An Gie Yong Ph.D.(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc. Louise Lemyre, Celine Pinsent, Tim Dugas, & Daniel Krewski GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa Canada World Weather Open Science Conference 2014, Montreal, QC – 18 August 2014 Psychological dimensions of risk perception and disaster preparedness for natural disasters in Canada © Lemyre et al.,

Context © Lemyre et al., Risk perception Risk communication Enhancing well-being Preparedness behaviours Empowerment Resilience Collective Individual How individuals understand and evaluate hazards Targeted approach

What does ‘psychosocial’ mean? Descriptive term for all human processes involving both psychological and social components. It relates to the way we think, feel, and behave. ( cognitive, affective, behavioral ) It includes risk perception and preparedness. Psychosocial applies to both individual and collective processes. (It drives behaviour) © Lemyre et al., 2013

The social environment Social Environment) Socio-political Context Social Inequities Preparedness Policies Socio-political Context Social Inequities Preparedness Policies External Information Sources Access to Emergency Services External Information Sources Access to Emergency Services Neighbourhood Organization Neighbourhood Relations Neighbourhood Organization Neighbourhood Relations Social Networks Social Support Social Norms Social Networks Social Support Social Norms Housing Health Socio- demo Previous Experience Housing Health Socio- demo Previous Experience Gibson & Lemyre (2012) Individual preparedness Collective preparedness © Lemyre et al.,

Canada and extreme environmental events © Lemyre et al., Flash Flood Toronto (2013) Slave Lake Wildfire (2011) Alberta Flood (2013) Goderich Tornado (2011)

Research questions What are the psychological dimensions underlying the Canadian public’s risk perceptions for natural disasters and extreme weather events? How do these psychological dimensions relate to… socio-demographic characteristics? disaster preparedness behaviours? the level of perceived risk for natural hazards? © Lemyre et al.,

Method National Study on Risk Perception in Canada 2012 © Lemyre et al., Belief System World Views Personal Epistemology Anecdotal/science base Other knowing Science base Belief System World Views Personal Epistemology Anecdotal/science base Other knowing Science base E Information Sources  Experts  Friends and family  Government  Traditional media  Social media  Official internet webpages Information Sources  Experts  Friends and family  Government  Traditional media  Social media  Official internet webpages S Trust Best-benevolence government Truth government Experts Friends and family Government Traditional media Social media Official internet webpages Trust Best-benevolence government Truth government Experts Friends and family Government Traditional media Social media Official internet webpages T Knowledge Cause-effect and prevention Understanding hazard Technical knowledge Knowledge Cause-effect and prevention Understanding hazard Technical knowledge Attitude Belief Hopeless randomness Value system Science-tech enthusiasm Attitude Belief Hopeless randomness Value system Science-tech enthusiasm Control Chance-fate Governmental Internal-choice Control Chance-fate Governmental Internal-choice Uncertainty Complexity Predictability Understood by science Uncertainty Complexity Predictability Understood by science Risk Perception Likelihood / probability Susceptibility Risk Perception Likelihood / probability Susceptibility Tolerance Acceptance Compliance Threshold Trade-off or risk-benefit Tolerance Acceptance Compliance Threshold Trade-off or risk-benefit Behaviour Avoidance or absence Planned, thought, or intent Observable Behaviour Avoidance or absence Planned, thought, or intent Observable K A C U P O B Socio-Demographics D Other Stress CPR / First aid training Community engagement Awareness of CCS Other Stress CPR / First aid training Community engagement Awareness of CCS Z Social Norm People in general Social Norm People in general N

Method National Study on Risk Perception in Canada 2012 Representative of the Canadian public (N = 3,263) Merged online (n = 1,569) and telephone samples (n = 1,694) ≈ 30 minutes Nested design with generic core section plus 3 topical case studies: Natural disaster, radiation, vaccine Natural disaster case study (n = 1,089) 18 statements on natural disaster risks and issues 5 items on disaster preparedness behaviours 3 items on level of perceived risk for natural hazards © Lemyre et al.,

Method Data analysis © Lemyre et al., Phase 3: Link psychological dimensions with preparedness behaviours and level of perceived risk Multivariate linear regressions Phase 2: See variations in psychological dimensions by socio- demographics Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) Phase 1: Identify and validate the psychological dimensions Factor analysis (EFA and CFA)

Results: Phase 1 What are the psychological dimensions underlying the Canadian public’s risk perceptions for natural disasters and extreme weather event? © Lemyre et al.,

