1

As America’s environmental intelligence agency, NOAA provides timely, reliable, and actionable information to 

communities and businesses around the country every day. NOAA spends billions of dollars monitoring and 

observing risk from environmental hazards. However, that investment has no value unless we communicate the risk 

effectively, empowering individuals and groups to pursue the response options that are best for them. We must also evolve 

our knowledge to account for how risk perception and risk preferences change over time, and how those changes impact 

human behavior especially in the face of an upcoming extreme environmental event. To meet this need, the Social Science 

Committee, working with NWS leadership, field personnel, and academic experts, has developed the: Risk Communication 

Report: Best Practices and Research Findings. This report is intended to be used by NOAA field personnel to help improve 

the public’s response to risk information, leading to greater protection of life and property, and more resilient communities. 

This report reviews risk communication and public response research literature within the context of key episodic hazards 

relevant to NOAA’s mission. It covers three weather hazards (tornado/severe wind, flood, and tropical cyclone) findings for 

general weather, and three other environmental hazards (tsunami, volcano, and wildfire). Using research from NOAA and its 

external partners improves the ability to more effectively deliver weather and coastal warnings, communicate local hazards 

and risks, and provide guidance and decision support tools to stakeholders. This report also includes best practices for risk 

communication relevant to NOAA practitioners. Designed for forecasters, outreach coordinators, warning coordination 

meteorologists, communication directors, and other NOAA staff, the goal of this work is to provide information to make 

communities more resilient and accelerate the transition of research to application across NOAA.

The need for effective risk communication has and will always exist at NOAA. This report is intended to be the start 

of a conversation to advance risk communication and behavior work, and to apply social and behavioral knowledge to 

application to support NOAA’s efforts toward creating a Weather-Ready Nation. We hope that as you use this report, you 

will provide feedback to NOAA’s Social Science Committee so that we can continue our collaborative efforts to improve 

our ability to develop products and services that deliver actionable information to community leaders that will save lives. 

Tracy L. Rouleau

Chair (A), NOAA Social Science Committee

Louis Uccellini

Director, National Weather Service

Foreward
2

Vankita Brown, National Weather Service (NWS)

Stephanie Fauver, National Ocean Service (NOS) 

Denna Geppi, NOAA’s Office of Performance, Risk, and Social Science (PRSS)

Aisha Haynes, NOAA’s Office of Education (OE)

Jennifer Sprague-Hilderbrand, National Weather Service (NWS) 

Rachel Jacobson, Office of Program Planning & Integration (PPI)

Kim Klockow, Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research (OAR)

Danielle Nagele, National Ocean Service (NOS)

Tracy Rouleau, NOAA’s Office of Performance, Risk, and Social Science (PRSS)

Kateryna Wowk, Office of Program Planning & Integration (PPI) 

Project Team

Risk Communication and Behavior: 

Best Practices and Research Findings
3

I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4

II. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 6

A. Overview and Drivers .................................................................................................................. 6

B. Report Roadmap ......................................................................................................................... 8

III. Risk Communication....................................................................................................................... 8

A. Risk Communication: It’s a Process NOT a Product..................................................................... 8

IV. Best Practices.................................................................................................................................... 11

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards...................................................................................... 15

A. Tornado/severe wind .................................................................................................................... 15

B. Flood............................................................................................................................................ 19

C. Tropical Cyclone .......................................................................................................................... 23

D. General weather/forecast .............................................................................................................. 26

VI. Contemporary Research in Other Environmental Hazards ............................................................... 30

A. Tsunami ....................................................................................................................................... 30

B. Wildfire......................................................................................................................................... 32

C. Volcanoes...................................................................................................................................... 32

VII. Summary and Implementation Recommendations.......................................................................... 34

VII. Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 36

A. Appendix 1 - Theories and Models ............................................................................................... 36

B. Appendix 2 - Warning Behavior.................................................................................................... 39

C. Appendix 3 - Review Papers and Practitioner Guides................................................................... 41

IX. Glossary........................................................................................................................................... 43

X. Acronym Guide................................................................................................................................. 45

XI. Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 46

XII. Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 60

Table of Contents
4

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, spends billions of dollars each year monitoring and 

predicting risk from environmental hazards to help people, communities, businesses, and governments find and use the 

right information to understand risk and make smart decisions. But that investment can only achieve its full potential 

value if risk is communicated effectively, empowering individuals and groups to pursue the response options that are best for 

them. Using research from NOAA and its external partners improves the ability to more effectively deliver weather and coastal 

warnings, communicate local hazards and risks, and provide guidance and decision support tools to stakeholders.

Risk communication is a process, not merely a product. To make communities more resilient, messaging strategies for 

hazardous events must draw on knowledge from the social, behavioral and economic sciences, and especially research on risk 

communication and behavior. These areas of study explain and predict the ways people receive, share, understand, and respond 

to information about risk. When weather forecasters or coastal managers encounter situations where their message does not 

lead to the desired action, they often turn to social scientists to help improve the products they issue. Products such as warnings, 

watches, etc. are key components of NOAA weather risk communication, and social scientists can offer useful input on product 

improvement. However, this report focuses on the many 

actions taken outside of product creation. These actions include 

the relationships built with community partners, emergency 

management, and broadcast meteorologists well ahead of a given 

event or any specific product being issued, and are all part of the 

risk communication process. 

Communication strategies for hazardous events must draw 

on the social sciences to effectively communicate risk. This 

report provides guidance on the processes involved in risk 

communication for those in NOAA who communicate risk, 

including those responsible for creating policies, programs, or 

products. Highlighting risk communication best practices in Part IV; this report also provides a discussion of contemporary 

research topics. This report concludes with a discussion of implementation recommendations that can be used by practitioners 

at NOAA. This review provides motivation and insights for NOAA staff to come to a deeper understanding of the many things 

they can do to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of their risk communication processes, while also highlighting areas of 

active research where researchers are working on applied problems that have not yet been solved.

This report reviews risk communication and public response research literature within the context of key episodic hazards 

relevant to NOAA’s mission. It covers three weather hazards (tornado/severe wind, flood, and tropical cyclone), findings for 

general weather, and three other environmental hazards (tsunami, volcano, and wildfire). These specific hazards were chosen for 

their relevance to NOAA’s mission, priorities, and vision for the future.

NOAA’s investments in monitoring 

and predictions will only achieve 

full potential value if risk is 

communicated effectively. 

I. Executive Summary
5

This report recommends best practices for risk communication relevant to NOAA practitioners. NOAA practitioners are 

not limited to management only. This report is also designed for forecasters, outreach coordinators, warning coordination 

meteorologists, communication directors, and other NOAA staff. The recommended practices include the following, discussed in 

more detail in the body of the report: 

1. Have an Informed Plan – Know what needs to be achieved and how to achieve it before beginning risk communication 

efforts. 

2. Speak to Their Interests, Not Yours – Connect emotionally with audience and stakeholder values and concerns to help 

establish a relationship and improve risk communication efforts.

3. Explain the Risk (in a manner that is clear and appropriate for the audience) – Use stories and visuals to make it personal 

and help audiences understand the impacts and the hazard.

4. Offer Options for Reducing Risk – Facilitate a conversation to identify barriers to action. Offer options that address 

these barriers and are appropriate for the local situation.

5. Work with Trusted Sources and the Public – People seek confirmation from multiple trusted sources to verify risk and 

help them make decisions on what actions to take, if any.

6. Test Messages or Products; Evaluate Performance – Coworkers are not the audience. Test communications on target 

audience members before reaching out more broadly. Evaluate the results of communications efforts.

7. Use Multiple Ways to Communicate – People like to receive information in different ways; understand how the 

audience likes to receive information on hazards.
6

A. Overview and Drivers

Severe weather and climatic events threaten the safety 

of our Nation. In recent decades, extreme events have 

become more destructive, creating challenges

for American communities and businesses alike. NOAA’s 

National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) 

found that during the past decade (2004-2013) more billiondollar weather and climate disasters (80) occurred than the 

previous two decades combined (78) (amounts adjusted for 

inflation). 

Inundation and flooding 

are the most frequent and 

costly hazards in the U.S. 

More than 75 percent of 

declared Federal disasters 

related to floods resulted 

in more than 90 

fatalities per year. 

Annual flood losses 

average nearly $8 

billion.1 In addition to 

floods arising from 

heavy rainfall and 

snowmelt, coastal 

inundation from tropical 

cyclones and other 

strong storm systems is 

responsible

for some of the most 

deadly and costly single 

events in the United 

States. In 2005, 

Hurricane Katrina 

1See USGS, Flood Inundation Mapping (FIM) Program: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_

inundation/

caused 1,464 deaths2 and over $150B in losses3. More 

recently, Post Tropical Cyclone Sandy caused 285 deaths and 

approximately $65 billion in losses in 2012.4

Key factors that contribute to social and individual 

vulnerability to severe weather and climatic events include the 

density of the population exposed, rate of population growth, 

characteristics of housing stock, and socio-cultural factors 

such as language, mobility, access to community resources, and 

poverty. About 40 percent of the 

U.S. population lives in a coastal 

shoreline county. 5 As coastal areas 

are further developed, the number 

of coastal residents is expected 

to increase 9 percent over the 

next six years. With this rise in 

coastal population, the challenges 

to effective management and risk 

communication will also increase.

Recent severe weather events in the nation’s heartland 

highlight clear disconnects between the information NOAA 

provides and optimal societal response across the full range of 

hazards. For example, even with timely warnings from the 

National Weather Service, thousands of people spontaneously 

evacuated and jammed highways ahead of a two-mile wide 

tornado in central Oklahoma on May 31, 2013. One estimate 

shows that if the tornado had not lifted, fatalities could have 

exceeded 700 people, and possibly reached as high as

2See Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. (2006). Reports of Missing and Dead. 

Retrieved from http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.asp?ID=192&Detail=5248

3See NOAA National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) Billion-Dollar Weather and 

Climate Disasters: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events

4See NOAA National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) Billion-Dollar Weather and 

Climate Disasters: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events

5See NOAA Coastal Economy Pocket Guide: http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wp-content

uploads/coastal-economy-pocket-guide-1025.pdf

Photo Credit: NOAA

II. Introduction

Inundation and flooding are the 

most frequent and costly hazards 

in the U.S.
7

1,000, for an event that would normally result in less than 25 

fatalities.6 This example highlights the fact that forecasts and

warnings are most effective when the public fully comprehend 

the risks to life and property, as well as their options for 

pursuing safety, demonstrating the need for improving and 

understanding the risk communication process.

Severe weather and climatic events also affect certain 

populations disproportionately, highlighting the role that 

vulnerability plays during hazardous weather. For example, 

during Hurricane Katrina, African Americans made up a

disproportionate share of the hurricanes victims. About one

of every three people who lived in areas hardest hit by the

6See National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office Norman, OK: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/

oun/?n=events-20130531-elreno

hurricane were African Americans. Also, sixty-five percent 

of poor elderly households in New Orleans did not have a 

vehicle, making it more difficult for them to escape the storm 

and its effects. 7Vulnerability is defined as “the characteristics 

of a person or group and their situation that influences 

their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover 

from the impact of a natural disaster.” 8 The vulnerability 

perspective demonstrates how disasters are produced, namely, 

when hazards intersect with populations that are especially 

susceptible to harm from them.9 10 Key factors contributing 

to social and individual vulnerability to severe weather and 

climatic events 

include the 

density of the 

population 

exposed, rate 

of population 

growth, 

characteristics 

of the housing 

stock, and 

socio-cultural factors such as language, mobility, access to 

community resources, and poverty. For example, several of 

these factors intersect in portions of the Southeast U.S., where 

special attention should be paid to help vulnerable populations 

prepare for and respond to life-threatening hazards due to the 

large amount of residents for whom English is their second 

language. 

7See Essential Facts About The Victims of Hurricane Katrina: http://www.cbpp.org/research/

essential-facts-about-the-victims-of-hurricane-katrina

8W. Donner, and H. Rodriguez.(2016): Disaster Risk and Vulnerability: The Role and Impact of 

Population and Society. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/disaster-risk.aspx

9W. Donner, and H. Rodriguez.(2016): Disaster Risk and Vulnerability: The Role and Impact of 

Population and Society. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/disaster-risk.aspx

10B. Wisner et al. (2004): At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, 2d. ed. 

(London, Routledge). 

Forecasts and warnings are most 

effective when the public 

fully comprehends the risks to life 

and property. 
8

In several studies, NOAA11 12 13 and the National Academies 

of Science14 15 called for increased support for research in 

behavioral sciences. A 2015 Executive Order (Using Behavioral 

Science to Better Serve Americans)16 identified the need for 

behavioral science to improve effectiveness and efficiency 

of programs across the entire Federal landscape to protect 

life and property. This report from NOAA’s Social Science 

Committee offers a foundational step toward bridging the gap 

between research and application. 

B. Report Roadmap

In the next section, risk communication is defined and 

discussed not in the context of a single product, but as a 

process. This is not only a process for the end-user as he/

she understands and assesses the risk, but also for the 

communicator as he/she works with and learns from the 

audience. With this in mind, Section III presents best 

practices compiled from a variety of sources including 

research articles, practitioner guides, and personal experience. 

Section IV offers a look at contemporary research in 

risk communication and decision science for hazards. This 

highlight of topics can serve as a springboard for engaging 

research communities, commissioning more systematic 

reviews, and informing NOAA practitioners. Several 

appendices are also included for those who may desire more

11Weather Ready Nation: A Vital Conversation on Tornadoes and Severe Weather (2011): http://

www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation/files/WRN_Vital_Conversation032912.pdf

12Workshop on Weather Ready Nation: Science Imperatives for Severe Thunderstorm Research 

(2012): http://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation/files/WRN_FinalReport120917.pdf

13NOAA, Society and the Economy: An Assessment of NOAA’s Social Science Capabilities and 

Needs (2013): http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/2013/july/NOAA%20Social%20Science%20

Needs%20Assessment%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

14Completing the Forecast (2006): http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11699/completing-the-forecastcharacterizing-and-communicating-uncertainty-for-better-decisions

15When Weather Matters (2010): http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12888/when-weather-mattersscience-and-service-to-meet-critical-societal

16See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-usingbehavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american

in-depth information on theories and models, warning 

behavior, and existing systematic reviews. 

Feedback from the NOAA community is welcomed, 

especially recommendations for additional support 

needed to enable NOAA practitioners to better 

connect research to practice.

III. Risk Communication 

A. Risk Communication: It’s a 

Process NOT a Product

What is risk communication?

For communicating about natural hazards, risk 

communication research provides valuable insights 

into how people create and spread ideas about natural 

hazard threats, and how communicators can shape those 

ideas. Risks are not the same as hazards. A risk is defined as a 

hazard times the probability of its occurrence. Each risk has 

its own unique characteristics (e.g., whether the situation 

is controllable, if the audience dreads the risk, etc.)17, and 

these characteristics color how the risk is perceived. Risk is 

personal and often subjective. What one person considers to 

be a risk, another may not. The National Research Council 

defines risk communication as, “an interactive process of 

exchange of information and opinion among individuals, 

groups, and institutions. It involves multiple messages about 

the nature of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, 

that express concerns, opinions, or reaction to risk messages or 

to legal or institutional arrangements for risk management.” 

This definition highlights several important aspects of risk 

communication; most importantly, that risk communication 

is a process rather than a single product or service. This process 

can be defined in several stages (Figure 1). 

17Slovic, P. “Perception of Risk.” Science 236(17 April): 280-285.

II. Introduction (cont.)
9

III. Risk Communication

Figure 1. A depiction of the risk communication lifecycle, with activities 

organizations should consider pursuing at each stage. IDSS stands for 

Impact-Based Decision Support Services. Adapted from NWS AWOC 

training course Communicating in High-Impact Events.

The risk communication process begins well ahead of a given 

event, in the “pre-crisis” phase. 

•	 This is when NOAA practitioners can be 

strengthening relationships with their communities 

and building trust, supporting mitigation and 

adaptation planning, and improving information 

dissemination chains. 

As an event nears (e.g., a hurricane getting closer to the coast), 

the community moves into the initial phase of the crisis. 

•	 This is when most shortterm weather forecast 

information including 

outlook, watch, and 

warning information is 

delivered and used for 

preparatory decisionmaking. 

•	 Communication during 

this period is so critical 

and sufficiently unique 

that a whole sub-field 

crisis communication 

within the field of risk 

communication exists.

•	 Clear and timely messages 

aimed at providing 

sufficient information 

for decision-making are 

especially important. 

•	 Messaging is more fully explored in the Behavioral 

Response section, which describes the warning 

response process. 

The maintenance phase, most applicable to long-duration 

hazards, occurs when a crisis is ongoing and information must 

be updated for use by decision-makers. 

Finally, in resolution and evaluation phases, the events are 

examined to understand how the communication system 

performed, and recommendations are made to improve the 

system for better outcomes.

Behavioral Response When Weather Hazards Are Imminent

Decision-making on the part of the public is also a process. 
10

NOAA practitioners affect different parts of this process 

at different points in the risk communication lifecycle. 

Importantly, scientific information (such as a weather 

forecast) alone does not necessarily result in immediate 

response. Referring to Figure 2, people tend to go through 

several steps before reaching a decision. Long-term risk 

communication efforts can affect aspects such as hazard 

knowledge, resources stored in preparation, and methods by 

which information is disseminated when events occur. These 

pre-event factors influence how people will understand a 

crisis situation as it unfolds, and the resources they will have 

available to adapt and protect themselves. 

During the crisis phase, or the time when warnings are issued, 

people become aware of the threat. This awareness can come 

through environmental cues, social cues, warning information, 

or a combination of these. After this, processing and assessment 

of information and situation occur before they respond. 

People must not only understand what the risk is, but also 

how (and if) it personally affects them. Even if they decide to 

respond, this may simply involve more information-seeking 

rather than evacuating or sheltering. This complex, often 

subconscious, process is generally not linear, but iterative. For 

instance, someone may see a funnel cloud, respond by seeking 

more information, then determine whether it will hit their 

home before sheltering. 

Additionally, people view risk information 

through individual and unique lenses. Sociodemographics, resources, disabilities, and other 

factors (Figure 2), influence an individual’s 

understanding and choices. (For a full list 

of factors and how they relate to warning 

response, please see Appendix 2.) Some 

factors can be controlled and others cannot. 

A warning can be adjusted to include more 

specific information. However, disability of the 

receiver cannot be changed. For example, for 

individuals with colorblindness, colors used 

in the warning can be modified using hues 

they can more readily interpret. However, all 

colorblindness is not equal in ability to see 

color. Beyond the risk itself, priorities may be 

very different. For the meteorologist, the threat 

may be the most important message to convey. 

