Incorporating Social Science into NOAA’s Tsunami Program

1. Colleen Scott, Winn Ketchum, Kasie Richards, Emma Apatu (ETSU) Victoria Johnson and Stuart Frazer (GNS Science) Courtney Farnham(UC) Chris Gregg (PI) ETSU: Geosciences; Community and Behavioral Health Nathan Wood USGS David Johnston Joint Centre for Disaster Research Liesel Ritchie UC: Natural Hazards Research Center Steve Meinhold, Jenifer Horan UNCW: Political Science & International Affairs Incorporating Social Science into NOAA’s Tsunami Program National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program San Diego, CA February 8, 2012 Award: NA10NWS4670015

2. One Goal, Four Objectives Goal Reduce tsunami impacts by Integrating social science into the Tsunami Program Objective 1: evaluate TWC warning products; Objective 2:assist with implementation of the proposed TsunamiReady™ Improvement Plan (TRIP); Objective 3: develop a searchable, online compendium of social science research on tsunamis. Objective 4: develop GIS-based social vulnerability maps

3. Study Areas

4. Community Details

5. Time and Methods • Objectives 1 & 2: • Focus Group sessions May to October 2011 • Purposive sample-- emergency managers/stakeholders • About 15-20 invited • Objective 3: • in start-up mode • Objective 4: • Analysis of existing data from prior NSF study. 2011-present

6. Focus Groups • guided by protocol that identified topics for discussion: • receiving messages, strengths and weaknesses of TWC products, and suggested improvements. • Draft guidelines for TR and community rating system • Discussions recorded & transcribed, entered to AtlasTi® • Themes & sub-themes were teased out by looking more deeply at: • source of messages, dissemination channels, and • strengths and weaknesses regarding technology, audience and language. • or mandatory & optional guidelines, points and rating method • As discussions focused on improvements, participants highlighted: • additional themes of message content, formatting & delivery needs • Needs in terms of TR guidelines and incentives

7. Obj. 1: Warning Products Strengths & Weaknesses • Strengths: • most information (but not all) needed in a message was present in existing messages • military / operational backgrounds better suited for interpretation! • Weaknesses: • formatting and organization of the existing material, • inconsistencies in the types of messages issued from TWCs • most important information up front • some expressed how it was useful to have information in Bulletins about for areas outside their AoR, but • also wanted site specific information for what they should expect inside their AoR, up front and center!

8. Specifics used 2011 Japan WCATWC Bulletins 3 & 4 for comment • Sources and Channels: • multiple, NOAA/NWS definitive source! • Content: • Sufficient. Needs re-arrangement • Need consistent Bulletin types and language across TWCs • Expected run-up superimposed on tide • More info for ports & harbors • Style: • Some jargon, too repetitive • Need to restructure and balance with having complete /stand-alone message • Formatting: • Poor. Need modern capability (section headers, bullets, segments) • BLUF, re-arrangement of content • Dissemination/Receipt: • Good. • Wide variations, too many versions from too many sources since TWC messages are recycled

9. Recommendations • Merge focus group findings with findings from social science research on warnings • Revise warning products • Merge Public & Standard Bulletins • Public already receives them! • Present revisions in focus groups or interviews with prior participants to obtain end-use input • Test new messages

10. Two Popular US-based Models • Warning Response Model • Mileti and Sorensen (1991) • Mileti and Fitzpatrick (1992) • Mileti and O’brien (1992) • Mileti and Peek (2000) • Protective Action Decision Model • Lindell and Perry (2004, 2011)

11. Information Source Message Receiver Effect Channel Feedback After Lindell and Perry 2004 Source Message Channel Receiver Effect Feedback The Foundation • The Classic Persuasion Model (Lasswell, 1948), articulated by Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) Selection of factors amenable to change needed to ensure return on investment

12. Warning Response Model (Mileti and colleagues) • hear–perceive (understand, believe, and personalize) • Decide-respond • continue normal routine or • take alternative protective actions & perform them • People don’t passively wait, they actively seek information (Confirmation Process) Process / sequence:

13. Warning Confirmation Process (Mileti and colleagues) Sequence and Human Outcomes depend on: • Message Content Received • Hazard, source, timing, guidance • Styleof Message Received • specificity, consistency, certainty, clarity, accuracy, sufficiency, and channel • Receiver Characteristics • Environmental cues, social setting, social ties, social structure, psychological Concerns: messages focuses on immediate aspects of themessage rather than longer term factors of the receiver

