1. Social Science Team Update Social Science Team Update Public Perception of Current Storm Surge Information Betty Morrow SocResearch Miami Jeff Lazo Societal Impacts Program, NCAR Jennifer Sprague NWS Strategic Policy and Planning NOAA Hurricane Conference Miami, FL – 11/30/2010

2. Outline Outline Objectives and Storm Surge Project Overview – Jenn Sprague Related Studies and Literature – Betty Morrow Public Survey – Jeff Lazo Summary & Future Work References & Thanks

3. Objectives Objectives To explore and assess public awareness and understanding of storm surge and storm surge information To assess whether the NWS should develop new storm surge informational approaches to improve the communication of storm surge risk

4. Project Overview Project Overview Two steps with multiple phases STEP 1 Phase 1 (completion – 11/30/10): Leverage existing tropical cyclone efforts (HFIP, etc.) Phase 2 (completion – 5/31/11): Inclusion of extratropical cyclone storm surge issues Step 1 phases both include 1.Literature Review 2.Emergency Manager Interview 3.Public Focus Groups 4.Public Survey

5. Project Overview cont’d STEP 2 FY12 funding expected, but not yet secured Based on information gleaned from research in Step 1 Focus on how the public comprehends and reacts to specific components of NWS storm surge products/watches/warnings. Focus on whether information should be enhanced or provided in new formats (text v. graphics) or by new delivery means.

6. Related studies and literature: conceptual framework Household response to surge threat has 3 components: 1.Understanding the surge hazard 2. Knowing vulnerability of their area / home and family to surge, i.e. their elevation and location in relation to coast 3.Comprehending surge danger from a specific hurricane threatening their area, i.e. probability, potential impacts, etc.

7. 1. Understanding Surge In one exploratory study, only 2 out of 33 coastal emergency managers believed the residents in their region understood surge (Morrow 2007) Some responses: “I don’t think they understand how bad it can be” (EM21) “For anyone to think that staying near the Gulf is a good idea even after Camille I can’t believe people understand the threat.” (EM 4) “I don’t think they understand the actual surge that comes in off the ocean…I don’t think they realize how water could come inland.” (EM 25)

8. 2. Knowing Vulnerability Of those in Cat 1 zone, about one third are each of these: Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Hampton Road VA Evacuation Study. 2010. Morrow & Gladwin through Dewberry for FEMA and USACE n = 1599

9. Evacuation Survey Results Hampton Road VA Evacuation Study. Betty Morrow and Hugh Gladwin through Dewberry. 2009.

10. 2. Knowing Vulnerability Coastal Georgia Evacuation Study. 2010. Morrow & Gladwin through Dewberry. 2009 for FEMA and USACE. Each dot = one interview Not Very Likely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Likelihood Would Be Flooded in Major Hurricane:

11. Other Recent Findings In spite of forecast information most residents in path of Hurricane Ike were taken by surprise by storm surge – Morss & Hayden 2010 When asked what the expected sea level would be if a 15-foot surge occurs at the time of a 2-foot tide, only 19% gave the correct answer – Morrow & Gladwin 2007

12. Step 1 – Phase 1 Overview 1.Literature Review (in progress)  Based on earlier literature review(s) conducted by Morrow on storm surge and Lazo on hurricane preparedness  Little literature on public use of storm surge information. 2.Emergency Manager Interviews (complete)  Leverage HFIP: interviews conducted with EM and related Florida stakeholders  Current EM interviews NOT intended to be all inclusive of all coastal EMs potentially affected by storm surge. 3.Public Focus Groups (complete)  Primary purpose – survey development  8 focus groups in Tampa, FL and Miami, FL and 12 individual directed interviews (IDIs) in Miami. 4.Public Survey (data collection complete)

13. Literature Review Few studies dealing explicitly with storm surge communication and understanding Some findings: Lack of knowledge about flood risk in general Lack of knowledge about surge and difference between surge and other inundation Impact of storm surge not well understood False sense of ability to withstand surge risk Wind mitigation can give false sense of safety from surge Role of storm surge risk in evacuation decisions mixed

14. Public Focus Groups Tampa, Florida – May, 2010  “For me, I'm not worried about the storm surge so much as winds…”  “… the waters going to go out with the wind then … like a tsunami on the beach coastal area.”  “I find it hard to believe that the water could rise and could literally go, like, five miles across…”

15.  Purpose  Primarily valuation for HFIP  Storm Surge  Survey development  Pre-HFIP  Focus Groups – Tampa and Miami  IDIs - Miami  Peer review  Pretesting – Knowledge Networks  Timed – 33 minutes  Estimation of valuation model  Implementation – Knowledge Networks  20 minutes median  Sampling  KN panel – generalizability  Response rate (as per KN report)  Respondents  Comparison to population - weights Public Survey – Method

16. Public Survey - Sample Responses TX 264 LA107 MS12 AL22 FL719 GA16 SC50 NC49 TOT1,218 POPULATION 18 years+ 155 counties. Pop: ~30 M

17. Public Survey - Sample Gender Female 51% Ethnicity White* 63% Black* 16% Other* 6% Hispanic 15% Age 18-29 21% 30-49 39% 50-65 20% 65 Up 19% Income Less than $20K 11% $20K - $49K 34% $50K - $99K 38% $100K and up 17% Home Tenancy Own 68% Education Less than HS 6% High School Grad 20% Some College 33% Bachelors 26% Graduate 17% * Non-Hispanic

18. Survey results 1.Value of improved forecasts 2.Perceptions and information sources 3.Understanding of storm surge 4.Information preferences