But for the public, that same threat is actually 

just one concern among many that they face 

throughout their day. Some of these concerns 

relate to the risk at hand and others will not. 

Figure 2. A depiction of the iterative warning response process. Content for this image is adapted from the 

Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) (Lindell and Perry 2012) and Mileti and Sorensen 1990.

III. Risk Communication (cont.)
11

For instance, Figure 3 depicts a person viewing hurricane 

information on the TV. They’re not only taking into account 

the scientific information, but also personal worries such as 

an injured family member, an animal, and past experience. 

Beyond this, their mind may be distracted by their grocery 

list, unpaid bills, or any other number of issues that affect daily 

lives. Practitioners do not necessarily have to know what the 

receiver is thinking, but the practitioner has to be aware of 

the kinds of thoughts and processes that interfere with the 

messages being perceived and acted upon as the practitioner 

intended. Consequently, there is no ‘one size fits all’ method 

for communicating risk. Instead, it requires a mixture of 

effective best practices outlined in this report and a firm 

understanding of the audience and its needs. 

For a more in-depth background on theoretical approaches to risk 

communication see Appendix 1 Theories and Models.

NOAA practitioners can use known best practices 

now to help guide risk communication efforts. 

These practices can improve understanding of the 

audience at risk, their concerns, and their values, resulting in 

more effective interactions that help them recognize risks and 

identify actions to minimize those risks. Whether forming 

a partnership, planning a stakeholder engagement activity, 

developing outreach materials, creating a new product in 

response to a stakeholder or partner need, or just having a 

conversation, these 

best practices can 

be used to improve 

the effectiveness of 

these efforts. They 

can be applied at 

all stages of the risk 

communication 

process. The result 

will be more effective engagement with a diverse group of 

stakeholders and partners. For additional information on 

techniques and considerations for stakeholder engagement, see 

the Introduction to Stakeholder Participation publication from the 

NOAA Office for Coastal Management. 18

This report includes information from a variety of sources, 

including research articles, practitioner guides, personal 

experience and education, as well as the risk communication 

and behavior literature reviews of others. A table of 

comprehensive or systematic reviews on risk communication 

and behavior and a list of practitioner guides is in Appendix 

3 Review Papers and Practitioner Guides. These best practices 

are intended to provide the practitioner with ways to 

improve risk communication now while NOAA continues 

to identify and fill gaps in research and understanding of risk 

communication and behavior for specific hazards. These best 

practices are not hazard-specific, but cut across all hazards. 

 

18See http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/publications/stakeholder

IV. Best Practices

Figure 3: Fictional depiction of someone considering whether or not to 

evacuate from a hurricane. It shows the many factors that go into an 

individual’s response to a warning. An SBS approach can help to identify

those factors that have the greatest influence on response.

These practices can improve 

understanding of the audience at 

risk, their concerns, and their values. 
12

1. Have an Informed Plan – Know what needs to be 

achieved and how to achieve it before beginning risk 

communication efforts. 

• Have a clear goal – Look to change behavior or seek 

action.

• Understand your audience – They are a diverse group

with different values and concerns and different filters, 

which impact what they hear.

• Know who else is talking – People reach conclusions

based on what they know and hear. Understand what 

they are hearing from other sources and determine if 

messages are consistent.

• Develop and deliver the right message – What is

said, how it is said, and how it is delivered matter, as 

does consistency and constancy. Repetition drives 

the message home. (See best practice #7 for more on 

message delivery.)

9 What is said (the words, how to talk about the 

hazards, including what to do)

f Be specific.

f Be consistent.

f Be clear and accurate.

f Use plain language. 

f Meet the needs of the media and other

emergency partners.

f Describe protective actions to take and how 

those actions will benefit the audience.

f Describe the hazard, including location and

timing.

f Disclose the source of the information.

f Provide options for more information.

9 How it is said (style, tone, demeanor)

f Speak clearly and with compassion.

f Be honest and open.

f Use a confident tone.

• Be consistent with the information in the message – 

Consistency is critical both within the office and with 

others that are speaking with the audience. Inconsistent 

information is often ignored.

2. Speak to Their Interests, Not Yours – Connecting 

emotionally with audience values and concerns to help 

establish a relationship and improve risk communication 

efforts.

• Find out what is important to the audience –Connect

with their values and concerns.

• Be a good listener – Give the audience an opportunity 

to be heard. Listen to their concerns. Understand how 

they interpret and respond to risk information. Identify 

barriers to action.

• Start a dialog – Risk communication is not a onetime thing. Tailor future conversations based on what is 

learned during each conversation; make it important to 

the audience.

• Build trust – Become a trusted messenger and partner.

Be honest about what is known and not known in 

order to build trust.

• Consider the socio-demographic and economic 

contexts of message recipients - Understand the needs 

and circumstances of those most vulnerable (e.g.., 

those with mobility restrictions, those whose primary 

language is not English, those with weak social networks 

or without adequate financial or physical means to take 

action).

IV. Best Practices (cont.)
13

3. Explain the Risk (in a manner that is clear and 

appropriate for the audience) – Use stories and visuals to 

make it personal and help the audience understand the 

impacts and the hazard. • Start with the impacts – Paint a picture of what the 

impacts will be in their community using graphics and 

visuals. Refer to past events. Use maps that are easy to 

understand and interpret when appropriate.

• Allow the audience to share experiences – Audience

members can help explain the risk. Other community 

members will relate better to local stories.

• Be open about unknowns – Start with what is known. 

Avoid the term “uncertainty,” but do not avoid the 

concept.

• Use doom and gloom sparingly – Scare tactics usually

do not work so use them only when the situation really 

warrants their use. People have a “finite pool of worry” 

and will shut down if they don’t think anything can be 

done to help the situation.

4. Offer Options for Reducing Risk – Facilitate a 

conversation to identify barriers to action. Offer options 

that address these barriers and are appropriate for the local 

situation. • Describe some options - Provide guidance on options 

and describe how they benefit the audience.

• Offer options at the individual and community level –

Empower residents to take responsibility for themselves 

while also building a resilient community.

• Engage the audience in blue sky 

planning – Family emergency 

planning and formal community 

level planning is best done before it 

is needed.

• Allow stakeholders to discuss options

– There is no substitute for learning 

from someone who has already 

implemented a strategy. Set up these 

opportunities to learn.

5. Work with Trusted Sources 

and the Public – People seek 

confirmation from multiple trusted 

sources to verify risk and help them 

make decisions on what actions to take, 

if any. • Engage with the audience regularly – Learn 

their audience needs at the beginning. Modify 

communications to meet those needs.

• Identify trusted sources of information – Know who 

the audience listens to. Find the opinion leaders and 

early adopters in the audience’s community.

• Establish partnerships with these trusted sources –

Working with a variety of partners including faith-based 

organizations and community and social networks will 

improve odds that the same message will reach the 

audience from a trusted source.

• Work together to create and share consistent 

information – Multiple messengers are critical to 

providing a consistent message.
14

6. Test Messages or Products; Evaluate Performance

– Coworkers are not the audience. Test communications 

on target audience members before reaching out broadly. 

Evaluate the results of communications efforts.

• Get audience feedback – Options to gather feedback 

can vary widely from asking a few members of the 

target audience what they think to conducting a 

formal survey or evaluation (within appropriate Federal 

guidelines, of course).

• Ask questions that provide useful feedback – Openended questions, such as questions that ask audience 

members for feedback in their own words works well. 

Watch how the audience responds to the information 

and ask them to share their reactions. Learn what the 

outcome was of the communications. 

• Be willing to make changes – Test draft materials while

there is still time to adjust. Make improvements to 

processes before the next communication. Small tweaks 

can dramatically improve effectiveness.

7. Use Multiple Ways to Communicate – People like to 

receive information in different ways. Understand how the 

audience likes to receive information on hazards.

• Use the medium the audience prefers – Deliver 

messages in preferred formats. Do not discount the use 

of television and social media as a source. Use newer 

technologies such as social media in addition to old 

standbys. Monitor for changes in preferences.

• Use multiple mechanisms and formats – Audiences 

will need to hear the message multiple times. Multiple 

formats will improve the chances of reaching the 

audience.

• Ensure messages are compatible with the medium 

being used – Modify the message to make it mediumappropriate and relevant but maintain consistency.

For more information on best practices for risk 

communication and examples showing how some of these 

best practices have been applied, see the NOAA Office for 

Coastal Management risk communication resources on the 

Digital Coast, or participate in the interactive webinar.

http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/riskcommunication

NOAA will use these best practices to improve risk 

communication efforts across the agency and increase the 

chances of audiences responding to risk in ways that would 

allow for improved resilience and outcomes at both the 

individual and community levels. 

IV. Best Practices (cont.) 
15

This section provides a highlight of recent research 

in risk communication and decision science for 

weather hazards. The authors identified this literature 

through a Web of Science query, to include articles that 

had both a NOAA hazard keyword (tornado/severe wind, 

flood, hurricane, tsunami, wildfire, volcano and ‘weather’ as a 

general term) and a keyword pertaining to communication 

or warning response (e.g., risk, response, communication, 

perception, behavior, public, social, and societal). Note that 

this review focuses on episodic weather hazards. Slow-onset 

hazards, including climate change and drought, are distinct 

enough that they should be separate efforts and are thus 

not included in this review. The search focuses on articles 

published between 2000 and 2014. 

While this process is not systematic about particular issues, 

the resulting pool of articles presents several important 

topics for NOAA practitioners and researchers across many 

disciplines of study. These highlighted topics are an excellent 

starting point for engaging 

research communities in active, 

sustained dialogue about what 

is or is not known about 

the communication of and 

responses to weather hazard 

information. This list of key 

topics also can be a useful reference for NOAA managers and 

practitioners as they begin to navigate this multidisciplinary 

research landscape for operational or programmatic purposes. 

In this report, we look at each episodic weather hazard 

separately. It is important to not generalize findings across 

weather hazards. For example, just because research 

provides ways to effectively communicate flood risk, these 

recommendations do not necessarily transfer over to ways to 

effectively communicate tornado risk. Future versions of this 

report will investigate the differences in research needs per 

hazard.

Summarized below are some of the major themes 

that emerged in the literature for each NOAA hazard. 

Recognizing the partiality of the methodology, 

recommendations for further research are also included. 

The authors hope to galvanize support by building and 

strengthening partnerships with the research community to 

reveal the ways these questions may be addressed across the 

many social and behavioral sciences that this search could 

have missed. For NOAA management, these themes and 

questions can serve as a starting point for commissioning more 

systematic reviews on topics of particular interest.

A. Tornado/severe wind 

Introduction

Scientists and practitioners still lack a clear understanding of 

the public response to and most effective communication 

used during tornado/severe wind events. The search turned 

up only 17 articles addressing 

this specific topic. However, 

research on this topic has 

increased in popularity in 

the past five years, with 14 of 

the 17 articles published after 

2009. The majority of the 

tornado and severe thunderstorm articles identified focused 

on public response following an actual event or perceived 

response to a hypothetical event. Other topics, such as 

preparedness and warning design, were more sparsely covered. 

Nearly all articles (16 of 17) used quantitative methodologies, 

primarily consisting of traditional phone, mail, or Internet 

surveys.

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards 

It is important to not generalize 

findings across weather hazards. 
16

Research Highlights

Channels: A multitude of tornado warning channels were 

studied. To clarify, radio is a channel; the radio announcer is 

the source. Two stood out as the most popular19: television and 

siren systems (if installed in the area). 20

Protective action: Many factors contribute to protective action 

decision making during tornadoes, but three variables were 

consistently and positively correlated with taking action21: 

having a family plan22, being a woman23, and being located 

relatively close to the hazard.24 

Warning format: An article examining tornado warning 

polygon formats suggested that probabilistic formats tend to 

help people better understand the threat level relative to their 

actual location.25 The researchers found that being closer to

19 L. Balluz, L. Schieve, T. Holmes, S. Kiezak, and J. Malilay. Predictors for People’s Response to 

a Tornado Warning: Arkansas, 1 March 1997. Disasters. (24.1, 71-77, 2000). R. Drost. Memory 

and Decision Making: Determining Action When Sirens Sound. Weather Climate and Society 

(5.1, 43-54,2013). S. Durage, L. Kattan, S.C. Wirasinghe, and J.Y. Ruwanpura. Evacuation 

behaviour of Households and Drivers during a Tornado. Natural Hazards (71.2, 1495-517, 2014). 

B. Hammer, and T.W. Schmidlin. Response to Warnings during the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City 

Tornado: Reasons and Relative Injury Rates. Weather and Forecasting . (17.3, 577-87, 2002). 

C.E. League, W. Diaz, B. Phillips, E.J. Bass, K. Kloesel, E. Gruntfest, and A. Gessner. Emergency 

Manager Decision-Making and Tornado Warning Communication. Meteorological Applications 

(17.2, 163-72, 2010). M.F. Perreault, J. Brian Houston, L. Wilkins. Does Scary Matter?: Testing 

the Effectiveness of New National Weather Service Warning Messages. Communication Studies 

(65.5, 484-99,2014). R.S. Schumacher, D.T. Lindsey, A.B. Schumacher, J. Braun, S.D. Miller, 

and J.L. Demuth. Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Unusual Tornado: Metrology, Climatology, and 

the Communication and Interpretation of Warnings. Weather Climate and Society (25.5, 1412-29, 

2010). K. Sherman Morris. Tornado Warning Dissemination and Response at a University Campus. 

Natural Hazards (52.3, 623-38, 2010).

20Durage et al. (2014); Hammer and Schmidlin (2002); League et al. (2010); Perreault et al. (2014).

21K.D. Ash, R.L. Schumann, G.C. Bowser. Tornado Warning Trade-Offs: Evaluating Choices for 

Visually Communicating Risk. Weather, Climate, and Society (6.1, 104-18,2013). D.E. Nagele, 

and J.E. Trainor. Geographic Specificity, Tornadoes, and Protective Action. Weather, Climate, 

and Society (4.2, 145-55, 2012). A. Silver, and J. Andrey. The Influence of Previous Disaster 

Experience and Sociodemographic on Protective Behaviors during Two Successive Tornado 

Events. Weather, Climate and Society( 6.1,91-103, 2013).

22Z. Cong, D.A. Loang, and J.J. Lou. Family Emergency Preparedness Plans in Severe Tornadoes. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine (46.1,89-93, 2014). Nagele & Trainor (2012).

23Cong et al. (2014); Perreault et al. (2014); Sherman-Morris (2010); Silver & Andrey (2013).

24Balluz et al. (2000); Nagele & Trainor (2012); Schmidlin et al. (2009).

25Nagele & Trainor (2012).

the threat in a probabilistic format provoked greater fear and 

likelihood of taking action. However, using NOAA’s current 

warning format, which does not visually display probabilities, 

end users who perceive themselves to be at the greatest risk 

and likelihood of taking action were those in the center of the 

polygon. 

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
17

Lead time: An article exploring lead time preferences found 

that people felt they needed 10 minutes, on average, to take 

shelter in the event of a tornado.26 However, they preferred an 

average of 34 minutes. People expected to use this extra time 

to seek more information and potentially evacuate from the 

path of the tornado rather than shelter-in-place. This research 

suggests NOAA should be cautious and thoughtful about the 

impact of increased tornado lead time.

Preparedness: When exploring the impact of a recent 

traumatic tornado event, one article found that about 66 

percent of respondents would change their plans by either 

building safe rooms within their homes or evacuating their 

home entirely. The remaining 33 percent were split between 

those who would continue to shelter-in-place in the next 

event and those who would not take action at all. The findings 

indicate how human behavior is interpreted when it comes 

to taking future precautionary and preparedness actions, as 

well as how individuals differ in hazard interpretation and 

precautionary/preparedness actions.

Large public gatherings: When researching a tornado event 

at a university, authors found that employees tended to be 

more knowledgeable and knew about the event well ahead 

of time. Students generally first heard through university 

alerts. 27 This highlights the complexities of a severe weather 

event at a university or any area with a large gathering of 

people. Students tend to rely on school officials to keep them 

informed in the same way a crowd at a stadium may rely on 

facility managers.

Emergency manager behavior: A qualitative study addressing 

emergency management response to severe weather and 

tornadoes found that only approximately 60 percent warn

26S. Hoekstra, K. Klockow, R. Riley, J. Brotzge, H. Brooks, and S. Erickson. A Preliminary Look 

at the Social Perspective of Warn-on-Forecast: Preferred Tornado Warning Lead Time and the 

General Public’s Perception of Weather Risks. Weather, Climate, and Society (3.2, 128-40, 2011).

27Sherman-Morris (2010).

the public immediately upon hearing an NWS warning. 

28 Additionally, about 66 percent would warn the public 

without an official warning issued by NWS. While this is 

only one study, the NWS warning appears to be only one 

factors among many, and not always the deciding factor, that 

emergency managers take into account to make complex 

decisions.

28League et al. (2010).

Forecasts and warnings are most 

effective when the public 

fully comprehends the risks to life 

and property. 
18

Best Practices for Communicating 

Tornado/Severe Wind Risk

1) Convey urgency in risk messages through 

visuals: Those who are closest to the hazard are more 

likely to take protective action. This is most likely 

due to the increase in environmental cues, such as 

wind, rain, or even a visual of a tornado. By providing 

visualizations, detailed descriptions, and geographic 

specificity regarding the location of the severe 

weather/tornado event, those further from the threat 

but still in danger can be provoked to take action 

sooner.

2) Ensure new warnings, technologies and 

messages are applicable to the most popular 

severe weather information source(s): Despite 

an influx of new technologies in recent decades, TV 

still remains a popular source for severe weather/

tornado information. 29The huge impact TV media 

can make on public understanding and action, even 

in light of wide use of social media and smartphones, 

cannot be discounted. However, it is also important to 

gain a better understanding of people’s use of TV for 

severe weather information. Is TV the most popular 

first source? Does it depend on age or other socioeconomic characteristics?

29L. Balluz, L. Schieve, T. Holmes, S. Kiezak, and J. Malilay. Predictors for People’s Response to 

a Tornado Warning: Arkansas, 1 March 1997. Disasters. (24.1, 71-77, 2000). R. Drost. Memory 

and Decision Making: Determining Action When Sirens Sound. Weather Climate and Society 

(5.1, 43-54,2013). S. Durage, L. Kattan, S.C. Wirasinghe, and J.Y. Ruwanpura. Evacuation 

behaviour of Households and Drivers during a Tornado. Natural Hazards (71.2, 1495-517, 2014). 