Results: EFA-CFA 3 main factors © Lemyre et al., Self- preparedness belief (F1) Illusiveness of preparedness (F2) External responsibility for disaster management (F3) It is an individual's responsibility to be prepared for a major natural disaster. E1E1 The negative consequences of natural disasters can be decreased by being well prepared. E2E2 The main thing that determines my exposure to natural disaster risks is what I myself do. E3E3 The benefits of preparing for a natural disaster outweigh the costs. E4E If a natural disaster has recently occurred, it is less likely to happen again soon. E5E5 Preparation is useless to protect oneself from natural disasters. E6E6 Fate will decide if I am in a natural disaster. E7E7 It is unlikely that I will be a victim of a natural disaster. E8E8 Information about natural disasters is confusing. E9E9 It is the government’s responsibility to plan effectively for natural disasters. E 10 Even if I didn’t understand why, I would likely follow the recommendations from government authorities during a natural disaster. E 11 Organizations should help people learn about disaster preparedness. E *** S-Bχ 2 (44) = 58.49, p =.07, *CFI =.97, *RMSEA =.025 [90% C.I. (.000,.040)]

Results: Phase 2 How do these 3 psychological dimensions relate to socio-demographic characteristics? © Lemyre et al., Age Education Household income Gender Region Parental status

Results: ANOVAs Self-preparedness belief by socio-demographics Age (n.s.)Education (n.s.)Household income (n.s.) Parental status (n.s.)RegionGender (n.s.) © Lemyre et al., p <.001 * *

Results: ANOVAs Illusiveness of preparedness by socio-demographics AgeEducationHousehold income Parental statusRegion (n.s.)Gender (n.s.) © Lemyre et al., p <.001 p <.01 * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *

Results: ANOVAs External responsibility for disaster management by socio-demographics AgeEducation (n.s.)Income Parental statusRegion (n.s.)Gender © Lemyre et al., p <.001 p <.05 * * p <.001 * * * *

Results: Phase 3 Disaster preparedness How do these 3 psychological dimensions relate to disaster preparedness behaviours? © Lemyre et al.,

Results: Regressions “Discuss preparedness information with others” © Lemyre et al., Self-preparedness belief ( β =.28***) Self-preparedness belief ( β =.28***) Discuss preparedness information with others External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.16***) External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.16***) Illusiveness of preparedness R 2 =.13***

Results: Regressions “Have an emergency supply kit” © Lemyre et al., Self-preparedness belief ( β =.28***) Self-preparedness belief ( β =.28***) Have an emergency supply kit Illusiveness of preparedness External responsibility for disaster management R 2 =.07***

Results: Regressions “Have an evacuation plan” © Lemyre et al., Self-preparedness belief ( β =.33***) Self-preparedness belief ( β =.33***) Have an evacuation plan Illusiveness of preparedness External responsibility for disaster management R 2 =.10***

Illusiveness of preparedness ( β = -.08***) Illusiveness of preparedness ( β = -.08***) Results: Regressions “Discuss with others to search for me” © Lemyre et al., Self-preparedness belief ( β =.19***) Self-preparedness belief ( β =.19***) Discuss with others to search for me within 48- hours post-disaster External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.14***) External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.14***) R 2 =.06***

Illusiveness of preparedness ( β = -.09***) Illusiveness of preparedness ( β = -.09***) Results: Regressions “Intend to comply with evacuation recommendations” © Lemyre et al., Self-preparedness belief ( β =.09***) Self-preparedness belief ( β =.09***) Intend to comply with evacuation recommendations External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.48***) External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.48***) R 2 =.25***

Results: Phase 3 Perceived risk for natural hazards How do these psychological dimensions relate to the level of perceived risk for natural hazards? © Lemyre et al.,

External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.09**) External responsibility for disaster management ( β =.09**) Results: Regressions Perceived risk for natural hazards © Lemyre et al., Illusiveness of preparedness Self-preparedness belief Major flooding R 2 =.09***

Future directions Subpopulation analyses – e.g., immigrants compared to Canadian-born individuals My doctoral dissertation Multilevel analyses – e.g., community engagement and social capital Qualitative interviews Spatial analyses using GIS Poster  UAS-POM3010 © Lemyre et al.,

Implications Perceptions of natural hazards are multifaceted (more consequence-driven than hazard-driven) Different social groups look at the same hazard differently Beliefs affect behavioural response and risk perception © Lemyre et al.,

More risk communication on preparedness behaviours should move towards to: People and their community ‘Process’ in addition to ‘the hazard’ Capacity building Implications 3 main messages © Lemyre et al.,

© Lemyre et al., 2014 An Gie Yong Ph.D(c) in experimental psychology, B.Sc. GAP-Santé, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa Canada 27