would be no hope of a timeous escape. As a result, many respondents admitted to discarding or throwing away information given to them because the information was deemed to be unnecessary or unimportant.
In total, 105 of the respondents admitted to being unprepared whilst only 38 considered themselves to be prepared in some way or another (
Respondents self-rating their perceived level of preparedness for a general emergency.
Their reasons for the lack of (or need for) preparation included:
They have never thought about it (this perception was generally observed in Bloubergstrand and Blouberg and amongst respondents who were poorly informed).
KNPS is safe, and the probability of an emergency event is very low, which means that the risk is low.
The authorities will instruct them on what to do, when to do it and where to go.
If an event occurs, the situation will be too chaotic and hopeless. This perception was widely held by respondents, concerned about heavy traffic as a result of limited road networks and a large population within the ward as well as the probability of general panic and confusion amongst evacuees.
Only 26 respondents had prepared some form of household disaster plan or had a pack of emergency supplies at the ready.
List of respondents’ varied disaster plans and supply-pack items.
Disaster plan | Supply pack |
---|---|
Emergency details of family | Water bottles |
Checklist of what to take | Canned food |
Predetermined place to go to | Packed clothes |
Close all windows and doors | Trailer (with several supplies) |
Leave immediately | Medical kits (bag for important medication) |
Await instructions by authorities | Camping gear |
Consult guidelines before deciding what to do | Go-bag (small amounts of each supply in it) |
Other general practices and plans concerning preparedness commonly exhibited by these respondents included the following:
They stored important documentation (identity documents, bank details, birth certificate, et cetera) in one place for easy collecting if need be. Similar provisions were made for personal items such as family memorabilia.
They kept information sources on general emergencies such as calendars and guidelines in a known and accessible location so as to be consulted in cases of need.
They ensured that their vehicles have enough petrol to travel more than 25 km away from home.
Several respondents felt that they were adequately prepared by just reading and familiarising themselves with general-emergency guidelines. Thus, they would not be confused or frightened but would know what to expect and what to do when necessary.
When asked where they would go in the event of a general emergency, many respondents agreed that they would probably travel ‘as far away as possible’, listing locations they perceive to be far away enough (
Locations to which respondents would evacuate in the event of a general emergency.
An analysis of the consolidated data reveal that the majority of respondents in Ward 23 have poor levels of knowledge and awareness of information related to general emergencies, and only a few individuals have made any preparations for a potential nuclear hazard and evacuation. Several interconnected factors have been identified as responsible for the level of information awareness, knowledge and preparation. Respondents also exhibited particular perceptions of safety or even fatalism.
Interestingly, there was no evidence that different demographic characteristics influenced respondents’ levels of awareness, knowledge and preparedness. Whilst this seems strange or unlikely, especially in the setting of a highly heterogeneous country as South Africa, it must be taken into consideration that Ward 23’s population is somewhat homogenous with the majority of respondents interviewed being white, highly educated, employed and living in well-developed formal residential zones. I observed no trends or patterns that suggested a link between particular demographic characteristics such as age, education, gender, class or wealth and respondents’ levels of knowledge and preparedness.
However, it was evident from the data that there were significant differences between these levels of knowledge and preparedness and respondents’ proximity to KNPS. In the literature of geographic vulnerability, it has been commonly observed that those who reside closer to a known hazard tend to demonstrate greater knowledge about the hazard and have a greater probability of developing appropriate preparations for such an event (Lindell & Hwang
A multitude of information and material related general emergencies is distributed by Eskom and the CoCT DRMC to the public via several mediums such as by post, online, at local municipal offices, at public libraries or at the KNPS public information centre (City of Cape Town
It was observed that at least a quarter of the respondents believed that a general-emergency event at KNPS could result in an atomic-bomb-style explosion or blast-wave that would cause immediate death and destruction. Thus, many respondents fail to see the need to properly inform or prepare themselves. However, this perception of their exposure to a hazard is greatly mistaken. The materials that nuclear power stations like KNPS use to produce energy are radiological in nature but not explosive (Nosowitz
Previous observations at other general emergency situations such as the 1979 Three Mile Island general emergency indicated that the majority of people (even those outside of the designated evacuation zone) would evacuate themselves much further than the authorities stated was actually necessary (Zeigler & Johnson
Whilst some respondents see no need to be informed or prepared because they perceive the situation as hopeless, many respondents, especially in Duynefontein and Melkbosstrand, stated that they felt safe with nuclear power and confident in KNPS’s management. Some also indicated that they felt safe because they have a relationship with KNPS staff. This sentiment is not dissimilar to Japan’s population who, prior to the 2011 FNPS general emergency, were confident in the management and operation of its nuclear-power industry, believing the possibility of a nuclear-related disaster to be highly improbable (Funabashi & Kitazawa
A lack of preparedness by respondents could include the fact that Ward 23 of the CoCT is not exposed to major natural or technological hazards (Van Niekerk & Visser
Whilst it could be supposed that those residing closer to a known hazard would feel less safe than those living further away, the opposite was discovered, namely that those residing closer to KNPS felt significantly safer than those further away. From the analysis of data gathered, it can be assumed that the perceptions of safety are linked to the level of knowledge of respondents concerning information related to nuclear and general emergencies. Several of the previously listed factors such as the high levels of misconception concerning exposure to a nuclear hazard and poor communication and distribution of information, which showed the highest figures in Blouberg and Bloubergstrand, probably contributed to a lack of confidence about safety amongst respondents of these suburbs. Conversely, respondents of Duynefontein and Melkbosstrand felt safer due to increased awareness, communication and familiarity (but not necessarily knowledge of the content) of distributed information.
However, whilst most respondents stated that they generally felt safe residing in the FEPZ on a day-to-day basis, they also expressed major insecurity and an almost fatalistic perception with regard to a general emergency and their evacuation situation. A major concern of respondents is that, in the event of a general emergency, the transport routes leading away from the area will be unable to accommodate the evacuation of the large (and rapidly growing) population residing in the FEPZ before being impacted by the hazard (be it by radiation contamination or an explosion, in some opinions). Similar fears have been expressed in the US and Europe, indicating that a large and growing population in the vicinity of nuclear stations may inhibit evacuation efforts (Donn
This study has found the majority of respondents across Ward 23 to be poorly informed and unprepared for a general-emergency event. The consolidation of data revealed evidence of a link between respondents’ increased proximity to KNPS and the increased levels of awareness, knowledge and familiarity concerning general-emergency information, perceptions of the availability, accessibility and sufficiency of said information as well as perceptions of personal preparedness and safety. The two main causes for the general lack of informedness amongst respondents were identified. The first includes that respondents were unaware that information related to general emergencies was available to the public or that they have not received such information. The second cause relates to respondents’ lack of incentive to inform themselves. This disincentive to acquire or familiarise themselves with information can be attributed to (1) a perception of hopelessness and fatalism, (2) misconceptions concerning their exposure to a hazard, (3) the improbability of a threat or their views on their safety and complacency and (4) social capital with KNPS staff and trust in management.
It can be recommended that stakeholders such as Eskom and DRMC improve branding and advertise their information better to make residents of the ward more aware that information exists. Stakeholders should especially focus on correcting misconceptions amongst the public such as the idea of KNPS exploding. Other efforts should include attempting to make information more attractive to incentivise the public to familiarise themselves with the information and to engage with the stakeholders which provide them.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.