Slide 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

Slide 2

IMPACT Approach to Survey Comparison of Survey Subsets Define the subset of respondents of interest o 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

Slide 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 to respondents who stated that they had no beforehand knowledge.

Slide 4

They would prepare more in the future.

Slide 5

They had a higher level of stress.

Slide 6

They did not feel that the advisories were consistent.

Slide 7

They were more apt to be the younger respondents.

Slide 8

They typically did not monitor the weather themselves.

Slide 9

They did not feel as prepared for future events.

Slide 10

They were generally of the lower education levels.

Slide 11

They were more apt to be single.

Slide 12

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

Slide 13

They had to abandon their vehicles more often.

Slide 14

Not as familiar with their childrens emergency procedures.

Slide 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 to respondents 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.

Slide 16

The red bars had other first source for storm info.

Slide 17

More specific comparison of where news was actually heard.

Slide 18

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

Slide 19

Younger adults seem to be more averse to TV.

Slide 20

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

Slide 21

They more often feel confident in their preparation.

Slide 22

They reported relatively lower levels of stress.

Slide 23

They xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Slide 24

They were less apt to get stuck on the roadways.

Slide 25

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

Slide 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.

Slide 27

They do not seem to have altered their opinions significantly.

Slide 28

They got the news much later than most.

Slide 29

They plan for greater future preparation.

Slide 30

They were in the younger age groups.

Slide 31

They were apt to feel that the advisories were inconsistent.

Slide 32

They tended to rely on media news persons.

Slide 33

They had notable exceptions to TV in their first source.

Slide 34

Not believing did not reduce their stress levels.

Slide 35

No change in behavior is consistent with disbelief.

Slide 36

A relatively high proportion still feel unprepared.

Slide 37

TV is about normal but other sources greater than expected.

Slide 38

Higher than expected got stuck on the road.

Slide 39

Proportionately higher number had to abandon their vehicles.

Slide 40

About 15% more females than would be expected.

Slide 41

Disbelievers are from the lower educational levels.

Slide 42

Unexpectedly large proportion have smartphone app.

Slide 43

Expected that they would not leave early but

Slide 44

in many cases caused by workplace policy.

Slide 45

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

Slide 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

Slide 47

Almost 70% of them got stuck on the roadway.

Slide 48

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

Slide 49

About half of them sustained vehicular damage.

Slide 50

They had very high stress, as would be expected.

Slide 51

Close to a third were not able to get home at all.

Slide 52

Clear recognition that more preparation was needed.

Slide 53

Significantly higher proportion felt advisories inconsistent.

Slide 54

Failure to (be able to) leave work early is clearly an issue.

Slide 55

A large proportion still feel unprepared.

Slide 56