Advertisement

Public perception of climatological tornado risk in Tennessee, USA

  • Kelsey N. Ellis
  • Lisa Reyes Mason
  • Kelly N. Gassert
  • James B. Elsner
  • Tyler Fricker
Original Paper

Abstract

The southeastern United States experiences some of the greatest tornado fatality rates in the world, with a peak in the western portion of the state of Tennessee. Understanding the physical and social characteristics of the area that may lead to increased fatalities is a critical research need. Residents of 12 Tennessee counties from three regions of the state (N = 1804) were asked questions about their perception of climatological tornado risk in their county. Approximately half of participants underestimated their local tornado risk calculated from 50 years of historical tornado data. The percentage of participants underestimating their climatological risk increased to 81% when using model estimates of tornado frequencies that account for likely missed tornadoes. A mixed effects, ordinal logistic regression model suggested that participants with prior experience with tornadoes are more likely to correctly estimate or overestimate (rather than underestimate) their risk compared to those lacking experience (β = 0.52, p < 0.01). Demographic characteristics did not have a large influence on the accuracy of climatological tornado risk perception. Areas where more tornadoes go unreported may be at a disadvantage for understanding risk because residents’ prior experience is based on limited observations. This work adds to the literature highlighting the importance of personal experiences in determining hazard risk perception and emphasizes the uniqueness of tornadoes, as they may occur in rural areas without knowledge, potentially prohibiting an accumulation of experiences.

Keywords

Tornado Risk Climatology Population bias Prior experience 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory at the University of Tennessee for assisting in survey design and conducting phone interviews, and Matthew Moore for assistance with data preparation. The authors also acknowledge MonTre’ Hudson and Emily Thibert for their assistance in map creation.

Funding information

This work is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration via NA15OAR4590225.

