2011 NASPAA Conference
2011 NASPAA Conference
Amy K. Donahue (PI)(funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland underAward Number: 2008-ST-061-ND 0001)
University of ConnecticutDepartment of Public Policy
What, me worry?
Perceptions of risk and preparedness
2011 NASPAA Conference
Problem
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.
2011 NASPAA Conference
Approach
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.
2011 NASPAA Conference
Problem and Conceptualization
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?)
2011 NASPAA Conference
Research Design: National Surveys
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Research Design: Case Studies
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Analytic Strategy
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Results: Personal traits with regard to risk
Individuals Local officials
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)
7.36 8.23
Risk preference
Are you generally a person who is fully prepared to take risks, or do you try to avoid taking risks? (0-10)
5.54 7.27
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)
1.09 1.60
2011 NASPAA Conference
Results: Perceived threats
Householddecision-makers Local officials
Biggest risk facing the nation % %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
Biggest risk facing your community % %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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Results: Personal preparedness assessment
How peopleassess themselves
How local officialsassess 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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Results: Personal preparedness assessment
How people assess themselves
How local officials 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
After a disaster, how much people will rely on…
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Results: Why people don’t prepare
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Conclusions so far
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.
2011 NASPAA Conference
Conclusions so far
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.
2011 NASPAA Conference
Next survey
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Other results in case anyone is interested….
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Why people prepare
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Variation in attitudes toward preparedness
Of people who have done nothing to prepare, percent of people who said they haven’t done anything because… Coastal Interior Nation
They know you should, but they haven’t gotten around to it 29 18 23They don’t think it is going to happen to them 18 26 22They don’t know what to do 18 14 16They would rather not think about bad things happening 17 11 13It takes too much time, effort, or money 4 10 8They just don’t feel like it 4 5 5They think that getting ready won’t make a difference 4 5 5It isn’t their responsibility 0 2 1
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 25They have people you need to take care of 23 24 23Being ready is worth the time and effort 21 23 22Getting ready makes it easier to get back to normal 11 13 12Taking action makes them worry less 9 7 8They’ve gotten information about what to do 8 7 8
2011 NASPAA Conference
What people protect
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
View of government programs
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 47The government provided more information about what to do to prepare 45 44 45The government offered discount coupons for preparedness supplies 45 43 44
The government offered free emergency preparedness classes 38 36 37
2011 NASPAA Conference
Scenario Comparison
Mean score on a scale of 0 – 10 for the following: 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… 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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Willingness to Pay
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
2011 NASPAA Conference
Predicting Willingness to Pay
Variable General Household Income loss
Terrorist Attack
Natural Disaster
PORTFOLIO
Children at home
Married
Owns their home
Years in community ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓EXPOSURE
Disasters more often ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Terrorism more likely ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Likelihood in their community ↑
TOLERANCE
Resilience ↓ ↓ ↓Risk-taking ↑ ↑ ↑Seriousness of problem ↑Level of worry ↑ ↑ ↑
2011 NASPAA Conference
Predicting Willingness to Pay
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 ↑ ↑
MITIGATI
ON
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 ↓
2011 NASPAA Conference
Predicting Willingness to Pay
Variable General Household Income loss
Terrorist Attack
Natural Disaster
CONTROL
VARIABLES
Experienced a disaster ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Coastal resident
Rural resident
Urban resident ↓ ↓ ↓Age ↑Male ↓ ↓Black ↑ ↑While ↑More than high schoolRepublican ↑ ↑ ↑Democrat ↑Income $100,000/year or more ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Income < $35,000/year
