2009 Survey of Behavioral Aspects of Sheltering and Evacuation in the National Capital Region

1. 2009 Survey ofBehavioral Aspects ofSheltering and Evacuationin the National Capital Region FEMA Higher Education Institute NETC—Emmitsburg, MD June 10, 2010 1 1

2. VDEM coordinator Janet Clements AHC Coordinator Jennifer Nugent Disaster Research Consultant: Prof. Joseph Trainor, U. Delaware Project Team UVa Co-Investigators: Thomas M. Guterbock, CSR James H. Lambert, Systems Engineering 2 2

3. Goal • Collect information from residents of the National Capital Region that would predict behavior in the area in the event of an emergency. • Ask how residents would respond to specific “shelter-in-place” scenarios • What variables have the most effect on behavior? • What patterns of evacuation and shadow evacuation should be expected? • The resulting data will inform the decisions made by administrators in the region and beyond. 3 3

4. Research Stakeholders Public preparedness (PA) Resource management (MD) Modeling and Simulation (WV) Mass Care (DC) Transportation (DE, DC) 4

5. Features of the Survey • In-depth survey: average interview length 28 minutes • Fully supported Spanish language interviews as needed • Data collection using CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) • 2,657 interviews conducted by CSR, Sept-Dec 2009. • Triple-frame sample design includes cellphones • Inclusion of cellphones increases representativeness • Margin of error: +/- 2.3 percentage points • Weighting by ownership, race, gender, geography, and type of telephone service 5 5

6. Age of Respondents by Phone Type Age 37 or under: 28.3% in full sample 6

7. Topics of the Survey 7

8. Topics of the Survey (cont.) 8

9. Topics of the Survey (cont.) 9

10. Project Milestones 10 10 • Dec 2008-Feb 2009--Proposal with scope of work • Mar 2009--Workshop with research partners • Jun 2009--Contract in place • Jun 2009--Three focus groups • Jun-Jul 2009--Survey outline and feedback • Aug 2009--Phone pre-test results and feedback • Sep 2009--Fielding of survey • Sep 2009--Preliminary frequencies • Oct 2009--1000 survey completions • Nov 2009--1600 survey completions and summary report • Nov 2009--Interviews of research partners • Dec 2009--2,500 completions, preliminary PowerPoint report • Jan-Feb 2010--Draft final report and feedback • Apr 2010--Final report

11. Design of the Event Scenarios:How we varied key factors

12. Event Scenarios Focus: dirty bomb(s) in the NCR Will residents decide to stay or to go? 3 scenarios at increasing hazard levels: Minimum, moderate, maximum Respondent is presented with only two of the three tested scenarios Over 5,000 scenario tests in the study 12

13. Factorial Design Four aspects (“factors”) of the scenarios were experimentally varied using random assignment PATH: Which two hazard levels are asked NOTICE: Whether the event is preceded by prior notice or threats LOCATION: The respondent’s location when the event occurs SOURCE: The source of the information about the event Notice, location, and source are kept constant for both scenarios asked 13

14. Detailed Follow-up Questions Follow up questions were asked about the decision to shelter in place or evacuate, as appropriate (once only) Shelter in place detail Willingness to remain at location, reasons for leaving, what would aid staying Evacuation detail Reason for leaving, destination, mode of travel, needs, use of designated route Mandatory evacuation: everyone was asked evacuation detail eventually

15. Perception of Hazard

16. “What is your perception of the risk of death or serious injury to you or members of your household from this event?” Percent who perceive “High Risk” or “Very High Risk” (by hazard level)

17. Population Sheltering and Evacuation Behaviors Will They Stay or Will They Go?

18. “Based on this information, would you stay at HOME, would you leave immediately to go somewhere else or would you continue with your activities?” Shelter-in-Place or Evacuation

19. “Based on this information, would you stay at WORK, would you leave immediately to go somewhere else or would you continue with your activities?” Shelter-in-Place or Evacuation (cont.)