References

  1. Ashley WS (2007) Spatial and temporal analysis of tornado fatalities in the United States: 1880–2005. Weather Forecast 22(6):1214–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2007WAF2007004.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley WS, Krmenec AJ, Schwantes R (2008) Vulnerability due to nocturnal tornadoes. Weather Forecast 23(5):795–807.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2008WAF2222132.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley WS, Strader S, Rosencrants T, Krmenec AJ (2014) Spatiotemporal changes in tornado hazard exposure: the case of the expanding bull’s-eye effect in Chicago, Illinois. Weather, Climate, and Society 6(2):175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beach HD, Lucas RA (1960) Individual and group behavior in a coal mine disaster. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, p 13Google Scholar
  5. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard-Boehm RD, Cook MJ (2004) Risk communication and public education in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on the 10th anniversary of the Black Friday tornado. International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education 13(1):38–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H (2008) Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ Behav 40(1):72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks HE (2004) On the relationship of tornado path length and width to intensity. Weather Forecast 19 (2):310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown VM, Ellis KN, Bleakney SA (2016) Tennessee tornado climate: a comparison of three cities. Southeast Geogr 56(1):118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1993) The environment as hazard, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen RHB (2015) Package ’ordinal’. Stand 19Google Scholar
  12. Coleman TA, Dixon PG (2014) An objective analysis of tornado risk in the United States. Weather Forecast 29(2):366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. nat Hazard Rev 8(3):69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillman DA, Brown TL, Carlson JE, Carpenter EH, Lorenz FO, Mason R, Saltiel J, Songster RL (1995) Effects of category order on answers in mail and telephone surveys. Rural Sociol 60(4):674–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elsner JB, Michaels LE, Scheitlin KN, Elsner IJ (2013) The decreasing population bias in tornado reports across the central Plains. Weather, Climate, and Society 5(3):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elsner JB, Jagger TH, Fricker T (2016) Statistical models for tornado climatology: long and short-term views. PLoS ONE 11:e0131,090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fothergill A, Peek LA (2004) Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of recent sociological findings. Nat Hazards 32(1):89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuhrmann CM, Konrad CE, Kovach MM, McLeod JT, Schmitz WG, Dixon PG (2014) Ranking of tornado outbreaks across the United States and their climatological characteristics. Weather Forecast 29(3):684–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greening L, Dollinger SJ (1992) Illusions (and shattered illusions) of invulnerability: adolescents in natural disaster. J Trauma Stress 5(1):63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustafsod PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klockow KE, Peppler RA, McPherson RA (2014) Tornado folk science in Alabama and Mississippi in the 27 April 2011 tornado outbreak. GeoJournal 79(6):791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kunkel KE, Karl TR, Brooks H, Kossin J, Lawrimore JH, Arndt D, Bosart L, Changnon D, Cutter SL, Doesken N, et al. (2013) Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms: state of knowledge. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94(4):499–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu M, Keusch F (2017) Effects of scale direction on response style of ordinal rating scales. J Off Stat 33 (1):137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McClure J, Johnston D, Henrich L, Milfont TL, Becker J (2015) When a hazard occurs where it is not expected: risk judgments about different regions after the Christchurch earthquakes. Nat Hazards 75(1):635–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Messner F, Meyer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception—challenges for flood damage research. Flood Risk Management: Hazards, Vulnerability and Mitigation Measures pp 149–167Google Scholar
  27. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy. J Environ Psychol 28(2):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moors G (2008) Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Qual Quant 42(6):779–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson M (2012) Tennessee housing needs assessment. Tech. rep., Tennessee Housing Development Agency, https://s3.amazonaws.com/thda.org/Documents/Research-Planning/Research-Publications/Housing-Needs-Assessment-web.PDF
  30. Palm R, Carroll J (1998) Illusions of safety: culture and earthquake hazard response in California and Japan. Westview PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, IncGoogle Scholar
  32. Peacock WG, Brody SD, Highfield W (2005) Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida’s single family homeowners. Landsc Urban Plan 73(2-3):120–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pilisuk M, Parks SH, Hawkes G (1987) Public perception of technological risk. Soc Sci J 24(4):403–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rasmussen E (2015) VORTEX-Southeast program overview. ftp://ftp.atdd.noaa.gov/pub/vortexse/ProjectOverview.pdf
  35. Rasmussen EN, Straka JM, Davies-Jones R, Doswell IIICA, Carr FH, Eilts MD, MacGorman DR (1994) Verification of the origins of rotation in tornadoes experiment: VORTEX. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 75 (6):995–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sattler DN, Kaiser CF, Hittner JB (2000) Disaster preparedness: relationships among prior experience, personal characteristics, and distress. J Appl Soc Psychol 30(7):1396–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schultz DM, Gruntfest EC, Hayden MH, Benight CC, Drobot S, Barnes LR (2010) Decision making by Austin, texas, residents in hypothetical tornado scenarios. Weather, Climate, and Society 2(3):249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Senkbeil JC, Rockman MS, Mason JB (2012) Shelter seeking plans of Tuscaloosa residents for a future tornado event. Weather, Climate, and Society 4(3):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shao W, Xian S, Keim BD, Goidel K, Lin N (2017) Understanding perceptions of changing hurricane strength along the US Gulf coast. Int J Climatol 37(4):1716–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shavit T, Shahrabani S, Benzion U, Rosenboim M (2013) The effect of a forest fire disaster on emotions and perceptions of risk: a field study after the Carmel fire. J Environ Psychol 36:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silver A, Andrey J (2014) The influence of previous disaster experience and sociodemographics on protective behaviors during two successive tornado events. Weather, Climate, and Society 6(1):91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vaughan E (1995) The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk communication process. Risk Anal 15(2):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verbout SM, Brooks HE, Leslie LM, Schultz DM (2006) Evolution of the US tornado database: 1954–2003. Weather Forecast 21(1):86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wurman J, Dowell D, Richardson Y, Markowski P, Rasmussen E, Burgess D, Wicker L, Bluestein HB (2012) The second verification of the origins of rotation in tornadoes experiment: VORTEX2. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(8):1147–1170.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00010.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISB 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.College of Social WorkUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyFlorida State UniversityTennesseeUSA

Personalised recommendations