Kim KlockowUniversity of Oklahoma

Elise Schultz and Stephanie Mullins UAHuntsville

18 October 2011National Weather Association

Birmingham, AL

Preliminary Look at Public Perceptions of and Responses

to Warnings in the 27 April 2011Tornado Outbreak

This is Alabama??

Cullman EF-4 (Morrow)

Rainsville EF-5Hackleburg/Tanner EF-5

Cullman/Arab EF-4

Public perceptions & responseNote: Preliminary findings!

Public was largely cognizant of anticipated severity◦ Critically important: Built-up awareness, continued

attention Relation to April 3, 1974

◦ Optimism bias always present

What realistic response looks like◦ Uncertainty reduction/calibration ideas◦ The last few minutes

Mix of information sources◦ TV, radio* & NWR, sirens**, internet (NWS, private

vendors)◦ Family/friends, police scanners (local)◦ The environment!◦ Locally-situated understandings of hazards/science, or

“folk science”

A significant issue: local, situated understandings of hazards, or “folk science”

Spatial AwarenessWhat information, specifically, was sought?

What is that *best* information to provide?◦ Loops, trajectory cones, TOAs* (primary)◦ Local information (primary)

Each person had an action/response threshold. People don’t comprehend large tornado scale

◦ Footage of tornadoes (secondary)

Three sources of uncertainty◦ Trajectory of storm (where)◦ Tornado yes/no (existence) ◦ Severity/strength (how bad)

Key Idea: There are a lot of tradeoffs involved!◦ Level of detail◦ Provide clear, simple, and decision-relevant information◦ Technical capabilities to provide detail without

meaningful errors.

What the world looks like, approximately, to someone responding to a tornado threat.

Suggestions from interviewees Fix county-based sirens so they’re a better cue

◦ Their definition of a “false alarm” != ours

Tell people to put their shoes on or grab them before seeking shelter◦ Many injuries sustained when leaving their safe place,

rescues precluded

Tell ambulances to carry fix-a-flat Broadcasters: Be aware of radio audience!

◦ Comprehensible spatial references, scale descriptions

◦ Especially important when audience grows in the final minutes before a tornado hits, and nearing storm knocks out power: continued understanding is critical

Don’t linger too long on tornado video or a zoomed-in still image◦ Keep a map up so people know where the tornado is and

is going

◦ Give people a small inset map so they know where you’re zoomed in to

◦ Show loops so people can infer trajectory

Cullman County

Population: 80,500Sirens only turned on for tornado

warningsIncrease in reports of SLC types

after 27th

◦ Public on edgeTalks to public to advocate

preparednessFacebook page starting Jan:

~3,000 “likes”◦ Post other items (road status, etc) in

addition to wx info◦ Reduction in phone calls

Hams, fax, media, email…

Marion CountyPopulation: ~30,000Public aware prior to 27th

◦ led to preparedness actions?Emergency response overwhelmedCommunication issues

◦Email, office twitter account (~60 followers)◦Power loss – “was like we went back in time”

Mass notification system: “wish list” ($$)22 community shelters in countyRecovery/response difficult w/ limited

resources, diversified industry◦Tuscaloosa vs. Hackleburg (pop. 1300)

Lawrence CountyPopulation: ~35,000Sirens coverage limited

◦3 main populated areas Moulton, Town Creek, and Browns Ferry

◦Talking siren (Moulton) used on April 27◦Once power lost = no sirens

NWS EMA and in warning text – good job of emphasis multi rounds, but public let guard down

Overwhelming new interest in shelters◦FEMA assistance program◦5 community shelters approved, 8 more

applied for Only one now is in Moulton (pop. ~3200)

Facebook account: started after 27th, 1500+

Mt Hope (Lawrence Co) Residents

Left: Shelter residents, their friends & neighbors survived in

Bottom left: entrance way (note pole that blocked way out)

Below: interviewing residents/friends who survived, progress on new house with shelter in background

Madison CountyPopulation: ~320,000Close connection to NWS

◦ Most all EMs have this◦ Location helps Madison here

Sirens used only for ][ warnings◦ Can only alert entire county◦ Problem of a perceived higher FAR

Website, media, Facebook pageAs with all EMs, strong connection with

HAMsDifficulties with allocation of resources

◦ Sharing amongst other counties good, but a challenge when multiple rounds of svr wx impact the region over the entire day

DeKalb CountyPopulation: ~70,000Good model for othersSirens sectioned off

◦ Helps to limit an increase in perceived FARMass notification system

◦ Public signs up (free)◦ Phone calls, text messages

Facebook page: 2000+◦ NWS forecasts, warnings, statements◦ Road, power, other conditions◦ 2 way flow of info, reduction in phone calls

On 27th though, power loss…Post 27th: SLC reports

Rainsville (DeKalb Co) Resident

Above, left: aftermath to home, garage, vehicles

Right: shelter where family survived

This was home, and yet they are grateful, hopeful, and optimistic.

Now vs. Need:Localized warnings

◦SBWs good, but sirens not tied to them in most areas

◦Increases “perceived” FAR27th well forecasted

◦Shorter term info to public TV, Smartphones, NWR, etc Social media presence – now in nearly all

EMA offices◦Awareness high now, but for how long?

Geospatial reference improvements

Thank You!

Questions?