IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v103y2020i1d10.1007_s11069-020-04029-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What matters the most? Understanding individual tornado preparedness using machine learning

Author

Listed:
  • Junghwa Choi

    (The University of Oklahoma)

  • Scott Robinson

    (The University of Oklahoma)

  • Romit Maulik

    (Argonne National Laboratory)

  • Wesley Wehde

    (East Tennessee State University)

Abstract

Scholars from various disciplines have long attempted to identify the variables most closely associated with individual preparedness. Therefore, we now have much more knowledge regarding these factors and their association with individual preparedness behaviors. However, it has not been sufficiently discussed how decisive many of these factors are in encouraging preparedness. In this article, we seek to examine what factors, among the many examined in previous studies, are most central to engendering emergency preparedness in individuals particularly for tornadoes by utilizing a relatively uncommon machine learning technique in disaster management literature. Using unique survey data, we find that in the case of tornado preparedness the most decisive variables are related to personal experiences and economic circumstances rather than basic demographics. Our findings contribute to scholarly endeavors to understand and promote individual tornado preparedness behaviors by highlighting the variables most likely to shape tornado preparedness at an individual level.

Suggested Citation

  • Junghwa Choi & Scott Robinson & Romit Maulik & Wesley Wehde, 2020. "What matters the most? Understanding individual tornado preparedness using machine learning," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1183-1200, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:103:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04029-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04029-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04029-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-04029-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    2. Thomas J. Rudolph & Jillian Evans, 2005. "Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 660-671, July.
    3. Douglas Paton, 2008. "Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: how trust influences its effectiveness," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 2-16.
    4. Alice Fothergill & Lori Peek, 2004. "Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 32(1), pages 89-110, May.
    5. Michael K. Lindell & David J. Whitney, 2000. "Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 13-26, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brielle Lillywhite & Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Emergency and Disaster Management, Preparedness, and Planning (EDMPP) and the ‘Social’: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-50, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    2. Douglas Paton & Robert Bajek & Norio Okada & David McIvor, 2010. "Predicting community earthquake preparedness: a cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 54(3), pages 765-781, September.
    3. Yue Ge & Walter Gillis Peacock & Michael K. Lindell, 2011. "Florida Households’ Expected Responses to Hurricane Hazard Mitigation Incentives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1676-1691, October.
    4. Helene Joffe & Gabriela Perez-Fuentes & Henry W. W. Potts & Tiziana Rossetto, 2016. "How to increase earthquake and home fire preparedness: the fix-it intervention," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1943-1965, December.
    5. Ngoc Phan & Sondra Collins, 2019. "Information about the poor and support for redistributive policies," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 43(3), pages 618-630, July.
    6. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    7. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    9. Marija Džunić & Nataša Golubović & Srđan Marinković, 2020. "Determinants Of Institutional Trust In Transition Economies: Lessons From Serbia," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 65(225), pages 135-162, April – J.
    10. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    12. Irina Georgieva & Tella Lantta & Jakub Lickiewicz & Jaroslav Pekara & Sofia Wikman & Marina Loseviča & Bevinahalli Nanjegowda Raveesh & Adriana Mihai & Peter Lepping, 2021. "Perceived Effectiveness, Restrictiveness, and Compliance with Containment Measures against the Covid-19 Pandemic: An International Comparative Study in 11 Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-15, April.
    13. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    14. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    16. Zeynep Clulow & Michele Ferguson & Peta Ashworth & David Reiner, 2021. "Political ideology and public views of the energy transition in Australia and the UK," Working Papers EPRG2106, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    17. Faia, Ester & Fuster, Andreas & Pezone, Vincenzo & Zafar, Basit, 2021. "Biases in information selection and processing: Survey evidence from the pandemic," SAFE Working Paper Series 307, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    18. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Sarah-Kristina Wist & Sinika-Marie Steinhilber & Ulrike Triemer, 2014. "Using participation to create resilience: how to involve citizens in designing a hospital system?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 208-223, June.
    19. Tianzhuo Liu & Huifang Jiao, 2018. "Insights into the Effects of Cognitive Factors and Risk Attitudes on Fire Risk Mitigation Behavior," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 1213-1232, December.
    20. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:103:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04029-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.