Incorporating Social Science into NOAA’s Tsunami Program National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program San Diego, CA February 8, 2012 Award: NA10NWS4670015.

Incorporating Social Science into NOAA’s Tsunami Program

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation ProgramSan Diego, CA

February 8, 2012Award: NA10NWS4670015

Colleen Scott, Winn Ketchum, Kasie Richards, Emma Apatu (ETSU)Victoria Johnson and Stuart Frazer (GNS Science)

Courtney Farnham (UC)

Chris Gregg (PI) ETSU: Geosciences; Community and Behavioral Health

Nathan Wood USGS

David Johnston Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchLiesel Ritchie UC: Natural Hazards Research CenterSteve Meinhold, Jenifer Horan UNCW: Political Science & International Affairs

One Goal, Four Objectives

Goal Reduce tsunami impacts by Integrating social science into the Tsunami Program

Objective 1: evaluate TWC warning products; Objective 2: assist with implementation of the

proposed TsunamiReady™ Improvement Plan (TRIP);

Objective 3: develop a searchable, online compendium of social science research on tsunamis.

Objective 4: develop GIS-based social vulnerability maps

Study Areas

Community Details# Community State/

TerritoryTsunami Ready™

Relative Degree of Tsunami Hazard

1 Ocean Shores Wash. Yes High2 Seaside Oregon No High3 Kodiak Alaska Yes High4 Coronado Cali No Intermediate5 Kauai County Hawaii Yes High6 New Hanover Co. N Carolina Yes Low7 Tutuila Island: Leone,Vailoatai, Maleloa

Itulagi, Maleloa Ituau, Taputimu, Amaluia, Asili, Afao, Seetaga, Agugulu, Amanave, Poloa, Fagali’I, Maloata, Fagamalo, Fagasa, Tula

American Samoa

No High

8 Frederiksted, St Croix;Charlotte Amalie, St Thomas

US Virgin Islands

No High

Time and Methods

• Objectives 1 & 2: – Focus Group sessions May to October 2011– Purposive sample-- emergency managers/stakeholders– About 15-20 invited

• Objective 3: – in start-up mode

• Objective 4: – Analysis of existing data from prior NSF study. 2011-

present

Focus Groups• guided by protocol that identified topics for discussion:

– receiving messages, strengths and weaknesses of TWC products, and suggested improvements.

– Draft guidelines for TR and community rating system• Discussions recorded & transcribed, entered to AtlasTi®• Themes & sub-themes were teased out by looking more

deeply at:– source of messages, dissemination channels, and – strengths and weaknesses regarding technology, audience and

language. – or mandatory & optional guidelines, points and rating method

• As discussions focused on improvements, participants highlighted:– additional themes of message content, formatting & delivery needs – Needs in terms of TR guidelines and incentives

Strengths & Weaknesses• Strengths:

– most information (but not all) needed in a message was present in existing messages

– military / operational backgrounds better suited for interpretation!• Weaknesses:

– formatting and organization of the existing material, – inconsistencies in the types of messages issued from TWCs– most important information up front

• some expressed how it was useful to have information in Bulletins about for areas outside their AoR, but – also wanted site specific information for what they should expect

inside their AoR, up front and center!

Obj. 1: Warning Products

Specificsused 2011 Japan WCATWC Bulletins 3 & 4 for comment• Sources and Channels:

– multiple, NOAA/NWS definitive source!• Content:

– Sufficient. Needs re-arrangement– Need consistent Bulletin types and language across TWCs– Expected run-up superimposed on tide– More info for ports & harbors

• Style:– Some jargon, too repetitive– Need to restructure and balance with having complete /stand-alone message

• Formatting: – Poor. Need modern capability (section headers, bullets, segments)– BLUF, re-arrangement of content

• Dissemination/Receipt: – Good.– Wide variations, too many versions from too many sources since TWC messages are

recycled

Recommendations

• Merge focus group findings with findings from social science research on warnings

• Revise warning products• Merge Public & Standard Bulletins

– Public already receives them!• Present revisions in focus groups or interviews

with prior participants to obtain end-use input• Test new messages

Two Popular US-based Models

1. Warning Response Model– Mileti and Sorensen (1991)– Mileti and Fitzpatrick (1992)– Mileti and O’brien (1992)– Mileti and Peek (2000)

2. Protective Action Decision Model– Lindell and Perry (2004, 2011)

The Foundation• The Classic Persuasion Model (Lasswell, 1948), articulated

by Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) Source Message Channel Receiver

Feedback

Effect

Information Source

Message Channel Receiver Effect

Feedback

After Lindell and Perry 2004

Selection of factors amenable to change needed to ensure return on investment

Warning Response Model

• hear–perceive (understand, believe, and personalize)

• Decide-respond– continue normal routine or– take alternative protective actions & perform

them • People don’t passively wait, they actively seek

information (Confirmation Process)

(Mileti and colleagues)

Process / sequence:

Warning Confirmation Process

Sequence and Human Outcomes depend on:1. Message Content Received

i. Hazard, source, timing, guidance

2. Style of Message Receivedi. specificity, consistency, certainty, clarity, accuracy,

sufficiency, and channel

3. Receiver Characteristicsi. Environmental cues, social setting, social ties, social structure,

psychological

Concerns: messages focuses on immediate aspects of the message rather than longer term factors of the receiver

(Mileti and colleagues)

Protective Action Decision ModelEmphasizes• Environmental cues and social sources. • Resulting perceptions of threat derived from

combining that information with pre-existing beliefs. These are based on:– past experiences (Houts et al., 1984; Lindell and Perry, 1992;

Lindell and Perry, 2004).

