ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

Lightning safety awareness level in Malaysia

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 04 Nov 2021
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research Synergy Foundation gateway.

Abstract

Introduction: Malaysia is one of the countries with the highest lightning flash density globally. While sufficiency of lightning protection system is crucial to ensure human safety against lightning strikes, the public awareness towards lightning safety is also equally important in Malaysia. Hence, this study was conducted to understand the current lightning safety awareness level of the Malaysian population.
Methods: An online questionnaire survey which consists of 22 scientific statements of lightning was first developed in Malay and English. The questionnaire allows the respondent to also check their own score upon completion of the questionnaire. It was then distributed to the public for data collection. The sample size comprised of both genders, all layers of society from various educational level and social background.
Results: Overall, the awareness on lightning safety amongst Malaysian is at moderate level with an average score of slightly above 50%. Urbanites scored marginally better than their rural counterparts. One’s education level does not dictate their awareness level of lightning safety.
Discussion: In conclusion, the public in Malaysia needs to be better educated on lightning safety. Similar studies should be replicated in other countries experiencing similar levels of lightning activity to better understand the public’s perception on lightning.

Keywords

Lightning, lightning safety, public belief, Malaysia, lightning myth

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Added explanation on how the sampling size is decided. Also added infographics which can be useful for public dissemination of lightning safety promotion. Included additional Figure 1 and Figure 2 and added 2 more references.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Helio Eiji Sueta
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Norhidayu Binti Rameli

Introduction

Malaysia is in the top three in the world with high lightning density experiencing an annual mean lightning ground flash density of 13.9 flashes per square kilometre yearly1,2. A recent study stated that a factor that probably contributes to the high numbers of thunderstorm and lightning events in Peninsular Malaysia is due to its geographical position being encircled by the Andaman Sea, Sulu Sea, Straits of Malacca and South China Sea3. Undeniably, the other substantial factors are the massive increment of factories, deforestation and other development progress. All these activities and factors are contributing towards heating of the Earth thus increasing the severity and number of thunderstorms.

As many as 131 deaths and injuries have been reported due to lightning strikes, with 92 death injury rates per million per year. There were 22 fatalities per year from 2008–2011 reported in 4,5. A study recently stated that lightning had killed an average of one in 10 victims in Malaysia and 235 were either killed or injured from 2008 to 20152. These unfortunate statistics could be attributed to the weak public awareness of lightning among Malaysians. Thus, understanding lightning safety is necessary to keep them safe during the phenomena.

Two recent research were conducted to understand the public awareness level of lightning safety1,6. These studies have considered numerous sociological characteristics. However, the sample size of the previous study in 1 is not representative of the Malaysian population. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for the participants in the survey to also know their misconception towards lightning safety upon completion of the survey. Thus, this research was conducted on a larger scale to not only understand the Malaysian public’s conception of lightning safety but also attempt to educate the respondents on their misconceptions towards lightning.

Methods

Firstly, the questionnaire was designed online in Google Form and was made bilingual, i.e. in Malay and English, to provide optimum understanding to respondents from different backgrounds. The questionnaire was adapted from recent surveys and interview questions in 1,6. However, they have been further enhanced to consist of 22 questions which are grouped into two general knowledge questions, eight scientifically unaccepted statements and 12 scientifically accepted statements about lightning awareness. Respondents had to select one answer from three choices of answers namely disagree, undecided and agree. Unlike the previous studies in 1, respondents would now be able to view their scores and correct their misconceptions upon completion of the survey.

