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!