A Qualitative Analysis of Public Compliance to Severe Weather and Tornado Warnings Jan M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Repository @ Iowa State University Meteorology Senior Theses Undergraduate Theses and Capstone Projects 12-2016 A Qualitative Analysis of Public Compliance to Severe Weather and Tornado Warnings Jan M. Ryherd Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/mteor_stheses Part of the Meteorology Commons Recommended Citation Ryherd, Jan M., "A Qualitative Analysis of Public Compliance to Severe Weather and Tornado Warnings" (2016). Meteorology Senior Theses. 4. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/mteor_stheses/4 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Theses and Capstone Projects at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Meteorology Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Qualitative Analysis of Public Compliance to Severe Weather and Tornado Warnings Jan M. Ryherd Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa David Flory – Mentor Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Michael Dahlstrom – Mentor Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa ABSTRACT Society as a whole is becoming more immersed in the age of technology and people are taking severe weather sheltering decisions into their own hands more than ever before. People are going through a complex process when a warning is received, a process that is still not well understood by scientists. In this study, an online survey was used to evaluate various parameters including basic demographics, weather knowledge and experience, and thought-processes during severe weather, to help gain an understanding of this social process and make better connections between why some people choose to seek shelter and why others do not. Through statistical analysis, significant relationships were found corresponding to the presence of family and friends increasing shelter-seeking behaviors, especially for males. Individuals who use three or more warning information sources to make sheltering decisions during the warning-response process were found to be more likely to shelter than those using fewer. Respondents who had a general fear of tornadoes tended to have increased sheltering behavior when compared to those who said they did not fear tornadoes. Likeliness to shelter tended to increase with age. The findings of this study also brought to light communication issues between the public and the meteorology community, including confusion revolving around outdoor warning sirens and county-based warnings. The public relies on outdoor warning sirens, but there isn’t a clear understanding of their purpose and use. County-based warnings are perceived as false warnings to unaffected portions of the county, sometimes decreasing an individual’s likeliness to shelter in the future. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction Gall 2013). Improved forecasts should mean longer severe weather lead-times and a Recently, forecasting for dangerous and high better-informed public. This is not impact events like tornadoes, floods, and necessarily the case. As we continue to hurricanes has improved greatly over the last make scientific advances in forecasting, it decade (Golden 2000, Pappenberger 2010, may be assumed that the public is better 1 protected when it comes to severe weather. disaster surveys to help meteorologists However, issuing warnings to inform public understand the thought processes of the of imminent dangers is only one small part public and why they chose to take action or of the equation. not. Some people still do not heed severe weather warnings, even when their lives are It is important that forecasters, warning in danger. It is important to understand their meteorologists, broadcast meteorologists, reasoning so that forecasters, broadcasters, and other weather communicators and emergency management officials can do thoroughly understand the thought process their jobs to the best of their ability and save that people go through when a warning is lives. received. Donner (2012) went so far as to break down this process into steps: 1) The importance of this social research stems hearing the warning, 2) understanding, 3) to all branches of meteorology as pointed believing, 4) personalizing, 5) deciding and out by former director of National Oceanic responding, and 6) confirming. Many and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), choose to confirm a threat or need to feel a Jack Hayes. “A number of barriers often sense of danger before they are willing to deter people from making risk-averse take protective actions (Johnson 2013). To decisions, and we want to learn all we can to help keep as many lives as possible safe and determine if there is more the NWS can do out of harm’s way, a thorough to change this,” Hayes said in an online understanding of the warning-response article (NOAA 2009). Very little work has process is needed. been done in the area, despite the need to understand the public’s process when it 2. Background comes to receiving and responding to a. Warnings- a social process warnings (Johnson 2013). Many studies, including Johnson’s, have aimed to identify Weather happens in a social environment in characteristics of groups who act on a which people are in charge of making warning and those who do not, but much decisions, not technology (Ripberger et al. more research is still needed to have a 2015). Because of this, it is even more complete understanding. important that the meteorology community, including broadcast meteorologists, National Ripberger et al. (2015) studied the warning- Weather Service (NWS), and emergency response process in more depth. This study managers, have effective communication found individuals take probability and among themselves as well as with the consequence into account, among other public. things, when faced with weather related decisions. If the probability a tornado will People tend to go through a process before touchdown in the individual’s area or the choosing to take protective action. Johnson consequences it may have when it touches (2013) notes the importance and need for a down are deemed high, the individual will deeper understanding of the social and take protective action of some kind. If the cognitive processes when conducting post- 2 probability of consequences is judged to be effective in disseminating warning low (i.e. warning is for large area and won’t information could be attributed to their impact the individual), they will be less ability to go into continuous coverage. This likely to take protective actions because it allows broadcast meteorologists to show will cost them in terms of time and effort. different radar maps and live video in addition to specifying geographic b. Why people don’t respond- what we know information, potential impact, and observed The few studies that are available in this impacts from storm spotters (Johnson 2013). area have looked at a number of different People may be less likely to take shelter parameters in order to determine which ones when frequently miss-warned before, correlate with people who take protective something referred to as the “cry-wolf” actions after receiving a warning. For effect in LeClerc and Joslyn’s article (2015). example, some individuals impacted by the Over-warning is often cited as one reason “Super Tuesday” tornado outbreak in 2008 people may take a warning less seriously. believed the threat to be minimal because This may be due in part to many warning February is not part of the traditional systems, like weather radios and some tornado season (NOAA 2009). The study by warning sirens, still operating on Ripberger et al. (2015) found that countywide warnings (Johnson 2013). individuals who had a response plan, and People may also delay in sheltering because thus were more prepared, tended to be more they are trying to confirm the threat or may likely to take protective actions. Other past simply not understand the dangers survey’s found that individuals mentioning associated with the warning (Paul et al. “God’s will” were less likely to take 2014). protective actions (Johnson 2013). This study also found warning response has been c. Warning sources and response affected by the individual’s fear of tornadoes Regarding the amount of sources referred to, in the past. individuals who depended on only one Studies have also looked at the sources source may have cut themselves off from people are receiving the warning from and further knowledge, which could have helped how the content of the warning affects in their decision making process. Those people’s likelihood of taking shelter. using multiple sources seem to use the Warnings including information pertaining additional sources to confirm or validate to potential storm impacts and related information first learned from the original consequences tend to increase the likelihood source (Johnson 2013). In fact, Luo et al. individuals will take protective actions of (2015) conducted a study that found some kind (Ripberger et al. 2015). A survey respondents using three or more warning conducted by Sherman-Morris (2005) found information sources were significantly more that most respondents would take shelter if