IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v80y2016i1p683-707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions and expected immediate reactions to tornado warning polygons

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Lindell
  • Shih-Kai Huang
  • Hung-Lung Wei
  • Charles Samuelson

Abstract

To provide people with more specific information about tornado threats, the National Weather Service has replaced its county-wide warnings with smaller warning polygons that more specifically indicate the risk area. However, tornado warning polygons do not have a standardized definition regarding tornado strike probabilities (p s ) so it is unclear how warning recipients interpret them. To better understand this issue, 155 participants responded to 15 hypothetical warning polygons. After viewing each polygon, they rated the likelihood of a tornado striking their location and the likelihood that they would take nine different response actions ranging from continuing normal activities to getting in a car and driving somewhere safer. The results showed participants inferred that the p s was highest at the polygon’s centroid, lower just inside the edges of the polygon, still lower (but not zero) just outside the edges of the polygon, and lowest in locations beyond that. Moreover, higher p s values were associated with lower expectations of continuing normal activities and higher expectations of seeking information from social sources (but not environmental cues) and higher expectations of seeking shelter (but not evacuating in their cars). These results indicate that most people make some errors in their p s judgments but are likely to respond appropriately to the p s they infer from the warning polygons. Overall, the findings from this study and other research can help meteorologists to better understand how people interpret the uncertainty associated with warning polygons and, thus, improve tornado warning systems. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Lindell & Shih-Kai Huang & Hung-Lung Wei & Charles Samuelson, 2016. "Perceptions and expected immediate reactions to tornado warning polygons," 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. 80(1), pages 683-707, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:80:y:2016:i:1:p:683-707
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-1990-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-015-1990-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-015-1990-5?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. David Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen Broomell, 2012. "Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 181-200, July.
    2. Guoqiang Shen & Seong Hwang, 2015. "A spatial risk analysis of tornado-induced human injuries and fatalities in the USA," 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. 77(2), pages 1223-1242, June.
    3. Simmons, Kevin M., 2011. "Economic and Societal Impacts of Tornadoes," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9781878220998, September.
    4. Jonathan Mason & Jason Senkbeil, 2014. "Implications of the 2011 Tuscaloosa EF4 tornado for shelter and refuge decisions," 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. 74(2), pages 1021-1041, November.
    5. Liu, S. & Quenemoen, L.E. & Malilay, J. & Noji, E. & Sinks, T. & Mendlein, J., 1996. "Assessment of a severe-weather warning system and disaster preparedness, Calhoun County, Alabama, 1994," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(1), pages 87-89.
    6. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2008. "How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1425-1440, August.
    7. Samanthi Durage & Lina Kattan & S. Wirasinghe & Janaka Ruwanpura, 2014. "Evacuation behaviour of households and drivers during a tornado," 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. 71(3), pages 1495-1517, April.
    8. Brun, Wibecke & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 1988. "Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 390-404, June.
    9. Catherine H. Tinsley & Robin L. Dillon & Matthew A. Cronin, 2012. "How Near-Miss Events Amplify or Attenuate Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1596-1613, September.
    10. Neil D. Weinstein & Peter M. Sandman, 1993. "Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 103-114, 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. Thomas J. Cova & Philip E. Dennison & Dapeng Li & Frank A. Drews & Laura K. Siebeneck & Michael K. Lindell, 2017. "Warning Triggers in Environmental Hazards: Who Should Be Warned to Do What and When?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 601-611, April.
    2. Patricia de Oliveira Melo & Renata Marques Britto & Tharcisio Cotta Fontainha & Adriana Leiras & Renata Albergaria de Mello Bandeira, 2017. "Evaluation of community leaders’ perception regarding Alerta Rio, the warning system for landslides caused by heavy rains in Rio de Janeiro," 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. 89(3), pages 1343-1368, December.
    3. Peng Cheng & Jiuchang Wei & Yue Ge, 2017. "Who should be blamed? The attribution of responsibility for a city smog event in China," 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. 85(2), pages 669-689, January.
    4. Ihnji Jon & Shih‐Kai Huang & Michael K. Lindell, 2019. "Perceptions and Expected Immediate Reactions to Severe Storm Displays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 274-290, January.
    5. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    6. Makenzie J. Krocak & Sean Ernst & Jinan N. Allan & Wesley Wehde & Joseph T. Ripberger & Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, 2020. "Thinking outside the polygon: a study of tornado warning perception outside of warning polygon bounds," 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. 102(3), pages 1351-1368, July.
    7. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    8. Seyed M. Miran & Chen Ling & Alan Gerard & Lans Rothfusz, 2018. "The effect of providing probabilistic information about a tornado threat on people’s protective actions," 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. 94(2), pages 743-758, November.

    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. Ihnji Jon & Shih‐Kai Huang & Michael K. Lindell, 2019. "Perceptions and Expected Immediate Reactions to Severe Storm Displays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 274-290, January.
    2. Peter Madsen & Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2016. "Airline Safety Improvement Through Experience with Near‐Misses: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1054-1066, May.
    3. Heinrich, Timo & Seifert, Matthias & Then, Franziska, 2020. "Near-losses in insurance markets: An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. John McClure & David Johnston & Liv Henrich & Taciano Milfont & Julia Becker, 2015. "When a hazard occurs where it is not expected: risk judgments about different regions after the Christchurch earthquakes," 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. 75(1), pages 635-652, January.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. , Aisdl, 2020. "The Serendipity Mindset," OSF Preprints w52y9, Center for Open Science.
    7. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "A Polytomous Item Response Theory Model for Measuring Near-Miss Appraisal as a Psychological Trait," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 75-86, June.
    8. van der Bles, Anne Marthe & van der Liden, Sander & Freeman, Alessandra L. J. & Mitchell, James & Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Spiegelhalter, David J., 2019. "Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers, and science," EMF Research Papers 22, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    9. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2016. "Near-miss events, risk messages, and decision making," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 34-44, March.
    10. Adam Harris & Adam Corner & Juemin Xu & Xiufang Du, 2013. "Lost in translation? Interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in China and the UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 415-425, November.
    11. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," 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. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    12. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    13. , Aisdl, 2020. "Becoming Attuned," OSF Preprints j7f8y, Center for Open Science.
    14. Azadegan, Arash & Srinivasan, Ravi & Blome, Constantin & Tajeddini, Kayhan, 2019. "Learning from near-miss events: An organizational learning perspective on supply chain disruption response," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 215-226.
    15. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley & William J. Burns, 2014. "Evolving Risk Perceptions About Near-Miss Terrorist Events," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 27-42, March.
    16. Marie Juanchich & Theodore G. Shepherd & Miroslav Sirota, 2020. "Negations in uncertainty lexicon affect attention, decision-making and trust," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1677-1698, October.
    17. Gina Tonn & Seth Guikema & Benjamin Zaitchik, 2020. "Simulating Behavioral Influences on Community Flood Risk under Future Climate Scenarios," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 884-898, April.
    18. Leah Platt Boustan & Matthew E. Kahn & Paul W. Rhode, 2012. "Moving to Higher Ground: Migration Response to Natural Disasters in the Early Twentieth Century," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 238-244, May.
    19. Raphael Flepp & Oliver Merz & Egon Franck, 2024. "When the league table lies: Does outcome bias lead to informationally inefficient markets?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(1), pages 414-429, January.
    20. P A Hancock & William G Volante, 2020. "Quantifying the qualities of language," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, May.
    21. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.

    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:80:y:2016:i:1:p:683-707. 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.