This document uses public opinion data gathered from El Salvador in 2001, and in Peru in 2007, following major earthquakes, to empirically test the 5C+A approach, which posits that public evaluations of government response to disaster can be analyzed along six dimensions: capability, competence, compassion, correctness, credibility, and anticipation. In the 5C+A approach, Capability is defined as “resources at hand or latent-mobilizable.” Competence focuses on the “efficient and appropriate application of whatever resources are in fact available or mobilizable.” Compassion is the “demonstrated concern or affect for the victims.” Correctness is categorized as the “honesty, fairness, and transparency in assistance.” Credibility is the “consistent and reliable provision of disaster information.” And lastly, Anticipation is analyzed along the lines of “public perceptions of the quality of governmental anticipation” in avoiding disaster where possible. The research uses multiple regression analysis to determine the independent relationship of each of the 5C+A components to public evaluations of the government’s response to disaster. In terms of Capabilities, the El Salvador public rated the national emergency management agency highly, 6.7 on a 0-10 scale, while in Peru, 87% believed the government was “little prepared” or “not-at-all prepared.” Regarding Competence, the average respondent in El Salvador positively evaluated the government’s coordination with other organizations, while 53.3% in Peru felt that disaster assistance was either “poorly” or “very poorly” utilized. In El Salvador, 49.5% had at least “some confidence” that disaster information was Credible, as compared to Peru, where only 35.5% expressed at least “some confidence.” In terms of Correctness, a slight majority of Salvadoran respondents believed that political manipulation and corruption were involved in the disaster response. In Peru, most (67.4%) respondents believed that there were only a few minor instances of corruption. As far as Compassion, in Peru, nearly an equal number believed that the President demonstrated sufficient sympathy for the victims as believed he did not. No equivalent question was asked in El Salvador. Concerning Anticipation, 46.2% of El Salvador respondents believed that earthquakes were unforeseeable natural events, while in Peru, the median response was that while the government should have done better to anticipate the event, respondents did not hold it accountable given difficulties in doing so.
Disaster Response and Recovery