Perceptions and expected immediate reactions to tornado warning polygons

Michael Lindell (), Shih-Kai Huang (), Hung-Lung Wei () and Charles Samuelson ()

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2016, vol. 80, issue 1, 683-707

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

Keywords: Tornado warning polygons; Risk perceptions; Protective actions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-015-1990-5 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:80:y:2016:i:1:p:683-707

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-1990-5

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().