Upload
martin-phillips
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Science Team Update
Public Perception of Current Storm Surge InformationBetty MorrowSocResearch Miami
Jeff LazoSocietal Impacts Program, NCAR
Jennifer SpragueNWS Strategic Policy and Planning
NOAA Hurricane Conference
Miami, FL – 11/30/2010
Outline
• Objectives and Storm Surge Project Overview – Jenn Sprague
• Related Studies and Literature – Betty Morrow
• Public Survey – Jeff Lazo
• Summary & Future Work
• References & Thanks
Objectives
• To explore and assess public awareness and understanding of storm surge and storm surge information
• To assess whether the NWS should develop new storm surge informational approaches to improve the communication of storm surge risk
Project Overview
Two steps with multiple phases
STEP 1• Phase 1 (completion – 11/30/10): Leverage
existing tropical cyclone efforts (HFIP, etc.)
• Phase 2 (completion – 5/31/11): Inclusion of extratropical cyclone storm surge issues
• Step 1 phases both include1. Literature Review2. Emergency Manager Interview3. Public Focus Groups4. Public Survey
Project Overview cont’d
STEP 2• FY12 funding expected, but not yet secured
• Based on information gleaned from research in Step 1
• Focus on how the public comprehends and reacts to specific components of NWS storm surge products/watches/warnings.
• Focus on whether information should be enhanced or provided in new formats (text v. graphics) or by new delivery means.
Related studies and literature: conceptual frameworkHousehold response to surge threat has 3 components:
1.Understanding the surge hazard
2. Knowing vulnerability of their area / home and family to surge, i.e. their elevation and location in relation to coast
3.Comprehending surge danger from a specific hurricane threatening their area, i.e. probability, potential impacts, etc.
1. Understanding Surge
In one exploratory study, only 2 out of 33 coastal emergency managers believed the residents in their region understood surge (Morrow 2007) Some responses:
“I don’t think they understand how bad it can be” (EM21)
“For anyone to think that staying near the Gulf is a good idea even after Camille I can’t believe people understand the threat.” (EM 4)
“I don’t think they understand the actual surge that comes in off the ocean…I don’t think they realize how water could come inland.” (EM 25)
2. Knowing Vulnerability
Of those in Cat 1 zone, about one third are each of these:
• Very concerned
• Somewhat concerned
• Not very concerned
Hampton Road VA Evacuation Study. 2010. Morrow & Gladwin through Dewberry for FEMA and USACE
n = 1599
Evacuation Survey Results
Hampton Road VA Evacuation Study. Betty Morrow and Hugh Gladwin through Dewberry. 2009.
2. Knowing Vulnerability
Coastal Georgia Evacuation Study. 2010. Morrow & Gladwin through Dewberry. 2009 for FEMA and USACE.
Each dot = one interview
Not Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Very Likely
Likelihood Would Be Flooded in Major Hurricane:
Other Recent Findings
• In spite of forecast information most residents in path of Hurricane Ike were taken by surprise by storm surge
– Morss & Hayden 2010
• When asked what the expected sea level would be if a 15-foot surge occurs at the time of a 2-foot tide, only 19% gave the correct answer
– Morrow & Gladwin 2007
Step 1 – Phase 1 Overview1. Literature Review (in progress) Based on earlier literature review(s) conducted by
Morrow on storm surge and Lazo on hurricane preparedness
Little literature on public use of storm surge information.
2. Emergency Manager Interviews (complete) Leverage HFIP: interviews conducted with EM and
related Florida stakeholders Current EM interviews NOT intended to be all
inclusive of all coastal EMs potentially affected by storm surge.
3. Public Focus Groups (complete) Primary purpose – survey development 8 focus groups in Tampa, FL and Miami, FL and 12
individual directed interviews (IDIs) in Miami.
4. Public Survey (data collection complete)
Literature ReviewFew studies dealing explicitly with storm surge communication and understanding
Some findings:• Lack of knowledge about flood risk in general• Lack of knowledge about surge and difference
between surge and other inundation• Impact of storm surge not well understood• False sense of ability to withstand surge risk• Wind mitigation can give false sense of safety
from surge• Role of storm surge risk in evacuation decisions
mixed
Public Focus Groups
Tampa, Florida – May, 2010 “For me, I'm not worried about the
storm surge so much as winds…”
“… the waters going to go out with the wind then … like a tsunami on the beach coastal area.”