14. Protective Action Decision Model (Lindell and Perry and colleagues) Emphasizes • Environmental cues and social sources. • Resulting perceptions of threat derived from combining that information with pre-existing beliefs. These are based on: • past experiences (Houts et al., 1984; Lindell and Perry, 1992; Lindell and Perry, 2004). • Calls attention to people’s perceptions of alternative protective actions

15. Given behavioral models, TWC Products can… • Address: • Message Content & Style • but, not: • Receiver Characteristics • Social/environmental context within which individuals must act • Warning Confirmation Process can be enhanced by: • consistent messages from each TWC … • repeated multiple times from multiple sources, and • matching dissemination routes with technology innovations in communication (e.g., social media, apps) • this helps satisfy “milling” or “information seeking process”

16. Obj. 2: TsunamiReady™ Objectives: • Solicit feedback from emergency managers/stakeholders about: • Draft Guidelines for becoming TsunamiReady™ and • Community Rating System for communities with populations >50,000

17. Current TR guidelines vs. draft guidelines • Current: • a few mandatory actions in 5 categories, which vary base on a community’s population size. • Reflect StormReady™ program • Draft guidelines: • in revision for years • Include 192 actions in mandatory and optional categories representing: • Mitigation, Preparedness, Response &Recovery, • Elevated status achieved by accruing optional points • Specific for communities with >50K residents • Rating systems is tiered designations of bronze, silver & gold

19. Focus group communities in relation to TsunamiReady™ recognition and hazard exposure

20. Results Highlights: Major Themes 1-3 • Challenges posed by guidelines requiring participation of external agencies • Challenges posed by turnover in local political leadership • School preparedness is a major challenge, particularly tsunami evacuation drills* • These comments reflect the 2011 Results for the Tsunami Planning and Hazards Mitigation Survey…….. • 58 % of jurisdictions with schools in a tsunami hazard zone do NOT conduct school tsunami evacuation drills

21. Results Highlights: Major Themes 2-3 • Relative risk(hazard, vulnerability & value) more appropriate basis for determining minimum requirementsfor TR recognition - Yet, how to measure risk was debatable? • Mandatory guidelines should be achievable for both large and small communities. • beneficial if small communities can achieve TsunamiReady recognition.

22. Results Highlights: Major Themes 3-3 • Challenge of community reluctance to promote tsunami awareness to due potential impact on tourism • Lack of Incentives to become TR recognized! • “financial incentives” most common answer • Question: if reduced insurance desired, who is leading effort?

23. Results: Tiered Award Review • Bronze, silver, gold awards could generate criticism from public and • may deter communities from trying to achieve TR recognition. • May create liability for damages • TR recognition should be compliant/non-compliant and • indicate basic preparedness.

24. Research Linkages: 2011Results for the Tsunami Planning and Hazards Mitigation Survey Reasons organizations had not yet pursued TR recognition: #1: “low probability that our organization/jurisdiction will be hit by a tsunami” #2: lack of familiarity with the TR program

25. Recommendations for Changes to the TR Draft Proposed Guidelines • Implement • a compliant/non-compliant TsunamiReady recognition rating • Identify • short list of important & achievable criteria • Streamline • application process • Clearly delineate • mandatory from optional guidelines • Sustain • TsunamiReadyand • Collaborate with FEMA to identify additional funding for community grants and risk assessments

26. Obj. 3: Searchable Compendium • Outstanding questions: • WHO is the target audience? • WHAT is the intended purpose? • WHERE is data to be stored? • Hazard Center at Univ Colorado? • WHEN? long-term maintenance?

27. Obj. 4: Spatial Analysis of Social Vulnerability • Objectives: • Identify spatial variability of social vulnerability across a community • Identify statistically anomalous areas • Identify spatial factors that influence perceptions • Distance from shore, sirens, inundation zone, safe areas • Housing and business density (or isolation) • Surface conditions, bridges • Building construction, height, etc • Use findings to help strategically locate outreach efforts • Question: how can GIS capability be integrated & sustained in communities? Automatic online survey and data processing needed?