19. Survey results 1.Value of improved forecasts 2.Perceptions and information sources 3.Understanding of storm surge 4.Information preferences

20. Value of Improved Forecasts  Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project – Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (HFIP-SEIA )  Non-market valuation study – stated preference method (conjoint analysis)  Included “surge information” attribute  Alternative approach for assessing respondents’ preferences for information

21. Value of Improved Forecasts

22. Bivariate Probit, λ unconstrained, with a constant (n = 1201) Expected Sign Betat-stat WTP, unit St.Er. WTP Unit Constant0.6188.78$-8.84 Landfall Time - -0.070-10.05$1.01 hours Landfall Location - -0.011-13.83$0.16$0.10miles Wind Speed - -0.006-2.52$0.09$0.01mph Change in Wind Speed + 0.00812.97$0.11$0.03percent Surge Depth - 0.0030.45$0.04$0.01feet Surge Information + 0.0381.58$0.54$0.09yes/no Extended Forecast + 0.0443.53$0.63$0.34days Cost - -0.070-51.52

23. Value of Improved Forecasts Bivariate Probit, λ unconstrained, with a constant (n = 1201) Expected Sign Betat-stat WTP, unit St.Er. WTP Unit Constant0.6188.78-8.840 Landfall Time - -0.070-10.05$1.01 hours Landfall Location - -0.011-13.83$0.16$0.10miles Wind Speed - -0.006-2.52$0.09$0.01mph Change in Wind Speed + 0.00812.97$0.11$0.03percent Surge Depth - 0.0030.45$0.04$0.01feet Surge Information: $0.54 WTP per household per year (9,857,371 households) Extended Forecast + 0.0443.53$0.63$0.34days Cost - -0.070-51.52

24. Survey results 1.Value of improved forecasts 2.Perceptions and information sources 3.Understanding of storm surge 4.Information preferences

25. Perceptions

26. Perceptions

27. Information sources

28. Survey results 1.Value of improved forecasts 2.Perceptions and information sources 3.Understanding of storm surge 4.Information preferences

29. Understanding of storm surge

31. Survey results 1.Value of improved forecasts 2.Perceptions and information sources 3.Understanding of storm surge 4.Information preferences

32. Information preferences

34. Information preferences - format Begin to explore preferences for presentation of storm surge information

35. Summary of findings 1.Public awareness and understanding of storm surge and storm surge information A significant portion of the surge vulnerable population does not understand what storm surge is their vulnerability to surge what the forecast information means the potential impacts of surge

36. Summary of findings 2.New storm surge informational approaches to improve the communication of storm surge risk Inconclusive whether there is a single best approach to communicating surge risk People have significant preferences for additional surge information Currently undefined variety of preferences for the format and delivery of information

37. Ongoing and future work Complete lit review – extend to ET aspects Continue survey analysis Summarize EM and stakeholder interviewers Survey EMs (for HFIP) Conduct public survey on ET and TC surge

38. References  Gladwin, H., J.K. Lazo, B.H. Morrow, W.G. Peacock, H.E. Willoughby. 2009. “Inbox: Social Science Research Needs for the Hurricane Forecast and Warning System.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 90(1):25-29.  Gladwin, H., J.K. Lazo, B. Morrow, W.G. Peacock, H. Willoughby. 2007. “Social Science Research Needs for the Hurricane Forecast and Warning System” Natural Hazards Review. 8(3): 87-95.  Letson, D., D. Sutter, J.K. Lazo. 2007. “The Economic Value of Hurricane Forecasts: An Overview and Research Needs.” Natural Hazards Review. 8(3):78-86.  Lazo, J.K. and D.M. Waldman, forthcoming. “Valuing Improved Hurricane Forecasts.” Economics Letters  Lazo, J.K., D.M. Waldman, B.H. Morrow, and J.A. Thacher. 2010. “Assessment of Household Evacuation Decision Making and the Benefits of Improved Hurricane Forecasting.” Weather and Forecasting. 25(1):207-219.  Morrow, B.H. 2007.Final Report. Storm Surge Social Science Project. Submitted to NOAA Coastal Services Center.  Morrow, B.H. and H. Gladwin 2009. Coastal GA Evacuation Study. Submitted through Dewberry to FEMA and USACE.  Morrow, B.H. and H. Gladwin. 2010. Hampton Road VA Evacuation Study. Submitted through Dewberry to FEMA and USACE.  Morss, R. E. and M. H. Hayden. 2010. “Storm Surge and ‘Certain Death’: Interviews with Texas Coastal Residents Following Hurricane Ike”. Weather, Climate and Society. 2(3): 174-189.

39. Thanks!  NOS / CSC – Coastal Storms Program for funding  Storm surge social science participants: –Jesse Feyen, Jamie Rhome, Audra Luscher, Timothy Schott, Jen Sprague, Walt Zaleski, Mary Erickson, Keelin Kuipers, John F Kuhn, Daniel Noah, Jennifer McNatt, Steve Letro, Gene Hafele, Harvey Thurm, Tom Bradshaw, Jeffrey Pereira, Al Sandrik, Andy Devanas, … and multiple others from all conference calls!  Literature review: Hugh Gladwin, Suzana Mic, Emily Laidlaw  Survey review: Rebecca Morss, Julie Demuth, Mark DeMaria, Ed Rappaport  Survey implementation: Stefan Subias, Wan Yan, Mike Lawrence  Modeling and analysis: Don Waldman, Jennifer Thacher, Jennifer Boehnert  And others …