B. Hammer, and T.W. Schmidlin. Response to Warnings during the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City 

Tornado: Reasons and Relative Injury Rates. Weather and Forecasting . (17.3, 577-87, 2002). 

C.E. League, W. Diaz, B. Phillips, E.J. Bass, K. Kloesel, E. Gruntfest, and A. Gessner. Emergency 

Manager Decision-Making and Tornado Warning Communication. Meteorological Applications 

(17.2, 163-72, 2010). M.F. Perreault, J. Brian Houston, L. Wilkins. Does Scary Matter?: Testing 

the Effectiveness of New National Weather Service Warning Messages. Communication Studies 

(65.5, 484-99,2014). R.S. Schumacher, D.T. Lindsey, A.B. Schumacher, J. Braun, S.D. Miller, 

and J.L. Demuth. Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Unusual Tornado: Metrology, Climatology, and 

the Communication and Interpretation of Warnings. Weather Climate and Society (25.5, 1412-29, 

2010). K. Sherman Morris. Tornado Warning Dissemination and Response at a University Campus. 

Natural Hazards (52.3, 623-38, 2010).

Future Research Needs

False alarms 30: It is crucial to know how increased or 

decreased false alarm rates/ratios impact protective action 

and sheltering. NOAA would also benefit from a better 

understanding of how people conceptualize a false alarm 

and associated terms such as ‘hit’ and ‘miss’. Research should 

not only focus on traditional NWS warnings with regards to 

false alarms, but also on how information from the weather 

enterprise as a whole (TV, social media, etc.) contributes to 

the perception of hits, misses, close calls and false alarms.

Lead time: How will longer lead times impact public 

perception and behavior?31 Additionally, it will be important 

to know how longer lead time would change the warning 

process for forecasters, the media, emergency managers, and 

other community organizations.

Severe thunderstorms: NOAA would benefit from an 

increased understanding of public perception and behavior 

of severe thunderstorms. Particular attention should be given 

to derechos and mesoscale convective systems (MCS) that 

present unique forecasting and societal behavior challenges.

Preparation behavior: More research is needed on preparation 

behavior that can be accomplished during the outlook and

watch phases of a severe weather event, such as participating

30League et al. (2010); D.M. Schultz, E.C. Gruntfest, M.H. Hayden, C.C. Benight, S. Drobot, and 

L.R. Barnes. Decision Making by Austin, Texas, Residents in Hypothetical Tornado Scenarios. 

Weather, Climate and Society (2.3, 249-54).

31Hoekstra et al. (2011).

It is crucial to know how increased 

or decreased false alarm rates/

ratios impact protective action and 

sheltering.

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
19

in drills, creating family emergency plans, and gathering 

supplies. It is also important to address reduced preparations in 

vulnerable populations, e.g., lower income families and mobile 

home owners.

Warning format and design: It is important to fully understand 

the societal impacts resulting from increasing geographic and 

probabilistic specificity in warning polygons. Further research 

is needed to understand how probabilities can be effectively 

communicated through a tornado warning. 

Large public gatherings: Future research should address and 

offer best practices for institutions and organizations dealing 

with tornado/severe thunderstorm warning dissemination, 

sheltering, and preparations. 

B. Flood

Introduction

The literature on flood hazards revealed key applications as 

well as limitations. The search turned up 12 articles addressing 

this specific topic. Regarding geographical focus, most studies 

were conducted outside of the United States, particularly New 

Zealand - and mostly in Europe. Concerning methodology, 

the majority of studies were of exploratory nature and have 

not applied theoretical frameworks that are available in social 

science research. When theoretical frameworks were used, 

they most commonly included Expectancy Valence Theory or 

variations of it, such as the Protective Action Decision Model 

(PADM), the Protective Motivation Theory (PMT), and the 

Mental Model approach. 

Across the literature, the most common research questions 

related to mitigation and preparedness behavior, and 

perception of risk. Very few studies examined the effectiveness 

of risk communication practices or evaluating new ways 

to communicate flood risk. Studies in psychology tended 

to emphasize individual perceptions about risk, without 

examining a wider range of risk perceptions borne 

throughout society (such as those of policy-makers or of 

tax-payers who live outside flood affected areas). The studies 

also did not 

examine the 

linkages between 

wider perspectives 

and protective 

measures such as 

state-supported 

flood insurance 

schemes. In other 

words, while the 

majority of the 

literature examined 

involved individual 

homeowner’s 

responses, influences and constraints, there is much more to 

consider with respect to flood risk mitigation.

Research Highlights 

Flood risk management: The management of flood risk has 

traditionally fallen to communities and the government, who 

have instituted a system that primarily focuses on structural 

mitigation. Recently, however, researchers and natural resource 

managers have become increasingly concerned about the 

ways structural mitigation has increased the exposure to 

extreme flood risk, and strides have been made to promote 

non-structural solutions to flood risk. Non-structural flood 

risk reduction measures include elevation, basement filling, 

relocation/acquisition, flood proofing, berms and small-scale 

flood walls, flood warning systems, emergency preparedness 

plans, and land use regulations.32 These measures place a 

greater emphasis for resilient outcomes on individuals and 

communities. An important flood policy, the National Flood 

32Federal Emergency Management Administration. Nonstructural Flood Risk Management 

Measures (2015).
20

Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (NFIP 

CRS) rewards communities that use these measures with 

reduced flood insurance premiums. Unfortunately, however, 

participation in NFIP is still fairly low. The reasons for this are 

complex and not fully understood.33

Knowledge about floods34: Several studies have examined 

when people tend to become savvier about flood threats. 

Generally, people who are most knowledgeable fear natural 

hazards more, have had previous experience with flooding, 

or tend to use multiple sources of information to learn about 

flood threats. In other words, these individuals are inclined 

to be information-seeking, whether by natural inclination or 

through necessity. When people lacked knowledge about flood 

threats, they had to rely much more heavily on trusted expert 

communicators. A lack of a trusted source of information 

could therefore be 

very detrimental 

to those with less 

flood knowledge.

Risk perception35,36: 

While two 

places may both 

experience similar 

kinds of flooding, the populations can perceive the risks very 

differently. Research demonstrates that culture can explain 

some of these differences, especially as the structures and 

economic practices of certain cultures are better-adapted to 

flood exposure. From an event-based perspective, when floods 

are expected to last longer, the perception of risk increases

33 Kunreuther and Erwann-Kerjan: At War with the Weather (2007).

34W. Kellens, T. Terpstra, and P. DeMaeyer. Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A 

 Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis (33.1,24-49,2013).

35P.W. Bubeck, J.W. Botzen, and J.C. J.H Aerts. A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors 

 that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior. Risk Analysis (32.9,1481-95,2012).

36 D.J Parker, and S.J. Priest. The Fability of Flood Warning Chains: Can Europe’s Flood Warnings 

Be Effective? Water Resources Management (26.10,2927-50,2012).

among the population. Risk perception also tends to increase 

with age, for women, and for those with higher levels of 

education.

Connection between risk perception and response to warnings37:

While direct linkages between individual perceptions of risk 

and warning response have long been assumed for many 

hazards, including flood hazards, the literature does not 

support a simple connection between these constructs for 

flood threat. High perceptions of risk must be coupled with 

measures of coping appraisal (including elements of response 

eff, self-efficacy and response cost) to fully understand 

responses to flood threats (on multiple timescales). It is not 

enough to relay to people that something is a risk – they need 

help understanding what they can do about it, and to feel 

empowered to take those actions. High perceptions of risk can 

thus be taken as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for 

response.

Response and efficacy: To improve response effectiveness, 

people should be provided with locally specific information 

that gives them simple, easy to understand options for 

pursuing safety (including alternate routes to avoid flood 

hazards.38) To improve self-efficacy the measures should be 

low-cost and easy to implement. 

Other factors affecting warning response 8,10,39: Responsiveness 

to flood warnings tends to increase with nearness to flood, 

prior experience with flooding, the intensity of the flood, 

mobility and availability of help, trust in the warning provider, 

and decreases in complacency brought

37Completing the Forecast (2006):http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11699/completing-the-forecastcharacterizing-and-communicating-uncertainty-for-better-decisions.

38R.C. Franklin, J.C. King, P.J. Aitken, and P.A. Leggat. “Washed Away” Assessing Community 

Perceptions of Flooding and Prevention Strategies: A North Queensland Example. Natural 

Hazards (73.3, 1977-98, 2014).

39T. Grothmann, and F. Reuswigg. People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take 

Precautionary Action While Others Do Not. Natural Hazards (38.1-2,101-20,2006).

People who are most knowledgeable tend to use multiple sources 

of information to learn about flood 

threats.

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
21

on by flood defenses. In one study, worry did not increase 

preparedness, raising concerns about using worry/fear as a 

tactic to inspire appropriate response.

Damage/loss reduction: Research has found that flood 

warnings can reduce losses, but weaknesses in the 

communication chain can significantly limit the effectiveness 

of warnings. Increases in lead-time are associated with lower 

damage totals, and these reductions are attributable to moving 

property from low ground to higher ground. The effectiveness 

of response for damage reduction increases with preparedness 

and time to respond.

Flood mitigation (longer timescale) 8: In the longer-term, NFIP 

participation is more likely for those who own their home, 

have higher incomes, and face more frequent flood exposure. 

When people perceive a higher personal responsibility for 

managing their flood threat, they are more likely to pursue 

non-structural mitigation and other preparedness activities. 

It is conceptually difficult to explain to people that structural 

mitigation measures (like dams) may actually increase their 

catastrophic risk potential.40

Representing uncertainty: There is some evidence to 

suggest that certain representations of uncertainty of 

physical probabilities create higher levels of comprehension/

concern about flood risk than others. For example, graphics 

generate more concern about flood risk than numbers alone. 

Additionally, probability format affects the interpretation 

and concern of flood risk. This is particularly true for the 

recurrence interval of flood risk used to describe flood 

plains.41

40R.A. Bradford, J.J. O’Sullivan, I.M. van der Craats, J. Krywkow, P. Rotko, J. Aaltonen, M. 

Bonaiout, S. De Dominics, K. Waylen, and K. Schelfaut. Risk Perception- Issues for Flood 

Management in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (12.7,2299-09.2012).

41H.M. Bell and G. A Tobin. Efficient and Effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and 

perception of flood risk. Environmental Hazards (7.4,302-11,2007).

Participation: Trust in knowledge and advice of experts 

increases after communities are engaged in participatory 

processes related to mitigating flood risks. NOAA has recently 

begun to use stakeholder engagement methods to both 

understand how they can better provide integrated water risk 

information, and how communities use that information. This 

participatory process improves response for these communities, 

and improves 

relationships with 

other agencies, 

such as the United 

States Army Corps 

of Engineers 

(USACE). A 

recent focus group 

recommended that 

flash flood response 

can be improved with simplified flash flood messaging, 

improved modeling (higher-resolution flood information), and 

continued relationship-building between WFOs, RFCs, and 

local partners.42

Messaging: In a recent study conducted along two flood 

prone towns, researchers found that timing, clarity and 

graphic elements affected respondent’s understanding of 

flash flood forecast and warning tools. Visual factors in 

products – including the use of color, patterning and font 

– affected respondents’ understanding of products in both 

helpful and unhelpful ways, and must be carefully considered. 

Respondents in this study reported two major barriers to 

their use of forecast and warning tools: (1) the overly technical 

nature of products and (2) the use of unfamiliar terms and 

unclear or inadequate explanations of visual data. Products 

that are completely text, such as watches and warnings, were 

found to be excessively wordy, with key information often 

buried. Additionally, respondents preferred that products

42Eastern Research Group (2015). Flash Flood Servicers for the Future: Flash Flood Summit and 

Focus Group Findings.

Trust in knowledge and advice of 

experts increases after communities are engaged in participatory processes related to mitigating 

flood risks.
22

contain a combination of graphic and text information, citing 

the need for both quick and visual identification of risk, along 

with more detailed explanations and specificity from the text. 

Respondents also reported that the use of all capital letters was 

burdensome to read.43

Best Practices for Communicating Flood Risk 

1) Successful flood risk communication should include 

information beyond simply describing the hazard, 

including what individuals can do to mitigate or avoid 

the risk, and how successful those alternatives are – 

bolstering both response efficacy and self-efficacy. 

2) It is important to communicate the role individuals 

can play in keeping themselves safe from flood threats. 

Since many people tend to rely on the government 

to take responsibility for mitigating against floods, 

the roles of all stakeholders need to be more clearly 

defined. Participatory community efforts, like that 

described above, could help in that process, and should 

be pursued in more communities throughout the 

country.

3) Those who are less experienced with flood threat 

tend to perceive less risk from flooding, and to 

be less likely to respond. The literature suggests 

that capturing knowledge from experienced flood 

victims could be included in a resource in flood 

risk communication for those with less experience. 

Including personal accounts from flood victims in 

ongoing communications can serve to highlight 

adverse impacts of floods, reinforcing the need to take 

alleviation measures.

43Nurture Nature Center/RMC Research Corporation. Flood Risk and Uncertainty Assessing NWS 

Flood Forecast and Warning Tools (2015). Prepared for NOAA’s Office of Weather and Air Quality.

4) Materials should be developed for individuals living 

in communities with structural flood mitigation 

so they are aware of their residual risk. Providing 

understandable statements on risk will lead to a greater 

recognition that structural protection measures will be 

exceeded for events greater than the design capacity.

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
23

Future Research

Mediums of flood communication: For NOAA to improve its 

flood risk communication efforts, more needs to be known

about the ways people access this information now and how 

effective those methods are at conveying risk, preparedness, 

and response information.

Past efforts and effects on risk perception: The effect of 

previous mitigation efforts on perceptions of risk could 

include such questions as: How does the presence of 

community-level flood mitigation (or risk reduction) or inhome mitigation change perceptions of risk? Do adaptations 

shift the distribution of risks a person may face, and do they 

understand this? 

Exposure and experience: Exposure and experience should be 

theorized and the connection between flood risk perception 

and risk communication should also be studied. This could 

involve more examination of how risks are communicated, 

and how varying the risk communication practices can affect 

changes in risk perception, preparedness, warning response, 

and/or mitigation behaviors.

Key actors: More research is needed that moves beyond 

the risk perceptions of the individual to that of key actors/

communities. Relationships among perspectives should be 

carefully examined in light of the ways they improve or 

hamper individual/community agency to become aware of, 

understand, and mitigate against flood risks (in short and long 

timescales).

Representing flood risk uncertainty: More research is needed 

on the multi-dimensional representations of flood risk. A 

need exists to better communicate the uncertainty about the 

potential intensity of flood threats. More research should be 

conducted to explore alternatives for improved climatological 

risk communication.

C. Tropical Cyclone

Introduction

This hazard has been a popular area of study over the last 15

years – this review includes 55 articles focused on tropical 

cyclones. There are notable peaks in research in the years 

directly following a major event such as Hurricane Katrina. 

On the other hand, the number of articles published on 

tropical cyclones has waned somewhat in the last few years. 

The majority of studies dealt with response during an actual 

event. Other popular topics included preparedness/mitigation 

and hurricane risk perception. About half of the articles 

collected used quantitative 

methods, such as traditional 

phone, mail, or online 

surveys. The remaining 

half was split fairly even 

between those employing 

strictly qualitative methods, 

such as focus groups or 

interviews, and those using 

mixed methods.

Research Highlights

Preparation: A few articles examined variables significant in 

hurricane preparation. These varied depending on the type of 

preparation. For general preparedness, age, income, experience, 

and perceived threat were significant predictors.44

44V. Basolo, L. J. Steinberg, R.J. Burby, J. Levine, A.M. Curz, and C. Huang. The Effects of 

Confidence in Government and Information Perceived and Actual Preparedness for Disasters. 

Environment and Behavior (41.3,338-64,2009). R.E. Morss, and M.H. Hayden. Storm Surge and 

“Certain Death”: Interviews with Texas Coastal Residents following Hurricane Ike. Weather, Climate 

and Society (2.3,174-89,2010). D.N Sattler, C.F. Kaiser, and J.B. Hittner. Disaster Preparedness: 

Relationships Among Prior Experience, Personal Characteristics and Distress. Journal of Applied 

Social Psychology (30.7,1996-420,2000). D.N. Sattler, A.J. Preston, C.F. Kaiser, V.E. Olivera, J. 

Valdez, and S. Schlueter. Hurricane Georges: A Cross-National Study Examining Preparedness, 

Resource Loss, and Psychological Distress in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican 

Republic, and the United States. Journal of Traumatic Stress (15.5,339-50,2002). T.W. Cole, and 

K.L. Fellows. Risk Communication Failure. A Case Study of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. 

Southern Communication Journal (73.3,211-38,2008). W. Peacock. Hurricane Mitigation Status 

and Factors Influencing Mitigation Status among Florida’s Single-Family Homeowners. Natural 

Hazards Review (4.3,149-58,2003).

For general preparedness, 

age, income, experience, and 

perceived threat were significant predictors.
24

For existence of a family plan, significant variables included 

confidence in the government, marital status, and risk 

perception.45 Homeownership, children, length of residency,

income, experience, knowledge, and building codes were 

significant predictors of having relevant supplies including 

hurricane shutters. 46 Preparation activities were also closely 

tied to risk perception in several articles. For instance, those 

who perceived the risk to be higher were more likely to have 

a family plan and seek more information about the threat.

Evacuation: Several articles dealt with evacuation choices 

and perceptions.47 Important barriers to evacuation included 

confusion over where to evacuate, lack of family/friends, 

lack of necessary resources, health concerns, job insecurity, 

and perceived crime concerns. One article specifically 

focused on delays caused by evacuations as a potential barrier. 

Interestingly, those who heard about evacuation delays were 

less likely to evacuate in the future as compared to those who 

had actually experienced delays.48 Despite barriers, many 

choose to evacuate. One article addressed the use of multiple 

45Basolo et al. (2009); W.G. Peacock, S.D. Brody, and W. Highfield. Hurricane Risk Perceptions 

among Florida’s Single Family Homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning (7.,2-3,120-

35,2005).

46Peacock et al. (2005). 

