Photo courtesy of NASA: STS047-151-618 Hurricane Bonnie (1992)
Tropical Cyclone Modification: Decision-Analysis and Public Perceptions
Kelly KlimaWändi Bruine de Bruin, Kerry Emanuel, Iris Grossmann,
Granger Morgan
SEA talkApril 22, 2011
1
Today we will discuss two components of my research.
• Does Tropical Cyclone Modification Make Sense? A Decision-Analytic Perspective – Background– Results
• Public Perceptions of Hurricanes and Hurricane Modification– Interview– Survey– Results 2
Two general approaches exist for controlling hurricane damage
Hardening structuresCurrently practiced nationwide
Called “mitigation” by FEMA and others
Includes shutters, dams, better roof connections, etc
Works better for moderate storms
3How do hardening and modification compare?
Hurricane modificationTheorized since 1930s
DHS has recently reopened research into the topic
Works better for large storms
A commonly suggested hardening technique is home shutters
4Figure courtesy of Hurricane Proof
Annualized cost to shutter all houses (30yrs, 5% discount rate)
Florida = $1.4-1.8BGeorgia = $0.7-0.9B
The modification technique closest to implementation is wind-wave pumps
5Figure courtesy of Philip Kithil, Atmocean
300m pipe is optimal
Deployment Cost
Seasonal = $0.9-1.5B
Per TC = $0.4-0.7B
We find modification may be more competitive than hardening
6
Control
Benefit-cost analysis alone does not capture the complexity of this decision
• Hardening and modification may be done in parallel
• Other issues include uncertainty, liability/ethics, risk tolerance, political/budgetary/time restraints
• Remaining doctoral work will be completed by fall – Storm surge damages, Ning Lin, Kerry Emanuel (MIT)– Public perceptions of hurricanes, Wändi Bruine de Bruin
7
I examined public perceptions of hurricane modification in Florida
• How does the public evaluate hurricane modification compared to its alternatives?
• How does anger at scientists vary across hurricane modification scenarios?
• How is anger at scientists related to recognizing the uncertainty inherent in hurricane forecasts? 8
Ten Florida residents were asked general nondirective questions over a telephone
9
• Topics– General Knowledge– Damages– Modification– Forecasts– Definitions
• Demographics – 5 women– 7 living in a house– 10 with high school education– 4 with college degree
We prompted for details while maintaining a friendly and nonjudgmental
tone.
Hurricane modification is largely unknown, and distrusted
10
• Only one person suggested hurricane modification as a way to decrease damages from hurricanes
• “Have you ever heard about the possibility of changing hurricanes to reduce their damage?”
“You can’t change nature”
“It will never be possible”
Hurricanes are “too big and powerful to
be changed”
The government might be “using
some kind of secret weapon or something”
Commission may lead to public resistance independent of the outcome
11
• “How much of the problem is because scientists don't understand hurricanes, and how much is because sometimes nature can't be perfectly predicted?”
• Strong expressions of fear and anger were evoked by all hurricane modification scenarios including where unintended consequences were due to the natural variability
A larger sample is needed to systematically examine people’s response.
100% of respondents
A total of 157 individuals in the Miami, Florida area completed an online survey
12
• Topics– Damages– Uncertainty– Expected Landfall
Locations– Emotional Response to
Hurricane Modification– Hurricane Modification
Scenarios– General Knowledge– Demographics
• Demographics – Age: 40 (SD=15)– Salary: $74.3K (SD=$52.9K)– 66.7% women– 78.4% live in an urban area– 50.6% in an easily flooded area– 57.3% live in a single story home– 3.1 people per household, with
0.98 children and 0.18 elderly, infirm, or handicapped
Hurricane modification is unfamiliar and perceived as ineffective
13
• In free form response, no one mentioned hurricane modification as a way to reduce damages.
• “How effective in reducing damages [are these] in Miami, Florida?”– Stronger conviction than the midpoint, p<.001
Having buildings up to code, Cutting old tree branches, Bringing in loose lawn items, Putting the car in the garage, Using hurricane shutters, Being prepared (with enough food, water, and batteries), Using tie-downs to strengthen wall to roof connections in buildings, Raising coastal buildings above ground level by struts or some other method, Having better dikes (walls that keep out the ocean), Evacuating everyone but emergency personnel, Using metal roofs, Hunkering down (sheltering in place) in a secure part of the house, Building new buildings farther from the coast
– Lesser conviction than the midpoint, p<.001A government attempt to change a hurricane to reduce damage
In the future, scientists will likely try to change a TC to help people, but it’s a bad idea and won’t work
14
Interviewees’ statements (11 in total) Mean (SD) Agreement
Scientists will most likely try to change a hurricane to help people 4.35 *** (1.28)If the government tries to change a hurricane, they are trying to help the general public
3.89 *** (1.50)
It is a bad idea to change a hurricane because it might make things worse
3.59 *** (1.80)
Hurricanes are too big and powerful to ever be changed by humans 3.49 ** (1.83)
One-sample t-tests examined whether statements differed from the midpoint (=3), indicating beliefs held with stronger conviction (***
p<.001; ** p<.01)
0=completely agree, 6= completely disagree
The government will use the ability to change storms as a weapon 2.34 *** (1.86)Today, it is possible to change a hurricane to reduce its damage 1.32 *** (1.29)
Respondents expected hurricane modification would change a storm
15
A Cat 1 or Cat 5 is expected to make landfall at position 4
After hurricane modification,• Landfall location is expected
to move, and uncertainty decreases
• Intensity is expected to decrease.
Respondents were angrier when there were higher damages and when the hurricane hit them
16
Hurricane scenarioPath
compared to prediction
Damage compared to
prediction
Mean (SD) anger at scientists, 0 (=Not at
all) to 6 (=Extremely)
Same More 2.89 (2.10)Same Same 1.75 (1.86)Same Less 1.03 (1.52)
Different More 3.48 (2.08)Different Same 3.06 (2.10)Different Less 1.88 (1.80)Those displaying more uncertainty were angrier.
Participants recognizing forecast uncertainty were angrier at scientists
17
Follow-up Question: Would teaching people about hurricanes and modification techniques will help or hurt
their willingness to accept hurricane modification?
Resultant Damages
Recognizing Forecast
Uncertainty
Anger at scientists
Our findings do not bode well for supporters of hurricane modification
18
HOWEVER….• If the efficacy of techniques can be increased,
people may be willing to support hurricane modification
• Open and honest communication between scientists and public would be needed.
A carefully explained technique that is effective against wind and/or flooding damages and does not change
track may be acceptable to Florida residents.
Kelly KlimaPh.D. candidate
Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon [email protected]
K. Klima, M. G. Morgan, I. Grossmann, K. Emanuel. "Does it Make Sense to Modify Tropical Cyclones? A Decision Analytic Assessment". Submitted to ES&T.
Funding provided by: