What, me worry?2011 NASPAA Conference
Perceptions of risk and preparedness
Amy K. Donahue (PI)
(funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland under
Award Number: 2008-ST-061-ND 0001)
University of Connecticut
Department of Public Policy
2011 NASPAA Conference
Problem
2011 NASPAA Conference
A primary responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of citizens.
Citizens share responsibility for their own protection.
When citizen preparation and government efforts are synchronized, communities are
more resilient to hazards. When citizens and governments are not aligned, dealing with
disaster is slower and more costly.
People do not understand the risks they face, and are not prepared enough for
major disasters.
Approach
2011 NASPAA Conference
Research Questions

What do citizens think and do about risks and preparedness?

How do people’s risk perceptions affect their willingness to pay?

Do public officials understand what citizens think and do about risks and preparedness?

How do people respond to inducements to prepare?
Hypotheses

Public officials differ from citizens in their assessments of risk and preparedness.

Public officials misjudge why citizens act as they do.

Preparedness programs are not aligned with citizen preferences.
Implication

A disconnect could help explain why preparedness programs seem to have been
ineffective at improving preparedness.
Problem and Conceptualization
2011 NASPAA Conference
Preparedness decision-making is a function of risk perception:

Risk Portfolio (What is at risk?)

Risk Exposure (How much risk to my portfolio is there?)

Risk Tolerance (How much risk will I accept?)

Risk Orientation (How do I behave in the face of risk?)

Risk Mitigation (What actions do I take? What actions do I want government to take?)
Research Design: National Surveys
2011 NASPAA Conference
Fall, 2009

National stratified random sample of 1210 U.S. adult household decision-makers

25 minute telephone survey

Targets: risk perceptions; preparedness priorities; expectations of government;
reasons for preparing (or not); scenario-based actions and attitudes; willingness to pay
Fall, 2010

National stratified random sample of 816 local government officials

17 minute telephone survey

Targets: personal risk preferences; perception of citizen attitudes and behavior;
municipal preparedness levels and priorities
Fall, 2011

National random sample of ≈1200 U.S. adult household decision-makers

Experimental design with 1 control and 3 treatment groups

25 minute telephone survey

Targets: risk preferences, preparedness behavior, response to incentives to prepare
Research Design: Case Studies
2011 NASPAA Conference
Cases

Two small communities (population < 20,000)

In the same state (same policy and resource environment)

One town located on the Gulf Coast with hurricane experience

One town located inland without substantial disaster experience
Participants

253 household decision makers and 44 local officials

Participants were paid $20 to complete the same survey instrument used in the
national citizen survey

Participants completed a 2-hour decision-making exercise incentivized by the
opportunity to earn cash

Average earnings were $80 for the 2.5 hour study
Analytic Strategy
2011 NASPAA Conference
Part1: Determine whether public officials and citizens appear to agree about
individual preparedness

Determine whether officials and citizens concur about the risks they face

Determine whether officials and citizens concur about how prepared people are

Determine whether officials correctly understand how citizens will act and why
Part 2: Rule out competing explanations for apparent differences between
public officials and citizens in attitudes about preparedness

Differences reflect biases related to differences in demographic characteristics

Differences reflect biases related to differences in preferences about risks and benefits

Differences reflect biases related to differences in prior experience with disasters
Part 3: Determine what preparedness program designs can be effective

Assess how well local official’s policy choices fit citizen preferences

Assess citizen willingness to pay for public preparedness

Measure citizen responsiveness to alternative inducements to prepare

Assess variation across disaster domains
Results: Personal traits with regard to risk
2011 NASPAA Conference
Individuals
Local
officials
7.36
8.23
5.54
7.27
1.09
1.60
Resilience
How would you rate your own personal ability to “bounce
back” from when bad things happen, like losing your job, a bad
accident, or some other unexpected disaster? (0-10)
Risk preference
Are you generally a person who is fully prepared to take risks,
or do you try to avoid taking risks? (0-10)
Patience
An index of three lottery questions that asked whether
respondents would prefer to win a specified amount tomorrow
or a larger amount six months from now. (0-3)
Results: Perceived threats
2011 NASPAA Conference
Household
decision-makers
Local officials
%
%
Major natural disaster
15.6
21.8
Major disease epidemic
15.1
5.0
Financial disaster
30.0
40.4
Technological disaster
4.8
8.9
Infrastructure disaster
4.1
7.2
Terrorist attack
23.1
14.1
Nuclear accident
7.3
2.6
%
%
Major natural disaster
33.5
79.3
Major disease epidemic
16.7
1.2
Financial disaster
28.5
4.6
Technological disaster
3.8
0.1
Infrastructure disaster
7.9
9.5
Terrorist attack
6.3
4.2
Nuclear accident
3.3
1.0
Biggest risk facing the nation
Biggest risk facing your community
Results: Personal preparedness assessment
2011 NASPAA Conference
How people
assess themselves
How local officials
assess people
Very prepared
23.4
26.8
Somewhat prepared
50.8
27.8
Not very prepared
17.9
23.0
Not prepared at all
8.0
22.2
Results: Personal preparedness assessment
2011 NASPAA Conference
How people
How local officials
assess themselves
assess people
How well people can recover from a major natural disaster
7.20
7.57
How well people can recover from a terrorist attack
6.50
6.41
How well informed people are about what to do in the event of a disaster
7.41
6.19
How likely it is that people will follow the directions local officials give them
8.80
7.63
Themselves
9.08
6.29
Their families
8.15
6.87
Local emergency responders
7.52
8.60
State government
5.04
5.57
Federal agencies
4.79
5.76
Volunteer organizations
6.43
6.24
After a disaster, how much people will rely on…
Results: Why people don’t prepare
2011 NASPAA Conference
How people assess
themselves
How local officials
assess people
They know they should, but they haven’t gotten around to it
24.3
20.4
They think that getting ready won’t make a difference
5.3
3.0
They think that it isn’t their responsibility
1.2
7.9
They would rather not think about bad things happening
14.2
4.3
They don’t think it is going to happen to them
23.5
35.1
They just don’t feel like it
4.9
2.5
They don’t know what to do
16.6
9.0
They think that it takes too much time, effort, or money
8.1
17.8
Conclusions so far
2011 NASPAA Conference
In part, public officials appear aligned with public perceptions.
●
Identify similar risks, though officials are more concerned about natural disasters.
●
Similar views of the public’s expectations about the level of support that will be
forthcoming from state and federal agencies and nonprofit organizations.
●
Similar views of the prospects for successful recovery.
In part, public officials see citizens differently than citizens see themselves.
●
Public officials think people are less well-informed, less likely to take direction, less
likely to be self-sufficient, less well prepared overall than people think they are.
●
Public officials also tend to attribute lack of preparedness to procrastination, denial, or
stinginess.
●
Citizens feel like they don’t have the information they need and are uncomfortable
focusing on the possibility of disaster.
Conclusions so far
2011 NASPAA Conference
Even in instances where individual and public officials have similar views, they
may have different foundations.
●
E.g., a top reason people give for not preparing is that they don’t think it will happen to
them. A state of denial or a rational assessment?
The fact that public officials are incorrect about what citizens think does not
mean that they are incorrect about citizens.
●
People tend to over-estimate how prepared they are.
This disconnect could help explain why preparedness programs seem to have
been ineffective at improving preparedness.
●
People act based on their perceptions.
●
Public policies must account for what people think and feel if they are to influence
behavior.
●
Some evidence that policy-makers may make preferred policy choices despite
misunderstanding citizen preferences.
Next survey
2011 NASPAA Conference
Objectives
●
Assess responsiveness to three financial incentives: Cash; A matching grant; A rebate
●
Assess responsiveness to three distinct inducements: Social pressure; Information; A
relevant reward
●
Repeat core questions from the 2009 survey
Design
●
20-25 minute survey
●
1200 randomly selected adult household decision-makers nationwide
●
Quasi-experimental design with three treatment groups and a control group
●
