Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities 33 rd Annual Hazard Research and Applications Workshops July 14,...

Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities

33rd Annual Hazard Research and Applications Workshops

July 14, 2008

NSF Grant # HSD 0527387


Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities

Bruce Houghton

Penny Larin

Liesel Ritchie

Stephen Meinhold

Douglas Paton

Duane Gill

Chris Gregg

David Johnson

Jennifer Horan



Workshop format

Introduction

Awareness & Knowledge

Preparedness

Social Capital

Warnings & Evacuations

Wrap up

Discussion

Bruce Houghton

Duane Gill

Stephen Meinhold & Jennifer Horan

Liesel Ritchie

Chris Gregg

Bruce Houghton

Ocean Shores, WA

Seaside, OR

Coronado, CA New Hanover, NC

Kauai, HIKodiak, AK


Design and Implementation

Phase 1: September 2006 – June 2007114 closed-end13 open-ended

Telephone interviews

Phase 2: October 2007 – January 200849 repeat closed-ended31 new closed-ended


Sample size and returns

Community P 1 sent P1 returns P2 returns

Oregon 1775 521 213

Washington 1500 582 275

California 2000 666 327

Hawaii 1000 148 66

Alaska 1500 437 167

N. Carolina 1200 448 196

Total 7475 2802 1244


TOPICS

Attitudes and beliefs about tsunamis

Tsunami awareness

Warning signs of tsunamis

Preparing for tsunamis

Tsunami preparedness in the community

Community values

General approaches to decision-making

1964

1964

No eventNo event

19571964

Past damaging tsunamis


Tsunami Awareness

Communities that have experienced a major tsunami event with the past 50 years ….– Have greater awareness of the danger, threat,

and damaging impacts of a future tsunami– Perceive a greater likelihood of another one

occurring in the near and distant future


Tsunami Processes

The vast majority of respondents know that earthquakes are the most common cause of tsunamis

About 6 out of 10 respondents understand that tsunamis can occur as multiple big and small waves

About 3 out of 10 respondents do not know the time between waves


Selected tsunami preparedness attitudes

Difficult to Prepare P2

Change Home Damage P2

Change Life Disruption P2

Change

N. Carolina 36 -7 26 -1 46 -11

Washington 29 -6 16 0 52 -11Hawaii 16 -5 33 +5 69 +2Alaska 11 -3 27 +1 81 +2California 38 -2 22 +1 60 -5Oregon 22 -1 20 +2 76 +5


Selected tsunami preparedness behavior

Seek Information P2

Change Discussed Preparedness

P2

Change Family Emergency

Plan

California 9 -13 46 +15 27

N. Carolina 8 -10 26 +7 27

Alaska 13 -6 82 +6 36

Hawaii 19 -3 62 +1 57

Washington 16 -3 75 -4 60

Oregon 27 +8 80 +2 59


Social Capital

Social capital refers to “social networks, the reciprocities that arise from them, and the value of these for achieving mutual goals”

The more social capital in a community – exhibited as trust, fellowship, associations, connections, networks, social intercourse, good will, sympathy, and norms of reciprocity – the “healthier” the community


Social Capital

Networks of social capital facilitate a flow of information providing a basis for action and assisting in individual and community goal attainment (Coleman 1988; Putnam 2000)

Lack of social capital impedes flow of information in communities and, ultimately, hinders a community’s capacity to resist threats or collectively take advantage of opportunities (Putnam 2000)


Social Capital – Quality of Life

Quality of life – one aspect of social capital – was generally seen as high in our sample communities

Almost 9 out of 10 respondents believe their community is a great place to live

About 8 out of 10 believe their community is a safe place to live


Social Capital – Trust

We asked about trust in various groups, including local government, community leaders, local law enforcement

Highest levels of trust were in law enforcement to protect and maintain order in the community (50-60%)

Lowest levels of trust were in local government (25-30%)


Social Capital – Community Attachment

Items included contributing to local causes, attending public meetings, volunteerism, participation in local activities, working with others to improve the community

About 9 out of 10 respondents reported having contributed to local causes

About 6 out of 10 indicated they have engaged in the other forms of community activities


Why warnings?Warning Response Model (Mileti and colleagues)Protective Action Decision Model (Lindell and colleagues)

OfficialInformal

Natural / Environmental Cues


Phase I. How likely an alert?Local tsunami Distant tsunami

N=2,519

Likely

Maybe

Unlikely

3

2

1

NSF Grant # HSD 05273871 = strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree

N= 1,086

Phase 2. Perceived ability to recognize & distinguish environmental cues

Distinguish earthquakes from man-made shaking 3.8 1.2

Earthquakes shaking last longer than man-made 3.4 1.3

Earthquakes shaking stronger than man-made 3.9 1.2

Location of shore at low tide 4.5 0.8

Familiar with seafloor at low tide 3.5 1.2

Shoreline recedes faster during tsunami 4.3 0.9

Shoreline will always recede before tsunami 3.5 1.2

Tsunami wave shapes could be complex 4.3 0.9

Tsunami waves can vary over short distances 3.9 0.9

Tsunami waves will always look different 2.9 1.2


Conclusions: community extremes

North Carolina

Poor knowledge of existence of hazard & risk

High trust in leadership No tsunami warning system in

place Little knowledge of how to

prepare or existence of plans C


Washington

High hazard awareness Tsunami warning system in place Acceptance of tangible risk Knowledge of warning system and

evacuation plan BUT Low trust in:

– Adequacy of routes– Role of media and leaders

W



AAlaska

High hazard awareness Tsunami warning system in place Acceptance of tangible risk Knowledge of warning system &

evacuation plan High self efficacy



Conclusions: implications for warnings

•No unique formula is applicable to all communities•Awareness & knowledge are NOT sufficient to create preparedness. e.g. Washington •Communities are in different stages of knowledge and awareness and have different needs•Warning system should incorporate informal warnings & environmental cues


Challenges

Instrument design (community diversity) Geographic spread of researchers Cross-disciplinary differences in culture


Quo vadis Psychometric model

Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities 33 rd Annual Hazard Research and Applications Workshops July 14,...

Documents

Transcript of Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities 33 rd Annual Hazard Research and Applications Workshops July 14,...