47R. Burnside, D.S. Miller, J.D. Rivera. The Impact of Information and Risk Perception on 

the Hurricane Evacuation Decision-Making of Greater New Orleans Residents. Sociological 

Spectrum (27.6, 727-40,2007). N. Dash, and B.H. Morrow. Return Delays and Evacuation 

Order Compliance: The Case of Hurricane Georges and the Florida Keys. Global Environment 

Change Part B: Environmental Hazards (2.3,119-28,2000). D.M. Dosa, N. Grossman, T. Wetle, 

and V. Mor. To Evacuate or Not to Evacuate: Lessons Learned From Louisiana Nursing Home 

Administrators Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of American Medical Directors 

Association (8.3,149-49,2007). K. Dow and S. Cutter. Emerging Hurricane Evacuation Issues: 

Hurricane Floyd and South Carolina. Natural Hazards Review (31.1,12-18, 2002). D.P Eiseman, 

K.M. Cordasco, S.Asch, J.F. Golden and D. Glik. Disaster Planning and Risk Communication with 

Vulnerable Communities: Lessons From Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Public Health (97.

supplement_1, S109-S15, 2007). K. Elder, S. Xirasagar, N. Miller, S.A. Bowen, S. Glover, and 

C. Piper. African Americans’ Decisions Not to Evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina: 

A Qualitative Study. American Journal of Public Health (97, S124-S29,2007); J.E. Kang, M.K. 

Lindell, C.S. Prater. Hurricane Evacuation Expectations and Actual Behavior in Hurricane Lilli1”. 

Journal of Applied Social Psychology (37.4.,887-903,2007). S.K. Smith, and C. McCarty. Fleeing 

the Storm(s): An Examination of Evacuation Behavior during Florida’s 2004 Hurricane Season. 

Demography (46.1,127-45,2009). D. Solis, M. Thomas, and D. Letson. An Empirical Evaluation 

of the Determinants of Household Hurricane Evacuation Choice. Journal of Development and 

Agricultural Economics (2.3,188-96,2010).

48Dash & Morrow (2000).

sources of information to evaluate the risk posed to residents 

and their families, which subsequently lead to many residents

making the choice to evacuate.49 One article addressed 

the subsequent choices of sheltering options. Females, 

homeowners, and those with higher incomes were less likely 

to go to a community shelter. On the other hand, non-white 

races, pet owners, those with longer residency, and those 

with more education were more likely to stay with friends or 

family.50

Special needs: A couple of studies focused specifically on 

those with special needs and/or disabilities.51 They found 

that households with these vulnerabilities were less likely to 

evacuate and take longer when they do.52 One of the main 

issues cited was perceived lack of access to needed services.53

Older residents tended to have set opinions on information 

sources and relied heavily on past experiences. Newer 

residents understandably had fewer opinions on information 

sources and relied more on family and friends. Those with 

hearing impairments also relied on family and friends for 

information as well as text alerts. In general, for those with 

developmental disabilities, fear and anxiety were common 

barriers to action.54

49F. Zhang, R.E. Morss, J.A. Sippel, T.K. Beckman, N.C. Clements, N.L. Hampshire, J.N. Harvey, 

J.M. Hernandez, Z.C. Morgan, R.M. Moiser, S. Wang and S.D. Winkley. An In-Person Survey 

Investigating Public Perceptions of and Responses to Hurricane Rita Forecasts Along the Texas 

Cost. Weather and Forecasting (22.6,1177-87,89-90,2007).

50Smith & McCarty (2009).

51J. Bateman, and B. Edwards. Gender and Evacuation: A Closer Look at Why Women Are More 

Likely to Evacuate for Hurricanes. Natural Hazards Review (3.3, 101-17, 2002). Eisenman et al. 

(2007); H. Lazrus, B.H. Morrow, R.E. Morss, and J.K. Lazo. Vulnerability Beyond Stereotypes: 

Context and Agency in Hurricane Risk Communication. Weather, Climate, and Society (4.2,103-

09, 2012). M. Van Willigen, T. Edwards, B. Edwards, and S. Hessee. Riding Out the Storm: 

Experiences of the Physically Disabled during Hurricanes Bonnie, Dennis, and Floyd. Natural 

Hazards Review (3.3,98-106,2002).

52Van Willigen et al. (2002).

53Eisenman et al. (2007).

54Lazrus et al. (2012).

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
25

Stakeholder concerns: Some articles focused on specific 

stakeholder concerns. Emergency managers and media both 

noted some trouble understanding NWS products during 

hurricane situations. Additionally, media stakeholders felt 

they needed more continually updated information and 

more assistance from local emergency managers when 

communicating with the public.55

Tourists: Several interesting results were found regarding 

tourist perceptions and behavior. Their risk perception tended 

to be most influenced by predicted hurricane category at 

landfall. Likewise, the higher their risk perception and fear, 

the more likely they were to evacuate.56 Tourists tended to 

rely most heavily on local TV stations for information and 

frequently misinterpreted the information presented about the 

forecast cone of uncertainty.57

Best Practices for Communicating Tropical 

Cyclone Risk

1) Address barriers the public faces for reacting to 

hurricane preparedness and risk information: 

When communicating hurricane preparedness or risk 

information, it is important to address certain broader 

concerns in addition to physical risk. For example: f The cost and time of supplies, mitigation, and 

evacuation.

f The extent to which shelter accommodations 

meet the public’s needs (e.g., are they petfriendly).

55J.L. Demuth, R.E. Morss, B.H. Morrow, and J.K. Lazo. Creation and Communication of the 

Hurricane Risk Information. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (93.8,1133-45,2012).

56J. Villegas, C. Matyas, S. Srinivasan, I. Cahyanto, B. Thapa, and L. Pennington-Gray. Cognitive 

and Affective Responses of Florida Tourists after Exposure to Hurricane Warning Messages. 

Natural Hazards (66.1,97-116,2013).

57C. Matyas, S. Srinivasan, I. Cahyanto, B. Thapa, L. Pennington-Gray, J. Villegas. Risk Perception 

and Evacuation Decisions of Florida Tourists Under Hurricane Threats: A Stated Preference 

Analysis. Natural Hazards (59.2, 871-90,2011).

2) Convey hurricane risk information in a clear 

and compelling manner f Include a narrative or story to accompany the 

facts.

f When communicating risk to businesses, 

it is important to include information on 

potential adaptive measures, rather than just the 

mathematical risk.

f Include images and examples to illustrate postdisaster conditions and past events. f Increase the chances that residents will be able 

to identify their location and correctly interpret 

the information on risk maps by using larger 

scales and labeling landmarks. Also, consider 

redefining risk areas so they match with wellknown boundaries (e.g. rivers, roads, counties), 

and reduce the number of risk areas/zones 

when possible.

3) Implement policy options to promote hurricane 

preparedness, including: f Create financial incentives for homeowners 

to take preparedness actions (e.g., lower-cost 

hurricane shuttering systems).

f Enforce emergency/action plans within families 

and community groups.

f Strengthen warning systems within NOAA/

NWS and organization partnerships.

f Take time to understand businesses’ and 

individuals’ needs, constraints, and goals as they 

relate to hurricane preparedness.

f Formalize information channels/systems for 

quick communication, but keep them flexible.
26

Future Research Needs

Evacuation: In particular, it would be useful to explore the

relationship between intention to evacuate and evacuation 

constraints, vulnerability and behavioral analysis, and to refine 

evacuation behavior models.

Preparedness: More research is needed in measuring 

perceptions of adaptation methods, and studying factors like 

efficacy, cost, and aesthetics. Understanding the influence 

of risk perception on preparedness, and from measuring 

and understanding the gap between perceived and actual 

preparedness, is also needed.

Stakeholder interactions and decision making: Research 

is needed on ways to improve stakeholder interactions, 

particularly with practitioners directly involved in hurricane 

forecasting, warning, and response. A better understanding 

of local and state level decision support systems during 

evacuations is needed.

Conceptualization of hurricane risk perception: Better 

conceptualization of hurricane risk perception, including the 

cognitive and affective elements of risk perception, is needed. 

Warning communication and receipt: Future research in this 

area would explore the most effective wording of warnings 

and evacuation orders. Large scale studies on response to 

hurricane warnings that vary the respondent type (e.g. 

households, businesses) and storm characteristics (e.g. severity, 

predictability) are needed, along with a better understanding 

of the use of inter-personal networks for message diffusion. 

Tourists: Research on tourist behavior, perception, and 

knowledge related to tropical cyclones could be achieved 

through longitudinal studies that explore changes in 

preparedness/adaptation, emotional impacts, and other 

important variables. 

D. General weather/forecast

Introduction

The 20 articles reviewed for this section cut across a variety

of hazard types. The articles investigated general weather 

risk communication topics on: understanding weather 

information, including understanding of probabilistic weather 

forecast information; sources of weather information; use of 

weather information; response to weather information; and 

forecast uncertainty.

Research Highlights 

Sources of Weather Information

One study via online survey found that media sources are the 

top source,58 while another found that most residents in their 

Canadian study group preferred a text or automated phone 

call.59 Also from the Canadian study, radio was the top channel 

among men, with in-person communications among women 

coming in second. Older individuals were more likely to 

use TV. Younger people were more likely to use their smart 

phone.60 Weather warning information among this same 

group was preferred from an outdoor siren but most indicated 

a multiple channel approach is best. 61

58J.K. Lazo, R.E. Morss, and J.L. Demuth. 300 Billion Served. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society (90.6,785-98,2009).

59A. Silver. Watch or Warning? Perceptions, preferences, and usage of forecast information by 

members of the Canadian Public. Meteorological Applications (2014).

60Silver (2014).

61Silver (2014).

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
27

Use of Weather Information 

There were four articles in this review related to the use of 

weather information. Key findings indicate that people use 

weather information to: determine what to wear, mainly for 

the next day; work and leisure related activities; and alter travel 

plans, if necessary. 

People mainly get weather information in the early morning 

or late night hours and are most interested in precipitation 

characteristics (i.e. location, timing, precipitation type, and 

chances. Forecast confidence was found to be a significant 

factor in the frequency of obtaining forecasts for end 

users.)62 In addition, weather salience was positively related 

to frequency of seeking weather information, the frequency 

of using it to plan daily activities, and the general use of 

precipitation and temperature forecasts.63

Response to Weather Information

Four articles reviewed pertained to action or response to

general weather information. One article confirmed a variety 

of findings from previous research. Such findings include the 

idea that households are more likely to take steps to prepare if 

they observe the preparations taken by others, and information 

obtained from prior experiences and actionable information from 

multiple sources communicated over multiple channels both 

motivate action.64

The second article developed and tested a model for household 

response.65 This model was an extension of the Protective 

Action Decision Model (PADM). Results indicated that flood 

62Demuth et al. (2011).

63A.L Stewart, J.K. Lazo, R.E. Morss, and J.L. Demuth. The Relationship of Weather Salience with 

the Perceptions and Uses of Weather Information in a Nationwide Sample of the United States. 

Weather, Climate and Society (4.3,172-89,2012).

64M.M. Wood, D.S. Mileti, M. Kano, M.M. Kelley, R. Regan, and L.B. Bourque. Communicating 

Actionable Risk for Terrorism and Other Hazards. Risk Analysis (32.4,601-15,2012).

65M.K. Lindell, and S.N. Hwang. Households’ Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a 

Multihazard Environment. Risk Analysis (28.2, 539-56, 2008).

and wind mitigation and flood insurance protection were all 

positively related to perceived personal risk and correlated 

with flood and hurricane experience. Demographics had a 

significant impact on flood insurance purchase.

In addition, experience, gender, and income are all important 

in perceived personal risk. The research found that:

i. income had a negative correlation with wind 

mitigation;66

ii. being white had a correlation with flood 

mitigation;

iii. females had higher perceived flood and 

hurricane risk;

iv. whites had a lower perceived flood risk; and,

v. higher income folks had a lower perceived risk 

overall and actual risk.

Management Decisions

The final two articles describe the research findings of roleplay experiments in which participants were asked to make 

management decisions based on weather forecast information. 

One such experience in making road treatment decisions in 

a winter weather event 

found that forecasts 

expressed as an increase in 

odds over climatological 

norms induce more 

cautious decisions for rare, 

extreme weather events 

than do deterministic or 

probabilistic forecasts.67

Findings also indicate that 

probability forecasts were not effective in the lowest range of 

66Lindell & Hwang (2008).

67J. LeClerc, and S.Joslyn. Odds Ratio Forecasts Increase Precautionary Action for Extreme 

Weather Events. Weather, Climate and Society (4.4, 263-70, 2012).

Probability forecasts were not 

effective in the lowest range 

of probabilities in which precautionary action was economically warranted.
28

probabilities in which precautionary action was economically 

warranted, and odds ratios do a better job of encouraging 

precautionary action in low probability situations. 68 The 

other article found that context and presentation influence 

forecast use and that people usually infer uncertainty in 

deterministic forecasts, however, they were unable to use 

uncertainty information to make decisions. 69

Uncertainty Associated with Weather 

Information

Uncertainty is a popular topic in the literature. Seven articles 

on uncertainty in the general weather category were reviewed 

with a diverse set of key findings. Broadcasters were found 

to not always directly pass along uncertainty information 

from the National Weather Service. However, they use this 

information to form 

their own opinions and 

provide uncertainty 

information to the public 

in qualitative terms.70

Recreational boaters 

were found to anticipate 

uncertainty and specific biases in NWS forecasts based on 

prior experience that were born out in forecast verification 

data. They expected a high rate of false alarms among 

warning and advisory forecasts, but indicated they would take 

precautionary action in proportion to the size of their boat. 

Uncertainty forecasts would be useful to these experienced 

forecast consumers allowing them to adapt the forecast to 

their specific boating situation.71

68LeClerc & Joslyn (2012).

69R.E. Morss, J.K. Lazo, and J.L. Demuth. Examining the use of Weather Forecasts in 

Decision Scenarios: Results for a US Survey with Implications for Uncertainty Communication. 

Meteorological Applications (17.2, 149-62,2010).

70J.L. Demuth, J.K Lazo, and B.H. Morrow. Weather Forecast Uncertainty Information. Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society (90.11, 1614-18,2009).

71S. Savelli, and S. Joslyn. Boater Safety: Communicating Weather Forecast Information to HighStakes End Users. Weather, Climate, and Society (4.1, 7-19, 2012).

A nationwide survey on uncertainty in everyday weather 

forecasts found the majority of respondents were aware that 

there is uncertainty in forecasts and they prefer forecasts that 

express it. They expected the actual temperature to fall within 

two degrees either side of the forecast value when a single 

value was given. There was higher confidence in temperature 

than precipitation forecasts. Many did not understand the 

meteorological definition of probability of precipitation (PoP). 

Researchers suggest this understanding is less important than 

being able to infer enough information to make decisions. For 

precipitation, recent communications were preferred rather 

than relative frequencies and odds formats.72 A similar survey 

(to the Morss work73) in the UK focusing on temperature and 

precipitation probabilities found that most respondents would 

prefer or were willing to receive uncertainty information, 

however, most did not understand the correct interpretation 

of probability of precipitation.74

Two articles used uncertainty information in experiments to 

evaluate use in the forecast process and in decision making 

for road treatment. A combination of an uncertainty chart 

with a box plot display was found to be optimal in conveying 

uncertainty information to the forecaster.75 Superior decisionmaking was found when uncertainty information was tailored 

to the critical threshold for the road treatment decision.76

Uncertainty information can be used advantageously and 

can be communicated to non-experts resulting in improved 

decision-making.77 Only a portion of uncertainty information

72Morss et al. (2008).

73Morss et al. (2008); Morss et al. (2010).

74J.A. Peachey, D.M. Schultz, R. Morss, P.J. Roebber, and R. Wood. How Forecasts Expressing 

Uncertainty are Perceived by UK Students. Weather (68.7, 176-81, 2013).

75L. Nadav-Greenberg, S.L. Johnson, and M.U. Taing. The Effect of Uncertainty Visualizations 

on Decision Making in Weather Forecasts. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 

(2.1,24-47,2008).

76Nadav et al. (2009).

77Nadav et al. (2009).

Broadcasters were found to 

not always directly pass along 

uncertainty information from 

the National Weather Service.

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
29

in online Norwegian weather reports was found to be used

and participants typically interpreted the degree of certainty 

differently than was intended.78 Local experiences affected the 

interpretations and these local experiences prevailed in the 

event of a conflict with forecast information.79

Understanding Weather Information

Much of the research on the understanding of weather-related 

information focused on undergraduate students and their 

ability to make forecast decisions given a variety of weather 

information. Findings from the body of work were diverse and 

sometimes conflicting. There was no significant difference in 

understanding warning information between graphic vs. nongraphic options for warning messages on a cell phone. Severe 

thunderstorm warning and flood watch information on NWS 

websites was more effectively conveyed with added graphics 

and additional text over the standard depiction.80 Probability 

of precipitation is confusing. People have a tendency to 

construe it as a deterministic forecast that indicates proportion 

of time or area. However, the phrase describing the chance of 

rain is helpful additional information.81 Having an 80 percent 

predictive interval and verification graphics significantly 

improved understanding of future weather.82 Forecasts in a 

probability format were better understood than a frequency 

format (nine times out of 10 or 90 out of 100 percent).83

78A.D. Sivle, S.D. Kolsto, P.J. Kirkeby Hansen, J. Kristiansen. How do Laypeople Evaluate the 

Degree of Uncertainty in a Weather Report? A Case Study of the Use of the Web Service yr.no. 

Weather, Climate, and Society (6.3,399-412,2014).

79Sivle, et al. (2014).

80J.L. Demuth, R.E. Morss, J.K. Lazo, and D.C. Hilderbrand. Improving Effectiveness of Weather 

Risk Communication on the NWS Point-and-Click Web Page. Weather and Forecasting (28.3, 

711-26, 2013).

81L. Nadav-Greenberg, and S.L. Johnson. Uncertainty Forecasts Improve Decision Making Among 

Nonexperts. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (3.3, 209-27, 2009).

82 S. Joslyn, L. Nemec, and S. Savelli. The Benefits and Challenges of Predictive Interval 

Forecasts and Verification Graphics for End Users. Weather, Climate, and Society (5.2,133-

47,2013).

83S. Joslyn, L. Nadav-Greenberg, and R.M. Nichols. Probability of Precipitation: Assessment and 

Enhancement of End-User Understanding. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (90.2, 

185-93, 2009).

Future Research Needs

Communicating forecast uncertainty: As with other hazardspecific contexts noted earlier in this section, research on 

general weather forecasts demonstrates a need for more 

research on communicating weather forecast uncertainty. 

This includes exploring how to present expected ranges of 

uncertainty. There also needs thought about differentiating the 

ways uncertainty is communicated for particular circumstances 

(e.g., high impact weather) or audiences (e.g., vulnerable 

populations, decision makers, or other stakeholders). With 

respect to precipitation, other ways of reporting uncertainty 

besides probabilities should be considered. Generally, 

alternative expressions and visualizations of uncertainty to 

identify misinterpretations and ways to clarify uncertainty 

information are needed. One way to do this would be 

through use of interactive displays that combine advantages of 

visualization and consider user and task demands. 

Use of and response to weather information: A better 

understanding of the following topics related to use of and 

response to weather information is needed: The complex 

relationships between perceptions and interpretations and use 

of forecast information. 

•	 The satisfaction and confidence in weather 

information, how they are perceived and how they 

relate to attitudes and behaviors.

•	 Systematic comparisons of models [Protective Action

Decision Model (PADM), (Protection Motivation 

Theory (PMT)]. 

•	 Other dimensions of forecast use, such as regular

activities and surveillance. 

•	 Specific actions that comprise household preparedness

and competing variables.
30

Understanding of weather information: Knowledge is needed 

of people’s’ understanding of location, spatial extent, magnitude, 

etc. for online depictions of the watch-warning-advisory 

system, including when multiple hazards occur at once.

Other: The benefit-cost of providing information to the 

public about preparedness actions; explore the milling 

construct – i.e., the social process to affirm decisions to take 

action – in light of social media. Test the idea of consistent 

messaging; and better understand the attitudes, behaviors, and 

perceptions of meteorologists and forecasters.

VI. Contemporary Research in 

Other Environmental Hazards

NOAA’s reach extends to other episodic environmental

hazards including tsunamis, wildfires, 

volcanic eruptions, and fisheries-related 

hazards. The authors reviewed papers 

relevant to each of these hazards. A summary 

of findings from those papers is below.

A. Tsunami

Introduction

An assessment of 15 articles focused 

on tsunamis revealed common 

research agendas with regard to 

awareness, perception, preparedness 

and response. The articles employed 

both qualitative and quantitative 

methodologies, and with the 

exception of one, all were conducted 

outside of the US.

Research Highlights

Sources: For many coastal communities outside of the U.S., 

residents reported relying on social/community networks for 

initial sources of information and sources of confirmation 

before taking action.

Preparedness: While tsunami hazard awareness programs have 

increased general awareness about tsunamis (particularly since 

the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami), individual preparedness 

remains low. Furthermore, having survival items is not a 

good indicator of preparedness. Participants reported being 

in possession of certain items – tents, torches, food – and also 

confirmed they had experience taking care of themselves 

during power outages or floods. However, while reporting 

that they could take care of themselves in their homes, none 

reported having a plan for quick evacuation. 84

Evacuation: 

Transient 

populations 

(including tourists 

and workers) 

evacuate faster than 

permanent residents. 

People who had 

children and those 

who had more 

family members were slower to evacuate.85 Having disaster 

knowledge was positively correlated with prompt evacuation. 

Yet, students in Phuket and Phan-nga, Thailand are not taught 

disaster education in schools, thus people lacked the expertise 

to implement disaster reduction strategies.86

84M. Couling. Tsunami Risk Perception and Preparedness on the East Coast of New Zealand 

during the 2009 Samoan Tsunami Warning. Natural Hazards (71.1, 973-86,2014).

85T. Charnkol, and Y. Tanaboriboon (2006). Tsunami Evacuation Behavior Analysis- One Step of 

Transportation Disaster Response. IATTS Research (30.2, 83-86).

86T. Kurita, A. Nakamura, M. Kodama, and R.N. Colombage Sisira. Tsunami Public Awareness 

and the Disaster Management System of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management (15.1, 

92-110, 2006). 

In particular, a ‘people-centered’ 

approach should replace more 

linear warning systems that focus 

on experts communicating through 

a series of sequential steps in a 

process.

V. Contemporary Research in Weather Hazards (cont.) 
31

People-centered warning systems: There is a need for better 

early warning systems in tsunami-prone/affected areas. 

Sirens were shown to be ineffective as a mechanism for 

early warnings. In particular, a ‘people-centered’ approach 

should replace more linear warning systems that focus on 

experts communicating through a series of sequential steps 

in a process. A people-centered approach considers the needs 

of the public by identifying target populations, especially 

vulnerable ones, and interacting with them to determine 

needs and capacities. It focuses on highly local, integrated 

risk monitoring and communication. These activities must 

be a result of the coordinated participation of many types of 

organizations all committed to a people-centered approach. 

Best Practices for Communicating Tsunami Risk 

1) Use social media for public education: Social 

media is a platform for people to share common 

discourses that will have an impact on building 

resilient communities. Social media has been used 

before, during, and after disasters and can also be used 

as a means of public education. Though it is known 

social media is a powerful tool, it would be useful to 

explore how to most effectively utilize social media as 

an instrument in educating people to recognize early 

warning signs.

2) Conduct an audit of education and outreach 

programs: The reviewed research consistently 

suggested the need for outreach and education 

programs. Many of these programs exist, but it 

is unclear how effective they are in increasing 

preparedness. For example, as mentioned above, even 

those who possess the adequate supplies are often 

not prepared. Thus, an assessment should be done of 

existing education and outreach programs to evaluate 

their effectiveness. As an extension to this, practitioners 

have seen people think of tsunamis and storm surge as 

the same type of phenomenon. They don’t understand 

that the causes are different (seismic vs. storm), and 

that the time scales, speed, and cyclical nature of 

inundation can be different for each phenomenon.

3) Integrate transportation disaster response into 

the transportation engineering components in 

evacuation planning. This includes travel/behavior 

analysis and forecasting, evacuation traffic control and 

enforcement, and the use of mass transit and other 

means for the movement of low-mobility individuals. 

4) Apply economic analysis strategies to local 

options for risk reduction. This would educate 

stakeholders on the relative costs and benefits of 

various options.

Future Research Needs

Evacuation models: Additional research on models that are 

capable of predicting tsunami evacuation more accurately 

(examine affected and unaffected communities).

Natural warning signs: Future research should consider what 

natural warning signs are, which ones people notice, and how 

they respond.

Models of coastal community vulnerability: Better modeling of 

future vulnerability of coastal communities is needed.

VI. Contemporary Research in Other Environmental Hazards 
32

B. Wildfire

Introduction

A limited sample of wildfire articles, including one metaanalysis was reviewed. One article was a review of noneconomic fire social science literature and identification 

of future research needs.87 Another article examined 

how the threat of fire and smoke from wildland fires was 

communicated within agencies and to the public.88 The 

final article examined the role of climate-based forecasts in 

forecasting fire seasons and how information is disseminated 

within a regional network of fire management professionals.89

Collectively, the articles interviewed fire managers and others 

from the Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast to address 

experiences and challenges in communicating information.

87S. McCaffrey, E. Toman, M. Stidham, and B. Shindler. Social Science Research Related to 

Wildfire Management: An Overview of Recent Findings and Future Research Needs. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire (22.1,15-24,2013).

88C.S. Olsen, D.K. Mazzotta, E. Toman, and A.P. Fisher. Communicating About Smoke from 

Wildland Fire: Challenges and Opportunities for Managers. Environmental Management (54.3, 

571-82,2014).

89Olsen et al. (2014). G.J. Owen, D. McLeod, C.A. Kolden, D.B. Ferguson, and T.J. Brown. 

Wildfire Management and Forecasting Fire Potential: The Roles of Climate Information and Social 

Networks in the Southwest United States.

Research Highlights

• Exchanges of information between fire managers 

and agencies are important.90

• Various communication strategies, such as recognizing

existing social communication networks, can provide 

efficient means of expanding the reach of agency 

messages and institutionalizing the importance of 

communication through agency training sessions.91

• There is a need to communicate the health effects of 

smoke.92 

• One study found that climate information is more 

useful during the preseason as fire managers begin 

planning for the upcoming season.93

Future Research Needs

Future research is encouraged to address varying geographic,

demographic, and land ownership contexts; to explore the 

entirety of the fire management cycle; and to look at the 

effectiveness of partnerships and organizations.

C. Volcanoes

Introduction

Four articles focused on volcanoes. Specifically they discussed 

the perception of risk, information dissemination, and 

impacts. The methodologies used were quantitative surveys or

qualitative questionnaire and/or interviews.

90McCaffrey et al.(2013); Owen et al.( 2012). 

91Owen et al. (2012).

92Olsen et al.(2014).

93Owen et al.(2012).

VI. Contemporary Research in Other Environmental Hazards (cont.)
33

Research Highlights

• There is no difference in risk perception between 

residents who had just experienced a volcanic eruption 

and residents who had not.94

• One study found that residents learned about the 

volcanic eruption from social networks (family/friends) 

and television and radio warnings. After the initial 

94C.E. Gregg, B.F. Houghton, D.M. Johnston, D. Paton, and D.A. Swanson. The Perception of 

Volcanic Risk in Kona Communities from Mauna Loa and Hualalai Volcanoes, Hawaii. Journal of 

Volcanology and Geothermal Research (130.3-4,179-96,2004).

warning, they received information from the official 

meteorological website. They trusted information given 

by scientists the most, followed by friends/family, and 

then the media.95 

• In one study, subjects showed a skew in perceived 

likelihood of an eruption toward the end of the time 

window stated in a warning message. This study also 

showed that non-scientists 

may interpret language in 

a risk warning differently 

than scientists.96

• There is evidence that a 

contour map that clearly 

details hazard and risk 

features is the preferred 

type of map on which to display volcano threat 

information. However, an aerial photo may be better for 

conveying information to the public.97 

• Residents wanted to receive more information about 

eruption impacts. 98

Recommendations

1) Implement education initiatives to promote general 

hazard awareness. Such initiatives should include focus 

on the situation and needs at local levels; evaluate the 

95D.K. Bird, and G. Gisladottir. Residents Attitudes and Behaviour Before and After the 2010 

Eyjafjallajokull Eruptions- A Case Study from Southern Iceland. Bulletin of Volcanology (74.6,1263-

79, 2012).

96E.E.H. Doyle, J. McClure, D.M. Johnston, and D. Paton. Communicating Likelihoods and 

Probabilities in Forecasts of Volcanic Eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 

(272,1-15,2014).

97R.Nave, R. Isaia, G. Vilardo, and J. Barclay. Re-assessing Volcanic Hazard Maps for Improving 

Volcanic Risk Communication: Application to Stromboli Island, Italy. Environmental Management 

(54.3,574-82,2014).

98Bird & Gisladottir (2012).

Residents learned about the 

volcanic eruption from social 

networks (family/friends) and 

television and radio 

warnings.
34

VI. Contemporary Research in Other Environmental Hazards (cont.)

changes in threat knowledge, risk perception, and 

preparedness as a result of exposure to the educational 

materials; and, persuade society to make the adaptations 

needed for both long- and short-duration eruptions. 

2) Optimize volcanic hazards information through 

graphical communication.

Future Research Needs

A few common themes and implications from these articles 

needed further research. It would be useful to collect 

longitudinal social data before and after natural hazard events. 

Future volcano risk messaging research should be performed 

to examine why people are more likely to believe that the 

volcano eruption will occur near the end of the warning 

window than any other time. 

VII. Summary and 

Implementation 

Recommendations

This report was designed for NOAA practitioners, key partners, 

and NOAA leadership to quickly become familiar with best 

practices for risk communication, common risk-related theories 

and principles, and recent risk communication and behavior 

research results specific to NOAA’s mission. This report also 

provides centralized access to a large body of work that can 

be used as a launching point for additional discussion with 

the broader research and practitioner communities. This 

report represents a substantial step toward applying social 

and behavioral science knowledge to application in NOAA, 

and the vision it lays out can help NOAA and external 

communities of research come together to build on this effort 

in the years to come. 

NOAA will consider the following next 

steps to build on this effort:

Internal NOAA

• Continue to build an understanding of NOAA’s needs 

for communicating risk effectively. 

• Expand and improve dissemination of research findings 

and promotion of best practices.

• Identify where NOAA offices or entities have a robust 

risk communication program, including successful 

testbed efforts, and use them as teaching opportunities 

for other regions or entities.

• Increase the agency’s role in helping individuals and 

communities to better understand their risk and be 

proactive in their planning to be more resilient to 

hazards. 

• Improve data collection to document the ways 

information is disseminated, accessed, understood, and 

acted upon by various populations across the country. 

Currently, this data is only collected after rare extreme 

events at specific locations, which makes it difficult to 

understand the generalizability of findings or to track 

changes over time. 

Engagement with the Broader Social 

Science Community

• Harness the power of the broader research community 

to expand the database of articles beyond those included 

in this report.
35

• Partner with external organizations to address research 

gaps.

• Improve coordination across the Federal landscape with 

other agencies that have authorities and missions in 

disaster risk communication and response (e.g., FEMA, 

NIST, CDC). 

Additionally, reviewers provided feedback on other risk 

communication-related issues that they would like more 

guidance to address. As noted previously, feedback is 

welcomed from the NOAA community about information 

the team could provide to better meet needs. Areas that 

NOAA practitioners have requested more information about, 

and which may be addressed in future efforts, include:

• Recommendations for working with specific core 

partners, such as emergency managers 

• Tips for working with the media and improving science 

communication

• Ways to better leverage social media

• For the online version of the document, adding links to 

electronic versions of references

Please contact PRSS.socsci@noaa.gov with any additional 

comments.

VII. Summary and Implementation Recommendations
36

 

Name Overview Prominent Scientists/Disciplines

Psychometric Paradigm Perception of hazards taking into account qualitative 

information (i.e. dread) rather than just statistical 

probability of being affected by a hazard 

Slovic, Finucane, FischoffPsychology

Cultural Theory of Risk There are social and cultural influences on risk 

perception

Douglas, Wildavsky - Anthropology

Kraik - Psychology

Mental Models Approach Individuals have a ‘mental model’ (model of reality 

influenced by social interactions and experiences) that 

they use as a lens to view risky situations

Risk application: Fischhoff, Morgan - 

Psychology

Rational Choice Theory People make consistent and rational choices based on 

simple costs and benefits

Homas - Sociology

Expected Utility Theory People rationally weigh their options when faced with 

uncertain consequences

Bernoulli, Von Neumann, Morgenstern - 

Mathematics and Economics

Heuristics and Biases People develop mental ‘short-cuts’ and use these 

shortcuts to help them make decisions.

Tversky, Kahneman - Psychology

Protection Motivation Theory People protect themselves based on their perception of 

severity, probability, effectiveness of protective action, 

and self-efficacy

Rogers - Sociologist

Social Amplification of Risk Framework Examines processes by which risks are amplified or 

attenuated due to individual, social, and cultural factors

Kasperson - Geography

VIII. Appendices

A. Appendix 1 - Theories and Models

The understanding of human comprehension is rooted in basic psychology. Various sub-fields within psychology as well 

as other disciplines have built upon this knowledge to develop theories and models to explain how people process 

risk information. While there are countless risk-related theories, frameworks, and models across and within the social 

science disciplines, the following table provides a brief overview.

Theories
37

Actionable Risk Communication Encourages action by the general public to limit the risks they face 

from potential threats, and can inform education campaigns to 

encourage desired preparedness 

Wood et al.- Health Science

Theory of Reasoned Action A model for the prediction of behavioral intention, spanning 

predictions of attitudes and predictions of behavior

Ajzen, Fishbein-Psychology

Theory of Planned Behavior Attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived 

behavioral control, together shape an individual’s behavior 

intentions and behavior

Ajzen-Psychology

Image Restoration Theory Outlines strategies that can be employed to mitigate damage to 

image in an event where reputation has been damaged

Benoit- Political Communication

Situational Crisis Communication Theory Identifies how key facets of the crisis situation influence 

attributions about the crisis and the reputations held by 

stakeholders

Coombs, Crisis Communication

Habituated Action Theory Argues that engaging in high-risk behavior many times without a 

negative outcome often decreases the perceived risk associated 

with this behavior

Kaperson et al.- Risk Analysis

Social Action Theory People take risks because of peer pressure or a general community 

perception that an activity is low risk

Weber-Sociology

Social Control Theory Connectedness to organizations promotes behavior conformity, 

which can reduce the probability of high-risk behavior

Hirschi- Sociology

Situational Theory of Publics Publics can be identified and classified in the context to which 

they are aware of the problem and the extent to which they do 

something about the problem

Grunig- Public Relations

Situated Rationality Theory Makes the argument that it is erroneous to presume that safe 

behaviors are inherently rational and high-risk behaviors are 

inherently rational

Wolterstorff- Psychology

Risk Compensation Theory Suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response 

to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they 

sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected

Vrolix-Risk Analysis
38

 

Name Overview Prominent Scientists/

Disciplines

Protective Action Decision Model Three core perceptions (threat, protective action, and 

stakeholder) form basis for decisions. These perceptions, 

along with information processing and situational factors 

produce a behavioral response

Lindell, Perry - Social Psychology 

Emergency Management/Disaster 

Research

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication 

Model

A five-stage (pre-crisis, initial event, maintenance, 

resolution, evaluation) model that details best practices 

during various stages of a crisis event

Reynolds, Seeger - Communication

Risk Information Seeking & Processing 

Model

Understand how people seek and respond to processing 

messages about the risks associated with natural 

hazards. Examines how and why individuals seek and 

interpret information about the risks in the lives

Griffin, Dunwoody & Neuwirth- Risk 

Communication

Extended Parallel Process Model Framework which attempts to predict how individuals 

will react when faced with fear inducing stimuli 

Witte-Communication

Precaution Adoption Process Model Attempts to explain how a person comes to decision to 

take action, and how he or she translates that decision 

into action

Weinstein, Sandman & BlalockEnvironmental Studies 

Systems Dynamic Model Involves the development of computer simulation 

models that portray processes of accumulation and 

feedback that may be tested systematically to find 

effective policies for overcoming policy resistance

Homer & Hirsch- Public Health

CAUSE MODEL Refers to the goals of establishing confidence, 

awareness, understanding, satisfaction (with proposed 

solutions) and enactment (or moving from agreement 

to action). Used as a tool for identifying a predictable 

set of five communication challenges present in times of 

disaster

Rowan et al.- Risk Communication 

Heuristic Systematic Model Delineating how people absorb and manage the 

information they come across in their daily lives

Eagly & Chaiken-Psychology 

VIII. Appendices

Models
39

Variable More Likely to Respond to Warning/Alert if...

