Lightning safety awareness level in Malaysia

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.


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 yearly 1,2 . 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 Sea 3 . 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 2015 2 . 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 safety 1,6 . 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.aspx 7,8 . 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 million 9,10 . 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 9 th December 2020 until 6 th 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 in 1 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.
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 Table 1. Respondents' exposure to lightning effects.

Yes 35
No 1027 Have you met a person injured by lightning?

Yes 99
No 963 Has your home been affected by lightning?

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.
Any further responses from the reviewers can be found at the end of the article REVISED 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.
In section B, the first three statements were adopted from 1. Over 50% of respondents believed a supernatural power is behind a lightning strike 1 . 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 rule 11 .
Overall, the majority of the respondents agreed with the scientifically accepted statements except for statement 11, 17,

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 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. 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. 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. Table 6. Summary of misconceptions.

1
Thunder is a sign that God is angry.

2
Lightning never strikes the same place twice.

When a person in an open area during a lightning event
and nowhere to take shelter, they should lie flat on the ground.

4
If a person is in the house, they are 100% safe from lightning.

6
If there is no clouds and rains, a person is safe from lightning.

7
Lightning can pass through concrete floors and walls.

8
Lightning did not strike the same place twice.

9
During thunderstorms, one is safe if there stay near trees or fences.
10 CPR is not able to save lightning's victim.

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: To provide a more meaningful view, the result should be presented in an infographic such as a pie chart or histogram.
3. The interpretation of the results discussed in this section should be based on statistical inference to draw conclusions about a population (Please take note that the Malaysian population is about 32 million). As a result, the conclusion should be revised appropriately.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Lightning and High Voltage Power Cable.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
such as a pie chart or histogram.

Response:
Thank you for the comment. We totally agree with your suggestion that a pie chart or histogram enhances the clarity. However, presenting the data in a table also has its own merit as it allows readers to conveniently extract the raw data. To provide a meaningful view and further enhance the visibility of the findings, we have included 2 infographics (Figure 1 and Figure 2) which are also accessible here.

Comment:
3. The interpretation of the results discussed in this section should be based on statistical inference to draw conclusions about a population (Please take note that the Malaysian population is about 32 million). As a result, the conclusion should be revised appropriately.
knowledge of the population about the dangers of lightning is very limited and, many times, surrounded by myths. The work presents the results of a survey to the population about general aspects of lightning, mixing some scientifically accepted statements with others not accepted. The results were quite interesting, showing that in Malaysia, where the research was applied, the general population still has many failures in awareness of the dangers of lightning. It also showed that this awareness is a little better in urban centers than in rural ones, but that better school education is not significant for a better awareness of this issue.
The work fulfills what was proposed and can be replicated in other countries. As a suggestion, it would be interesting to compare the results of the same survey in several countries, including well-developed countries, in order to better understand the general awareness of the world population about the dangers involved in lightning.

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes