1 / 56

Atlanta snow/ice event

Atlanta snow/ice event. January 2014 Laura Myers, PhD David Brown, PhD Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) The University of Alabama August 19, 2014. IMPACT Approach to Survey. Comparison of Survey Subsets Define the subset of respondents of interest

paige
Download Presentation

Atlanta snow/ice event

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. Atlanta snow/ice event January 2014 Laura Myers, PhD David Brown, PhD Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) The University of Alabama August 19, 2014

  2. IMPACT Approach to Survey • Comparison of Survey Subsets • Define the subset of respondents of interest • Example: Respondents who did not know beforehand • Perform IMPACT • Auto-generates comparison for all variables • Since there are literally millions of possible subsets • Analysts need to define those that are most useful

  3. Do Warnings Help? Respondents who were not pre-warned Comparison of respondents who had no beforehand knowledge of the storm (red bars) With those who stated that they had beforehand knowledge (blue bars). In the statements made in this section, “they” refers torespondents who stated that they had no beforehand knowledge.

  4. They would prepare more in the future.

  5. They had a higher level of stress.

  6. They did not feel that the advisories were consistent.

  7. They were more apt to be the younger respondents.

  8. They typically did not monitor the weather themselves.

  9. They did not feel as prepared for future events.

  10. They were generally of the lower education levels.

  11. They were more apt to be single.

  12. They more often got stuck on the roadway in the storm.

  13. They had to abandon their vehicles more often.

  14. Not as familiar with their children’s emergency procedures.

  15. What Was Your First Source? Respondents whose first source was not TV Comparison of respondents whose first source of information was not TV against those who reported that TV was their first source. . In the statements made in this section, “they” refers torespondents who stated that their first source was other than TV. . Note that TV was the reported first source for the large majority of the respondents.

  16. The red bars had other first source for storm info.

  17. More specific comparison of where news was actually heard.

  18. They are more apt to be males not depending on TV.

  19. Younger adults seem to be more averse to TV.

  20. The higher education levels are less apt to depend on TV.

  21. They more often feel confident in their preparation.

  22. They reported relatively lower levels of stress.

  23. They xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  24. They were less apt to get stuck on the roadways.

  25. They were more apt to have a car weather emergency kit.

  26. Did You Believe the Threat? Respondents who did not believe Comparison of respondents who did not Believe the threat (red bars) With those who stated that they had believed the threat (blue bars). In the statements made in this section, “they” are the respondents who stated that they did not believe the threat.

  27. They do not seem to have altered their opinions significantly.

  28. They got the news much later than most.

  29. They plan for greater future preparation.

  30. They were in the younger age groups.

  31. They were apt to feel that the advisories were inconsistent.

  32. They tended to rely on media news persons.

  33. They had notable exceptions to TV in their first source.

  34. Not believing did not reduce their stress levels.

  35. No change in behavior is consistent with disbelief.

  36. A relatively high proportion still feel unprepared.

  37. TV is about normal but other sources greater than expected.

  38. Higher than expected got stuck on the road.

  39. Proportionately higher number had to abandon their vehicles.

  40. About 15% more females than would be expected.

  41. Disbelievers are from the lower educational levels.

  42. Unexpectedly large proportion have smartphone app.

  43. Expected that they would not leave early but …

  44. … in many cases caused by workplace policy.

  45. Even higher relative proportion (odds ratio) with car damage.

  46. Did Your Children Get Home? Respondents whose children did not . • Comparison of respondents whose children • did not get home the afternoon of the storm • (red bars) with those who stated that their • children got home in the normal way (blue bars). • . • In the statements made in this section, “they” • are the respondents who stated that their • children did not get home. • . • Number of respondents children not getting home: 156 • Number of respondents’ kids who got home: 218

  47. Almost 70% of them got stuck on the roadway.

  48. Of those who got stuck, about half abandoned their cars.

  49. About half of them sustained vehicular damage.

  50. They had very high stress, as would be expected.

More Related