Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities 33 rd Annual Hazard Research and Applications Workshops July 14, 2008 NSF Grant # HSD

Tsunami Risk Across Six Communities Bruce Houghton Penny Larin Liesel Ritchie Stephen Meinhold Douglas Paton Duane Gill Chris Gregg David Johnson Jennifer Horan NSF Grant # HSD

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, HI Kodiak, AK

NSF Grant # HSD Design and Implementation Phase 1: September 2006 – June closed-end 13 open-ended Telephone interviews Phase 2: October 2007 – January repeat closed-ended 31 new closed-ended

NSF Grant # HSD Sample size and returns CommunityP 1 sentP1 returnsP2 returns Oregon Washington California Hawaii Alaska N. Carolina Total

NSF Grant # HSD 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 No event Past damaging tsunamis

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD Selected tsunami preparedness attitudes Difficult to Prepare P2 Change Home Damage P2 Change Life Disruption P2 Change N. Carolina Washington Hawaii Alaska California Oregon

NSF Grant # HSD Selected tsunami preparedness behavior Seek Information P2 Change Discussed Preparedness P2 Change Family Emergency Plan California N. Carolina Alaska Hawaii Washington Oregon

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD 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)

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD 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%)

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD Why warnings? Warning Response Model (Mileti and colleagues) Protective Action Decision Model (Lindell and colleagues) Official Informal Natural / Environmental Cues

NSF Grant # HSD Phase I. How likely an alert? Local tsunami Distant tsunami N=2,519 Likely Maybe Unlikely

NSF Grant # HSD = strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree N= 1,086 Phase 2. Perceived ability to recognize & distinguish environmental cues Distinguish earthquakes from man-made shaking Earthquakes shaking last longer than man-made Earthquakes shaking stronger than man-made Location of shore at low tide Familiar with seafloor at low tide Shoreline recedes faster during tsunami Shoreline will always recede before tsunami Tsunami wave shapes could be complex Tsunami waves can vary over short distances Tsunami waves will always look different2.91.2

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD 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 Conclusions: community extremes

NSF Grant # HSD A Alaska High hazard awareness Tsunami warning system in place Acceptance of tangible risk Knowledge of warning system & evacuation plan High self efficacy Conclusions: community extremes

NSF Grant # HSD 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

NSF Grant # HSD Challenges Instrument design (community diversity) Geographic spread of researchers Cross-disciplinary differences in culture

NSF Grant # HSD Quo vadis Psychometric model