Introduction
The World Health Organization defines events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, and landslides that affect the health and well-being of individuals physically, biologically, and socially as natural disasters. 1 Earthquakes have an important place among natural disasters and are among the 10 deadliest disasters. 2 Regardless of location and time, earthquakes cause physical losses and affect society sociologically, economically, and psychologically.Reference Yakıt Ak and Aslan 3 Türkiye is located on active fault lines due to its location, and earthquakes of various magnitudes occur yearly. For this reason, Türkiye is described as an “earthquake country.”Reference Marangoz and İzci 4
Earthquakes cause physical damage to individuals, families, and societies, as well as emotional, intellectual, and behavioral changes. It has been observed that this situation negatively affects mental health and can exacerbate existing psychological problems. 2 Although an earthquake lasts for a short time, its psychological effects on people can last for a long time. Individuals may have nightmares thinking that the earthquake will happen again.Reference Bahar and Çuhadar 5 Sleep problems, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and increased alcohol use are common problems after earthquakes.Reference Cénat, McIntee and Blais-Rochette 6 Events such as earthquakes can negatively affect individuals’ coping skills. When earthquake stress cannot be coped with, problems such as anxiety, stress, suicidal thoughts, and overreaction may be observed. In addition, ineffective coping methods such as denial and self-blame may be used.Reference Akca, Bilgehan and Karşıgil 7 On the other hand, using effective strategies such as religious coping, active coping, providing social support, and social coping helps individuals protect their mental health.Reference Makwana 8 -Reference Adhikari Baral and Bhagawati 9
Although earthquakes are one of the disasters that cause the most loss of life in terms of their devastating effects, there is not enough information and awareness about earthquakes in society. Therefore, increasing social awareness is of great importance.Reference Budak and Kandil 10 General awareness refers to the short-term understanding of disaster risks and preparedness, typically gained through brief educational interventions such as workshops or campaigns.Reference Asharose and Chakkalathundiyil Sasi 11 However, general earthquake awareness alone, which focuses primarily on emergency preparedness, safety measures, and immediate response strategies, is insufficient for long-term disaster risk reduction.Reference Budak and Kandil 10 In contrast, sustainable awareness is a long-term, integrated approach that embeds disaster preparedness into daily life.Reference Titko, Moricová and Sedliaková 12 Sustainable earthquake awareness goes beyond short-term preparedness to encompass ongoing education, risk mitigation, and policy-driven initiatives that enhance societal resilience. In line with the “Sustainable Cities and Communities” goal, which is the 11th of the Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations has prepared the Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (2015-2030). In this framework, targets have been determined for preventing, reducing, and increasing resilience to disaster-related risks. 13 Sustainable awareness against earthquake hazards includes not only emergency preparedness but also long-term risk reduction strategies, structural safety improvements, and resilience-building at both individual and institutional levels. For societies to reduce earthquake risk, they need to give importance to education, technological innovations, and policies that increase earthquake awareness. 14 It is recommended that disaster education be spread to the masses to ensure sustainable awareness.Reference Sözen and Genç 15 Practices in countries that are frequently exposed to earthquakes, such as Japan, show that disaster awareness should be supported with continuous education and drills. 16
Universities are important stakeholders in developing sustainable awareness in society. However, research indicates that a considerable number of students lack sufficient awareness of earthquakes and an understanding of disaster risk.Reference Kolaç, Eroğlu and Nirgiz 17 Increasing the knowledge and awareness levels of university students, who constitute the future workforce of countries, about earthquakes is of great importance. In addition to having accurate information about earthquake awareness, it is necessary to develop correct attitudes about where and how to act in a possible earthquake.Reference Titko, Moricová and Sedliaková 12 Sustainable earthquake awareness in universities should go beyond just teaching immediate safety measures. It should also include comprehensive educational programs that help students develop long-term preparedness habits, actively participate in activities that strengthen resilience, and stay informed about technological advancements and policies that reduce earthquake risks. The development of risk perception is critically dependent on the education of students, who are particularly significant building elements of the future.Reference Gökçay, Çevirme and İncirkuş Küçük 18 Diversifying the materials to be used in education and increasing the number of drills will make it easier to observe the positive results of awareness in society by ensuring that the knowledge becomes permanent.Reference Tetik Metin and Kınay Gündoğdu 19 Earthquakes can have deep emotional effects on students; they can cause reactions such as shock, panic, fear, and anxiety. This situation can negatively affect the daily life and academic success of students. Supporting students psychologically and increasing their earthquake awareness is important for a safe and resilient society.Reference Özkorkmaz, Türk and Taşyürek 20 While earthquake victims may have a more intense sense of fear and anxiety about the possibility of a recurrence, this situation may be less pronounced in students who have not experienced an earthquake. In this context, the importance of psychological support and social solidarity mechanisms increases.Reference Akca, Bilgehan and Karşıgil 7
This study aims to determine the relationship between sustainable earthquake awareness and coping with earthquake stress in university students. In the literature, studies on sustainable awareness levels and earthquake stress have been addressed separately, but the relationship between these two factors has not been sufficiently examined, especially in the context of earthquake victims and non-earthquake students. It is thought that this study will fill the knowledge gap in this area and contribute to earthquake awareness and preparedness among university students, who are the future of society.
In this context, the research questions are as follows:
-
1. What factors are associated with the sustainable level of earthquake awareness among university students?
-
2. What are the factors associated with university students’ strategies for coping with earthquake stress?
-
3. Is there a relationship between sustainable earthquake awareness and earthquake stress among students who experienced and did not experience an earthquake?
Methods
Research Design
This cross-sectional, descriptive, and comparative study utilized an online survey methodology. The STROBE checklist was utilized for reporting cross-sectional studies.
Sample
The known universe sampling method was used in the sample calculation. The sample size calculated at a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval (N = 576) was 231, and the research was completed with 239 students. The sample was calculated via https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=1&cl=95&ci=5&pp=50&ps=576&x=Calculate
Although the initial target population was health sciences students, the snowball sampling and convenience-based recruitment strategy allowed the inclusion of students from other academic disciplines as well.
Research Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria were that students who were over 18 years old, Turkish, and volunteered to answer the survey questions. The exclusion criterion was that the questionnaire was filled out incompletely.
Data Collection Tools
Data were collected by the Personal Information Form, the Sustainable Earthquake Awareness Scale, and the Earthquake Stress Coping Scale.
Personal Information Form
The questionnaire comprises a total of 18 items developed by the researchers based on a comprehensive review of the literatüre.Reference Çelik 21 , Reference Şekerci, Ayvazoğlu and Çekiç 22 These items cover socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, marital status, academic year, department, income level) as well as earthquake-related factors (e.g., earthquake experience, disaster-related training, possession of an earthquake preparedness kit, participation in earthquake drills, knowledge of assembly areas, etc.).
Sustainable Earthquake Awareness Scale
The Sustainable Earthquake Awareness Scale, developed by Sözen and Genç, has been validated for reliability and validity.Reference Sözen and Genç 15 The scale comprises 22 items structured into 3 dimensions: “Earthquake-Structure Relationship,” “Earthquake Preparedness Application,” and “Earthquake Preparedness.” Reliability analyses of the scale reported a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.884 for all items, while in the present study, it was found to be 0.90. As the score increases, earthquake awareness increases. The scale, which is both valid and reliable, was utilized to assess the sustainable earthquake awareness levels of university students.
Earthquake Stress Coping Scale (ESCS)
The 16-item, 4-point Likert-type scale, whose validity and reliability were established by Yöndem and Eren, consists of 3 sub-dimensions: Religious Coping, Positive Reappraisal, and Seeking Social Support.Reference Yöndem and Eren 23 Scoring is performed separately for each sub-dimension, as the scale does not provide a total score. Higher scores indicate greater use of the corresponding coping strategy. The Religious Coping sub-dimension has a score range of 5 to 20, while the Positive Reappraisal sub-dimension ranges from 6 to 24, and the Seeking Social Support sub-dimension also ranges from 6 to 24. The Cronbach’s alpha values for reliability were calculated as α = 0.75 for Religious Coping, α = 0.82 for Positive Reappraisal, and α = 0.64 for Seeking Social Support in the present study.
Data Collection
The data were collected by the researchers using a convenience sampling method through face-to-face interviews conducted at a private university between March 1 and May 1, 2024. The data started to be collected exactly 1 year after the February 6 earthquake. The interviews took place in areas where students frequently spent their time, such as the café, dining hall, and sportsfield.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 25.0 software. The selection of analysis techniques was guided by the distribution of the variables, assessed through skewness and kurtosis values. Variables with skewness and kurtosis values within the range of ±2 were considered to follow a normal distribution. The Chi-square test of independence was applied to examine the relationship between categorical variables and earthquake exposure status. For age comparisons based on earthquake exposure status, the Mann-Whitney U test was employed. The Independent Samples T-test was used to compare the scores of the SEAS and the ESCS across groups. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the variables influencing the scores of the SEAS, the ESCS, and their sub-dimensions.
