1. Changes in risk perception for hurricane evacuation among Gulf Coast residents, 2006-2008 Craig Trumbo, Holly Marlatt, Journalism & Technical Communication Lori Peek, Michelle Lueck, Sociology Brian McNoldy, Wayne Schubert, Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Eve Gruntfest, Director Social Science Woven into Meteorology (SSWIM) Cooperative Institute University of Oklahoma Julie Demuth National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder

2. Specific Aims Post-Katrina: Does proximity to extreme events affect risk perception for a subsequent event? Extant research on hazard proximity has shown effect for: nuclear power plants and associated transportation, high voltage power lines, industrial sites, toxics, high wind zones, hurricanes, floods, terrorism. (e.g., Williams, Gawande, Eranen, Moffatt, Read, Peacock, Fischhoff, Zhang). Hypothesized that greater physical proximity to Katrina landfall would predict perception of risk for hurricane landfall in the next (2006) season, controlling for historically based local hurricane risk probability.

3. Specific Aims Follow-up: Does risk perception for subsequent events decline over time in absence of additional events? Extant research on change in risk perception has examined: health risk behavior, terrorism, environmental health threats, life cycle changes, approaching threat (Y2K), earthquakes. (e.g., Morrell, Fischhoff, Bränström, Kuttschreuter, Gutteling, Bernknopf) Variety of factors promote decline in individual risk perception, esp. after periods of threat/event quiescence. Also on organizational level (e.g. atrophy of vigilance, Freudenburg) Hypothesis: Average level of hurricane risk perception will decline among Gulf Coast residents following a hurricane-free period (2006-2008).

4. Data Collection January 2006 (NSF-DRMS Katrina SGER): Mail survey to households in 41 counties adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, excluding areas affected by Katrina and Rita (62% response rate, n = 824). January 2008: Follow-up data collection sent to 2006 respondents (52% adj. response, n = 361 panel).

5. Measures (repeated 2006-2008) Dependent Variable: Hurricane risk perception (Peacock et al. 2005) Three items, likelihood that a hurricane will: a) prevent getting to work b) disrupt daily activities c) cause property damage additive index (  =.82 /.81 )

6. Measures (repeated 2006-2008) Predictors: Evacuation optimistic bias (Weinstein et al. 1989 …) Two items, likelihood in next season for: a) individual (R) facing evacuation b) average Gulf resident facing evacuation  2006-2008 in residualized difference measure Dispositional optimism (LOT-R) 9-item additive index (  =.76 /.81 ) Hurricane experience (3 items, landfall, evacuation, damage) Katrina experience, direct or indirect Local hurricane history (NOAA historical likelihood) Demographics (age, sex, income, education, children, home ownership)

7. Data Characteristics Respondents: 57% male average 61 years old average time of coastal residence 25 years average annual household income $45,000 72% living in owned home 31% college graduates

8. Change in Means

9. Modeling Change

10. Conclusions Risk perception for hurricanes is dynamic Responsive to quiescence Changes consistent with other risk perception domains Younger, lower income males become less risk averse Greater experience with hazard, more lowering of risk perception Suggests both low and high experience individuals easily become less concerned about hurricanes given a quiet period, may lead to reduction in preparedness.

11. Conclusions Risk perception for hurricanes is trait-related Reduction in risk perception predicted by general optimism, which is an individual trait and stable over time. Suggests that some individuals may be prone to feeling of invincibility to the hazard, less persuadable to undertake preparedness measures.

12. Conclusions Optimistic bias is static, dynamic, and predictive Even controlling for trait optimism, individuals who develop greater optimistic bias during quiescence also perceive less risk. Internal components of optimistic bias move together. Question: does this difference persist over wide range of risk? Suggests an additional and possibly interacting mechanism reinforcing the way some individuals may be prone to feeling of invincibility to the hazard, less persuadable to undertake preparedness measures. Double whammy hypothesis.

13. Current Study: Design Recruit June 2010 Baseline Survey Demographics Experience Vulnerability Resilience Risk Perception Optimistic Bias May 2011 Follow-up Survey #1 Resilience Risk Perception Optimistic Bias Communication May 2012 Follow-up Survey #2 Resilience Risk Perception Optimistic Bias Decision Regret Replacement Season 2010 Phone Interviews Field Interview Season 2011 Phone Interviews Field Interview Season 2012 Phone Interviews Field Interview Aims: Develop hurricane risk perception measure. Predict evacuation intent and behavior, observe in real-time. Participants: n = 629, 3-yeas, spatially random 10 mile coastal.

14. Current Study: Concepts Analytical Schematic Dispositional Optimism Optimistic Bias Hurricane Risk Perception Evacuation Behavioral Intention Evacuation Decision Attitude Norms Control Vulnerabilty Factors Gender Age Race/Ethnicity Income Education Language Disabilities Family Structure } Hurricane Experience Dashed lines indicate effects only among study participants faced with an evacuation order. Cognitive Affective

15. Questions or Comments? Thank you!