Next, the survey was randomly distributed to the Malaysian public without bias using a probability sampling approach so that everyone has an equal possibility to be selected. This approach is critical to prevent population sample size bias. A minimum of 1000 respondents is targeted as sample size based on the methodology in https://news.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx7,8. This targeted sample size is also in accordance with the methodology proposed by Krejcie and Morgan to determine sample size based on a confidence level of 95% and a variability of 50% for an estimated Malaysian population of 32.7 million9,10. The questionnaire was distributed randomly and was kept active until the minimum respondents is received. Each respondent was only allowed to attempt the survey once. A total of 1062 responses were received from 9th December 2020 until 6th January 2021. The survey was distributed to citizens aged above 18 years old from various social and educational backgrounds with their anonymity preserved. Their responses were analysed by organising the data into three parts namely age, level of education, and residency. There are three levels of age, seven levels of education, and four types of residency.

Results

The questionnaire started with three questions to understand the level of exposure of the respondents to lightning effects. From Table 1, only 3.3% responded that they have been injured by lightning before and 9.3% have met person injured by lightning. However, 38% of the respondents reported that their home has been affected by lightning. This number seems to complement the findings in1 in that the damage due to lightning is significant in Malaysia. Note that only 31.5% of the respondents consistently follow weather forecasting on television and radio; 55.5% only occasionally, and 14.9% do not follow the weather forecast at all.

Table 1. Respondents’ exposure to lightning effects.

Have you been injured by lightning?
Yes35
No1027
Have you met a person injured by lightning?
Yes99
No963
Has your home been affected by lightning?
Yes401
No446
Maybe215

The rest of the questionnaire is divided into sections A, B and C. Section A which consists of two general knowledge statements with the aim to gauge the basic understanding of lightning among the respondents. The remaining Sections B and C aim to gauge the respondents’ awareness on the nature and safety aspects of lightning. There are eight scientifically unaccepted statements in Section B and 12 scientifically accepted statements in Section C as shown in Table 2. Scientifically accepted statements means scientifically acceptable facts based on present day knowledge and understanding of lightning. In the questionnaire, the sequence of these 18 statements are randomised to ensure that the respondents could not “guess” the grouping of the statements. The participants have to select either disagree, undecided or agree for each statement.

Table 2. Responses received for the 22 statements.

Number of Responses
DisagreeUndecidedAgree
Section A: General knowledge
1Lightning is four times hotter than the Sun.176470416
2Do you agree with the statement, Malaysia is known as Crown of Lightning worldwide?149410503
Section B: Scientifically unaccepted statements
1Lightning caused by supernatural powers.77220090
2Thunder is a sign that God is angry.630300132
3Lightning victims are people with bad luck.703209150
4Assuming you are out in the open during thunderstorms with nowhere to take shelter,
lie flat on the ground.
363383316
5Lightning never strikes the same place twice.415478169
6If you are in a house, you are 100% safe from lightning.433314315
7If thunderstorms threaten while you are outside playing a game, it is okay to finish it
before seeking shelter.
83316267
8If it’s not raining or there aren’t clouds overhead, you’re safe from lightning.478315269
Section C: Scientifically accepted statements
9Lightning is a flow of electricity.115182765
10When thunder roars, stay indoors and away from windows.100198764
11CPR can help lightning victims to survive.467431164
12During thunderstorms, you should keep at least 3m distances away from trees/fences.100265697
13Avoid having an open shower during thunderstorms.87185790
14If you hear thunder before you reach counting to 30, go indoors.241406415
15Suspend activities for at least 30 minutes after the last clap of thunder.167330565
16Do avoid open areas during the thunderstorms.84133845
17Stay away from concrete floors or walls during thunderstorms.362426274
18Kuala Lumpur is ranked 5th in the world with high lightning density.89623350
19Lightning kills 1/10 victims in Malaysia.153532377
20It is dangerous to take a swim in a river in thunderstorms.87182793

In section B, the first three statements were adopted from 1. Over 50% of respondents believed a supernatural power is behind a lightning strike1. However, in the present study with a much larger sample size, only 27% has similar suspicion. The responses were evenly distributed for statements 4 and 6. Majority of the respondents is aware that they should immediately cease their outdoor activities when there is thunderstorm as reflected in statement 7. In section C, statements 9–15 were adopted from 1. About 28% of the respondents are confused about the lightning’s electrical nature and this seems to concur with 1. Statement 10 came from a famous slogan from the United States and statement 14 is based on the 30–30 rule11.