20. Factors Affecting Behavioral Response

21. Notice of Event Location when event occurs: Home At home: In the minimum scenario, prior notice has a significant effect on the decision to stay or go

22. Notice of Event Location when event occurs: Work or Other Building At work: Prior notice has no significant effect

23. Source of Message to Shelter-in-Place(Effect on ‘leave immediately’) Compliance with shelter in place instruction is highest when the source of information is the State Governor or Mayor of DC

24. Summary Findings From Scenarios: • Percentage of people who would leave their home immediately is not large • Many people will leave their place of work if the event is far away (‘minimal hazard’) • Most of these will head to their homes • The scenarios with greater ‘hazard’ did raise perception of risk • But the rates of leaving are similar for moderate and maximum hazards • Higher education, prior positive experience in an emergency also increase sheltering compliance • Federal workers are more compliant at work • But no different from others at home.

25. Evacuation Destinations and Distances

26. Evacuation Location Inside or outside the Metro area (among those who evacuate)

27. “About how many miles is it to your destination?” Destination Distance by Hazard

28. Where would they go when evacuation occurs? Destination by Hazard

29. How many evacuees?

30. Several steps to estimating evacuation counts . . . • Get sizes of residential pop (4.4M) and workforce pop (2.3M) • Estimate percent who are at home, at work, or other buildings at time of incident • Estimate percents who are at different hazard levels from incident • From survey: get percent who would evacuate at these levels of hazard • From home and from work • From survey: get percent of evacuees headed to each destination area • Apply these percentages to the various pops at risk

31. Two scenarios considered: • 1 RDD (‘dirty bomb’) detonated in a suburban employment center, without notice, weekday afternoon • Those near the site are in ‘moderate’ hazard; told to shelter in place • Those further away are at ‘minimum’ hazard • Est. 506,000 evacuees • Plus others headed to home in NCR, from work • Multiple RDD’s throughout NCR, with notice from terrorists, weekday afternoon • Entire region is at ‘maximum’ hazard • Est. 735,000 evacuees • Plus others headed to home in NCR, from work

32. How many might be headed to each area? Preliminary evacuation counts

33. Current Levels of Preparedness, Special Needs, Confidence in Infrastructure, Trust in Sources

34. Household Preparedness What measures have you taken to prepare for an emergency? 34

35. Special Needs of Households • Do you or anyone in your household have any of the following conditions that might limit the ability to wait out or evacuate from an emergency? 35

36. Confidence in Public Services “In the event of a major local emergency, such as a natural disaster or terrorist attack, how confident are you that each service would still be available to you?” • Four point rating scale: • 1=not at all confident • 2=not so confident • 3=somewhat confident • 4=very confident • Mean response scores are shown on the following slides.

37. Confidence in Public Services 1 = Not at all confident 2 = Not so confident 3 = Somewhat confident 4 = Very confident …more

38. Confidence in Public Services 1 = Not at all confident 2 = Not so confident 3 = Somewhat confident 4 = Very confident

39. Use of Information Channels “What sources would you consult to get more information about what you should do in the event of a terrorist attack [in the future]?” • Respondents could choose more than one item. Most popular information channels: • Internet sites (19% to 26%) • Broadcast news (19% to 24%) 39

40. Trust in Sources of Information “I'm going to read a list of information sources. In general, how trustworthy would you consider the information from each of these sources to be?” • Please rate each on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the least trustworthy and 10 is the most trustworthy. • Mean response scores (see next slide): • Most trusted: President (8.51), DHS (7.76) (but “Federal government” is trusted least, in general) • Least trusted: Volunteer knocking (5.23) 40

41. Trust in Sources of Information 41

42. Expectations for Responders

43. Expectations for responders “We’d like to know what you would want emergency management services to do in the first 48 hours of an event like this one.” 1 = Not Important 2 = Somewhat Important 3 = Very Important 4 = Extremely Important

44. Final comments 44

45. Summary/Conclusion • This survey provides concrete figures on how many people—and who—would comply with shelter-in-place instructions • The variation in scenarios designed into the survey can reveal key drivers of SIP/evacuation decision • The detailed questionnaire results are proving to be a rich resource for work of the project teams • Grateful to REC, AHC and RCPG partners who contributed to our work throughout: • March workshop, focus groups, refinement of the survey outline, partner interviews, teleconferences, reviews of draft reports, etc. • UVa will be able to generate additional, custom analyses to meet needs of area agencies • Send your requests to Janet Clements at AHC 45

46. For further information or analysis, please contact: Janet Clements janet.clements@ahcusa.org Your presenter today: Thomas M. Guterbock 434-243-5223 TomG@virginia.edu A full written report is now available at:http://www.vdem.state.va.us/library/behavior_study/index.cfm www.virginia.edu/surveys 46 46