Ethical Consideration
Before beginning data collection for the study, authorization was secured from the Istanbul Arel University Ethics Committee (Date: 01.03.2024 & approval number: 2024–04). Authorization to utilize the confirmed and reliable Turkish scales was acquired from the researchers through email. Before data collection, voluntary consent was secured on the initial page of forms. Students who consented to the study responded to the research inquiries.
Results
Demographic Characteristics and Scale Scores
The study identified various demographic and psychosocial characteristics of university students who had experienced the February 6 earthquake and those who had not (Table 1). Chi-square analyses indicated no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups regarding demographic variables. However, a significantly higher proportion of students who experienced the earthquake reported negative academic impacts compared to those who did not (χ 2 = 7.942, P = 0.02).
Socio-demographic and earthquake-related information of students with and without earthquake experience
Correlation analyses revealed no significant associations between SEAS scores and the ESCS positive reappraisal (r = 0.09, P = 0.15) or social support-seeking (r = 0.07, P = 0.26) sub-dimensions. However, a weak but significant positive correlation was found between SEAS scores and the religious coping sub-dimension (r = 0.22, P =0.00).
Factors Associated With Sustainable Earthquake Awareness and Earthquake Stress Coping Strategies
The factors influencing SEAS and ESCS scores are presented in Table 2. Key findings include:
Gender Differences: Female students had significantly higher positive reappraisal scores than male students (P = 0.00).
Income Level: Students whose income exceeded expenses had significantly higher sustainable earthquake awareness (P = 0.01), earthquake preparedness application (P = 0.00), and social support-seeking scores (P = 0.01).
Earthquake Experience: Students who had experienced an earthquake exhibited significantly higher sustainable earthquake awareness (P = 0.04) and earthquake preparedness scores (P = 0.01) compared to those without earthquake experience.
Preparedness Measures: Students who owned an earthquake emergency kit had significantly higher scores in sustainable earthquake awareness (P = 0.00), earthquake-structure relationship (P = 0.01), earthquake preparedness application (P = 0.00), and overall earthquake preparedness (P = 0.00).
Factors associated with the Sustainable Scale of Earthquake Awareness and Earthquake Stress Coping Scale
Note. Bold values indicate statistical significance. F, One-way analysis of variance; t, independent samples t-test.
Similarly, students who had received earthquake emergency training and secured their belongings to prevent hazards had significantly higher earthquake awareness (P = 0.00) and preparedness scores (P = 0.01).
Loss of Loved Ones: Students who had lost a family member in the earthquake exhibited higher sustainable earthquake awareness (P = 0.00), earthquake preparedness application(P = 0.00), and earthquake preparedness scores (P = 0.00) compared to those who had not.
Knowledge of Disaster Management: Students with greater disaster management knowledge demonstrated significantly higher sustainable earthquake awareness (P = 0.01), religious coping (P = 0.00), and social support-seeking scores (P = 0.01).
Departmental Differences: Nursing students had significantly lower positive reappraisal (P = 0.00) and religious coping scores (P = 0.01) compared to those in the Child Development and Physiotherapy & Rehabilitation (PTR) departments. Child Development students exhibited the highest scores in positive reappraisal(P = 0.00), social support-seeking (P = 0.04), and religious coping (P = 0.01) compared to other disciplines.
University Earthquake Drills: Students from universities where earthquake drills were conducted demonstrated significantly higher scores in sustainable earthquake awareness (P = 0.01), earthquake-structure relationship (P = 0.04), earthquake preparedness application(P = 0.01), and social support-seeking (P = 0.04).
Predictors of Sustainable Earthquake Awareness and Coping With Earthquake Stress: Multiple Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors influencing Sustainable Earthquake Awareness (SEAS) and Earthquake Stress Coping Strategies (ESCS) (Table 3). The results indicate:
Sustainable Earthquake Awareness: Higher SEAS scores were significantly associated with lower academic grades (P = 0.00), securing belongings (P = 0.00), loss of a relative in an earthquake (P = 0.01), knowledge of disaster types (P = 0.01), and participation in university earthquake drills (P = 0.02).
Determining the variables affecting the Sustainable Earthquake Awareness Scale and Earthquake Stress Coping Scale using multiple regression analysis
Note. Bold values indicate statistical significance, β, Beta; F, multiple regression analysis; R2, R-squared.
The strongest predictor of sustainable earthquake awareness was knowledge of disaster types (β = 6.31, P = 0.01).
