final report - pie center · final report public opinions of disaster preparedness in florida...

January 2016

Final Report Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities

Angela Lindsey & Sandra Anderson

PIE2015/16-07

2

For More Information Contact the Center for Public Issues Education in Agriculture and Natural Resources at [email protected] or 352-

273-2598

Suggested Citation Lindsey, A., & Anderson, S. (2016). Public Opinions of Prepared Florida Communities. PIE2015/16-07. Gainesville, FL:

University of Florida/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education.

About the Authors Angela B. Lindsey, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, UF/IFAS Department of Family, Youth and Community Services

Sandra Anderson – Research coordinator, UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education

Acknowledgments This includes individuals who have helped with the project but are not considered co-authors. This also includes the

expert panel.

Greg Strader – Executive Director, BRACE, Be Ready Alliance Coordinating for Emergencies

Joe Taylor – Executive Director, Franklin’s Promise Coalition

Ricky Telg, Ph.D. –Director, UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education; Professor, Department of Agricultural

Education and Communication

Tracy Irani, Ph.D. –Professor and Chair of the Department of Family, Youth, and Community Sciences

Alexa Lamm, Ph.D. – Associate Director, Assistant professor, Department of Agricultural Education and

Communication, UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education

Joy Rumble, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, Agricultural Education and Communication Department, UF/IFAS Center for

Public Issues Education

Emmett Martin– Research Analyst, UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education

3

Contents For More Information ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Suggested Citation .................................................................................................................................................................. 2

About the Authors ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Methods................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Description of Respondents .................................................................................................................................................... 9

Political Beliefs and Affiliation ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Education .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Income............................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Employment Status ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

Results ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Importance of Florida Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Respondents’ perceptions of a man-made disaster (n=557) ............................................................................................. 13

Definition of Community .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Likelihood of Disasters Happening in the Respondent’s Community .............................................................................. 15

The Level of Vulnerability of the Respondent’s Community ........................................................................................... 16

The Level of Confidence in Community Preparations to Handle Disasters or Emergencies ........................................... 17

The Level of Importance of Programs, Services, and Communication Tools Following a Disaster or Crisis ................. 18

Community Disaster and Crisis Programs ........................................................................................................................ 19

Perception of Community Readiness for Immediate Impact of a Disaster ....................................................................... 20

Priority of Local Officials to Improve Disaster Preparedness .......................................................................................... 21

Preparation for a Disaster or an Emergency ..................................................................................................................... 21

Disaster Emergency Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Disaster Emergency Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Disaster or Emergency Plan Practice and Development (n=275)................................................................................. 23

Organizations used as a Resource in Development of a Disaster or an Emergency Plan (n=72) ................................. 23

Actions Taken in Advance of a Disaster ....................................................................................................................... 24

Affected by Disaster or Crisis in the Past Five Years ....................................................................................................... 25

4

How Much Respondents Were Affected Due to Disaster or Crisis (n=89) ...................................................................... 25

Immediate or Long-term Effect of Disaster or Crisis (n=89) ........................................................................................... 25

Impact on Respondents Due to Disaster or Crisis (n=89) ................................................................................................ 26

Participation in Compensation Processes (n=89) ............................................................................................................. 26

Perceptions of Compensation Process .............................................................................................................................. 27

Financial Risk Perception ................................................................................................................................................. 28

Emergency Funds .............................................................................................................................................................. 29

Likelihood of Using Resources When Seeking Information During a Disaster ............................................................... 30

Preferred Modes of Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 31

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill............................................................................................................................................. 32

Knowledge of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ................................................................................................................. 32

Effect of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (n=461) ........................................................................................................... 32

References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 33

5

List of Figures Figure 1. Political Affiliation ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 2. Political ideological leaning .................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3. Education ............................................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Income ................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 5. Current employment status .................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 6. Definition of community ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Likelihood of disasters happening in your community ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 8. The Level of vulnerability of your community ..................................................................................................... 17

Figure 9. The level of confidence in community preparations to handle disasters/emergencies .......................................... 18

Figure 10. The level of importance of programs, services and communication tools following a disaster or crisis ............ 19

Figure 11. Community Disaster and Crisis Programs ........................................................................................................... 20

Figure 12. Perception of community readiness for immediate impact of a disaster ............................................................. 20

Figure 13. Priority of local officials to improve disaster preparedness ................................................................................ 21

Figure 14. Preparation for a disaster or an emergency .......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 15. Disaster Emergency Plan .................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 16. Disaster or emergency plan practice and development (n=275) .......................................................................... 23

Figure 17. Organizations used as a resource in development of a disaster or an emergency plan (n=72) ............................ 24

Figure 18. Actions taken in advance of a disaster ............................................................................................................... 24

Figure 19. Affected by disaster or crisis in the past five years ............................................................................................. 25

Figure 20. Immediate or long-term effect of disaster or crisis (n=89) .................................................................................. 26

Figure 21. Impact on respondent due to disaster or crisis (n=89) ........................................................................................ 26

Figure 22. Participation in compensation processes (n=89) ................................................................................................. 27

Figure 23. Perceptions of compensation process ................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 24. Financial risk perception ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 25. Emergency funds ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 26. Likelihood of using resources when seeking information during a disaster ........................................................ 30

Figure 27. Preferred Modes of Learning .............................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 28. Knowledge of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ...................................................................................................... 32

Figure 29. Effect of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ............................................................................................................... 32

6

List of Tables Table 1: Weighted demographics of survey respondents........................................................................................................ 9

Table 2. Importance level of issues ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 3. Definition of a man-made disaster (n=557) ............................................................................................................ 14

Table 4. How much you were affected by disaster or crisis affect (n=89) ........................................................................... 25

7

Executive Summary Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities

January 2016

Introduction

In Florida and throughout the United States, natural and man-made disasters account for millions of dollars in recovery

that put a strain on the economy. Examining consumers’ perceptions and knowledge regarding community preparedness is

important to both the sustainability of Florida’s economy and its communities. This survey examined what Floridians

think about (1) their perceptions of their community with regards to the likelihood of a disaster, (2) their perceptions

toward the vulnerability of their community to different types of disaster, (3) their perceptions of their communities’

overall preparation for a disaster or an emergency, (4) their perceptions of their own preparation for a disaster or an

emergency, and (6) their perceptions of their own financial preparedness.

Key Findings

The key findings of the study include the following:

Almost half of respondents defined a man-made disaster as a disaster caused by man that was not nature or

weather-related.

The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Community is defined as a group of

people that share a geographical location or setting.”

Almost half of the respondents felt it was somewhat or very likely a natural disaster would happen in their

community in the next year.

When respondents were asked how vulnerable they perceived their communities to be to seven different types of

disasters, the majority of them felt their communities were somewhat or very vulnerable to disasters that result

from extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, strong thunderstorms, floods, and droughts.

Most respondents were somewhat or very confident that their local law enforcement and their family were

prepared to handle disasters or emergencies.

Respondents had slightly more confidence in the state and local government being prepared to handle disasters or

emergencies than the federal government.

A majority of the respondents reported recovery programs and direct assistance targeting those in need are

somewhat or very important programs and services needed following a disaster or crisis.

Over half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their community needs additional programs to help in

recovery following disasters and that there are programs in their community that are proactive in preparing for

disasters.

Forty percent of respondents felt their community would be able to deal with a natural disaster if it impacted their

community in the next three days, while 33% of them felt their community would be able to deal with a man-

made disaster if it impacted their community in the next three days.

When respondents were asked what level of priority should be given to improving disaster preparedness by local

officials, most respondents said it should be a high or urgent priority.

Sixty-one percent of the respondents indicated they prepare for a disaster or crisis during hurricane season.

A little over half of the respondents reported they have a disaster or emergency plan for themselves or their

family.

Of the respondents who reported they had a disaster or emergency plan, about a quarter of them indicated they

developed their plan from a suggested format from a nonprofit organization.

8

Of the respondents who reported they had developed their disaster or emergency plan from a suggested format

from a non-profit organization, resources they sought the most when developing their plan were the American

Red Cross, the fire department, and local TV stations.

A majority of the respondents felt they would be able to evacuate if necessary and able to obtain news and

emergency information from emergency officials.

In the past five years, 17% of the respondents were affected by a disaster or crisis.

Those respondents affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years said peace of mind and their property were

the most impacted by the disaster or crisis.

Almost half of the respondents affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years had participated in a

compensation process.

A majority of the respondents affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years said they and their families had

fully recovered from the disaster or crisis.

Local TV stations and major TV networks were resources the majority of the respondents were somewhat or

extremely likely to use when seeking information during a disaster.

Eighty-three percent of the respondents were familiar with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

A majority of the respondents who were familiar with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, felt it greatly or

somewhat affected coastal communities in Florida.

Similar percentages of the respondents reported they had emergency funds that would cover 1 to 3 months (38%)

and 4 to 6 months (36%) of necessary household expenses.

Background In Florida and throughout the United States, natural and man-made disasters account for millions of dollars in recovery

that put a strain on the economy. In Florida alone, 16 disasters including hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, flooding,

severe storms and straight-line winds, were declared between 2004 and 2013. Florida has a wide range of natural disasters

that regularly affect the state’s economy which include hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, wildfires and floods. Man-

made disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, can also be devastating to the state’s economy. Florida’s

growing communities have to plan and be prepared to handle these types of disasters. Governments must prioritize

planning and preparations in order to protect its citizens’ health, safety and welfare. Therefore, examining consumers’

perceptions and knowledge surrounding community preparedness is essential to the future of Florida’s economy.

This survey specifically examined:

The public’s perceptions of their community with regards to the likelihood of a disaster.

The public’s perceptions toward the vulnerability of their community to different types of disaster.

The public’s perceptions of their communities’ overall preparation for a disaster or an emergency.

The public’s perceptions of their own preparation for a disaster or an emergency.

The public’s perceptions of their financial preparedness.

Methods In January 2016, an online survey was distributed to a representative sample of Florida residents using non-probability

sampling. Qualtrics, a survey software company, distributed the survey link to 768 Florida residents, 18 or older. Of these

potential respondents, 525 completed responses were recorded. To ensure that the data were representative of the Florida

population according to the 2010 U.S. Census (seen in Table 1), the data were weighted to balance geographic, age,

gender, and race/ethnicity data with the Florida population (Kalton & Flores-Cervantes, 2003). Weighting procedures are

9

commonly used in non-probability samples to compensate for selection, exclusion, and non-participation biases (Baker et

al., 2013).

Public opinion research commonly utilizes non-probability samples to make population estimates (Baker, et al., 2013).

According to previous literature, non-probability samples can yield results comparable and in some cases better than

probability-based samples (Abate, 1998; Twyman, 2008; Vavreck & Rivers, 2008).

The survey was reviewed by a panel of experts, listed in the acknowledgements, for face and content validity before

implementation.

Description of Respondents

Table 1: Weighted demographics of survey respondents

Demographic Category %

Gender

Male 48.9

Female 51.1

Ethnicity

Hispanic 22.5

Race

Native American 0.2

Asian 3.0

African American 17.0

White 77.1

Age

19 and younger 1.3

20-29 years 12.8

30-39 years 12.2

40-49 years 14.2

50-59 years 13.5

60-69 years 11.1

70-79 years 7.4

80 and older 4.9

Rural Urban Continuum

Metro- Counties in metro areas of 1 million population or more 63.1

Metro- Counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 million population 25.7

Metro- Counties in metro areas of fewer than 250,000 population 4.8

Nonmetro- Urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metro area 3.5

Nonmetro- Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a metro area 2.6

Nonmetro- Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area 0.3

10

Political Beliefs and Affiliation

A Democratic political affiliation was reported by 43% of respondents, followed by a Republican affiliation (27%), and an

Independent affiliation (25%) (Figure 1). Additionally, 41% of respondents reported moderate political ideologies (Figure

2).

Figure 1. Political Affiliation

Figure 2. Political ideological leaning

Republican27%

Democrat43%

Independent25%

Non-affiliated7%

12%

21%

41%

18%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Very Liberal Liberal Moderate Conservative VeryConservative

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

11

Education

Thirty-two percent of respondents reported they had attained a 4-year college degree and 23% of them indicated they had

attended some college but had not attained a degree (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Education

Income

Similar percentages of the respondents reported having income between $25,000 to $49,999 (28%), income between

$75,000 to $149,999 (26%), and income between $50,000 to $74,999 (25%) (Figure 4). Twenty-eight percent of the

respondents reported they expected a change in next year’s family income.

Figure 4. Income

1%

17%

23%

13%

32%

14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Less than 12thgrade (did notgraduate from

high school)

High schoolgraduate

(includes GED)

Some college,no degree

2-year collegedegree

(Associates,Technical, etc.)

4-year collegedegree

(Bachelor's,etc.)

Graudate orProfessional

degree(Master's, Ph.D.,

M.B.A., etc.)

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

15%

28%

25% 26%

4%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

$24,999 or less $25,000 to$49,999

$50,000 to$74,999

$75,000 to$149,999

$150,000 to$249,999

$250,000 ormore

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

12

Employment Status

Thirty-six percent of the respondents reported they were employed full-time and 6% of them reported they were

unemployed. Thirty-one percent of the respondents indicated they were retired (Figure 5). Of those respondents who

reported they were retired (n=160), 96% of them said they were retired and not working and 4% of them are retired and

working part-time.

Figure 5. Current employment status

6%4%

7%5%

36%

11%

31%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Results

Importance of Florida Issues

Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance they associated with 15 specific issues on a five-point scale (1 =

Not at all important, 2 = Slightly important, 3 = Fairly important, 4 = Highly important, 5 = Extremely important).

Respondents could also indicate that they were Unsure of the importance they associated with an issue. Table 1 details the

percent of respondents who rated each issue as Highly important or Extremely important. Respondents identified

healthcare and the economy as the most important issues, at 86% and 84% respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Importance level of issues

Florida Issue % of respondents rating the issue extremely or highly important

Health care 86%

Economy 84%

Public education 77%

Water 76%

Taxes 75%

Environmental Conservation 71%

Immigration 68%

Food production 63%

Housing and foreclosures 62%

Climate change 60%

Respondents’ perceptions of a man-made disaster (n=557)

Respondents were asked to define a man-made disaster as an open-ended response. Forty-six percent of them said it was a

disaster caused by man that was not nature- or weather-related (Table 3). All responses were coded and some respondents

gave multiple answers. The following quotes are examples of the open-ended responses received with regard to this

theme:

“An event not caused by nature. It is an event that man's actions hurt the environment in a major way.”

“It is some event caused deliberately by a person. It could be caused by negligent behavior as well.”

“A disastrous event caused directly and principally by one or more identifiable deliberate or negligent human

actions.”

Eight percent of the respondents said a man-made disaster was any type of chemical explosion, spill, or leak. The

following quotes are examples of the open-ended responses received with regard to these themes:

“Destruction of the environment, through use of environmentally destructive chemicals, example -- the BP oil

spill.”

“Toxic spills, like ammonia spilling from a truck or train."

“Example: What BP did to the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago.”

Additionally, 6% of respondents said a man-made disaster was some type of pollution or contamination. The following

quotes are examples of the open-ended responses received with regard to this theme:

“In Florida, I consider the pollution of the Indian River lagoon system due to excessive use of fertilizers and

runoff or sink-holes caused by messing with the groundwater tables to be man-made disasters.”

Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities

14

“A breach in Lake O's levee…Pollution -- water, air, light…”

“Pollution of the environment.”

Table 3. Definition of a man-made disaster (n=557)

Definition of a man-made disaster %

A disaster caused by man; not nature/weather related 45.7

Chemical explosion/spill/leak 7.8

Pollution/contamination 5.6

Climate change/global warming 4.7

Fire 4.4

Hurricane/tornado/floods 3.5

Bomb/explosion 2.9

War 2.8

Accident/wreck/crash/derailing 2.6

Terrorism 1.9

Nuclear power plant melt down/H-bomb 1.9

Bridge/building collapse 1.5

Government 1.4

Environmental/nature 1.2

Inevitable 1.2

Poverty 0.7

Not good/bad/terrible 0.7

Failure of infrastructure/equipment/power outage 0.6

Poor land planning/overcrowding 0.5

Mass shooting 0.4

Destruction of the earth 0.4

Water shortage 0.4

Crime 0.3

Unemployment 0.1

Guns 0.1

Miscellaneous 2.9

Don’t know 1.7

No answer 2.3


15

Definition of Community

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, “Community is defined as a group of

people that share a geographical location or setting.” Of the respondents, 82% of them agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Definition of community

Likelihood of Disasters Happening in the Respondent’s Community

Respondents were asked for the likelihood of natural and man-made disasters happening in their communities in the next

year. Man-made disaster was not defined for respondents as they were asked to provide their own definition earlier in the

survey. Of the respondents, 42% indicated it was somewhat or very likely that a natural disaster would happen in their

community in the next year. Twenty-three percent indicated it was somewhat or very likely that a man-made disaster

would happen in their community in the next year (Figure 7).

34

48

5 58

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral/noopinion

Slightly disagree Disagree

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents


16

Figure 7. Likelihood of disasters happening in your community

The Level of Vulnerability of the Respondent’s Community

Respondents were asked how vulnerable they perceived their communities to be to seven different types of disasters. Of

the respondents, 80% perceived their communities to be somewhat or very vulnerable to disasters that result from extreme

weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, strong thunderstorms, floods, and droughts. Fifty-four percent of the

respondents perceived their communities to be somewhat or very vulnerable to climate change, which includes such issues

as water intrusion and sea level rise (Figure 8).

10%

32%

23%

27%

9%6%

17%

34%

27%

16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very likely Somewhat likely Neutral/noopinion

Slightly likely Not at all likely

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Natural disasters Man-made disasters


17

Figure 8. The Level of vulnerability of your community

The Level of Confidence in Community Preparations to Handle Disasters or Emergencies

Respondents were asked about the level of confidence they had in community preparations to handle disasters or

emergencies. Similar percentages of respondents were somewhat or very confident that their local law enforcement

(71%) and their family (70%) are prepared to handle disasters/emergencies (Figure 9). Respondents had slightly more

confidence in the State (63%) and local government (60%) being prepared to handle disasters or emergencies than the

federal government (57%). Also, respondents were neutral (47%) in the level of confidence they had in their employer

being prepared to handle disasters or emergencies.

35

14

21

7

10

12

2

25

28

29

25

27

16

9

19

23

17

30

22

17

10

13

26

24

27

28

29

41

8

8

10

11

13

25

39

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Disasters that result from geological events such as earthquakes

Industrial accidents such as chemical spills or explosions

Forest fires

A large-scale medical emergency such as bird flu, west nile virus, or madcow disease

Terrorist attacks

Climate Change - salt water intrusion & sea level rise

Disasters that result from extreme weather events such as hurricanes,tornadoes, strong thunderstorms, floods, droughts, etc.

Not at all vulnerable Slightly vulnerable Neutral/no opinion Somewhat vulnerable Very vulnerable


18

Figure 9. The level of confidence in community preparations to handle disasters/emergencies

The Level of Importance of Programs, Services, and Communication Tools Following a Disaster

or Crisis

Respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance of different programs, services, and communication tools

following a disaster or crisis. Equal percentages (86%) of respondents reported recovery programs (ex: Red Cross and

church affiliated programs) and direct assistance targeting those in need (ex: governmental emergency programs) are

somewhat or very important and needed following a disaster or crisis (Figure 10). Equal percentages (81%) of

respondents also indicated that having local media to provide up-to-date factual information and volunteer programs (ex:

clean-up and recovery, AmeriCorps) are somewhat or very important programs and services to have following a disaster

or crisis.

7

5

5

6

13

6

8

4

6

9

5

9

12%

12

12

12

13

12

13

11

14

8

13

16

25

41

19

24

17

19

19

14

30

47

12

22

43

29

43

39

38

44

44

49

37

25

46

42

13

13

22

19

19

19

16

22

14

12

24

12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Local department of health

Local UF/IFAS extension office

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The FBI

The federal government

State government

Local government

Loal law enforcement

Your most frequently used airport

Your employer

Your family

Local schools

Not at all confident Slightly confident Neutral/no opinion Somewhat confident Very confident


19

Figure 10. The level of importance of programs, services and communication tools following a disaster or crisis

Community Disaster and Crisis Programs

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements about their community. Of the respondents,

equal percentages (62%) agreed or strongly agreed that their community needs additional programs to help in recovery

following disasters and that there are programs in their community that are proactive in preparing for disasters (Figure

11). Also, equal percentages (60%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their community leaders and

organizations do a good job of communicating with community members after a crisis and that their community needs

additional programs to help prepare for disasters.

Volunteerprograms

Recoveryprograms

Directassistancetargeting

those in need

Local media toprovide up-to-

date factualinformation

Ways for meto provide

feedback orask questions

Mental healthservices

Not at all important 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2%

Slightly important 6% 4% 3% 4% 6% 8%

Neutral/no opinion 12% 9% 11% 13% 22% 19%

Somewhat important 31% 24% 24% 30% 35% 37%

Very important 50% 62% 62% 51% 36% 33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents


20

Figure 11. Community Disaster and Crisis Programs

Perception of Community Readiness for Immediate Impact of a Disaster

Respondents were asked if they felt their community was ready to deal with a disaster if it impacted their community in

the next three days (Figure 12). Forty percent of respondents felt their community would be able to deal with a natural

disaster if it impacted their community in the next three days, while 33% of them felt their community would be able to

deal with a man-made disaster if it impacted their community in the next three days.

Figure 12. Perception of community readiness for immediate impact of a disaster

11

1

2

3

2

4

4

14

4

5

7

10

8

8

21

33

34

30

32

30

26

37

36

35

38

36

36

39

18

26

25

22

20

23

23

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

If my family was impacted by a disaster, I know where I would turn tofor help

My community needs additional programs to help in recovery followingdisasters

My community needs additional programs to help prepare for disasters

Community leaders and organizations do a good job of communicatingwith community memebers AFTER a crisis

Community leaders and organizations do a good job of communicatingwith community members DURING a crisis

Community leaders and organizations do a good job of communicatingwith community members BEFORE a crisis

There are programs in my community that are proactive in preparingdisasters

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral/no opinion Somewhat agree Strongly agree

40% 39%

21%

33%

44%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Yes No Don't know

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Natural disaster Man-made disaster


21

Priority of Local Officials to Improve Disaster Preparedness

When respondents were asked what level of priority local officials should give to improving disaster preparedness, 73%

of them reported it should be a high or urgent priority (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Priority of local officials to improve disaster preparedness

Preparation for a Disaster or an Emergency

Respondents were asked when they prepare for a disaster or an emergency. Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated

they prepare during hurricane season and 39% reported they prepare when they learn about the disaster or an emergency

(Figure 14). Also, 22% of the respondents said they started their preparation for a disaster or an emergency at the

beginning of each year.

18%

55%

24%

1% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Urgent priority High priority Medium priority Low priority Don't know

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents


22

Figure 14. Preparation for a disaster or an emergency

Disaster Emergency Planning

Disaster Emergency Plan

When asked if the respondent themselves or their family had a disaster or an emergency plan, 52% (n=275) of them

reported they currently have a disaster or an emergency plan (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Disaster Emergency Plan

4%

5%

22%

39%

61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

None of the above

Other

Beginning of each year

When I learn about the disaster/emergency

Hurricane season

Percentage of Respondents

52%

48%

45%

46%

47%

48%

49%

50%

51%

52%

53%

Yes No

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents


23

Disaster or Emergency Plan Practice and Development (n=275)

Of the respondents who reported they had a disaster or an emergency plan (n=275), 41% (n=113), of them indicated they

practice that family disaster or emergency plan (Figure 16). The respondents were not given a don’t know option as to

whether they practice their family disaster or emergency plan. Also, of the respondents who reported they had a disaster or

emergency plan (n=275), 26% (n=72), indicated they developed their plan from a suggested format from a nonprofit

organization.

Figure 16. Disaster or emergency plan practice and development (n=275)

Organizations used as a Resource in Development of a Disaster or an Emergency Plan (n=72)

Of those respondents who reported they had developed a disaster or an emergency plan from a suggested format from a

nonprofit organization (n=72), they were asked what organizations they sought as a resource in developing their personal

family plan. Respondents were allowed to choose all that applied. Sixty-three percent indicated they sought American

Red Cross as a resource in developing their family plan, (36%) indicated they sought a fire department, and (35%)

indicated they sought a local TV Station (Figure 17). Other sources mentioned by respondents as resources used in the

development of a disaster or emergency plan were, “a checklist from a non-profit,” “the local newspaper,” “websites and

pamphlets,” “the State Department of Health,” and “SERT (Florida State Emergency Response Team)”.

41%

59%

26%

61%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes No Don't know

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Practice plan Developed plan from suggested format


24

Figure 17. Organizations used as a resource in development of a disaster or an emergency plan (n=72)

Actions Taken in Advance of a Disaster

Respondents were asked if they would be able to take certain actions in advance of a disaster. Similar percentages of the

respondents reported they would be able to evacuate if necessary (83%) and would be able to obtain news and emergency

information from emergency officials (81%) (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Actions taken in advance of a disaster

8%

7%

3%

6%

29%

35%

36%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

None of the above

Other

Local UF/IFAS extension office

Local hospital

Emergency operations center in my county

Local TV station

Fire department

American Red Cross

Would be able toevacuate ifnecessary

Would beadequately

prepared withnecessary food

and supplies

Would be able toobtain access to a

shelter ifnecessary

Would knowwhere to obtain

news andinformation from

emergencyofficials

Not at all confident 2% 3% 2% 2%

Not very confident 6% 10% 11% 5%

Neutral/no opinion 9% 11% 18% 13%

Somewhat confident 51% 42% 38% 44%

Very confident 32% 34% 31% 37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Per

cen

tage

of

resp

on

den

ts


25

Affected by Disaster or Crisis in the Past Five Years

Respondents were asked if they were affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years. Seventeen percent of the

respondents reported they were affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Affected by disaster or crisis in the past five years

How Much Respondents Were Affected Due to Disaster or Crisis (n=89)

Respondents who reported they were affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years (n=89) were asked to indicate on

a five-point semantic differential scale which word their attitude most closely aligned with when answering the question

“How much did this disaster or crisis affect you?” Respondents felt that they were more greatly affected than not greatly

affected with a mean score of 3.72 (Table 4).

Table 4. How much you were affected by disaster or crisis affect (n=89)

Statement M SD

Not greatly affected:Greatly affected 3.72 .937

Note: Responses based on semantic differential scale from 1 to 5 with the word on the left being equal to 1 and the word

on the right being equal to 5.

Immediate or Long-term Effect of Disaster or Crisis (n=89)

Of the respondents who reported they were affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years (n=89), 36% of them

indicated they were still affected by the disaster three to six months after the disaster or crisis (Figure 20). Twenty percent

of the respondents reported they were only affected by the disaster immediately after the disaster or crisis.

Yes, 17%

No, 83%

Yes No


26

Figure 20. Immediate or long-term effect of disaster or crisis (n=89)

Impact on Respondents Due to Disaster or Crisis (n=89)

Of the respondents who reported they were affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years (n=89), similar

percentages of the respondents said the disaster or crisis impacted their peace of mind (76%) and their property (75%)

(Figure 21).

Figure 21. Impact on respondent due to disaster or crisis (n=89)

Participation in Compensation Processes (n=89)

Of the respondents who reported they were affected by a disaster or crisis in the past five years (n=89), 48% of the

respondents indicated they participated in a compensation processes, such as insurance claims and claims that are filed

with the responsible party following a responsible-party man-made disaster. (Figure 22).

20%

36%

7%

2%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

I was affectedimmediately after

the disaster orcrisis

I was affected 3-6months after thedisaster or crisis

I was affected 6months to a year

after the disaster orcrisis

I was affected morethan 2 years after

the disaster orcrisis

I was affected bothimmediately and

long-term followingthe disaster or

crisis

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Finances Property Peace of MindTrust in

GovernmentHealth

Yes Impacted 52% 75% 76% 37% 33%

No Impact 47% 26% 21% 55% 67%

Don't know 1% 0% 4% 6% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Per

cen

tage

of

resp

on

den

ts


27

Figure 22. Participation in compensation processes (n=89)

Perceptions of Compensation Process

Of those respondents who reported they had participated in a compensation process, similar percentages of the

respondents indicated that their family had fully recovered from the disaster or crisis (81%) and they had fully recovered

from the crisis (79%) (Figure 23). Sixty-three percent of the respondents who reported they participated in a compensation

process reported they felt the process to compensate people after a disaster or crisis was fair.

48%

52%

45%

46%

47%

48%

49%

50%

51%

52%

53%

Yes No

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents


28

Figure 23. Perceptions of compensation process

Financial Risk Perception

Respondents were asked about the likelihood that they would engage in described activities or situations with different

levels of risk. Forty-eight percent of respondents reported they would be somewhat or extremely likely to invest 10% of

their annual income in a moderate growth mutual fund (Figure 24). Also, 44% indicated they would be somewhat or

extremely likely to choose not to purchase supplemental insurance.

I have fullyrecovered from the

disaster crisis

My family has fullyrecovered from the

disaster or crisis

I feel the process tocompensate peopleafter a disaster or

crisis was fair

Strongly disagree 2% 3% 9%

Slightly disagree 7% 3% 5%

Neither agree nor disagree 12% 12% 22%

Somewhat agree 25% 29% 24%

Strongly agree 54% 52% 39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Per

cen

tage

of

resp

on

den

ts


29

Figure 24. Financial risk perception

Emergency Funds

Respondents were asked to provide the number of months of necessary household expenses they would estimate their

emergency funds could cover excluding those savings set aside for retirement. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents

reported they had one to three months of necessary household expenses covered while 36% of them indicated they had

four to six months of necessary household expenses covered (Figure 25).

Figure 25. Emergency funds

Choosing not topurchase

supplementalinsurance

Spending yoursavings on anextravagant

purchase

Investing 10%of your annual

income in amoderate

growth mutualfund

Investing 5% ofyour annual

income in a veryspeculative

stock

Betting a day'sincome on theoutcome of a

sporting event

Extremely unlikely 15% 51% 15% 30% 72%

Slightly unlikely 16% 20% 14% 20% 7%

Not sure 25% 13% 23% 24% 8%

Somewhat likely 28% 12% 35% 19% 7%

Extremely likely 16% 5% 13% 7% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Per

cen

tage

of

resp

on

den

ts

38%36%

7% 6%

14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 -3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months Over 12 months

Per

enta

ge o

f R

esp

om

den

ts


30

Likelihood of Using Resources When Seeking Information During a Disaster

Respondents were asked how likely they are to use different types of resources when seeking information during a

disaster. Ninety percent of the respondents said they were somewhat or extremely likely to use local TV stations, and 78%

of the respondents indicated they were somewhat or extremely likely to use major TV networks (Figure 26). Also, face-to-

face communication (66%), government agencies (62%), and information from local organizations (62%) were all

resources respondents reported they were somewhat or extremely likely to use when seeking information during a

disaster.

Figure 26. Likelihood of using resources when seeking information during a disaster

53

17

25

22

34

11

8

13

12

4

7

8

3

2

12

18

15

16

12

11

11

10

9

6

8

11

5

2

14

31

25

27

14

34

28

18

19

28

23

15

13

6

14

24

24

23

27

32

34

31

33

39

42

37

34

32

7

11

11

12

14

12

19

29

24

23

20

29

44

58

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Twitter

State and local colleges and universities

Faith-based organizations

National newspapers (USA Today, The New York Times, etc.)

Facebook

Local UF/IFAS extension office(website, handouts, etc.)

Local events (disasterpreparedness workshops, information andresource fairs, etc. )

Local newspapers

Internet search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.)

Information from local organizations (nonprofits and serviceorganizations)

Government agencies

Face to face communication

Major TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc.)

Local TV stations

Extremely unlikely Slightly unlikely Neutal/no opinion Somewhat Likely Extremely likely


31

Preferred Modes of Learning

Respondents were asked what type of learning opportunities they would be most likely to take advantage of when learning

more about disaster and crisis preparation topics. They were allowed to select up to three items. The most popular

preferred mode of learning for disaster and crisis preparation topics was visiting a website (62%), followed by watching

TV coverage (60%) (Figure 27).

Figure 27. Preferred Modes of Learning

62%60%

46%

27% 27%

18%

12% 11% 11% 11%8%

1%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Per

cen

tage

of

resp

on

den

ts


32

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Knowledge of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Respondents were asked if they were familiar with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill that happened in the Gulf of

Mexico. Of the respondents, 88% reported they were familiar with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill that happened in

the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 28).

Figure 28. Knowledge of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Effect of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (n=461)

Respondents who reported familiarity with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (n=461), were asked how much they felt the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill affected the state and coastal communities. Of those respondents, 80% of them felt the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill was somewhat or greatly affected (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Effect of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Yes, 88%

No, 12%

2%

10% 9%

28%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No effect Slight effect Neutral/no opinion Somewhat effected Greatly effected

Per

cen

tage

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


33

References 2006 CGS Regional Poll Citizens’ Perceptions of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (n.d.). Retrieved

September 15, 2015, from https://www.auburn.edu/outreach/cgs/documents/(112008)FinalDisasterPrepReport.pdf

Abate, T. (2008). Accuracy of online surveys may make phone polls obsolete. The San Francisco Chronicle, D1.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/science/article/pii/S0168169905000852

Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., … Tourangeau, R. (2013). Report of the

AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Retrieved at

http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reports1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5

963

Disaster Declarations for Florida. (n.d.). Retrieved June 06, 2016, from https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/state-tribal-

government/47

Florida Natural Disaster Preparedness. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://floridadisaster.com/

Kalton, G. & Flores-Cervantes, I. (2003). Weighting methods. Journal of Official Statistics, 19(2), 81-97.

Twyman, J. (2008). Getting it right: Yougov and online survey research in Britain. Journal of Elections, Public Opinions

and Parties, 18, 343-354.

Vavreck, L., & Rivers, D. (2008). The 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Journal of Elections, Public

Opinion and Parties, 18(4), 355-366.

Www.floridadisaster.org - /Mitigation/State/documents/. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from

http://www.floridadisaster.org/Mitigation/State/documents

Zogby Analytics - New SUNYIT/Zogby Analytics Poll. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2015, from

http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/299-americans-neither-worried-nor-prepared-in-case-of-a-

disaster-sunyit-zogby-analytics-poll

https://www.auburn.edu/outreach/cgs/documents/(112008)FinalDisasterPrepReport.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/science/article/pii/S0168169905000852



https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/state-tribal-government/47

https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/state-tribal-government/47

http://floridadisaster.com/

http://www.floridadisaster.org/Mitigation/State/documents

http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/299-americans-neither-worried-nor-prepared-in-case-of-a-disaster-sunyit-zogby-analytics-poll

http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/299-americans-neither-worried-nor-prepared-in-case-of-a-disaster-sunyit-zogby-analytics-poll

final report - pie center · final report public opinions of disaster preparedness in florida...

Documents