Perceived and actual costs are not substantial barriers to preparedness behaviors

Preparing for Volcanic Hazards: An Examination of Lahar Knowledge, Risk Perception, and Preparedness around Mount Baker and Glacier Peak, WA

Conclusions Acknowledgements & References

This study was funded through the BSU Department of Geosciences Burnham Grant. Thank you to my Masters Thesis Committee Drs. Jeffrey Johnson, Thomas Wuerzer, Monica Hubbard, as well as advice and support from John Schelling (WA State EMD), the Skagit County EMD, David Johnston and team (GNS Science), and Cynthia Gardner (Cascade Volcano Observatory). Thank you for statistcal advice Josh Hewitt (Colorado State University). Carlino, S., Somma, R., & Mayberry, G. C. (2008). Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons with other volcanic areas and implications for emergency management. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172(3-4), 229–243. Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2006). People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not. Natural Hazards, 38(1-2), 101–120. Rogers, R.W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In B.L. Cacioppo & L.L. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook (pp. 153- 176). London, UK: Guilford. Rogers, R.W. & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1997). Protection motivation theory. In D.S. Gochman (Ed.), Handbook of Health Behavior Research I: Personal and Social Determinants (pp. 113-132). New York, NY: Plenum.

Objectives

This study researches knowledge, risk perception, and preparedness levels in the Skagit Valley, Washington to address the following research questions: (1) Does a disconnect exist between knowledge, accurate risk perception, and adequate preparedness behaviors? (2) Which elements outlined in the Protection Motivation Theory exert the greatest influence on preparedness actions? (3) Does increasing participation in response planning and implementation--a frequent recommendation--effectively address this disconnect?

Background: Protection Motivation Theory

Study Location: Skagit Valley, Washington

Risk diagram modified from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3008

Natural'Hazard' Vulnerable'System'

Knowledge of Potential Physical Events

•  Past Recurrence Intervals •  Future Probability •  Speed of Onset •  Magnitude •  Duration •  Spatial Extent

Exposure, sensitivity and resilience of:

•  Population •  Economy •  Critical Infrastructure

Ability and/or Willingness to: •  Mitigate •  Prepare •  Respond •  Recover

Risk%%of%%

Disaster%

What is Risk?

The intersection of a natural hazard (e.g., lahars) with a vulnerable system. Carlino et al. 2008

Risk Perception

Coping Appraisal

Intent to Prepare

Change in Behavior

Rogers 1983; Rogers & Prentice-Dunn 1997; Grothmann & Reusswig 2006

Threat Appraisal

Does average prepardness score change based on perceived exposure to lahar hazards?

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Live in a Lahar Zone Work in a Lahar Zone

Cross a Road in a Lahar Zone

Ave

rage

Pre

pare

dnes

s S

core

Yes No Don't Know

Do you: ANOVA: p < 0.001

Significantly different pairs

indicated in red

Does average prepardness score increase when people believe a threat to be more severe?

Perceived exposure and severity of hazards fails to change preparedness behaviors

0.06

0.07

0.13

0.1

-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Kendall's Tau-b Correlation Coefficients

p < 0.05 Planning Indicator Score

Supplies Indicator Score

Action Indicator Score

Preparedness Score

N varies from 405 to 410 due to missing values

To what degree do respondents agree or disagree with the following as preventing preparedness of recommended plans, supplies, and actions?

Belief in one's own ability to respond effectiely improves preparedness behaviors

Response professionals work as first responders or in leadership roles within local city government, hospitals, schools, red cross, or utilities, transportation, or water companies.

Participation in hazard response planning and implementation only moderately improves preparedness but significantly improves confidence in personal abilities

P R E PA R E D N E S S M E A S U R E

R E S P O N S E P R O F E S S I O N A L S

G E N E R A L P U B L I C

P - VA L U E

Planning Indicator Score 0.50 0.42 P > 0.05

Supplies Indicator Score 0.65 0.61 P > 0.05

Action Indicator Score 0.52 0.35 P < 0.0001

Preparedness Score 0.56 0.46 P < 0.01

N varies from 456 to 459 due to missing values

0.35

0.22

0.17

0.29

0.25

-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Kendall's Tau-b Correlation Coefficients

p < 0.01

I have the knowledge and skills to ensure that I am prepared for a natural hazard:

I have the ability to protect myself and/or others from the effects of a flood:

I have the ability to protect myself and/or others from the effects of a lahar:

I am confident that I will know what to do during and after a flood:

I am confident that I will know what to do during and after a lahar:

44%

85%

62%

23%

59%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sought Hazard Information

Learned First Aid Know Who Needs Additional Help

Response Professionals General Public

Do response professionals have higher average preparedness scores than the general public?

Note: N varies from 450 to 455 due to missing values, and p-value refers to results from difference of means tests (t-tests)

Percentage of Response Professionals and the General Public who have:

42% 21%

22%

27%

36% 52%

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

100%

Response Professional

General Public

Agree Neutral Disagree

76% 54%

11%

21%

13% 25%

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

100%

Response Professional

General Public

Agree Neutral Disagree

76% 54%

11%

21%

13% 25%

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

100%

Response Professional

General Public

Agree Neutral Disagree

1) A disconnect exists between accurate threat appraisal and adequate preparedness behaviors 2) Lack of knowledge, money, and time are not significant barriers to preparedness in the Skagit Valley 3) Coping appraisal, particularly the belief in one's abilities, is a controlling factor in behavior motivation in the Skagit Valley 4) Participation of response professionals in hazard response planning and implementation only moderately improves household preparedness but significantly improves self-efficacy

Recommendations: Emphasize household preparedness and its importance for whole community resilience in public hazard outreach and participation programs Improve coping appraisals by helping people recognize the benefits of preparing Empower people by emphasizing the importance of taking small, low cost steps

Do respondents with greater confidence in their own abilities have higher preparedness scores?

I am confident that I will know what to do during and after a:

FLOOD LAHAR

n = 451 n = 450

Chi-square: p < 0.001

Chi-square: p < 0.01

Increases in the Action indicator score are largely due to response professionals knowing first aid and who in their community may need additional help. These are considered professional requirements rather than additional voluntary preparedness measures. Response professionals are more confident in their abilities during and after a hazard than the general public. Confidence in personal abilities decreases by a third in both groups when considering lahars as opposed to floods.

Kimberley Corwin* and Brittany D. Brand Department of Geosciences

Boise State University *kimberleycorwin@u.boisestate.edu

Online Questionnaire

Nonrandom, convenience sampling Over 500 respondents 18+ living and working in Skagit Valley Recruitment via telephone, email, and ~10,000 post cards (right) distributed at local events, organizations, and business.

Threat appraisal (hazard knowledge and risk perception) Accessibility of USGS volcanic hazard maps Information seeking behaviors Coping appraisal and preparedness level Survey Methods:

Measuring Household Preparedness

Composite Preparedness =

Scorefsf

Planning + Supplies + Action

3

Mount Baker lahars may cause failure of Baker Dam (right) and impact numerous towns, agricultural fields, and roads in the Skagit Valley (red box).

Threat Appraisal: Are lahars probable? Will the impacts be severe? Am I concerned about lahars?

Actual Barriers!!

Lack of Resources:

Money, Time, Knowledge

Coping Appraisal: Will response efforts be effective? Do I have the ability to respond effectively? Are the costs of preparing worth the benefits?

2pPlanning = 14

sSupplies = 4aAction =

Normalized indicator and composite scores based on the number of recommended items or activities a respondents have in each category.