Societal Aspects of the 2008 Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak

1. Societal Aspects of the 2008 Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak Kevin Barjenbruch* and Julie Demuth** *NWS Salt Lake City WFO **NCAR Societal Impacts Program

2. Conducted to evaluate NWS performance during significant (high-impact) events Usually convened just once or twice a year Team composition: experts from both inside and outside the National Weather Service

3. NWS service assessments�then THEN: Inward focus on procedures, actions, equipment Internal review of operations in National Centers, WFOs, CWSUs, RFCs Informal external review of information with partners Quantitative assessment Damage, verification, fatalities, injuries, etc.

4. NWS service assessments�now

5. Desired outcomes of NWS SAs Use findings, recommendations, best practices to: Improve delivery of hazard information (format, content, media) to our customers and partners Improve clarity of hazard information Focus research and training Allocate resources

6. Impacts of the tornado outbreak 87 tornadoes 5 EF-4 tornadoes 1 tornado had a 122-mile long path 57 fatalities most since May 31, 1985 13th overall 350+ injuries $520M damage

7. February 5-6, 2008, tornado outbreak National Weather Service (NWS) predictions Excellent long lead-time info: More typical tornado-producing systems (supercells) better warned than Poor detectability in squall-line tornadoes More typical tornado-producing systems (supercells) better warned than Poor detectability in squall-line tornadoes

8. Ubiquitous questions This was a well-warned event, with good information� � why did so many people die? � why don�t people do what they�re �supposed� to do � to make the �right� decision?

9. The �right� decision � in a tornado Why might someone not take shelter from a tornado? . . . Decades of social science research has shown that decisions (individual & household) are shaped by a variety of factors not only forecasts and warnings themselves also experiential, perceptual, psychosocial, socio-economic, household, community-level factors, situational, etc. Decades of social science research has shown that decisions (individual & household) are shaped by a variety of factors not only forecasts and warnings themselves also experiential, perceptual, psychosocial, socio-economic, household, community-level factors, situational, etc.

11. Societal impacts scope The task � To try to understand why so many people died and the details of those fatalities

12. Research objectives For the fatalities, wanted to gather info about: Age, gender, warning received, warning source, warning heeded, shelter sought, structure where they died, availability of safer shelter For the survivors, wanted to assess: what info people had, how they interpreted it (knowledge) how people perceived the situation (perceptions) what decisions people made (decision-making) what information they had about the fatalities

13. Methodology Semi-structured interviews with the public Targeted, convenience, and snowball sampling 41 interviews by 3 sub-teams in the 6 WFOs visited We did 17 public interviews over 4 days in the field, another day on the phone Audio recorded with consent

14. Some of the questions When did you first realize there was a threat of a tornado? How did you learn about the threat? (sources, environmental cues) What were you thinking after you received that information? (trust? confusion? uncertainty? barriers to action?) What did you do next? (confirmation?) Have you ever been in a similar type of extreme-weather situation in the past? (experience, false alarms) Did anything from that experience influence what you did during this most recent event? Have you ever been warned about an extreme weather event in the past that did not occur? Think back over the entire tornado event, from the time you learned there was a tornado threat through when the tornado actually occurred. Do you feel that any of the information you received was unclear? Is there any other information you would have liked to have had?

15. Data analysis Analyzed iteratively, cooperatively by 2 coders Coded with Excel Pre-determined categories Categories created inductively during analysis Caveats and considerations!! Balance between scientific rigor and rapid operational needs First step, hopefully leading to more related work in the future (more in-depth studies, various weather contexts, etc.)

16. Findings - knowledge People get information from multiple sources Majority via television Also commonly from other people (family, friends, neighbors, co-workers) People get information multiple times NOAA Weather Radio was used, but not common Tornado sirens are useful, but� Misconceptions about sirens as a warning device Local EMs confirmed this is a problem; one is actively trying to correct this via newspaper and radio Misconceptions about what sirens mean

17. Findings - perception Integration of seasonality, weather salience, situational awareness about the event Majority of people associate tornado outbreaks as occurring in March or later� � so many minimized threat because they perceived it as being outside �traditional� tornado season � BUT, for many people, situational factors (e.g., unusually warm temps) heightened their awareness

18. Findings - perception (cont) Personalization of the threat People often seek confirmation of the threat; a single source of info will not necessary spur protective action E.g., Atkins, AR, woman and couple

19. Findings - decision making NOT a singular event Happens numerous times throughout the warning process Implicit part of people�s gathering and interpreting weather information to evaluate their risk

20. Findings - sheltering Sheltering definitions Safer = safer relative to one�s current location (e.g., frame home is �safer� than mobile home) Safest = a basement, storm cellar, or safe room

21. Findings - 57 fatalities Collected as much good data as we could Nearly 2/3 of victims were in mobile homes 15 in houses, 4 in warehouse, 1 in vehicle, 1 unknown

22. Opportunities � National Scope Establish a �pool� of societal impacts experts Communication, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, GIS specialists, etc. Develop a common set of societal impacts survey questions, tailored as appropriate

23. Opportunities � Regional/WFO Scale Gather impacts/socio-demographic data for local events Utilize academic community for research initiatives Resource for survey methods, questions, analyses Utilize COMET grants, NSTEP process Build partnerships!

24. Broader lessons learned Value of having some exposure to quantitative and qualitative research Emergency managers are invaluable Partnerships among social scientists, research meteorologists, operational meteorologists, broadcasters, emergency managers and other practitioners, policy makers, etc. Building this community! Interest and willingness to work together, to listen, learn, exchange ideas!

25. Discussion questions Would more definitive wording (call to action statements) in warnings & statements may prompt better protective response? Should we continue with the watch / warning / advisory methodology? Should mandatory protective action be taken at longer lead times (e.g., evacuating mobile home parks, dismissing classes, large-venue considerations)? Should local, state, and federal governments partner (legislate?) to build local shelter facilities?

26. Acknowledgements Super Tuesday service assessment team members Especially Mike Vescio, Daniel Nietfeld NWS NCAR Societal Impacts Program and WAS*IS Contact Kevin Barjenbruch (kevin.barjenbruch@noaa.gov) Julie Demuth (jdemuth@ucar.edu)