1. Confronting prevailing myths about warnings and false alarms Lessons from the National Science Foundation Warning Project Eve Gruntfest Summer WAS*IS 2008

2. Our 2003-2008 National Science Foundation project aimed to Evaluate impacts of –Demographic change –New & different sources of information Test conventional wisdom about –False alarms/ –close calls Evaluate previous trauma experience & warning perceptions

3. What we know about warnings – Public response components Hear/receive Understand Believe Personalize Decide to act Respond The warning process is complex

4. Warning project methodology Survey Development –1 year –Input from officials & hazards researchers Survey format –Likert scale & true/false –Demographic questions –Experience with flash floods & trauma –Surveys in English & Spanish to selected respondents –Survey is available – for follow up studies

5. Mail survey 6000 surveys sent to residents in or near the floodplain Denver & Austin 1017 surveys returned

6. Where do people get their weather information? Best way for officials to warn you about a flash flood?

7. All sources of weather information used n=935

8. Most important source of weather information N=945

9. Thinking about your most recent flash flood experience, where did you find out about the flash flood (in Austin) n=519

10. A flash flood warning indicates a more serious threat than a flash flood watch n=1031

11. I take flash flood warnings seriously

12. The best way for officials to warn you about a flash flood? N=1020

13. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Austin Denver Would I drive through flooded roads?

14. Flash flood scenario Driving in my mid-size car The water starts to rise rapidly Intersection with at least 18 inches of water Hear a National Weather Service flash flood warning on the radio

15. False alarm questions: Realizing it’s difficult to predict flash floods, I prefer more warnings even if there are more false alarms or close calls N= 1047

16. Austin by Gender Realizing it’s difficult to predict flash floods, I prefer more warnings even if there are more false alarms or close calls

17. Officials are too sensitive to the possibility of flash flooding N = 1031

18. Warning project limitations Expectations were too ambitious Aimed to inform National Weather Service & emergency managers specifically how to be more effective Survey Sampling response Demographic representation Typical survey limitations –learning what people say, not what they do Warning project publications: Environmental Hazards 2007 -- Vol 7 C. Benight, E.Gruntfest, M. Hayden, L. Barnes Trauma and short-fuse weather warning perceptions S. Drobot C. Benight, E. Gruntfest Risk factors for driving into flooded roads M. Hayden, S. Drobot, S. Radil, C. Benight, E. Gruntfest, L. Barnes Information sources for flash flood warnings in Denver, CO and Austin, TX I.Ruin, J-C. Gaillard, C. Lutoff How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries

19. Warning project findings Weather information requirements of each user community are highly specialized -needs vary according to time of life, time of day, range of responsibilities The weather research community has not focused on the individual needs of specific user communities

20. Behavioral survey project Observe driver’s behavior at low water crossings in Texas Quantitative survey Use of video car counting Qualitative survey Use Youtube video, travels log & in-depth interviews http://70.253.207.10/view/index.sh tml

21. Proposed new initiative D E L U G E DELUGE network Focus on post-event field studies for floods to maximize interactions between social scientists, hydrologists & meteorologists New guidelines on post- event investigations for use by integrated teams of physical scientists, social scientists, & practitioners Disasters: Evolving Lessons Using Global Experience

22. Challenge of confronting ads from car companies How to convince people they are better Wet than Dead? Ad says: Warning: use the cup holders at your own risk