Changes in risk Changes in risk perception for hurricane perception for hurricane evacuation among Gulf evacuation among Gulf Coast residents, 2006-Coast residents, 2006-20082008Craig Trumbo, Holly Marlatt, Journalism & Technical
Communication
Lori Peek, Michelle Lueck, Sociology
Brian McNoldy, Wayne Schubert, Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Eve Gruntfest, Director Social Science Woven into Meteorology (SSWIM) Cooperative Institute University of
Oklahoma
Julie Demuth
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder
Specific AimsSpecific AimsPost-Katrina: Does proximity to extreme events affect risk perception for a subsequent event?
Extant research on hazard proximity has shown effect for:
nuclear power plants and associated transportation,
high voltage power lines, industrial sites, toxics,
high wind zones, hurricanes, floods, terrorism.
(e.g., Williams, Gawande, Eranen, Moffatt, Read, Peacock, Fischhoff, Zhang).
Hypothesized that greater physical proximity to Katrina landfall would predict perception of risk for hurricane landfall in the next (2006) season, controlling for historically based local hurricane risk probability.
Specific AimsSpecific AimsFollow-up: Does risk perception for subsequent events decline over time in absence of additional events?
Extant research on change in risk perception has examined:
health risk behavior, terrorism, environmental health threats,
life cycle changes, approaching threat (Y2K), earthquakes.
(e.g., Morrell, Fischhoff, Bränström, Kuttschreuter, Gutteling, Bernknopf)
Variety of factors promote decline in individual risk perception, esp. after periods of threat/event quiescence.
Also on organizational level (e.g. atrophy of vigilance, Freudenburg)
Hypothesis: Average level of hurricane risk perception will decline among Gulf Coast residents following a hurricane-free period (2006-2008).
Data CollectionData Collection
January 2006 (NSF-DRMS Katrina SGER):
Mail survey to households in 41 counties adjacent tothe Gulf of Mexico, excluding areas affected by Katrina and Rita (62% response rate, n = 824).
January 2008:
Follow-up data collection sent to 2006 respondents (52% adj. response, n = 361 panel).
Measures Measures (repeated 2006-2008)(repeated 2006-2008)
Dependent Variable:
Hurricane risk perception (Peacock et al. 2005)
Three items, likelihood that a hurricane will:
a) prevent getting to workb) disrupt daily activitiesc) cause property damage
additive index ( = .82 / .81 )
Measures Measures (repeated 2006-2008)(repeated 2006-2008)
Predictors: Evacuation optimistic bias (Weinstein et al. 1989 …)
Two items, likelihood in next season for:a) individual (R) facing evacuationb) average Gulf resident facing
evacuation 2006-2008 in residualized difference
measure
Dispositional optimism (LOT-R)
9-item additive index ( = .76 / .81 )
Hurricane experience (3 items, landfall, evacuation, damage)
Katrina experience, direct or indirectLocal hurricane history (NOAA historical likelihood)
Demographics (age, sex, income, education, children, home ownership)
Data CharacteristicsData CharacteristicsRespondents:
57% male
average 61 years old
average time of coastal residence 25 years
average annual household income $45,000
72% living in owned home
31% college graduates
Change in MeansChange in Means
Modeling ChangeModeling Change
ConclusionsConclusionsRisk perception for hurricanes is dynamicResponsive to quiescence
Changes consistent with other risk perception domainsYounger, lower income males become less risk
averseGreater experience with hazard, more lowering of
risk perception
Suggests both low and high experience individuals
easily become less concerned about hurricanes given
a quiet period, may lead to reduction in preparedness.
ConclusionsConclusionsRisk perception for hurricanes is trait-
relatedReduction in risk perception predicted by general optimism, which is an individual trait and stable over time.
Suggests that some individuals may be prone to feeling
of invincibility to the hazard, less persuadable toundertake preparedness measures.
ConclusionsConclusionsOptimistic bias is static, dynamic, and
predictiveEven controlling for trait optimism, individuals who developgreater optimistic bias during quiescence also perceive less risk.
Internal components of optimistic bias move together.Question: does this difference persist over wide range of risk?
Suggests an additional and possibly interacting mechanism
reinforcing the way some individuals may be prone to feeling
of invincibility to the hazard, less persuadable toundertake preparedness measures. Double whammy
hypothesis.
Current Study: DesignCurrent Study: Design
Recruit
June 2010
BaselineSurveyDemographicsExperienceVulnerabilityResilienceRisk PerceptionOptimistic Bias
May 2011
Follow-upSurvey #1ResilienceRisk PerceptionOptimistic BiasCommunication
May 2012
Follow-upSurvey #2ResilienceRisk PerceptionOptimistic BiasDecision Regret
Replacement Replacement
Season 2010
PhoneInterviews
Field Interview
Season 2011
PhoneInterviews
Field Interview
Season 2012
PhoneInterviews
Field Interview
Aims: Develop hurricane risk perception measure. Predict evacuation intent and behavior, observe in real-time.
Participants: n = 629, 3-yeas, spatially random 10 mile coastal.
Current Study: ConceptsCurrent Study: ConceptsAnalytical
Schematic
Dispositional Optimism
Optimistic Bias
HurricaneRisk Perception
EvacuationBehavioral Intention
Evacuation Decision
AttitudeNorms
Control
Vulnerabilty Factors
GenderAge
Race/EthnicityIncome
EducationLanguage
DisabilitiesFamily Structure}
Hurricane Experience
Dashed lines indicate effects only among study participants faced with an evacuation order.
Cognitive
Affective
Questions or Comments? Questions or Comments?
Thank you!