Brief ReportNumber of Warning Information Sources and Decision Making During Tornadoes
Introduction
Increasingly more sources are available to communicate warnings of natural hazards with increasing access to social media and mobile applications.1 The greater number of warning information sources (WISs) could possibly promote compliance to warnings because it reduces threat denial and increases the perception and personalization of risk.2, 3 However, little empirical evidence exists about the association between the number of WISs and protective action being taken.
Tornadoes, especially violent ones, present great threats to people’s health and lives.4, 5 Total fatalities caused by tornadoes from 1950 to 2011 in the U.S. amount to 5,641, more than those by hurricanes and earthquakes combined.6 Taking proper protective actions upon receiving tornado warnings, such as taking shelter, is a key factor to reducing casualties.7, 8 With continuous improvements in technology allowing for longer lead time, a better understanding of social mechanisms and individual behaviors centering on responses to warnings is especially important.9, 10
In this study, the effect of WISs on the likelihood of taking protective action was investigated with two violent tornadoes in 2011: an Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF)4 tornado that occurred in Tuscaloosa AL and an EF5 tornado in Joplin MO. Both storms were properly forecasted and warned by the National Weather Service but caused extremely high casualties, with more than 60 fatalities and 1,500 injuries in Tuscaloosa and 160 fatalities and 1,000 injuries in Joplin.7, 11, 12 This triggered wide discussions about the effectiveness of warning communication.6, 11, 13 In addition, the differences between these two tornadoes in terms of residents’ past experiences with tornadoes, forewarning, storm’s timing, and local preparedness provided opportunities to examine the proposed research question under different social and historic contexts.
Section snippets
Subjects and Survey Instrument
A telephone survey was conducted in October 2012 with respondents aged ≥18 years upon the approval of the IRB of Texas Tech University. Altogether, 1,006 telephone interviews were completed based on about 5,000 telephone numbers randomly selected from the tornado paths (details available upon request). Respondents who did not receive any warning or did not report on their responses were later removed, resulting in a working sample of 782 cases.
Measures
The dependent variable was a dichotomous variable
Results
As shown in Figure 1, about 6% of respondents in Tuscaloosa and 21% in Joplin did not receive any warning. More details are presented in Figure 2.
As shown in Table 1, relative to having one WIS, having two (OR=2.19; 95% CI=1.08, 4.43) or having three or more (OR=2.57; 95% CI=1.31, 5.04) significantly increased the odds of taking protective action in Joplin but not in Tuscaloosa. Having three or more WISs had a significantly stronger effect in Joplin than in Tuscaloosa (OR=3.03; 95% CI=1.06,
Discussion
This study shows that the number of WISs significantly increased the respondents’ likelihood of taking protective action in Joplin but not in Tuscaloosa. Perception and personalization of the risk as influenced by past exposure may explain such a difference between these two cities.16, 17 Between 1995 and 2011, 35 tornadoes were reported in Tuscaloosa County and eight were rated EF2 or higher. In Tuscaloosa County, an EF3 tornado occurred 2 weeks prior to the one for which data were collected
Acknowledgments
Dr. Sara T. Norman, Director of the Earl Survey Research Lab at Texas Tech University, provided valuable assistance in survey design and data collection. This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant no. CMMI-1000251. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Jianjun Luo and Daan Liang receive funding
References (23)
Understanding disaster warning responses
Soc Sci J
(1999)- et al.
Vehicle-occupant deaths caused by tornadoes in the United States, 1900−1998
Global Environ Change Pt B Environ Hazards
(2000) - et al.
The history (and future) of tornado warning dissemination in the United States
Bull Am Meteor Soc
(2011) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States
(1999)- et al.
Economic and societal impacts of tornadoes
(2011) - et al.
Morbidity and mortality associated with disasters
- et al.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) technical investigation of the May 22, 2011, tornado in Joplin
Missouri
(2013) - et al.
Exploring probable reasons for record fatalities: the case of 2011 Joplin, Missouri, Tornado
Nat Hazards
(2012) - et al.
Response to warnings during the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado: reasons and relative injury rates
Wea Forecasting
(2002) - et al.
Tornado warnings, lead times, and tornado casualties: an empirical investigation
Wea Forecasting
(2008)
A preliminary look at the social perspective of warn-on-forecast: preferred tornado warning lead time and the general public׳s perceptions of weather risks
Wea Climate Soc
Cited by (19)
People's thresholds of decision-making against a tornado threat using dynamic probabilistic hazard information
2020, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionExamining patterns of intended response to tornado warnings among residents of Tennessee, United States, through a latent class analysis approach
2019, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionCitation Excerpt :Yet, when individuals are not informed about tornadoes and communication in their region regarding severe weather events is deficient, they are less likely to take protective action when an event occurs [16,21]. The receipt of tornado warnings from multiple sources (e.g., a tornado warning for the same event from television and a siren) has been connected with appropriate shelter-seeking behaviors [19,21,27,32,45]. More detailed warnings that use stronger language and specific geographical landmarks may also motivate individuals to heed warnings and avoid risky behavior [16,21,30,48,6,9].
Factors influencing people's decision-making during three consecutive tornado events
2018, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionCitation Excerpt :This information helps them to ensure that the majority of people in their target areas can understand the tornado warnings properly and take appropriate protective action, accordingly. Conducting surveys and asking people about their possible protective behavior in case of an imaginary severe weather threat has been the pervasive approach in most of the related research studies (e.g. [8]). Some studies that investigated people's protective behavior during a real tornado have focused on a specific protective action, like driving or not driving out of a tornado, during the threat occurrence (e.g. [9,10]).
Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
2016, Disasters and Public Health: Planning and Response: Second EditionPredictors for the Number of Warning Information Sources during Tornadoes
2017, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness