January 2016 Final Report Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities Angela Lindsey & Sandra Anderson PIE2015/16-07
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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%
State and local colleges and universities
Faith-based organizations
National newspapers (USA Today, The New York Times, etc.)
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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
Public Opinions of Disaster Preparedness in Florida Communities
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