IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v105y2021i2d10.1007_s11069-020-04400-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geographic scale and probabilistic forecasts: a trade-off for protective decisions?

Author

Listed:
  • Cassandra A. Shivers-Williams

    (University of Oklahoma
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

  • Kimberly E. Klockow-McClain

    (University of Oklahoma
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Abstract

This pilot study aimed to examine the impact of varying geographic scales, probabilities of tornado occurrence, and presentation formats within severe weather forecasts on individuals’ protective decisions. This pilot was unique in its specific examination of the trade-off between highly localized geography and higher valued probabilistic threat information in weather-related decision making. This pilot utilized a 4 (geographic scale) × 12 (probability) × 3 (forecast presentation format) mixed, nested experimental design. Participants were 440 US adults who completed electronic questionnaires containing experimentally manipulated severe weather forecasts. A linear mixed model analysis revealed several findings. First, participants who saw only categorical forecasts made similar preparatory decisions across geographic scales. Additionally, they were more willing to take preparatory action as categorical risk increased. Second, when probabilities were presented, the propensity to take protective action was greater at higher probabilities and at larger geographic scales, affirming the regional geographic reference class selected by the Storm Prediction Center in today’s outlook system. Third, individuals’ propensity for action generally increased as scale and probability increased, but the pattern varied across presentation formats. Lastly, participants reported having a map to look at was moderately important to their decisions and having probabilistic and categorical risk information was highly important to their decisions. Taken together, the findings suggest a complex relationship between geographic scale and probability, which is further complicated by forecast presentation format.

Suggested Citation

  • Cassandra A. Shivers-Williams & Kimberly E. Klockow-McClain, 2021. "Geographic scale and probabilistic forecasts: a trade-off for protective 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. 105(2), pages 2283-2306, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04400-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04400-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04400-2
    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/s11069-020-04400-2?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. Jared LeClerc & Susan Joslyn, 2015. "The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather‐Related Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 385-395, March.
    2. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    2. Heyes, Anthony & Lyon, Thomas P. & Martin, Steve, 2018. "Salience games: Private politics when public attention is limited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 396-410.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    6. Dwight R. Lee & J. R. Clark, 2018. "Can behavioral economists improve economic rationality?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 23-40, January.
    7. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    8. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Tilman Br�ck & Manuel Schubert, 2014. "The Perception of Lethal Risks - Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," HiCN Working Papers 188, Households in Conflict Network.
    13. Lenka Fiala & Charles N. Noussair, 2017. "Charitable Giving, Emotions, And The Default Effect," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1792-1812, October.
    14. Antonio Filippin & Marco Mantovani, 2024. "Moral Preferences over Health-Wealth Trade-offs," Working Papers 531, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics.
    15. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    16. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau & Madan M. Pillutla, 2013. "Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00853900, HAL.
    17. Claude Berrebi & Hanan Yonah, 2016. "Terrorism and philanthropy: the effect of terror attacks on the scope of giving by individuals and households," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 171-194, December.
    18. Jay L. Caulfield & Catharyn A. Baird & Felissa K. Lee, 2022. "The Ethicality of Point-of-Sale Marketing Campaigns: Normative Ethics Applied to Cause-Related Checkout Charities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 799-814, February.
    19. Jennifer Amsterlaw & Brian Zikmund-Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2006. "Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 64-75, July.
    20. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    21. Pinar Yildirim & Andrei Simonov & Maria Petrova & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2020. "Are Political and Charitable Giving Substitutes? Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 26616, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Briscese, Guglielmo, 2019. "Generous by default: A field experiment on designing defaults that align with past behaviour on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    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:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04400-2. 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.