Overall, the majority of the respondents agreed with the scientifically accepted statements except for statement 11, 17, 18, and 19. The fact that the majority did not believe CPR can help lightning victims is worrying because it seems to suggest that the public is not prepared for any emergency arising from lightning struck victims. Statements 18 and 19’s results show that respondents are not aware of lightning issues in Malaysia.

Discussion

In this section, the respondents’ awareness level will be analysed according to their age group, education level and residency. This awareness level is quantified by the marks that they scored. Note that the respondent will be given 1 mark for every correct response to the statements in Table 2. Hence, the maximum mark that they can score is 22.

Table 3 shows the responses which are categorized according to the respondents’ age. There is only slight difference in their understanding level when observed across the three age groups.

Table 3. Responses according to age.

Age groupNumber of
responses
Average
mark
Youth (18-30 y/o)74011.6
Adult (31-59 y/o)31511.7
Senior citizen
(above 60 y/o)
712.0

Table 4 shows the responses which are categorized according to the respondents’ education level. The findings suggest that a higher education level does not necessarily means a higher level of awareness and lightning safety knowledge.

Table 5 illustrates the responses grouped according to the residencies of the respondents. As observed here, respondents living in metropolitan areas have the highest awareness of lightning safety. However, the difference is only marginal.

Table 4. Responses according to education level.

Highest
education level
Number of
responses
Average
mark
Primary School4911.5
PMR/PT34511.9
SPM14412.1
Pre-University32311.5
Bachelor’s Degree43611.6
Master’s Degree4812.0
Doctor of
Philosophy
1710.8

Table 5. Responses according to residency.

ResidencyNumber of
responses
Average
mark
Village (Kampung/Luar bandar)34411.06
Town (Pekan)23411.44
City (Bandar)34911.91
Metropolis (Iskandar Malaysia,
Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Lumpur,
Kuching, Klang Valley, dan
Seluruh Pulau Pinang serta
Selatan Kedah serta Barat Laut
Perak)
13512.67

All in all, on the average, the respondents could only get half of the maximum score which clearly indicates the lack of awareness. Finally, Table 6 summarises the common misconceptions on lightning safety among the respondents. This could perhaps serve as a guide for relevant parties promoting lightning safety awareness in Malaysia.

Table 6. Summary of misconceptions.

No.Misconception
1Thunder is a sign that God is angry.
2Lightning never strikes the same place twice.
3When a person in an open area during a lightning event
and nowhere to take shelter, they should lie flat on the
ground.
4If a person is in the house, they are 100% safe from
lightning.
6If there is no clouds and rains, a person is safe from
lightning.
7Lightning can pass through concrete floors and walls.
8Lightning did not strike the same place twice.
9During thunderstorms, one is safe if there stay near trees
or fences.
10CPR is not able to save lightning’s victim.

Figure 1 illustrates the summary of common myths among the Malaysian public in an infographic format. On the other hand, Figure 2 presents the do’s and don’ts when there is thunderstorm which was developed based on the common myths observed in this study. Note that both infographics are available in English and Malay language.

b0ad60aa-e079-4769-9989-b55e2dc66640_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Common myths of lightning in Malaysia (in English and Malay).

b0ad60aa-e079-4769-9989-b55e2dc66640_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Lightning safety message based on common myths observed (in English and Malay).

Conclusions

To summarize, the public awareness of lightning safety in Malaysia is moderate, proven by the number of misconceptions that existed through their responses. In the same context, their knowledge of dealing with the lightning situation is worrying. Many did not believe in the capability of CPR to save a lightning victim. From here, note that the majority will be confused about what to do if a lightning incidence happens. Furthermore, one’s level of education has little impact on their awareness of lightning safety. Moreover, urbanites in particular metropolis citizens have a better awareness of lightning safety than others.