• Calls attention to people’s perceptions of alternative protective actions

(Lindell and Perry and colleagues)

Given behavioral models, TWC Products can…

• Address:– Message Content & Style

• but, not:– Receiver Characteristics– Social/environmental context within which individuals must act

• Warning Confirmation Process can be enhanced by:– consistent messages from each TWC …– repeated multiple times from multiple sources, and– matching dissemination routes with technology innovations in

communication (e.g., social media, apps) • this helps satisfy “milling” or “information seeking process”

Obj. 2: TsunamiReady™

Objectives:• Solicit feedback from emergency

managers/stakeholders about:– Draft Guidelines for becoming TsunamiReady™ and– Community Rating System for communities with

populations >50,000

Current TR guidelines vs. draft guidelines

- Current:- a few mandatory actions in 5 categories, which vary base on a

community’s population size. - Reflect StormReady ™ program

- Draft guidelines:- in revision for years- Include 192 actions in mandatory and optional categories

representing:- Mitigation, Preparedness, Response &Recovery,

- Elevated status achieved by accruing optional points- Specific for communities with >50K residents- Rating systems is tiered designations of bronze, silver & gold

Percentage of the 192 TR guidelines by section

Mitigation: 37 guidelines (19%)

Preparedness: 70 guidelines (36%)

Response: 80 guidelines (42%)

Recovery: 5 guidelines (3%)

Focus group communities in relation to TsunamiReady™ recognition and hazard exposure

Community State/Terr. Population TR Status Degree of Hazard

Ocean Shores WA 5,596 Yes High

Seaside OR 6,457 No High

Kodiak AL 6,357 Yes High

Coronado CA 24,697 No Intermediate

Kauai County HI 58,463 Yes High

New Hanover Co.

NC 192,538 Yes Low

St Croix / St Thomas

US Virgin Islands

50,601/51,634

No High

Results Highlights: Major Themes 1-3

• Challenges posed by guidelines requiring participation of external agencies

• Challenges posed by turnover in local political leadership

• School preparedness is a major challenge, particularly tsunami evacuation drills*– These comments reflect the 2011 Results for the

Tsunami Planning and Hazards Mitigation Survey……..• 58 % of jurisdictions with schools in a tsunami hazard zone

do NOT conduct school tsunami evacuation drills

Results Highlights: Major Themes 2-3

• Relative risk (hazard, vulnerability & value) more appropriate basis for determining minimum requirements for TR recognition

- Yet, how to measure risk was debatable? • Mandatory guidelines should be achievable

for both large and small communities. • beneficial if small communities can achieve TsunamiReady

recognition.

Results Highlights: Major Themes 3-3

• Challenge of community reluctance to promote tsunami awareness to due potential impact on tourism

• Lack of Incentives to become TR recognized!– “financial incentives” most common answer

• Question: if reduced insurance desired, who is leading effort?

Results: Tiered Award Review• Bronze, silver, gold awards could generate

criticism from public and – may deter communities from trying to achieve TR

recognition. • May create liability for damages• TR recognition should be compliant/non-

compliant and– indicate basic preparedness.

Research Linkages: 2011 Results for the Tsunami Planning and Hazards Mitigation Survey

Reasons organizations had not yet pursued TR recognition:

#1: “low probability that our organization/jurisdiction will be hit by a tsunami”

#2: lack of familiarity with the TR program

Recommendations for Changes to the TR Draft Proposed Guidelines

• Implement– a compliant/non-compliant TsunamiReady recognition rating

• Identify– short list of important & achievable criteria

• Streamline– application process

• Clearly delineate– mandatory from optional guidelines

• Sustain – TsunamiReady and

• Collaborate with FEMA to identify additional funding for community grants and risk assessments

Obj. 3: Searchable Compendium

• Outstanding questions:• WHO is the target audience?• WHAT is the intended purpose?• WHERE is data to be stored?

– Hazard Center at Univ Colorado?

• WHEN? long-term maintenance?

Obj. 4: Spatial Analysis of Social Vulnerability Objectives:

1. Identify spatial variability of social vulnerability across a community

2. Identify statistically anomalous areas3. Identify spatial factors that influence perceptions

1. Distance from shore, sirens, inundation zone, safe areas 2. Housing and business density (or isolation)3. Surface conditions, bridges4. Building construction, height, etc

4. Use findings to help strategically locate outreach efforts

Question: how can GIS capability be integrated & sustained in communities? Automatic online survey and data processing needed?