The Protective Action Decision Model: Implications for Increasing Self- Protective Behavior

Transcription

1 The Protective Action Decision Model: Implications for Increasing Self- Protective Behavior Michael K. Lindell Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center Texas A&M University Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants CMS , CMS , and SES None of the conclusions expressed here necessarily reflects views other than those of the author. 1

2 Protective Action Decision Model Source characteristics Channel access and preference Situational facilitators Stakeholder perceptions Message characteristics Receiver characteristics Social cues Pre-decision processes Exposure Attention Comprehension Threat perceptions Protective action perceptions Protective action decisionmaking Behavioral response Information search Protective response Emotion-focused coping Situational impediments Environmental cues 2

3 What Determines the Adoption of Hazard Adjustments? Most studies on environmental hazards confirm that risk perception is correlated with the adoption of hazard adjustments High certainty, severity, and immediacy of personal consequences death or injury of self or loved ones; damage to personal property Risk perception is correlated with hazard experience Hazard experience is correlated with proximity to hazard sources Demographic variables generally have small and inconsistent correlations with hazard adjustment 3

4 What Determines the Adoption of Hazard Adjustments? The (causal) chain from hazard proximity through hazard experience and risk perception to hazard adjustment is insufficient It is also important to assess Hazard intrusiveness: frequency of thought and discussion about the hazard and its consequences Stakeholder perceptions: expertise, trustworthiness, and protection responsibility Awareness of hazard adjustments Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes: Hazard-related attributes: efficacy in protecting persons and property, utility for other purposes Resource-related attributes: economic cost, knowledge and skill, time and effort, social cooperation 4

5 Data From Three Recent Studies Six City Earthquake Preparedness Study 500 residents of six cities in the Los Angeles and Seattle areas Perceptions of seismic stakeholders on different attributes expertise, trustworthiness, and protection responsibility Perceptions of 16 hazard adjustments on seven attributes Dutch Flood Preparedness Study 1000 coastal and inland flood risk area residents Perceptions of six hazard adjustments on seven attributes Florida Mitigation Incentives Study 587 Florida homeowners who did not have hurricane shutters at the time of the study Expectations of participating in four programs for subsidizing hurricane shutter installation 5

6 Perceptions of Seismic Stakeholders on Multiple Attributes 5.00 Mean Rating Mean rating Differences among stakeholders in expertise are small for this (familiar) hazard. The notable differences are in protection responsibility. Hazard Knowledge Trustworthiness Responsibility Stakeholder 6

7 Perceived Stakeholder Characteristics Some perceived stakeholder characteristics are correlated with the number of hazard adjustments adopted: Self/family, peer, and employer knowledge Self/family, trust, and employer trust Self/family, peer, and employer protection responsibility Perceived characteristics of federal, state, or local government and media were unrelated to the number of hazard adjustments adopted. 7

8 Six City: Profiles for Adjustments With the Highest Adoption Expectations The most popular adjustments have multiple uses and low resource requirements 8

9 Six City: Profiles for Adjustments With the Lowest Adoption Expectations The least popular adjustments have lower efficacy and higher resource requirements 9

10 Predictors of Earthquake Hazard Adjustment Adoption Earthquake hazard adjustment adoption was significantly related to hazard-related attributes nonsignificantly related to resource-related attributes. 10

11 Dutch Flood Study Emergency kit Emeregency info Household plan Familiy Agreements Sand bags Insurance ProPers ProProp OthUse Cost Skill Effort Cooperate WillDo 11

12 Predictors of Flood Hazard Adjustment Adoption Expectations Flood hazard adjustment adoption expectations were significantly related to hazard-related attributes nonsignificantly related to resource-related attributes. 12

13 Predictors of Flood Hazard Adjustment Adoption Expectations The nonsignificant correlations of the resourcerelated attributes, especially cost, might be due to generally low resource requirements of the hazard adjustments in these studies. If cost is a significant issue in the adoption of hazard adjustments, providing financial incentives might help. The Florida study examined expectations of participating in low interest loans, forgiveable loans, insurance premium reductions, or property tax reductions for installing hurricane shutters. 13

14 Florida Hurricane Hazard Mitigation Incentives Study Low Interest Loan Forgiveable Loan Lower Insurance Premium Property Tax Reduction Hazard Inspection 14

15 Predictors of Hurricane Mitigation Incentive Participation Expectations Psychological: Hazard intrusiveness and risk perception were significant predictors of program participation expectations but hazard experience and self-rated hazard knowledge were not. Demographic: Age was a significant predictors of program participation expectations but ethnicity, education, income, and gender were not. Exposure: Residence in a coastal county and years in residence were not. 15

16 Future Directions for PADM Research Examine the role of stakeholder perceptions. Is this an example of heuristic/peripheral route processing? Examine the relationship between risk perception and hazard intrusiveness. They are related, but it is unclear which is is more important in changing behavior emphasizing the likelihood of personal consequences or reminding people frequently about the risk. Attempt to change perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes in lab and field experiments. 16

17 References Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. (2004). Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Arlikatti, S., Lindell, M.K., & Prater, C.S. (2007). Perceived stakeholder role relationships and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 25, Lindell, M.K. & Hwang, S.N. (2008). Households perceived personal risk and responses in a multi-hazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28, Lindell, M.K., Arlikatti, S. & Prater, C.S. (2009). Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Analysis, 29, Terpstra, T. & Lindell, M.K. (2009). Citizens Perceptions of Flood Hazard Adjustments: An Application of the Protective Action Decision Model. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center. Lindell, M.K. (in press). North American cities at risk: Household responses to environmental hazards. In T. Rossetto, H. Joffe & J. Adams (Eds.). Cities at Risk: Living with Perils in the 21st Century. Dordrecht: Springer. Yue Ge, Walter Gillis Peacock & Lindell, M.K. (2010). Florida Households Expected Responses to Hurricane Hazard Mitigation Incentives. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center. 17