## 8 Discussion  
With little or no research that explores disaster preparedness, the present research explored the complexities associated with how inner-city apartment dwellers enact disaster reduction and readiness (i.e., preparedness), paying particular attention to the experiences of owners and renters to be prepared for future disaster events. We found that knowledge about codes and structural safety were recognized as important. A number of owners and renters suggested that their knowledge of and belief of the risk of an earthquake happening and how safe they thought a building was influenced their decisions. Some had been fortunate enough to have access to expertise (whether it was their own, or a family members) about structural engineering and earthquakes. Some used this knowledge to 'purchase safety', highlighting the importance of ontological security in major life decisions such as buying a home. However, access to structural engineering knowledge was not common across all participants, emphasizing that such knowledge is a privilege. Participants shared how social and financial capital mattered to their agency to prepare. Regarding purchasing an apartment, there was debate about the role of the purchaser, versus lawyers, and versus real estate agents in understanding and highlighting the risk to potential owners. Despite checks and balances being in place via legislation and best practice codes, participants highlighted the power imbalances in the purchasing process that perhaps result in owners feeling pressured into making quick and ill-informed decisions. Owners spoke to the personal financial burdens and stress of bringing their dwellings up to the building code. An additional concern highlighted by owners was the manner building codes and standards evolved after earthquakes. They accepted that it was important to learn lessons from events and to improve standards accordingly. Renters were largely exempt from the direct financial burdens of fixing or retrofitting a building and they also had no direct input into decision-making process for emergency management procedures or structural safety decisions for their buildings. Moreover, while it was not discussed, they would also potentially carry the burden of increased rents so landlords could absorb those costs. These decisions were usually undertaken through mechanisms via the body corporate structure that involved owners. There was also little information about building plans or safety enhancements being fed back to renters aside from a few instances where renters had a good relationship with their landlord. The differing manners that both owners and renters experienced lack of agency did in some instances result in 'hope' and 'trust' that others were doing something, thereby transferring responsibility back to the authority. This transfer of responsibility has been seen in other studies and can result in an overall decline in preparedness for future events due to assuming that the 'State' would take care of them during adverse events [50; 56]. Most participants argued that body corporate organizations could play a significant role in disaster preparedness, although it was not their responsibility to do so. A common preparedness concern for both owners and renters of apartments was little indoor space to store preparedness items (particularly water) and limited accessible outdoor space to gather following an emergency. In general, when owning an apartment, there is more agency to address potential risk (e.g., can affix items to walls and can provide input into body-corporate decisions). Practical strategies could involve new or redesigned buildings requiring space for emergency kits, either in apartments or in a shared space. It could also involve amending policies so that tenancy laws mandate renters with the power to secure items to walls for safety. Our policies on disaster management should reflect how preparedness can be a result of pragmatic compromises.