Response measured by whether respondents will: provide an email address, log on to a
web site, follow links to other web sites
Other results in case anyone is interested….
2011 NASPAA Conference
The following slides show findings about
●
Why people DO prepare
●
What they protect
●
Geographic variation
●
Attitudes across different disaster scenarios
●
Willingness to pay
●
Predicting willingness to pay
Why people prepare
2011 NASPAA Conference
How people assess
themselves
They think getting ready makes it easier to get back to normal
12.0
Taking action makes them worry less
8.0
They have people they need to take care of
23.6
They have been through this before
25.1
They have gotten information about what to do
7.8
They think being ready is worth the time and effort
22.3
Variation in attitudes toward preparedness
2011 NASPAA Conference
Of people who have taken actions to prepare,
percent of people who said they took these actions because…
Coastal
Interior
Nation
They’ve been through this before
27
23
25
They have people you need to take care of
23
24
23
Being ready is worth the time and effort
21
23
22
Getting ready makes it easier to get back to normal
11
13
12
Taking action makes them worry less
9
7
8
They’ve gotten information about what to do
8
7
8
Coastal
Interior
Nation
They know you should, but they haven’t gotten around to it
29
18
23
They don’t think it is going to happen to them
18
26
22
They don’t know what to do
18
14
16
They would rather not think about bad things happening
17
11
13
It takes too much time, effort, or money
4
10
8
They just don’t feel like it
4
5
5
They think that getting ready won’t make a difference
4
5
5
It isn’t their responsibility
0
2
1
Of people who have done nothing to prepare,
percent of people who said they haven’t done anything because…
What people protect
2011 NASPAA Conference
Percentage of people MOST concerned about protecting…
Coastal
Interior
Nation
Their family
68
71
69
Their health and physical safety
16
15
15
Their friends and neighbors
3
5
4
Their pets
3
3
3
Their way of life
3
3
3
Their home and belongings
3
1
2
Their job
1
1
1
Their financial well-being
2
1
1
View of government programs
2011 NASPAA Conference
Percent of people who said they are VERY LIKELY to take action
to prepare their household for disaster if…
Coastal
Interior
Nation
There was a law that required them to prepare
60
57
58
The government provided a free disaster preparedness kit
56
53
54
The government offered a tax credit for preparedness
49
44
47
45
44
45
45
43
44
38
36
37
The government provided more information about what to do to
prepare
The government offered discount coupons for preparedness
supplies
The government offered free emergency preparedness classes
Scenario Comparison
2011 NASPAA Conference
Loss of
income
Terrorist
attack
Natural
disaster
Have thought A GREAT DEAL about the specific consequences if
this happened
38
14
32
See themselves as VERY PREPARED for this
30
12
23
Loss of
income
Terrorist
attack
Natural
disaster
Likelihood that this will happen
3.6
2.8
4.7
How worried people are about this
4.3
3.2
4.2
How serious a problem people think this would be
6.7
7.6
7.7
How well people think they could recover from this
6.9
6.5
7.2
Percent of people who…
Mean score on a scale of 0 – 10 for the following:
Willingness to Pay
2011 NASPAA Conference
The MOST a respondent would be willing to pay per month to improve their
community’s ability to respond to major disasters. This might be for things like
emergency planning, training, or police and fire equipment.
WTP ($)
Frequency
% Nationwide
0
328
30.2
1 – 20
291
26.8
21 – 40
203
18.7
41 – 60
134
12.4
61 – 80
34
3.1
81 – 100
83
7.6
Over 100
13
1.2
Predicting Willingness to Pay
General
Household
Income loss
Terrorist
Attack
Natural
Disaster
PORTFOLIO
Children at home
EXPOSURE
Disasters more often
↓
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑
Terrorism more likely
↓
↓
↓
↓
TOLERANCE
2011 NASPAA Conference
Resilience
Variable
Married
Owns their home
Years in community
↑
Likelihood in their community
Risk-taking
↓
↑
↑
↓
↑
↑
Seriousness of problem
Level of worry
↓
↑
↑
↑
Predicting Willingness to Pay
2011 NASPAA Conference
Variable
General
Household
Income loss
Terrorist
Attack
Natural
Disaster
↓
↑
↑
↓
↓
↑
ORIENTATION
Preparing improves recovery
Preparedness overall
Informed about what to do
Frequency of worship
Considered consequences
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑
Preparedness for this
Ability to recover
MITIGATION
Future orientation
Focuses on others over self
Likely to follow directions
Expect to rely on government
↑
↓
Expect to rely on self
Has taken action to prepare
↓
↑
Predicting Willingness to Pay
2011 NASPAA Conference
Variable
Experienced a disaster
General
Household
Income loss
Terrorist
Attack
Natural
Disaster
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
↓
Coastal resident
CONTROL VARIABLES
Rural resident
Urban resident
Age
↑
Male
↓
↓
Black
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
While
More than high school
Republican
Democrat
Income $100,000/year or more
Income < $35,000/year
↑
↑
↑