ATLANTA SNOW/ICE EVENT January 2014 Laura Myers, PhD David
Brown, PhD Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) The University
of Alabama August 19, 2014
Slide 2
IMPACT Approach to Survey Comparison of Survey Subsets Define
the subset of respondents of interest o Example: Respondents who
did not know beforehand Perform IMPACT Auto-generates comparison
for all variables Since there are literally millions of possible
subsets Analysts need to define those that are most useful
Slide 3
Do Warnings Help? Respondents who were not pre-warned
Comparison of respondents who had no beforehand knowledge of the
storm (red bars) With those who stated that they had beforehand
knowledge (blue bars). In the statements made in this section, they
refers to respondents who stated that they had no beforehand
knowledge.
Slide 4
They would prepare more in the future.
Slide 5
They had a higher level of stress.
Slide 6
They did not feel that the advisories were consistent.
Slide 7
They were more apt to be the younger respondents.
Slide 8
They typically did not monitor the weather themselves.
Slide 9
They did not feel as prepared for future events.
Slide 10
They were generally of the lower education levels.
Slide 11
They were more apt to be single.
Slide 12
They more often got stuck on the roadway in the storm.
Slide 13
They had to abandon their vehicles more often.
Slide 14
Not as familiar with their childrens emergency procedures.
Slide 15
What Was Your First Source? Respondents whose first source was
not TV Comparison of respondents whose first source of information
was not TV against those who reported that TV was their first
source.. In the statements made in this section, they refers to
respondents who stated that their first source was other than TV..
Note that TV was the reported first source for the large majority
of the respondents.
Slide 16
The red bars had other first source for storm info.
Slide 17
More specific comparison of where news was actually heard.
Slide 18
They are more apt to be males not depending on TV.
Slide 19
Younger adults seem to be more averse to TV.
Slide 20
The higher education levels are less apt to depend on TV.
Slide 21
They more often feel confident in their preparation.
Slide 22
They reported relatively lower levels of stress.
Slide 23
They xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Slide 24
They were less apt to get stuck on the roadways.
Slide 25
They were more apt to have a car weather emergency kit.
Slide 26
Did You Believe the Threat? Respondents who did not believe
Comparison of respondents who did not Believe the threat (red bars)
With those who stated that they had believed the threat (blue
bars). In the statements made in this section, they are the
respondents who stated that they did not believe the threat.
Slide 27
They do not seem to have altered their opinions
significantly.
Slide 28
They got the news much later than most.
Slide 29
They plan for greater future preparation.
Slide 30
They were in the younger age groups.
Slide 31
They were apt to feel that the advisories were
inconsistent.
Slide 32
They tended to rely on media news persons.
Slide 33
They had notable exceptions to TV in their first source.
Slide 34
Not believing did not reduce their stress levels.
Slide 35
No change in behavior is consistent with disbelief.
Slide 36
A relatively high proportion still feel unprepared.
Slide 37
TV is about normal but other sources greater than
expected.
Slide 38
Higher than expected got stuck on the road.
Slide 39
Proportionately higher number had to abandon their
vehicles.
Slide 40
About 15% more females than would be expected.
Slide 41
Disbelievers are from the lower educational levels.
Slide 42
Unexpectedly large proportion have smartphone app.
Slide 43
Expected that they would not leave early but
Slide 44
in many cases caused by workplace policy.
Slide 45
Even higher relative proportion (odds ratio) with car
damage.
Slide 46
Did Your Children Get Home? Respondents whose children did not.
Comparison of respondents whose children did not get home the
afternoon of the storm (red bars) with those who stated that their
children got home in the normal way (blue bars).. In the statements
made in this section, they are the respondents who stated that
their children did not get home.. Number of respondents children
not getting home: 156 Number of respondents kids who got home:
218
Slide 47
Almost 70% of them got stuck on the roadway.
Slide 48
Of those who got stuck, about half abandoned their cars.
Slide 49
About half of them sustained vehicular damage.
Slide 50
They had very high stress, as would be expected.
Slide 51
Close to a third were not able to get home at all.
Slide 52
Clear recognition that more preparation was needed.