1 / 37

Lessons from the Warning Project

The Big Thompson Flood in Colorado in 1976 resulted in the loss of 140 lives, leading to the study of behaviors that night. Our project aimed to evaluate the impacts of demographic change and new sources of information on warning perceptions. This text discusses the complexities of the warning process and the need for new metrics to measure warning success.

awilloughby
Download Presentation

Lessons from the Warning Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eve Gruntfest ecg@uccs.edu Kansas City January 22, 2009 Lessons from the Warning Project

  2. The Big Thompson Flood in Colorado July 31, 1976 • 140 lives lost – 35 miles from Boulder • Studied the behaviors that night • Who lived? • Who died? • Led to detection & response systems Focus on flash floods & warning systems

  3. 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

  4. What we know about warnings – Public response components • Hear/receive • Understand • Believe • Personalize • Decide to act • Respond Reinforcing what Havidan said this morning: The warning process is complex

  5. Why Austin & Denver Similarities Large Growing cities Diverse populations Vulnerable to flash flooding

  6. 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

  7. Mail survey • 6000 surveys sent to residents in or near the floodplain • 1017 surveys returned

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

  9. All sources of weather information used n=935

  10. Most important source of weather information N=945

  11. A flash flood warning indicates a more serious threat than a flash flood watch 92% 8% n=1031

  12. I take flash flood warnings seriously 92% 8% n=1017

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

  14. Is overwarning a problem: False alarm issues --”cry wolf” may not be a major problem • People prefer more warnings even if there are more false alarms • No measurement of “close calls” & “near misses” • Events occur but not exactly in the warning areas or with exactly the predicted intensity • How about new categories? New metrics?

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

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

  17. Austin by GenderRealizing it’s difficult to predict flash floods, I prefer more warnings even if there are more false alarms or close calls X² =4.150, p <.05

  18. Extreme speed of watershed responses Extremely short lead-time for warnings New ways of representing what we know – include hydrology - Isabelle Ruin new time/space analysis

  19. Challenging our assumptions - For flash floods – shorter lead time may be better than longer lead time • Smaller area under warning • Is there a best leadtime? • Concerns with “too much leadtime?” • Are these warranted?

  20. We need new metrics –Socially relevant verification Forecast verification is difficult in rural areas

  21. Prairie dogs don’t answer the phone

  22. Since not all meteorological hazards are created equally ---What are acceptable levels of risk? Infrastructure is aging! (levees for category 2,3,4,5?) --- How do we measure warning success? If 20 people die in Greensburg, KS – warnings can still have saved hundreds

  23. I would drive through an intersection with six inches of water running across it 63% say they would NOT DRIVE through it Is this good or bad news?

  24. Tailor message for local hazards --Maricopa County (Phoenix, AZ) • Floodwaters can conceal a damaged roadway • Flash Floods rarely last more than an hour • Don’t trade an hour for a lifetime

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

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

  27. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? USING TO OBSERVE DRIVER BEHAVIOR CROSSING FLOODED ROADS 2009 Geography Master’s thesis by Cedar League

  28. INTENTIONAL/SITUATIONAL • Intentional drivers:purpose was to film the flood water, or to drive in the flood water (for fun). 59% (n=31) • Situational drivers: purpose of trip was based upon their current situation, like driving to or returning from work. 41% (n=21)

  29. Purpose of Trip

  30. SOURCES OF WEATHER INFORMATION

  31. Are warnings always possible? Do they always make THE difference? Sirens – Technical capability for smaller than county warning – But whole county hears sirens?

  32. West Nile Virus study epidemiology- awareness example • Folks >50 years old most vulnerable to severe manifestations • Campaign for elderly Nobody identifies themselves as “elderly”

  33. How do we address nuisance events vs catastrophic events? Height of the 1997 Fort Collins flash flood

  34. Warning project findings • Weather information requirements of each user community are highly specialized • The weather research community has not focused on the individual needs of specific user communities • Existing social science studies barely scratch the surface – more comprehensive studies must be done to have more confidence in policy change based on findings

  35. In 2018 – yet another decade from now…When we meet – we must see Easy natural collaborations between physical scientists, planners, engineers, broadcasters, emergency managers, social scientists & others Fewer deaths & reduced losses from weather events & a better understanding of how people use weather information

  36. Las Vegas Billboards

  37. 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

More Related