On the average, 53% agreed with the scientifically accepted statements, and 54% disagreed with the scientifically unaccepted. The fact that the average mark of all respondents is barely half of the maximum mark means that the awareness level is still unsatisfactory. Relevant parties such as the Energy Commission and perhaps the Ministry of Education can collaborate to enhance national lightning safety education and promotion by utilising the findings in this paper. Lightning safety education campaign in Malaysia should ideally be as progressive as those in Sri Lanka, Colombia and the United States. It would also be interesting for similar studies to be replicated in other countries as well to gain a better understanding at the global level.

Data availability

Data are available at:

Siow, Dr S.C. LIM (Multimedia University) (2021): Lightning Safety Awareness Level in Malaysia. DANS. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-zut-4u2s.

Figures are available at:

Chun Lim, Siow; Gomes, Chandima; Nazli, Khairul (2021): Malaysian Public Awareness of Lightning Safety. figshare. Figure. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16768060.v1.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Ethics and consent

This survey had obtained approval number of EA2152021 from Research Ethics Committee of Multimedia University.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 15 Sep 2021
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Nazri K, Lim SC and Gomes C. Lightning safety awareness level in Malaysia [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:921 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73064.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 04 Nov 2021
Revised
Views
10
Cite
Reviewer Report 16 Nov 2021
Norhidayu Binti Rameli, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia 
Approved
VIEWS 10
There are no further remarks to be made. ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Rameli NB. Reviewer Report For: Lightning safety awareness level in Malaysia [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:921 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.78307.r99036)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 15 Sep 2021
Views
15
Cite
Reviewer Report 04 Oct 2021
Norhidayu Binti Rameli, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 15
This paper is about understanding the current lightning safety awareness level of the Malaysian population. The methodology surveyed 1062 respondents and included 22 questions about their level of lightning safety awareness. Additionally, the conclusion drawn from Malaysia's population is that ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Rameli NB. Reviewer Report For: Lightning safety awareness level in Malaysia [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:921 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76687.r94364)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 04 Nov 2021
    Chun Lim Siow, Faculty of Engineering (FOE), Multimedia University (MMU), Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia
    04 Nov 2021
    Author Response
    Comment:
    This paper is about understanding the current lightning safety awareness level of the Malaysian population. The methodology surveyed 1062 respondents and included 22 questions about their level of lightning ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 04 Nov 2021
    Chun Lim Siow, Faculty of Engineering (FOE), Multimedia University (MMU), Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia
    04 Nov 2021
    Author Response
    Comment:
    This paper is about understanding the current lightning safety awareness level of the Malaysian population. The methodology surveyed 1062 respondents and included 22 questions about their level of lightning ... Continue reading
Views
17
Cite
Reviewer Report 04 Oct 2021
Helio Eiji Sueta, Planning, Analysis and Energy Development Scientific Division of the Energy and Environment Institute (IEE-USP), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 
Approved
VIEWS 17
In principle, it is not a “purely “scientific article with dozens of formulas and/or complex mathematical simulations, but nevertheless it is a very important article. I comment on this because the vast majority of technical papers published in scientific journals ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Eiji Sueta H. Reviewer Report For: Lightning safety awareness level in Malaysia [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:921 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76687.r94361)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 04 Nov 2021
    Chun Lim Siow, Faculty of Engineering (FOE), Multimedia University (MMU), Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia
    04 Nov 2021
    Author Response
    Thank you for the comments. Indeed, we need more similar kind of work to be done especially in developing or less-developed countries to gain a holistic understanding of how the ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 04 Nov 2021
    Chun Lim Siow, Faculty of Engineering (FOE), Multimedia University (MMU), Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia
    04 Nov 2021
    Author Response
    Thank you for the comments. Indeed, we need more similar kind of work to be done especially in developing or less-developed countries to gain a holistic understanding of how the ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 15 Sep 2021
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.