Socio-demographic

Gender Female

Race White

Education More education

Children Children present

Personal

Experience More experience

Knowledge More Knowledge of hazards/protective actions

Self-efficacy High perceived self-efficacy

Emotion Fear of mandatory evacuation

Risk/Vulnerability Perception Higher risk/vulnerability perception

Resources More resources available

Social network Larger/Stronger social network

B. Appendix 2 - Warning Behavior

The following table lists significant predictors of warning response. It is derived from an annotated bibliography, “Public 

Risk Communication on Warnings for Public Protective Actions Response and Public Education” completed by Mileti 

et al. in 2006. Several more recent studies (Mileti et al. 2006, Mileti and Sorensen 2015, and Lindell and Perry 2012) also 

contributed to this compilation.
40

Variable More Likely to Respond to Warning/Alert if...

Source/Channel

Cues Environmental and/or social cues present

Authoritativeness Through official source

Delivery Method In person

Familiarity Familiar with source

Number Multiple sources/channels

Information

Specificity More specific

Accuracy More credible

Uncertainty More certain

Frequency Relayed more often

Consistency More consistent

Guidance Provides more guidance on actions

Source Say who the message is from 

Threat Describe the flooding event and its impacts

Location Impact areas are described

Expiration Time Note when the alert expires/updates

Message Length Short, between 90-140 characters 

Threat

Time Less lead time available

Severity Greater severity/More severity information

Proximity Threat closer

Certainty Threat has been confirmed

VIII. Appendices
41

Comprehensive or Systematic Review Overview

Risk Behavior and Risk Communication: Synthesis and Expert Interviews 

(Morrow 2009)

Report created for NOAA Coastal Services Center - Synthesis of risk 

communication and behavior research applied to coastal risk and 

resilience.

Communication of Emergency Public Warnings (Mileti and Sorenson 

1990)

Prepared for FEMA - Overview, structure, and components of 

warning systems, organizational and public response aspects of a 

warning system, hazard characteristics, and recommendations for 

improvements. This report was based on a synthesis of empirical 

research findings in print at the time it was prepared. 

Annotated Bibliography for Public Risk Communication on Warnings for 

Public Protective Actions Response and Public Education (Mileti et al. 

2006)

Compiled list with detailed annotations of over 300 studies 

pertaining to the communication of and response to man-made and 

natural hazards.

Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged (Fischoff 1995) History of risk perception and communication as an area of study 

broken down by developmental stages.

On the State of the Art: Risk Communication to the Public (Bier 2001)

Review of empirical findings on risk communication; specifically 

regarding format of messages, audience nuances, mental models, 

credibility and trust, and stakeholder participation.

Social Science Research Needs: Focus on Vulnerable Populations, 

Forecasting, and Warnings (Phillips and Morrow 2007)

Review of research on vulnerable populations in the context of 

weather forecast and warning understanding.

Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research: 1996 - 2005 

(McComas 2006)

Reviews risk communication research and theories over a 10 year 

period.

C. Appendix 3 - Review Papers and Practitioner Guides

The following papers are comprehensive or systematic reviews on risk communication and behavior topics. These papers would help establish an academic grounding in this subject.
42

Comprehensive or Systematic Review Overview

Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication (Covello 1988)

Seminal book listing key best practices when communicating risk 

information.

Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent 

Sociological Findings (Fothergill and Peek 2004)

Review of literature on the impact of poverty in disasters; specifically in 

the context of perception, preparedness, communication, physical and 

psychological impacts, and emergency management.

Public Hazards Communication and Education: The State of the Art 

(Mileti et al. 2004)

Seminal book detailing best practices for specific types of risk 

communication including public awareness campaigns and short fuse 

warnings.

Hazard Warning Systems: Review of 20 Years of Progress (Sorensen 

2000)

Summarizes advances in warning related predictions, forecasts, 

dissemination, and responses over the past 20 years.

Practitioner Guide Overview

University of Maryland: Understanding Risk Communication Theory: A 

Guide for Emergency Managers and Communicators 

Overview of various risk communication models and communication 

theories for each disaster phase.

University of Maryland: Understanding Risk Communication Best 

Practices: A Guide for Emergency Managers and Communicators

Overview of factors that can influence risk perception and best practices 

for risk communication in each disaster phase.

Campbell Institute: Risk Perception: Theories, Strategies, And Next 

Steps

Overview of factors that can influence risk perception and review of 

important theories.

FEMA: Risk and Crisis Communication Course A higher education course on risk communication, appropriate methods, 

and stakeholder interactions.

CDC: Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication A program focused on risk/crisis communication training, resources, and 

examples.

VIII. Appendices
43

Crisis: A turning point that will decisively determine an 

outcome, for example, the rupture of a leaking underground 

storage tank.

Crisis Communication: Communicating risks in the 

face of a crisis, such as an earthquake or a fire at a chemical 

plant.

Flood: An overflow of water onto normally dry land. The 

inundation of a normally dry area caused by rising water in an 

existing waterway, such as a river, stream, or drainage ditch. 

Ponding of water at or near the point where the rain fell. 

Flooding is a longer term event than flash flooding: it may last 

days or weeks. 

Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and 

non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures 

which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or 

improved property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and 

their contents. 

Hazard: Danger; peril; exposure to a situation that could 

cause loss or injury.

Inundation: Inundation is the total water level that occurs 

on normally dry ground as a result of the storm tide, and is 

expressed in terms of height of water, in feet, above ground 

level. Inundation provides the most clearly and commonly 

understood method for communicating storm surge driven 

coastal flooding. 

Mitigation: The action of reducing the severity, 

seriousness, or painfulness of something.

Protective Action Decision Model (PADM):

The Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) is a 

multistage model that is based on findings from research on 

people’s responses to environmental hazards and disasters. 

The PADM integrates the processing of information derived 

from social and environmental cues with messages that social 

sources transmit through communication channels to those at 

risk. The PADM identifies three critical pre-decision processes 

(reception, attention, and comprehension of warnings or 

exposure, attention, and interpretation of environmental/

social cues) — that precede all further processing. The revised 

model identifies three core perceptions — threat perceptions, 

protective action perceptions, and stakeholder perceptions —

that form the basis for decisions about how to respond to an 

imminent or long-term threat. The outcome of the protective 

action decision-making process, together with situational 

facilitators and impediments, produces a behavioral response.

Protective Motivation Theory (PMT): Proposes 

that we protect ourselves based on four factors: the perceived 

severity of a threatening event, the perceived probability of the 

occurrence, or vulnerability, the efficacy of the recommended 

preventive behavior, and the perceived self-efficacy.

Public: People who may or may not be interested in the 

risk but who are not charged with communicating, assessing, 

or managing the risk.

Public Information: Information to communicate 

with the public as opposed to scientists or managers. Because 

the topic may not be risk, public information and risk 

communication materials are not necessarily synonymous. 

However, most risk communication materials will be sent to 

the public.

Residual Risk: The risk or danger of an action or 

an even, a method or a (technical) process that, although 

being abreast with since, still conceives the dangers, even if 

all theoretically possible safety measures would be applied 

(scientifically conceivable measures). 

IX. Glosssary
44

Response Efficacy: Refers to a person’s beliefs as to 

whether the recommended action step will actually avoid the 

threat.

Risk: Probability of adverse outcome. Risk is inherent in 

any action, even inaction.

Risk Assessment: Determining the risks posed by a 

certain hazard, usually to human health or the environment; 

can also include legal and financial risk.

Risk Communication: The interactive process of 

exchange of information and opinions among individuals, 

groups, and institutions concerning a risk or potential risk to 

human health of the environment. Any risk communication 

effort must have an interactive component, if only in 

soliciting information about the audience in the beginning or 

evaluating success in the end.

Risk Message: Message that communicates information 

about the hazard, its probability, the potential outcomes, and 

actions that can be taken to manage the risk.

Risk Perception: Risk perception is the subjective 

judgment that people make about the characteristics and 

severity of a risk. Risk perception refers to people’s judgments 

and evaluations of hazards they (or their environments) are 

or might be exposed to. Such perceptions steer decisions and 

after a disaster. In this process, people’s risk appraisals are a 

complex result of hazard features and personal philosophies. 

Risk Perceptions: The set of beliefs that a person 

holds regarding a risk, including beliefs about the definition, 

probability, and outcome of the risk.

Self-Efficacy: Refers to an individual’s belief in his or her 

capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific 

performance attainments. Reflects confidence in the ability to

exert control over one’s own motivation, behavior, and social 

environment. 

Social Media: A group of interactive, online methods that 

integrate technology, words, pictures, videos, and audio with 

the concept of shared content, generated largely by users with 

easy-to-publish tools.

Stakeholder: A person who holds a “stake”, an interest in 

how a risk is assessed or managed.

Structural Mitigation: Attempts to counteract natural 

hazards through projects such as reservoirs, levees, diversions, 

channel modifications, and storm sewers or basins.

Vulnerability: The characteristics of a person or group 

and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, 

cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural 

disaster. 

IX. Glosssary (cont.)
45

CDC: Center for Disease Control and Prevention

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency

MCS: Mesoscale Convective Systems

NCAR: National Center for Atmospheric Research 

NCEI: NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental 

Information

NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program’s Community 

Rating System 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology

NWS: National Weather Service 

OAR: The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

OCM: Office for Coastal Management 

SIP: Societal Impacts Program 

SPC: Publications archive, NCAR SIP 

USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers 

WFO: Weather Forecast Office

X. Acronym Guide
46

Seminal/Review

Amadeo, K. “Hurricane Katrina Facts: Damage and 

Economic Effects”. http://useconomy.about.com/od/

grossdomesticproduct/f/katrina_damage.htm

Bier, V. M. 2001. “On the state of the art: risk 

communication to the public.” Reliability Engineering & System 

Safety 71(2):139-50.

Brotzge, J., and W. Donner. 2013. “THE TORNADO 

WARNING PROCESS A Review of Current Research, 

Challenges, and Opportunities.” Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society 94(11):1715-33.

Covello, Vincent T. Allen Frederick W. Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Resources Office of Public 

Liaison United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

1988. Seven cardinal rules of risk communication. Washington, 

D.C.; Harrisburg, Pa.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

Distributed by Office of Public Liaison [Pennsylvania] Dept. 

of Environmental Resources.

Dash, N., and H. Gladwin. 2007. “Evacuation Decision 

Making and Behavioral Responses: Individual and 

Household.” Natural Hazards Review 8(3):69-77.

Donner, W., and Rodriguez, H. (2016): Disaster Risk and 

Vulnerability: The Role and Impact of Population and Society. 

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/disaster-risk.

aspx

Doswell III, Charles A., and Harold E. Brooks. “Budget 

cutting and the value of weather services.” Weather and 

forecasting 13.1 (1998): 206-212.

Fischhoff, B. 2013. “The sciences of science 

communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

of the United States of America 110:14033-39.

Fischhoff, Baruch. 1995. “Risk Perception and 

Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of 

Process<sup>1</sup>.” RISA Risk Analysis 15(2):137-45.

Fothergill, Alice, and Lori A Peek. 2004. “Poverty 

and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent 

Sociological Findings.” Natural Hazards 32(1):89-110.

Lindell, Michael K., and Ronald W. Perry. 2012. “The 

Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications 

and Additional Evidence.” Risk Analysis 32(4):616-32.

Lindenfeld, L., H. M. Smith, T. Norton, and N. C. 

Grecu. 2014. “Risk communication and sustainability science: 

lessons from the field.” Sustainability Science 9(2):119-27.

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. (2006). 

Reports of Missing and Dead. Retrieved from 

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.

asp?ID=192&Detail=5248 

Lundgren, R.E., and McMakin A.H. 2009. Risk 

communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, 

and health risks. Wiley.

Mayhorn, C. 2005. “Cognitive Aging and the Processing of 

Hazard Information and Disaster Warnings.” Natural Hazards 

Review 6(4):165-70.

McComas, Katherine A. 2006. “Defining Moments in 

Risk Communication Research: 1996–2005.” Journal of Health 

Communication 11(1):75-91.

XI. Bibliography
47

Mileti, Dennis Nathe Sarah Gori Paula Greene 

Marjorie Lemersal Elizabeth. 2004. Public hazards 

communication and education: the state of the art. Boulder, Colo.: 

Natural Hazards Center.

Mileti, Dennis S., and John H. Sorensen. 1990.

Communication of Emergency Public Warnings. Oak Ridge, TN: 

Oak Ridge National Lab.

Mileti, Dennis S., and John H. Sorensen. 2015. A Guide 

to Public Alerts and Warnings for Dam and Levee Emergencies. US 

Army Corps of Engineers Risk Management Center. 

Morrow, Betty H. 2009. “RISK BEHAVIOR AND RISK 

COMMUNICATION: SYNTHESIS AND EXPERT 

INTERVIEWS.” SocResearch Miami: NOAA Coastal 

Services Center.

National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office 

Norman, OK: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events20130531-elren

NOAA Coastal Economy Pocket Guide: http://www.

ppi.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/coastal-economy-pocketguide-1025.pdf

NOAA National Center for Environmental 

Information (NCEI) Billion-Dollar Weather and 

Climate Disasters: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

events

NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) Digital 

Coast: https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast

NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Improving Risk 

Communication. National Academy Press.

Phillips, B., and B. Morrow. 2007. “Social Science 

Research Needs: Focus on Vulnerable Populations, Forecasting, 

and Warnings.” Natural Hazards Review 8(3):61-68.

Pidgeon, N., Roger Kasperson, and Paul Slovic. 2003. 

The Social Amplification of Risk: Cambridge University Press.

Rodr ́ıguez, Havid ́an, Walter D ́ıaz, Jennifer Santos, 

and BenignoE Aguirre. 2007. “Communicating Risk 

and Uncertainty: Science, Technology, and Disasters at the 

Crossroads.” Pp. 476-88 in Handbook of Disaster Research: 

Springer New York.

Rohrman, B. 2008. Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, 

Risk Communication, Risk Management: A Conceptual 

Appraisal. Conferencia presentada en la Sociedad Internacional de 

Gerenciamiento de Emergencias TIEMS, Universidad de Melbourne.

Seeger, Matthew W. 2006. “Best Practices in Crisis 

Communication: An Expert Panel Process.” Journal of Applied 

Communication Research 34(3):232-44.

Shapiro, I., and Sherman, A. 2005. “Essential Facts about 

the Victims of Hurricane Katrina. Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/research/essentialfacts-about-the-victims-of-hurricane-katrina

Sheppard, Ben, Melissa Janoske, and Brooke Liu. 

“Understanding Risk Communication Theory: A Guide 

for Emergency Managers and Communicators,” Report to 

Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and 

Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. College Park, MD: START, 2012. 

Slovic, P. 1987. “PERCEPTION OF RISK.” Science

236(4799):280-85.
48

Slovic, P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. 

MacGregor. 2004. “Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: 

Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.” Risk 

Analysis 24(2):311-22.

Sorensen, J. 2000. “Hazard Warning Systems: Review of 20 

Years of Progress.” Natural Hazards Review 1(2):119-25.

Steelman, T. A., and S. McCaffrey. 2013. “Best practices in 

risk and crisis communication: Implications for natural hazards 

management.” Natural Hazards 65(1):683-705.

Toxicology Education Foundation: http://

toxedfoundation.org/hazard-vs-risk/

Wachinger, G., O. Renn, C. Begg, and C. Kuhlicke.

2013. “The Risk Perception Paradox-Implications for 

Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards.” Risk 

Analysis 33(6):1049-65.

Wisner, B. et al. (2004): At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s 

Vulnerability, and Disasters, 2d. ed. (London, Routledge). 

Wood, M.M., Mileti, D.S., Kano, M., Kelley, M.M., 

Regan, R., and Bourque, L.B. “Communicating actionable 

risk for terrorism and other hazards”. Risk Analysis 34(4): 601-

615. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01645.x

Tornado and Severe Wind

Ash, Kevin D., Ronald L. Schumann, and Gregg C. 

Bowser. 2013. “Tornado Warning Trade-Offs: Evaluating 

Choices for Visually Communicating Risk.” Weather, Climate, 

and Society 6(1):104-18.

Balluz, Lina, Laura Schieve, Talmage Holmes, 

Stephanie Kiezak, and Josephine Malilay. 2000. Predictors 

for People’s Response to a Tornado Warning: Arkansas, 1 March 1997.

Chaney, P. L., G. S. Weaver, S. A. Youngblood, and K. 

Pitts. 2013. “Household Preparedness for Tornado Hazards: 

The 2011 Disaster in DeKalb County, Alabama.” Weather 

Climate and Society 5(4):345-58.

Cong, Z., D. A. Liang, and J. J. Luo. 2014. “Family 

Emergency Preparedness Plans in Severe Tornadoes.” American 

Journal of Preventive Medicine 46(1):89-93.

Drost, R. 2013. “Memory and Decision Making: 

Determining Action when the Sirens Sound.” Weather Climate 

and Society 5(1):43-54.

Durage, S. W., L. Kattan, S. C. Wirasinghe, and J. Y. 

Ruwanpura. 2014. “Evacuation behaviour of households and 

drivers during a tornado.” Natural Hazards 71(3):1495-517.

Hammer, B., and T. W. Schmidlin. 2002. “Response to 

warnings during the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado: 

Reasons and relative injury rates.” Weather and Forecasting

17(3):577-81.

Hoekstra, S., K. Klockow, R. Riley, J. Brotzge, H. 

Brooks, and S. Erickson. 2011. “A Preliminary Look at the 

Social Perspective of Warn-on-Forecast: Preferred Tornado 

Warning Lead Time and the General Public’s Perceptions of 

Weather Risks.” Weather Climate and Society 3(2):128-40.

League, C. E., W. Diaz, B. Philips, E. J. Bass, K. Kloesel, 

E. Gruntfest, and A. Gessner. 2010. “Emergency manager 

decision-making and tornado warning communication.” 

Meteorological Applications 17(2):163-72.

XI. Bibliography (cont.)
49

Nagele, D. E., and J. E. Trainor. 2012. “Geographic 

Specificity, Tornadoes, and Protective Action.” Weather Climate 

and Society 4(2):145-55.

Perreault, Mildred F., J. Brian Houston, and Lee 

Wilkins. 2014. “Does Scary Matter? Testing the Effectiveness 

of New National Weather Service Tornado Warning 

Messages.” Communication Studies 65(5):484-99.

Schmidlin, T. W., B. O. Hammer, Y. Ono, and P. S. King.

2009. “Tornado shelter-seeking behavior and tornado shelter 

options among mobile home residents in the United States.” 

Natural Hazards 48(2):191-201.

Schultz, D. M., E. C. Gruntfest, M. H. Hayden, C. C. 

Benight, S. Drobot, and L. R. Barnes. 2010. “Decision 

Making by Austin, Texas, Residents in Hypothetical Tornado 

Scenarios.” Weather Climate and Society 2(3):249-54.