Religious Coping (ESCS Sub-Dimension): Higher religious coping scores were associated with lower academic grades (P = 0.00), knowledge of disaster types (P = 0.00), and awareness of emergency meeting areas on campus(P = 0.00). The most influential factor was knowledge of disaster types (β = −2.35, P = 0.00).
Positive Reappraisal (ESCS Sub-Dimension): Higher positive reappraisal scores were observed among female students, lower-grade students, and those who were aware of emergency meeting areas on campus (P = 0.00). The strongest predictor was gender (β = −1.77, P = 0.00), indicating that female students were more likely to use positive reappraisal strategies.
Social Support-Seeking (ESCS Sub-Dimension): Students with lower academic grades and those aware of emergency meeting areas on campus had significantly higher social support-seeking scores (P = 0.00). The most significant predictor was awareness of emergency meeting areas on campus (β = −0.73, P = 0.00).
Limitations
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, although the initial target population was health sciences students, the snowball sampling and convenience-based recruitment strategy resulted in the inclusion of students from other academic disciplines as well. However, since health sciences students constituted the majority of the sample, caution should be exercised when generalizing the findings to a broader university student population. Second, the relatively small sample size and data collection from a single university restrict the broader applicability of the results. Third, the study did not include students who reside and study in earthquake-affected regions, preventing direct insights into the coping mechanisms of individuals who have faced severe disaster-related trauma. Future research should aim to include larger, more diverse samples across multiple universities and academic disciplines, particularly those located in earthquake-prone areas, to provide a more comprehensive perspective on sustainable earthquake awareness and stress coping strategies.
Discussion
Natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, profoundly affect individuals’ physical, psychological, and social well-being. This study investigated the factors influencing university students’ sustainable earthquake awareness and their coping strategies for earthquake-related stress, while also examining the relationships between demographic and psychosocial characteristics. The findings provide critical insights that can inform individual and institutional interventions aimed at enhancing earthquake preparedness and psychological resilience.
Gender Differences in Coping With Earthquake Stress
The study found no significant differences in sustainable earthquake awareness based on gender. However, female students exhibited higher positive reappraisal scores on the Earthquake Stress Coping Scale (ESCS). This finding aligns with previous studies that indicate women tend to use social support-seeking and cognitive reappraisal as coping mechanisms following traumatic events.Reference Turan Bayraktar, Kefeli Çol and Gümüşler Başaran 24 , Reference Yiğit and Açıkgoz 25 Furthermore, research following the February 6 Kahramanmaraş earthquake found that secondary trauma levels were higher among women, while their psychological resilience was lower.Reference Kaya, Öztürk and Türk 26 The tendency for women to engage more in emotional coping strategies suggests that gender roles and social expectations influence coping mechanisms in the context of natural disasters. In addition to these findings, it is important to consider the cultural and social factors that may contribute to women’s higher use of positive reappraisal strategies. In societies like Türkiye, where collectivist values are prominent, women are often encouraged from an early age to express emotions, maintain interpersonal harmony, and assume caregiving roles.Reference Yiğit and Açıkgoz 25 , Reference Kaya, Öztürk and Türk 26 These social norms may enhance their emotional awareness and make them more inclined to cognitively reframe stressful events in a constructive way. The observed gender difference in coping strategies can therefore be interpreted not only through psychological tendencies but also as a reflection of culturally embedded expectations and gendered socialization processes. Given this context, psychological interventions and support programs should be sensitive to gender-specific coping patterns and promote adaptive strategies accordingly.Reference Turan Bayraktar, Kefeli Çol and Gümüşler Başaran 24
Socioeconomic Status and Earthquake Preparedness
Students with higher income levels demonstrated significantly greater earthquake awareness and social support-seeking behaviors. Previous studies indicate that income is a key determinant of earthquake risk perception and preparedness.Reference Niforatos, Panagiotakos and Delladetsimas 27 Individuals with greater financial resources have increased access to earthquake preparedness materials, better housing infrastructure, and more opportunities to participate in training and drills, which enhances their awareness.Reference Kaya, Öztürk and Türk 26 Furthermore, social support networks, which are more readily available to higher-income individuals, play a crucial role in mitigating the long-term psychological effects of earthquake-related trauma.Reference Niforatos, Panagiotakos and Delladetsimas 27 This highlights the need for targeted disaster preparedness initiatives for lower-income student populations to reduce disparities in resilience and preparedness.