“I find it hard to believe that the water could rise and could literally go, like, five miles across…”
Purpose Primarily valuation for HFIP Storm Surge
Survey development Pre-HFIP Focus Groups – Tampa and Miami IDIs - Miami Peer review
Pretesting – Knowledge Networks Timed – 33 minutes Estimation of valuation model
Implementation – Knowledge Networks 20 minutes median
Sampling KN panel – generalizability Response rate (as per KN report)
Respondents Comparison to population - weights
Public Survey – Method
Public Survey - Sample
Responses
TX
264 LA
107 MS
12 AL
22FL
719GA
16 SC
50 NC
49TOT
1,218
POPULATION 18 years+155 counties. Pop: ~30 M
Public Survey - Sample
Gender Female 51%
Ethnicity White* 63% Black* 16% Other* 6% Hispanic 15%
Age 18-29 21% 30-49 39% 50-65 20% 65 Up 19%
Income Less than $20K 11% $20K - $49K 34% $50K - $99K 38% $100K and up 17%
Home Tenancy Own 68%
Education Less than HS 6% High School Grad 20% Some College 33% Bachelors 26% Graduate 17%
* Non-Hispanic
Survey results
1. Value of improved forecasts
2. Perceptions and information sources
3. Understanding of storm surge
4. Information preferences
Survey results
1. Value of improved forecasts
2. Perceptions and information sources
3. Understanding of storm surge
4. Information preferences
Value of Improved Forecasts
Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project – Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (HFIP-SEIA )
Non-market valuation study – stated preference method (conjoint analysis)
Included “surge information” attribute
Alternative approach for assessing respondents’ preferences for information
Value of Improved Forecasts
Value of Improved Forecasts
Bivariate Probit, λ unconstrained, with a constant(n = 1201)
Expected Sign Beta t-stat WTP,
unitSt.Er. WTP Unit
Constant 0.618 8.78 $-8.84$-
8.84
Landfall Time - -0.070 -10.05 $1.01 $1.01 hours
Landfall Location - -0.011 -13.83 $0.16 $0.10 miles
Wind Speed - -0.006 -2.52 $0.09 $0.01 mphChange in Wind Speed + 0.008 12.97 $0.11 $0.03
percent
Surge Depth - 0.003 0.45 $0.04 $0.01 feet
Surge Information + 0.038 1.58 $0.54 $0.09 yes/no
Extended Forecast + 0.044 3.53 $0.63 $0.34 days
Cost - -0.070 -51.52
Value of Improved Forecasts
Bivariate Probit, λ unconstrained, with a constant(n = 1201)
Expected Sign Beta t-stat WTP,
unitSt.Er. WTP Unit
Constant 0.618 8.78 -8.840 -8.840
Landfall Time - -0.070 -10.05 $1.01 $1.01 hours
Landfall Location - -0.011 -13.83 $0.16 $0.10 miles
Wind Speed - -0.006 -2.52 $0.09 $0.01 mph
Change in Wind Speed + 0.008 12.97 $0.11 $0.03 percent
Surge Depth - 0.003 0.45 $0.04 $0.01 feet
Surge Information: $0.54 WTP per household per year
(9,857,371 households)
Extended Forecast + 0.044 3.53 $0.63 $0.34 days
Cost - -0.070 -51.52
Survey results
1. Value of improved forecasts
2. Perceptions and information sources
3. Understanding of storm surge
4. Information preferences
Perceptions
Not at all likely
Not very likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely Extremely likely
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Likelihood of storm surge damage - by surge expo-sure
Not surge exposed Surge exposed
Not at all likely
Not very likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely Extremely likely
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Likelihood of wind damage - by surge exposure
Not surge exposed Surge exposed
Perceptions
1
2
3
4
5
Impacts from sustained high
winds
Tornadoes associated with the
hurricane
Flooding caused by storm surge
Flooding caused by rainfall
Injuries during clean up after the
hurricane
Injuries during preparation before
the hurricane
Likelihood of loss of life due to ...(1=Not at all likely 5=Extremely likely)
Information sources
1
2
3
4
5
Use for information on potential hurricanes for decision making ...(1=Never or rarely 5=All of the time)
Survey results
1. Value of improved forecasts
2. Perceptions and information sources
3. Understanding of storm surge
4. Information preferences
Understanding of storm surge
Understanding of storm surge
Forec
ast -
high
wat
er m
ark
Surg
e is w
ater
from
sea
Surg
e and
tsun
amis
are t
he sa
me
Surg
e cau
sed b
y rai
n
Surg
e onl
y with
in m
ile of
coas
t
Surg
e for
ecas
ts ac
coun
t for
tide
s .
Categ
ory i
nclu
des r
ain a
nd in
land
floo
d
Surg
e prim
ary r
easo
n to e
vacu
ate
Categ
ory r
efers
to w
ind a
nd su
rge
Close
ly re
lated
to w
ind s
treng
th
1
2
3
4
5
Understanding of storm surge
Survey results
1. Value of improved forecasts
2. Perceptions and information sources
3. Understanding of storm surge
4. Information preferences
Information preferences
Information preferences
Separate Info Watch Warning
58.2% 55.4%65.7%
22.6% 26.3%19.6%
19.2% 18.3% 14.7%
Storm Surge Information Preferences
Yes No Don't Know
Information preferences - format
1
2
3
4
5
Maps Above ground level
Graphics showing damage .
Worded explanations
Internet Feet above sea level
Probability statements
Separate surge watch and warning
info
Usefulness of information format(1=Not at all useful 5=Extremely useful)
• Begin to explore preferences for presentation of storm surge information
Summary of findings
1. Public awareness and understanding of storm surge and storm surge information
• A significant portion of the surge vulnerable population does not understand • what storm surge is• their vulnerability to surge• what the forecast information means• the potential impacts of surge
Summary of findings
2. New storm surge informational approaches to improve the communication of storm surge risk
• Inconclusive whether there is a single best approach to communicating surge risk
• People have significant preferences for additional surge information
• Currently undefined variety of preferences for the format and delivery of information
Ongoing and future work
• Complete lit review – extend to ET aspects
• Continue survey analysis
• Summarize EM and stakeholder interviewers
• Survey EMs (for HFIP)
• Conduct public survey on ET and TC surge
References
Gladwin, H., J.K. Lazo, B.H. Morrow, W.G. Peacock, H.E. Willoughby. 2009. “Inbox: Social Science Research Needs for the Hurricane Forecast and Warning System.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 90(1):25-29.
Gladwin, H., J.K. Lazo, B. Morrow, W.G. Peacock, H. Willoughby. 2007. “Social Science Research Needs for the Hurricane Forecast and Warning System” Natural Hazards Review. 8(3): 87-95.
Letson, D., D. Sutter, J.K. Lazo. 2007. “The Economic Value of Hurricane Forecasts: An Overview and Research Needs.” Natural Hazards Review. 8(3):78-86.
Lazo, J.K. and D.M. Waldman, forthcoming. “Valuing Improved Hurricane Forecasts.” Economics Letters
Lazo, J.K., D.M. Waldman, B.H. Morrow, and J.A. Thacher. 2010. “Assessment of Household Evacuation Decision Making and the Benefits of Improved Hurricane Forecasting.” Weather and Forecasting. 25(1):207-219.
Morrow, B.H. 2007.Final Report. Storm Surge Social Science Project. Submitted to NOAA Coastal Services Center.
Morrow, B.H. and H. Gladwin 2009. Coastal GA Evacuation Study. Submitted through Dewberry to FEMA and USACE.
Morrow, B.H. and H. Gladwin. 2010. Hampton Road VA Evacuation Study. Submitted through Dewberry to FEMA and USACE.
Morss, R. E. and M. H. Hayden. 2010. “Storm Surge and ‘Certain Death’: Interviews with Texas Coastal Residents Following Hurricane Ike”. Weather, Climate and Society. 2(3): 174-189.
Thanks!
NOS / CSC – Coastal Storms Program for funding
Storm surge social science participants:
– Jesse Feyen, Jamie Rhome, Audra Luscher, Timothy Schott, Jen Sprague, Walt Zaleski, Mary Erickson, Keelin Kuipers, John F Kuhn, Daniel Noah, Jennifer McNatt, Steve Letro, Gene Hafele, Harvey Thurm, Tom Bradshaw, Jeffrey Pereira, Al Sandrik, Andy Devanas, … and multiple others from all conference calls!
Literature review: Hugh Gladwin, Suzana Mic, Emily Laidlaw
Survey review: Rebecca Morss, Julie Demuth, Mark DeMaria, Ed Rappaport
Survey implementation: Stefan Subias, Wan Yan, Mike Lawrence
Modeling and analysis: Don Waldman, Jennifer Thacher, Jennifer Boehnert
And others …