Schumacher, R. S., D. T. Lindsey, A. B. Schumacher, 

J. Braun, S. D. Miller, and J. L. Demuth. 2010. 

“Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Unusual Tornado: 

Meteorology, Climatology, and the Communication and Interpretation of Warnings.” Weather and Forecasting 25(5):1412-29.

Senkbeil, J. C., M. S. Rockman, and J. B. Mason. 2012. 

“Shelter Seeking Plans of Tuscaloosa Residents for a Future 

Tornado Event.” Weather Climate and Society 4(3):159-71.

Sherman-Morris, K. 2010. “Tornado warning dissemination 

and response at a university campus.” Natural Hazards

52(3):623-38.

Silver, Amber, and Jean Andrey. 2013. “The Influence 

of Previous Disaster Experience and Sociodemographics on 

Protective Behaviors during Two Successive Tornado Events.” 

Weather, Climate, and Society 6(1):91-103.

Flood

Bell, Heather M., and Graham A. Tobin. 2007. “Efficient

and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and 

perception of flood risk.” Environmental Hazards 7(4):302-11.

Birkholz, S., M. Muro, P. Jeffrey, and H. M. Smith. 2014. 

“Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception 

and flood management.” Science of the Total Environment

478:12-20.

Bradford, R. A., J. J. O’Sullivan, I. M. van der Craats, 

J. Krywkow, P. Rotko, J. Aaltonen, M. Bonaiuto, S. De 

Dominicis, K. Waylen, and K. Schelfaut. 2012. “Risk 

perception - issues for flood management in Europe.” Natural 

Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12(7):2299-309.

Bubeck, P., W. J. W. Botzen, and J. C. J. H. Aerts.

2012. “A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors 

that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior.” Risk Analysis

32(9):1481-95. 

Bubeck, P., W. J. W. Botzen, H. Kreibich, and Jcjh Aerts. 

2013. “Detailed insights into the influence of flood-coping 

appraisals on mitigation behaviour.” Global Environmental 

Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 23(5):1327-38.

Bubeck, P., W. J. W. Botzen, L. T. T. Suu, and J. C. J. 

H. Aerts. 2012. “Do flood risk perceptions provide useful 

insights for flood risk management? Findings from central 

Vietnam.” Journal of Flood Risk Management 5(4):295-302.

Buchecker, M., G. Salvini, G. Di Baldassarre, E. 

Semenzin, E. Maidl, and A. Marcomini. 2013. “The 

role of risk perception in making flood risk management 

more effective.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

13(11):3013-30.
50

Eastern Research Group (2015). Flash Flood Services for 

the Future: Flash Flood Summit and Focus Group Findings.

Franklin, R. C., J. C. King, P. J. Aitken, and P. A. Leggat.

2014. “”Washed away”-assessing community perceptions 

of flooding and prevention strategies: a North Queensland 

example.” Natural Hazards 73(3):1977-98.

Grothmann, T., and F. Reusswig. 2006. “People at risk of 

flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while 

others do not.” Natural Hazards 38(1-2):101-20.

Hagemeier-Klose, M., and K. Wagner. 2009. “Evaluation 

of flood hazard maps in print and web mapping services 

as information tools in flood risk communication.” Natural 

Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9(2):563-74.

Heath, Sebastian E., Philip H. Kass, Alan M. Beck, and 

Larry T. Glickman. 2001. “Human and Pet-related Risk 

Factors for Household Evacuation Failure during a Natural 

Disaster.” American Journal of Epidemiology 153(7):659-65.

Hogan-Carr, R., Nurture Nature Center/RMC Research 

Corporation (2015). Flood Risk and Uncertainty Assessing 

NWS Flood Forecast and Warning Tools. Prepared for 

NOAA’s Office of Weather and Air Quality. 

Horney, Jennifer A., Pia D. M. MacDonald, Marieke 

Van Willigen, Philip R. Berke, and Jay S. Kaufman.

2010. “Individual Actual or Perceived Property Flood Risk: 

Did it Predict Evacuation from Hurricane Isabel in North 

Carolina, 2003?” Risk Analysis 30(3):501-11.

Kellens, W., T. Terpstra, and P. De Maeyer. 2013. 

“Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A 

Systematic Review of Empirical Research.” Risk Analysis

33(1):24-49.

Kellens, W., R. Zaalberg, and P. De Maeyer. 2012. “The 

Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public’s InformationSeeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks.” Risk 

Analysis 32(8):1369-81.

Kellens, W., R. Zaalberg, T. Neutens, W. Vanneuville, and 

P. De Maeyer. 2011. “An Analysis of the Public Perception of 

Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast.” Risk Analysis 31(7):1055-68.

Keller, C., M. Siegrist, and H. Gutscher. 2006. “The role 

of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication.” 

Risk Analysis 26(3):631-39.

Kievik, Milou, and Jan M. Gutteling. 2011. “Yes, we can: 

motivate Dutch citizens to engage in self-protective behavior 

with regard to flood risks.” Natural Hazards 59(3):1475-90.

Kjellgren, S. 2013. “Exploring local risk managers’ use of 

flood hazard maps for risk communication purposes in BadenWurttemberg.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

13(7):1857-72.

Knocke, E. T., and K. N. Kolivras. 2007. “Flash flood 

awareness in southwest Virginia.” Risk Analysis 27(1):155-69.

Krasovskaia, I., L. Gottschalk, A. Skiple Ibrekk, and H. 

Berg. 2007. “Perception of flood hazard in countries of the 

North Sea region of Europe.” Nordic Hydrology 38(4-5):387-99.

Kreibich, H., A. H. Thieken, H. Grunenberg, K. 

Ullrich, and T. Sommer. 2009. “Extent, perception and 

mitigation of damage due to high groundwater levels in the 

city of Dresden, Germany.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

9(4):1247-58.

Kreibich, Heidi, Meike Mueller, Annegret H. Thieken, 

and Bruno Merz. 2007. “Flood precaution of companies 

and their ability to cope with the flood in August 2002 in 

Saxony, Germany.” Water Resources Research 43(3).

XI. Bibliography (cont.)
51

Lara, A., D. Sauri, A. Ribas, and D. Pavon. 2010. 

“Social perceptions of floods and flood management in a 

Mediterranean area (Costa Brava, Spain).” Natural Hazards and 

Earth System Sciences 10(10):2081-91.

Lin, Shuyeu, Daigee Shaw, and Ming-Chou Ho. 2008. 

“Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?” Natural Hazards 44(2):305-14.

Lopez-Marrero, Tania, and Brent Yarnal. 2010. “Putting 

adaptive capacity into the context of people’s lives: a case study 

of two flood-prone communities in Puerto Rico.” Natural 

Hazards 52(2):277-97.

Ludy, Jessica, and G. Matt Kondolf. 2012. “Flood risk 

perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees.” Natural 

Hazards 61(2):829-42.

Martens, T., H. Garrelts, H. Grunenberg, and H. Lange.

2009. “Taking the heterogeneity of citizens into account: flood 

risk communication in coastal cities - a case study of Bremen.” 

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9(6):1931-40.

Meyer, V., C. Kuhlicke, J. Luther, S. Fuchs, S. Priest, W. 

Dorner, K. Serrhini, J. Pardoe, S. McCarthy, J. Seidel, 

G. Palka, H. Unnerstall, C. Viavattene, and S. Scheuer.

2012. “Recommendations for the user-specific enhancement 

of flood maps.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

12(5):1701-16.

Morss, Rebecca E., Olga V. Wilhelmi, Mary W. 

Downton, and Eve Gruntfest. 2005. “Flood Risk, 

Uncertainty, and Scientific Information for Decision Making: 

Lessons from an Interdisciplinary Project.” Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological Society 86(11):1593-601.

O’Sullivan, J. J., R. A. Bradford, M. Bonaiuto, S. De 

Dominicis, P. Rotko, J. Aaltonen, K. Waylen, and S. J. 

Langan. 2012. “Enhancing flood resilience through improved 

risk communications.” Natural Hazards and Earth System 

Sciences 12(7):2271-82.

Pagneux, Emmanuel, Gudrun Gisladottir, and Salvor 

Jonsdottir. 2011. “Public perception of flood hazard and 

flood risk in Iceland: a case study in a watershed prone to icejam floods.” Natural Hazards 58(1):269-87.

Parker, D. J., and S. J. Priest. 2012. “The Fallibility of 

Flood Warning Chains: Can Europe’s Flood Warnings Be 

Effective?” Water Resources Management 26(10):2927-50.

Parker, Dennis, Sue Tapsell, and Simon McCarthy.

2007. “Enhancing the human benefits of flood warnings.” 

Natural Hazards 43(3):397-414.

Pfister, Neil. 2002. “Community Response to Flood 

Warnings: The Case of an Evacuation From Grafton, March 

2001.” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 19.

Raaijmakers, Ruud, Jorg Krywkow, and Anne van der 

Veen. 2008. “Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria 

analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation.” Natural 

Hazards 46(3):307-22.

Rundblad, Gabriella, Olivia Knapton, and Paul R. 

Hunter. 2010. “Communication, perception and behaviour 

during a natural disaster involving a ‘Do Not Drink’ and a 

subsequent ‘Boil Water’ notice: a postal questionnaire study.” 

Bmc Public Health 10.

Scolobig, A., B. De Marchi, and M. Borga. 2012. “The 

missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: 

findings from case studies in an Alpine Region.” Natural 

Hazards 63(2):499-520.
52

Siebeneck, L. K., and T. J. Cova. 2014. “Risk 

Communication after Disaster: Return Entry Following the 

2008 Cedar River Flood.” Natural Hazards Review 15(2):158-66.

Terpstra, T. 2009. “Does communicating (flood) risk affect 

(flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental 

study.” Risk analysis 29(8):1141-55.

—. 2011. “Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective 

and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior.” Risk 

Analysis 31(10):1658-75.

Terpstra, T., J. M. Gutteling, G. D. Geldof, and L. J. 

Kappe. 2006. “The perception of flood risk and water 

nuisance.” Water Science and Technology 54(6-7):431-39.

Terpstra, Teun, and Jan M. Gutteling. 2008. “Households’ 

perceived responsibilities in flood risk management in 

the Netherlands.” International Journal of Water Resources 

Development 24(4):555-65.

Thieken, Annegret H., Heidi Kreibich, Meike Mueller, 

and Bruno Merz. 2007. “Coping with floods: preparedness, 

response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany 

in 2002.” Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences 

Hydrologiques 52(5):1016-37.

Wagner, Klaus. 2007. “Mental models of flash floods and 

landslides.” Risk Analysis 27(3):671-82.

Zaalberg, Ruud, Cees Midden, Anneloes Meijnders, 

and Teddy McCalley. 2009. “Prevention, Adaptation, and 

Threat Denial: Flooding Experiences in the Netherlands.” 

Risk Analysis 29(12):1759-78.

Zhai, G. F., and S. Ikeda. 2006. “Flood risk acceptability 

and economic value of evacuation.” Risk Analysis 26(3):683-94.

Zhai, Guofang, Teruko Sato, Teruki Fukuzono, Saburo 

Ikeda, and Kentaro Yoshida. 2006. “Willingness to pay for 

flood risk reduction and its determinants in Japan.” Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association 42(4):927-40.

Tropical Cyclone

Arlikatti, Sudha, Michael K. Lindell, Carla S. Prater, 

and Yang Zhang. 2006. “Risk Area Accuracy and Hurricane 

Evacuation Expectations of Coastal Residents.” Environment 

and Behavior 38(2):226-47.

Baker, J., W. Shaw, D. Bell, S. Brody, M. Riddel, R. 

Woodward, and W. Neilson. 2009a. “Explaining Subjective 

Risks of Hurricanes and the Role of Risks in Intended 

Moving and Location Choice Models.” Natural Hazards 

Review 10(3):102-12.

Baker, Justin, W. Douglass Shaw, Mary Riddel, and 

Richard T. Woodward. 2009b. “Changes in subjective risks 

of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina 

evacuees.” Journal of Risk Research 12(1):59-74.

Basolo, Victoria, Laura J. Steinberg, Raymond J. 

Burby, Joyce Levine, Ana Maria Cruz, and Chihyen 

Huang. 2009. “The Effects of Confidence in Government 

and Information on Perceived and Actual Preparedness for 

Disasters.” Environment and Behavior 41(3):338-64.

Bateman, J., and B. Edwards. 2002. “Gender and 

Evacuation: A Closer Look at Why Women Are More Likely to 

Evacuate for Hurricanes.” Natural Hazards Review 3(3):107-17.

Broad, Kenneth, Anthony Leiserowitz, Jessica Weinkle, 

and Marissa Steketee. 2007. “Misinterpretations of the “Cone 

of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season.” 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88(5):651-67.

XI. Bibliography (cont.)
53

Burnside, Randolph, DeMond Shondell Miller, and 

Jason D. Rivera. 2007. “The Impact of Information And 

Risk Perception On The Hurricane Evacuation DecisionMaking Of Greater New Orleans Residents.” Sociological 

Spectrum 27(6):727-40.

Cole, Terry W., and Kelli L. Fellows. 2008. “Risk 

Communication Failure: A Case Study of New Orleans and 

Hurricane Katrina.” Southern Communication Journal

73(3):211-28.

Dash, Nicole, and Betty Hearn Morrow. 2000. “Return 

delays and evacuation order compliance: the case of Hurricane 

Georges and the Florida Keys.” Global Environmental Change 

Part B: Environmental Hazards 2(3):119-28.

Demuth, Julie L., Rebecca E. Morss, Betty Hearn 

Morrow, and Jeffrey K. Lazo. 2012. “Creation and 

Communication of Hurricane Risk Information.” Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society 93(8):1133-45.

Dillon, R. L., C. H. Tinsley, and M. Cronin. 2011. “Why 

Near-Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual’s Protective 

Response to Hurricanes.” Risk Analysis 31(3):440-49.

Dombroski, Matt, Baruch Fischhoff, and Paul 

Fischbeck. 2006. “Predicting Emergency Evacuation and 

Sheltering Behavior: A Structured Analytical Approach.” Risk 

Analysis 26(6):1675-88.

Dosa, David M., Nancy Grossman, Terrie Wetle, 

and Vincent Mor. 2007. “To Evacuate or Not to 

Evacuate: Lessons Learned From Louisiana Nursing Home 

Administrators Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.” 

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 8(3):142-49.

Dow, K., and S. Cutter. 2002. “Emerging Hurricane 

Evacuation Issues: Hurricane Floyd and South Carolina.” 

Natural Hazards Review 3(1):12-18.

Dow, Kirstin, and Susan L. Cutter. 2000. “Public orders 

and personal opinions: household strategies for hurricane risk 

assessment.” Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental 

Hazards 2(4):143-55.

Eckel, Catherine C., Mahmoud A. El-Gamal, and Rick 

K. Wilson. 2009. “Risk loving after the storm: A BayesianNetwork study of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.” Journal of 

Economic Behavior & Organization 69(2):110-24.

Eisenman, David P., Kristina M. Cordasco, Steve 

Asch, Joya F. Golden, and Deborah Glik. 2007. “Disaster 

Planning and Risk Communication With Vulnerable 

Communities: Lessons From Hurricane Katrina.” American 

Journal of Public Health 97(Supplement_1):S109-S15.

Elder, Keith, Sudha Xirasagar, Nancy Miller, Shelly 

Ann Bowen, Saundra Glover, and Crystal Piper. 2007. 

“African Americans’ Decisions Not to Evacuate New Orleans 

Before Hurricane Katrina: A Qualitative Study.” American 

Journal of Public Health 97:S124-S29.

Elliott, James R., and Jeremy Pais. 2006. “Race, class, and 

Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to 

disaster.” Social Science Research 35:295-321.

Fussell, Elizabeth, and James R. Elliott. 2009. 

“Introduction: Social Organization of Demographic 

Responses to Disaster: Studying Population—Environment 

Interactions in the Case of Hurricane Katrina.” Organization & 

Environment 22(4):379-94.
54

Gladwin, C., H. Gladwin, and W. G. Peacock.

2001. “Modeling Hurricane Evacuation Decisions with 

Ethnographic Methods.” International Journal of Mass 

Emergencies and Disaster 19(2):117-43.

Gladwin, H., J. Lazo, B. Morrow, W. Peacock, and H. 

Willoughby. 2007. “Social Science Research Needs for the 

Hurricane Forecast and Warning System.” Natural Hazards 

Review 8(3):87-95.

Hasan, S., S. Ukkusuri, H. Gladwin, and P. MurrayTuite. 2011. “Behavioral Model to Understand HouseholdLevel Hurricane Evacuation Decision Making.” Journal of 

Transportation Engineering 137(5):341-48.

Howe, Peter D. 2011. “Hurricane preparedness as 

anticipatory adaptation: A case study of community 

businesses.” Global Environmental Change 21(2):711-20.

Kang, Jung Eun, Michael K. Lindell, and Carla S. 

Prater. 2007. “Hurricane Evacuation Expectations and 

Actual Behavior in Hurricane Lili1.” Journal of Applied Social 

Psychology 37(4):887-903.

Kim, Yong-Chan, and Jinae Kang. 2010. 

“Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household 

hurricane preparedness.” Disasters 34(2):470-88.

Lachlan, Kenneth A., Jennifer Burke, Patric R. Spence, 

and Donyale Griffin. 2009. “Risk Perceptions, Race, and Hurricane Katrina.” Howard Journal of Communications 20(3):295-309.

Lazo, Jeffrey K., Donald M. Waldman, Betty Hearn 

Morrow, and Jennifer A. Thacher. 2010. “Household 

Evacuation Decision Making and the Benefits of Improved 

Hurricane Forecasting: Developing a Framework for 

Assessment.” Weather and Forecasting 25(1):207-19.

Lazrus, Heather, Betty H. Morrow, Rebecca E. 

Morss, and Jeffrey K. Lazo. 2012. “Vulnerability beyond 

Stereotypes: Context and Agency in Hurricane Risk 

Communication.” Weather, Climate, and Society 4(2):103-09.

Lindell, M., J. Lu, and C. Prater. 2005. “Household 

Decision Making and Evacuation in Response to Hurricane 

Lili.” Natural Hazards Review 6(4):171-79.

Lindell, M., C. Prater, and W. Peacock. 2007. 

“Organizational Communication and Decision Making for 

Hurricane Emergencies.” Natural Hazards Review 8(3):50-60.

Macias, Wendy, Karen Hilyard, and Vicki Freimuth.

2009. “Blog Functions as Risk and Crisis Communication 

During Hurricane Katrina.” Journal of Computer-Mediated 

Communication 15(1):1-31.

Matyas, Corene, Sivaramakrishnan Srinivasan, Ignatius 

Cahyanto, Brijesh Thapa, Lori Pennington-Gray, and 

Jorge Villegas. 2011. “Risk perception and evacuation 

decisions of Florida tourists under hurricane threats: a stated 

preference analysis.” Natural Hazards 59(2):871-90.

Morss, Rebecca E., and Mary H. Hayden. 2010. “Storm 

Surge and “Certain Death”: Interviews with Texas Coastal 

Residents following Hurricane Ike.” Weather, Climate, and 

Society 2(3):174-89.

Patterson, Olivia, Frederick Weil, and Kavita Patel.

2010. “The Role of Community in Disaster Response: 

Conceptual Models.” Population Research and Policy Review

29(2):127-41.

Peacock, W. 2003. “Hurricane Mitigation Status and Factors 

Influencing Mitigation Status among Florida’s Single-Family 

Homeowners.” Natural Hazards Review 4(3):149-58.

XI. Bibliography (cont.)
55

Peacock, Walter Gillis, Samuel David Brody, and Wes 

Highfield. 2005. “Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida’s 

single family homeowners.” Landscape and Urban Planning

73(2–3):120-35.

Peguero, Anthony A. 2006. “Latino Disaster Vulnerability: 

The Dissemination of Hurricane Mitigation Information 

Among Florida’s Homeowners.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral 

Sciences 28(1):5-22.

Rincon, Elizabeth, Marc Y. R. Linares, and Barry 

Greenberg. 2001. “Effect of previous experience of a 

hurricane on preparedness for future hurricanes.” The American 

Journal of Emergency Medicine 19(4):276-79.

Rodríguez, Havidán, Joseph Trainor, and Enrico 

L. Quarantelli. 2006. “Rising to the Challenges of a 

Catastrophe: The Emergent and Prosocial Behavior following 

Hurricane Katrina.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of 

Political and Social Science 604(1):82-101.

Sattler, David N., Charles F. Kaiser, and James B. 

Hittner. 2000. “Disaster Preparedness: Relationships Among 

Prior Experience, Personal Characteristics, and Distress1.” 

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(7):1396-420.

Sattler, David N., Andrew J. Preston, Charles F. Kaiser, 

Vivian E. Olivera, Juan Valdez, and Shannon Schlueter.

2002. “Hurricane Georges: A cross-national study examining 

preparedness, resource loss, and psychological distress in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and the 

United States.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 15(5):339-50.

Smith, StanleyK, and Chris McCarty. 2009. “Fleeing 

the storm(s): an examination of evacuation behavior during 

florida’s 2004 hurricane season.” Demography 46(1):127-45.

Smith, V. Kerry. 2008. “Risk Perceptions, Optimism, and 

Natural Hazards.” Risk Analysis 28(6):1763-67.

Solis, D, M Thomas, and D Letson. 2010. “An empirical 

evaluation of the determinants of household hurricane 

evacuation choice.” Journal of Development and Agricultural 

Economics 2(3):188-96.

Spence, Patric R., Kenneth A. Lachlan, and Donyale 

R. Griffin. 2007. “Crisis Communication, Race, and Natural 

Disasters.” Journal of Black Studies 37(4):539-54.

Stein, Robert M., Leonardo Dueñas-Osorio, and 

Devika Subramanian. 2010. “Who Evacuates When 

Hurricanes Approach? The Role of Risk, Information, and 

Location*.” Social Science Quarterly 91(3):816-34.

Trumbo, C., M. Lueck, H. Marlatt, and L. Peek. 2011. 

“The Effect of Proximity to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on 

Subsequent Hurricane Outlook and Optimistic Bias.” Risk 

Analysis 31(12):1907-18.

Van Willigen, M., T. Edwards, B. Edwards, and S. 

Hessee. 2002. “Riding Out the Storm: Experiences of the 

Physically Disabled during Hurricanes Bonnie, Dennis, and 

Floyd.” Natural Hazards Review 3(3):98-106.

Villegas, Jorge, Corene Matyas, Sivaramakrishnan 

Srinivasan, Ignatius Cahyanto, Brijesh Thapa, and Lori 

Pennington-Gray. 2013. “Cognitive and affective responses 

of Florida tourists after exposure to hurricane warning 

messages.” Natural Hazards 66(1):97-116.

West, Darrell M., and Marion Orr. 2007. “Race, Gender, 

and Communications in Natural Disasters.” Policy Studies 

Journal 35(4):569-86.
56

Whitehead, John C., Bob Edwards, Marieke Van 

Willigen, John R. Maiolo, Kenneth Wilson, and Kevin 

T. Smith. 2000. “Heading for higher ground: factors affecting 

real and hypothetical hurricane evacuation behavior.” Global 

Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards

2(4):133-42.

Whitehead, JohnC. 2005. “Environmental Risk and Averting 

Behavior: Predictive Validity of Jointly Estimated Revealed and 

Stated Behavior Data.” Environmental and Resource Economics

32(3):301-16.

Zhang, Fuqing, Rebecca E. Morss, J. A. Sippel, T. 

K. Beckman, N. C. Clements, N. L. Hampshire, J. 

N. Harvey, J. M. Hernandez, Z. C. Morgan, R. M. 

Mosier, S. Wang, and S. D. Winkley. 2007. “An In-Person 

Survey Investigating Public Perceptions of and Responses to 

Hurricane Rita Forecasts along the Texas Coast.” Weather and 

Forecasting 22(6):1177-87,89-90.

Zhang, Y., C. Prater, and M. Lindell. 2004. “Risk Area 

Accuracy and Evacuation from Hurricane Bret.” Natural 

Hazards Review 5(3):115-20.

General Weather

Casteel, M. A., and J. R. Downing. 2013. “How 

Individuals Process NWS Weather Warning Messages on Their 

Cell Phones.” Weather Climate and Society 5(3):254-65.

Demuth, J. L., J. K. Lazo, and R. E. Morss. 2011. 

“Exploring Variations in People’s Sources, Uses, and 

Perceptions of Weather Forecasts.” Weather Climate and Society

3(3):177-92.

Demuth, Julie L., Jeffrey K. Lazo, and Betty Hearn 

Morrow. 2009. “Weather Forecast Uncertainty Information.” 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90(11):1614-18.

Demuth, Julie L., Rebecca E. Morss, Jeffrey K. Lazo, and 

Douglas C. Hilderbrand. 2013. “Improving Effectiveness of 

Weather Risk Communication on the NWS Point-and-Click 

Web Page.” Weather and Forecasting 28(3):711-26.

Joslyn, Susan L., and Rebecca M. Nichols. 2009. 

“Probability or frequency? Expressing forecast uncertainty in 

public weather forecasts.” Meteorological Applications 16(3):309-14.

Joslyn, Susan, Limor Nadav-Greenberg, and Rebecca 

M. Nichols. 2009. “Probability of Precipitation: Assessment 

and Enhancement of End-User Understanding.” Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological Society 90(2):185-93.

Joslyn, Susan, Lou Nemec, and Sonia Savelli. 2013. “The 

Benefits and Challenges of Predictive Interval Forecasts and 

Verification Graphics for End Users.” Weather, Climate, and 

Society 5(2):133-47.

Lazo, Jeffrey K., Rebecca E. Morss, and Julie L. 

Demuth. 2009. “300 Billion Served.” Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society 90(6):785-98.

LeClerc, Jared, and Susan Joslyn. 2012. “Odds Ratio 

Forecasts Increase Precautionary Action for Extreme Weather 

Events.” Weather, Climate, and Society 4(4):263-70.

Lindell, Michael K., and Seong Nam Hwang. 2008. 

“Households’ Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a 

Multihazard Environment.” Risk Analysis 28(2):539-56.

Morss, R. E., J. L. Demuth, and J. K. Lazo. 2008. 

“Communicating Uncertainty in Weather Forecasts: A Survey 

of the US Public.” Weather and Forecasting 23(5):974-91.

XI. Bibliography (cont.)
57

Morss, Rebecca E., Jeffrey K. Lazo, and Julie L. Demuth.

2010. “Examining the use of weather forecasts in decision 

scenarios: results from a US survey with implications for 

uncertainty communication.” Meteorological Applications

17(2):149-62.

Nadav-Greenberg, Limor, and Susan L. Joslyn. 2009. 

“Uncertainty Forecasts Improve Decision Making Among 

Nonexperts.” Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision 

Making 3(3):209-27.

Nadav-Greenberg, Limor, Susan L. Joslyn, and Meng 

U. Taing. 2008. “The Effect of Uncertainty Visualizations on 

Decision Making in Weather Forecasting.” Journal of Cognitive 

Engineering and Decision Making 2(1):24-47.

Peachey, J. A., D. M. Schultz, R. Morss, P. J. Roebber, 

and R. Wood. 2013. “How forecasts expressing uncertainty 

are perceived by UK students.” Weather 68(7):176-81.

Savelli, Sonia, and Susan Joslyn. 2012. “Boater Safety: 

Communicating Weather Forecast Information to High-Stakes 

End Users.” Weather, Climate, and Society 4(1):7-19.

Silver, Amber. 2014. “Watch or warning? Perceptions, 

preferences, and usage of forecast information by members of 

the Canadian public.” Meteorological Applications:n/a-n/a.

Sivle, Anders D., Stein Dankert Kolstø, Pål J. Kirkeby 

Hansen, and Jørn Kristiansen. 2014. “How Do Laypeople 

Evaluate the Degree of Certainty in a Weather Report? A 

Case Study of the Use of the Web Service yr.no.” Weather, 

Climate, and Society 6(3):399-412.

Stewart, Alan E., Jeffrey K. Lazo, Rebecca E. Morss, 

and Julie L. Demuth. 2012. “The Relationship of 

Weather Salience with the Perceptions and Uses of Weather 

Information in a Nationwide Sample of the United States.” 

Weather, Climate, and Society 4(3):172-89.

Wood, Michele M., Dennis S. Mileti, Megumi Kano, 

Melissa M. Kelley, Rotrease Regan, and Linda B. 

Bourque. 2012. “Communicating Actionable Risk for 

Terrorism and Other Hazards?” Risk Analysis 32(4):601-15.

Tsunami

Bird, Deanne, and Dale Dominey-Howes. 2008. “Testing

the use of a ‘questionnaire survey instrument’ to investigate

public perceptions of tsunami hazard and risk in Sydney, 

Australia.” Natural Hazards 45(1):99-122.

Bird, Deanne K., Catherine Chagué-Goff, and Anna 

Gero. 2011. “Human Response to Extreme Events: a 

review of three post-tsunami disaster case studies.” Australian 

Geographer 42(3):225-39.

Charnkol, Thai, and Yordphol Tanaboriboon. 2006. 

“Tsunami Evacuation Behavior Analysis – One Step of 

Transportation Disaster Response –.” IATSS Research

30(2):83-96.

Couling, Mieke. 2014. “Tsunami risk perception and 

preparedness on the east coast of New Zealand during the 

2009 Samoan Tsunami warning.” Natural Hazards 71(1):973-

86.

Dall’Osso, F., and D. Dominey-Howes. 2010. “Public 

assessment of the usefulness of “draft” tsunami evacuation 

maps from Sydney, Australia – implications for the 

establishment of formal evacuation plans.” Nat. Hazards Earth 

Syst. Sci. 10(8):1739-50.
58

Dengler, Lori. 2005. “The Role of Education in the 

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.” Natural 

Hazards 35(1):141-53.

Gregg, ChrisE, BruceF Houghton, Douglas Paton, 

DavidM Johnston, DonaldA Swanson, and BrianS 

Yanagi. 2007. “Tsunami Warnings: Understanding in 

Hawai‘i.” Natural Hazards 40(1):71-87.

Iemura, Hirokazu, Yoshikazu Takahashi, Pradono 

Mulyo Harris, Sukamdo Pariatmono, and Rudi 

Kurniawan. 2006. “Earthquake and tsunami questionnaires 

in Banda Aceh and surrounding areas.” Disaster Prevention and 

Management 15(1):21-30.

Johnston, D., D. Paton, G. L. Crawford, K. Ronan, B. 

Houghton, and P. Bürgelt. 2005a. “Measuring Tsunami 

Preparedness in Coastal Washington, United States.” Pp. 173-

84 in Developing Tsunami-Resilient Communities, edited by E. N. 

Bernard: Springer Netherlands.

—. 2005b. “Measuring Tsunami Preparedness in Coastal 

Washington, United States.” Natural Hazards 35(1):173-84.

Kurita, Tetsushi, Akiko Nakamura, Miki Kodama, and 

R. N. Colombage Sisira. 2006. “Tsunami public awareness 

and the disaster management system of Sri Lanka.” Disaster 

Prevention and Management 15(1):92-110.

Paton, Douglas, Bruce F. Houghton, Chris E. Gregg, 

David McIvor, David M. Johnston, Petra Bürgelt, 

Penny Larin, Duane A. Gill, Liesel A. Ritchie, Steven 

Meinhold, and Jennifer Horan. 2009. “Managing Tsunami 

Risk: Social Context Influences on Preparedness.” Journal of 

Pacific Rim Psychology 3(01):27-37.

Romo-Murphy, Eila, Ross James, and Mike Adams.

2011. “Facilitating disaster preparedness through local radio 

broadcasting.” Disasters 35(4):801-15.

Taubenböck, H. et al. 2009. “”Last-Mile” preparation for a 

potential disaster – Interdisciplinary approach towards tsunami 

early warning and an evacuation information system for the 

coastal city of Padang, Indonesia.” Natural Hazards and Earth 

System Sciences 9(4).

Wood, N. J. 2005. “Perceptions of Earthquake and 

Tsunami Issues in U.S. Pacific Northwest Port and Harbor 

Communities.” International journal of mass emergencies and 

disasters 23(3):103-38.

Wildfire, Volcano, and Fisheries

Bird, D. K., and G. Gisladottir. 2012. “Residents’ attitudes

and behaviour before and after the 2010 Eyjafjallajokull 

eruptions-a case study from southern Iceland.” Bulletin of 

Volcanology 74(6):1263-79.

Chiu, Cindy H., Sara J. Vagi, Amy F. Wolkin, John Paul 

Martin, and Rebecca S. Noe. 2013. “Evaluation of the 

National Weather Service Extreme Cold Warning Experiment 

in North Dakota.” Weather, Climate, and Society 6(1):22-31.

Doyle, E. E. H., J. McClure, D. M. Johnston, and D. 

Paton. 2014. “Communicating likelihoods and probabilities 

in forecasts of volcanic eruptions.” Journal of Volcanology and 

Geothermal Research 272:1-15.

Grattan, L. M., S. Roberts, W. T. Mahan, Jr., P. K. 

McLaughlin, W. S. Otwell, and J. G. Morris, Jr. 2011. 

“The early psychological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill on Florida and Alabama communities.” Environ Health 

Perspect. 119(6):838-43.

XI. Bibliography (cont.)
59

Gregg, C. E., B. F. Houghton, D. M. Johnston, D. Paton, 

and D. A. Swanson. 2004. “The perception of volcanic 

risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hual lai 

volcanoes, Hawai i.” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal 

Research 130(3–4):179-96.

Kalkstein, Adam J, and Scott C Sheridan. 2007. “The 

social impacts of the heat–health watch/warning system in 

Phoenix, Arizona: assessing the perceived risk and response of 

the public.” International Journal of Biometeorology 52(1):43-55.

McCaffrey, S., E. Toman, M. Stidham, and B. Shindler.

2013. “Social science research related to wildfire management: 

an overview of recent findings and future research needs.” 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(1):15-24.

Nave, R., R. Isaia, G. Vilardo, and J. Barclay. 2010. “Reassessing volcanic hazard maps for improving volcanic risk 

communication: application to Stromboli Island, Italy.” Journal 

of Maps:260-69.

Olsen, C. S., D. K. Mazzotta, E. Toman, and A. P. 

Fischer. 2014. “Communicating About Smoke from 

Wildland Fire: Challenges and Opportunities for Managers.” 

Environmental Management 54(3):571-82.

Owen, G., J. D. McLeod, C. A. Kolden, D. B. Ferguson, 

and T. J. Brown. 2012. “Wildfire Management and 

Forecasting Fire Potential: The Roles of Climate Information 

and Social Networks in the Southwest United States.” Weather 

Climate and Society 4(2):90-102.

Summary and Implementation

Brown, J.M., & Campbell, E.A. (1991). Risk communication: 

Some underlying principles. International 

Journal of Environmental Studies, 38, 297-303.
60

Ajzen, I. (1991). “The theory of planned behavior”. 

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes50 (2): 179–211.doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes 

and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs,

 NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Benoit, W. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory 

of image restoration strategies. New York: 

State University of New York Press.

Coombs, W.T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations 

during a crisis: The development and 

application of situational crisis communication theory. 

Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176.

Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of 

attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.

Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). 

Proposed model of the relationship of risk information 

seeking and processing to the development of preventative 

behaviors. Environmental Research,

 80 (2 Pt 2), S230-S245.

Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: 

Conceptual history, recent challenges and new 

research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public 

relations research: An international 

perspective (pp. 3–48). London: International Thomson 

Business Press.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press.

Homer, J.B., & Hirsch, G.B. (2006). “System Dynamics 

Modeling for Public Health: Background and Opportunities.” 

American Journal of Public Health 96(3):452–458. 

Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H., Emel, 

J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J., & Ratick, S. (1988). The

 social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk 

Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.

Risk perception: Theories, strategies, and next steps.

(n.d.). National Safety Council.

Rowan, K. E., et al. (2009). Risk communication education 

for local emergency managers. In R. Heath & 

D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis 

Communication. NY: Taylor & Francis.

Vrolix, C. (2006). Behavioural adaptation, risk compensation, 

risk homeostasis and moral hazard in traffic safety. Steunpunt 

Verkeersveiligheid. Retrieved September 14, 2015.

Weinstein, N.D., Sandman, P.M., & Blalock, K.G.

(2008). The Precaution Adoption Process Model. 

Glanz, B.K.Rimer & K. Viswanath (eds.), Health 

Behavior and Health Education, 4th. ed. (San Francisco:

 Jossey-Bass, 2008), pp. 123–147.

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The 

extended parallel process model. 

Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.

Wood, M. M., Mileti, D. S., Kano, M., Kelley, M. M., 

Regan, R., & Bourque, L. B. (2011). Communicating 

actionable risk for terrorism and other hazards. Risk Analysis. 

Online preview.

XII. Appendix
61

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes
62

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes
63
64