Impact of Disaster Education on Awareness and Coping Mechanisms
The findings indicate that students with formal education on disaster types, disaster management, and earthquake emergency response exhibited higher sustainable earthquake awareness scores and were more likely to use religious coping strategies. Research supports that disaster education significantly enhances both knowledge and preparedness levels.Reference Hung, Lam and Chow 28 A study on nursing students in Hong Kong demonstrated that 45 hours of structured disaster training significantly improved their competence and confidence in disaster management.Reference Hung, Lam and Chow 28 Similarly, an Australian study found that while student nurses were willing to participate in disaster response, they lacked adequate training.Reference Grimes, Sparke and Rouen 29 These findings emphasize the importance of integrating disaster training into university curricula to improve students’ psychological and practical readiness for future disasters.
Influence of Earthquake Experience on Preparedness and Coping
Experiencing an earthquake significantly increased students’ awareness and preparedness behaviors. Prior studies confirm that direct exposure to an earthquake enhances risk perception and preparedness.Reference Şeran, Taşkan and Kocalar 30 , Reference Özcan, Işık and Darı 31 Individuals who have personally experienced an earthquake are more likely to take preventative measures, such as securing household items, preparing emergency kits, and participating in training programs. Given that awareness is often reactive rather than proactive, universities should implement preemptive earthquake preparedness programs, particularly targeting students who have not yet experienced an earthquake but live in seismically active regions.
Role of Earthquake Drills and Institutional Preparedness
Despite annual earthquake drills being conducted at the university, 75% of students reported being unaware of these drills, and 63% were unaware of designated emergency assembly areas. However, students who participated in earthquake drills had significantly higher earthquake awareness scores. This finding aligns with studies indicating that regular disaster drills and emergency planning enhance preparedness and reduce panic during actual events.Reference Kolaç, Eroğlu and Nirgiz 17 , Reference Ertuğrul and Ünal 32 In Japan, where earthquake preparedness education is rigorously enforced, students demonstrate higher disaster readiness levels.Reference Bhandari, Rahman and Takahashi 33 These findings suggest that universities must ensure that earthquake drills are not only conducted but also actively engage all students, improving institutional disaster resilience.
Religious Coping Among Nursing Students
Nursing students exhibited lower religious coping scores than students in other disciplines. Previous research indicates that health care students, especially those in nursing programs, experience higher stress levels due to the demanding nature of their academic and clinical responsibilities.Reference Savitsky, Findling and Ereli 34 Furthermore, disasters exacerbate psychological stress, which may reduce the effectiveness of religious coping mechanisms among nursing students.Reference Al-Hammouri 35 Given these findings, targeted mental health interventions and alternative coping strategies should be incorporated into disaster preparedness programs for health care students.
Conclusion
This study reveals multidimensional factors affecting students’ sustainable earthquake awareness and coping mechanisms. The findings show that experiential, educational, and psychosocial elements significantly shape students’ preparedness levels and the strategies they use to manage earthquake-related stress. In particular, it was determined that students who had experienced an earthquake, secured their belongings, and participated in earthquake drills reported higher levels of sustainable earthquake awareness and preparedness. Among the variables examined, knowledge of disaster types emerged as the most influential factor, reinforcing the importance of targeted and continuous educational interventions.
Furthermore, students with access to emergency meeting areas and those in lower academic years exhibited higher scores in seeking social support, religious coping, and positive reappraisal strategies. Gender was also found to play a significant role, with female students demonstrating stronger emotional and cognitive coping mechanisms. These findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach that integrates disaster management education, institutional preparedness, and psychosocial support systems to enhance students’ resilience—particularly for those directly affected by disasters.
Based on these findings, universities—especially those located in earthquake-prone regions—should take proactive steps to implement structured and sustainable earthquake awareness programs. This can include integrating disaster education into course curricula, conducting regular drills, increasing student awareness of campus assembly points, and distributing preparedness materials. In parallel, providing accessible mental health services—tailored to gender and individual coping styles—and establishing peer support initiatives can bolster emotional resilience. Collaborations with disaster response professionals and mental health experts will further enable institutions to create inclusive, practical, and long-term strategies for disaster readiness and psychological well-being.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank you for the statistical evaluation made by Meltem FITOZ.
Author contribution
Study design: ZG, YK, ÖA; Data collection: ÖA, YK; Data analysis: ZG; Study supervision: ZG; Manuscript writing: ZG, YÇS, ÖA, YK; Critical revisions for important intellectual content: ZG, YÇS
Funding statement
The authors did not receive any financial support for the research of this study.
Competing interests
None.
Ethical Statements
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Istanbul Arel University (Date: 01.03.2024 & approval number: 2024–04).
