OCTOBER 2021 J O H N S O N E T A L . 743 Tornado Climatology and Risk Perception in Central Oklahoma a b,c b,a d,a VICTORIA A. JOHNSON, KIMBERLY E. KLOCKOW-MCCLAIN, RANDY A. PEPPLER, AND ANGELA M. PERSON a Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma b Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma c NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma d Christopher C. Gibbs College of Architecture, Norman, Oklahoma (Manuscript received 6 January 2021, in final form 7 April 2021) ABSTRACT: Residents of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area are frequently threatened by tornadoes. Previous re- search indicates that perceptions of tornado threat affect behavioral choices when severe weather threatens and, as such, are important to study. In this paper, we examine the potential influence of tornado climatology on risk perception. Residents across central Oklahoma were surveyed about their perceptions of tornado proneness for their home location, and this was compared with the local tornado climatology. Mapping and programming tools were then used to identify relationships between respondents’ perceptions and actual tornado events. Research found that some dimensions of the climatology, such as tornado frequency, nearness, and intensity, have complex effects on risk perception. In particular, tornadoes that were intense, close, and recent had the strongest positive influence on risk perception, but weaker tornadoes appeared to produce an ‘‘inoculating’’ effect. Additional factors were influential, including sharp spatial discontinuities between neighboring places that were not tied to any obvious physical feature or the tornado climatology. Respondents holding lower perceptions of risk also reported lower rates of intention to prepare during tornado watches. By studying place-based perceptions, this research aims to provide a scientific basis for improved communication efforts before and during tornado events and for identifying vulnerable populations. KEYWORDS: Social Science; Tornadoes; Climatology; Risk assessment 1. Introduction The perception of risk, defined as the intuitive judgment individuals make about the likelihood of a threat and its con- Each year, over 1000 tornadoes affect the United States on sequences (Slovic 1987), is one of the strongest predictors of average, leaving many thousands of people to recover and behavior in hazard events overall, including the tendencies to reassess their risk of subsequent events (NOAA 2019a). For a prepare for and respond to warning information (e.g., Lindell small portion of these tornadoes, research has been conducted and Perry 2012; Dow and Cutter 2000; Mileti and Sorensen to understand aspects of the disaster, including the demo- 1990). It is thus important for risk communicators to under- graphic and situational factors that drive casualties in torna- stand these perceptions as they form so they can account for does (Schmidlin and King 1995, 1997; Schmidlin et al. 1998; these intuitive judgments in their risk communication strate- Daley et al. 2005; Biddle 2010; CDC 2012), how false alarms gies (Brown et al. 2016; NOAA 2019b). Several theoretical may influence warning response and casualties (Simmons perspectives explain how individuals come to their perceptions and Sutter 2008; Ripberger et al. 2015; Trainor et al. 2015), of risk for a given hazard, each offering a unique dimension of the ways tornado casualties may change with risk exposure influence. Some of the most prominent paradigms demonstrate (Ashley and Strader 2016), the preferences people have for that risk perceptions are shaped by attributes inherent to the lead time in tornadoes (Hoekstra et al. 2011), and the ways that threat itself, known as the psychometric paradigm (Slovic National Weather Service (NWS) warnings were received, 1987), by the way the risk is amplified or attenuated among understood, and acted upon during particular events social groups and other influencers (Kasperson et al. 1988), and (Hammer and Schmidlin 2002; Schmidlin et al. 2009; Schultz by the way the risk fits in with—or pushes against—the pre- et al. 2010; Klockow 2011; NWS 2008, 2011a,b; Senkbeil et al. ferred ways of life of individuals exposed to it (Douglas and 2012; NWS 2014). This variety of works has revealed that there Wildavsky 1982). A dominant theory encompassing concepts are numerous factors that ultimately shape behaviors and of space and place—ideas that may be very consequential for outcomes, including objective risk factors like exposure and tornado risk perception—has yet to emerge (Klockow et al. vulnerability and subjective factors like individual perceptions 2014). Importantly, risk perceptions may also change based on of risk. updated information and experiences with a hazard (Lindell and Perry 2012), and it may thus be just as important for risk communicators to know how to keep up with these Denotes content that is immediately available upon publica- changes so their strategies can be updated. Recent research has tion as open access. begun to explore how perceptions of tornado risk in particular can change, especially in light of previous experience with Corresponding author: Victoria A. Johnson, johnsonvictoria@ tornadoes (Suls et al. 2013; Silver and Andrey 2014; Klockow ou.edu et al. 2014; Demuth 2018; Ellis et al. 2018; Peppler et al. 2018). DOI: 10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0137.1 Ó 2021 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses). Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/27/21 05:59 AM UTC 744 WEATHER, CLIMATE, AND SOCIETY VOLUME 13 An outstanding question in this literature relates to the way In addition, Peppler et al. (2018) found that in central that attributes of previous tornado events, including their Oklahoma particular places have taken on risk-prone status, proximity to an individual in space and time and their intensity, while some communities near those places may feel relatively may affect perceptions of risk. safe. They note, for example, that residents in Norman feel much less at risk to tornadoes than those residing in Moore. In a. Tornado risk perception: Space and place general, places southwest of urban areas reported feeling more Some past studies point to the importance of space and place risk prone, whereas places northeast, or ‘‘downwind’’ of the in forming risk perceptions about tornado threat, but the re- urban area reported feeling less risk prone. This research sults are mixed. At a high level, tornado events that occur di- points to the potential existence of spatial risk perception rectly to oneself or indirectly through others (i.e., family, heterogeneities on multiple scales. friends, or events shown on news media) both influence the b. Tornado risk perception: Time perception of risk, which means experience resonates when an event is both in their place of residence and in other places Risk perception also can be influenced by the passage of (Demuth 2018). People who live in regions that are generally time, because major events could endure in memory after characterized by higher objective tornado likelihood also tend several years and still influence one’s perception of risk to perceive more risk from that hazard (Allan et al. 2020). (Demuth 2018). Some studies show considerable variations in Other research demonstrates that people attend to very local tornado risk perception over time, but this relationship is tornado climatology and use it to construct more refined multifaceted. Suls et al. (2013) found that individuals in the ideas about tornado risk in their place of residence (Suls et al. path of the Parkersburg tornado reported feeling less at risk 2013; Klockow et al. 2014; Ellis et al. 2018; Peppler et al. 2018). than the surrounding area up to 6 months after the event. By Ellis et al. (2018) indicated that people who had general ex- one year after the event, risk perception values between those perience (i.e., both direct and indirect) with tornadoes had directly affected and in the immediate area were statistically higher perceptions of climatological threat in their county. identical. Notably, people in areas surrounding the tornado Residents often underestimated their climatological threat for path also felt less vulnerable to future tornadoes at 1, 6, and tornado risk; however, the perception of risk was higher for 12 months after the event—the effect on this population was those with experience than those with no prior experience. Suls just smaller than those in the immediate impact zone. Thus, et al. (2013) conducted a postevent study of the Parkersburg, both groups felt some degree of optimism from being in or Iowa, 2008 tornado and found that people who were in the close to the tornado, and the added effect of being in the im- immediate path of the tornado felt less at risk from subsequent mediate path eroded quickly, leaving a more evenly distributed storms than areas surrounding the path. Thus, direct experi- regional optimism. Opposing this finding, Silver and Andrey ence in the immediate aftermath of a storm may actually de- (2014) investigated changes in risk perception over time for an crease perceptions of risk for subsequent storms—an apparent entire community, Goderich, Ontario, Canada, that had been application of the gambler’s fallacy, a cognitive bias where hit by a tornado. They found that perceptions of risk proneness individuals believe that a particular outcome becomes less and the propensity to take protective action by citizens of likely in future trials if it was just experienced (Croson and Goderich (i.e., individuals close to the damage path) increased Sundali 2005). in the immediate aftermath of the tornado. When an event Other past studies complicate this idea, however. Klockow occurred in the same location three days later, the population et al. (2014) examined place-based perceptions of risk for was much more responsive than they had been for the first individuals who had experienced tornadoes in the 27 April event.