IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v105y2021i2d10.1007_s11069-020-04400-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geographic scale and probabilistic forecasts: a trade-off for protective decisions?

Author

Listed:
  • Cassandra A. Shivers-Williams

    (University of Oklahoma
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

  • Kimberly E. Klockow-McClain

    (University of Oklahoma
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Abstract

This pilot study aimed to examine the impact of varying geographic scales, probabilities of tornado occurrence, and presentation formats within severe weather forecasts on individuals’ protective decisions. This pilot was unique in its specific examination of the trade-off between highly localized geography and higher valued probabilistic threat information in weather-related decision making. This pilot utilized a 4 (geographic scale) × 12 (probability) × 3 (forecast presentation format) mixed, nested experimental design. Participants were 440 US adults who completed electronic questionnaires containing experimentally manipulated severe weather forecasts. A linear mixed model analysis revealed several findings. First, participants who saw only categorical forecasts made similar preparatory decisions across geographic scales. Additionally, they were more willing to take preparatory action as categorical risk increased. Second, when probabilities were presented, the propensity to take protective action was greater at higher probabilities and at larger geographic scales, affirming the regional geographic reference class selected by the Storm Prediction Center in today’s outlook system. Third, individuals’ propensity for action generally increased as scale and probability increased, but the pattern varied across presentation formats. Lastly, participants reported having a map to look at was moderately important to their decisions and having probabilistic and categorical risk information was highly important to their decisions. Taken together, the findings suggest a complex relationship between geographic scale and probability, which is further complicated by forecast presentation format.

Suggested Citation

  • Cassandra A. Shivers-Williams & Kimberly E. Klockow-McClain, 2021. "Geographic scale and probabilistic forecasts: a trade-off for protective decisions?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 2283-2306, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04400-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04400-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04400-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-04400-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jared LeClerc & Susan Joslyn, 2015. "The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather‐Related Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 385-395, March.
    2. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    3. Seyed M. Miran & Chen Ling & Alan Gerard & Lans Rothfusz, 2018. "The effect of providing probabilistic information about a tornado threat on people’s protective actions," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(2), pages 743-758, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    2. Heyes, Anthony & Lyon, Thomas P. & Martin, Steve, 2018. "Salience games: Private politics when public attention is limited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 396-410.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Georges Dionne & Paul Lanoie, 2002. "How to Make a Public Choice About the Value of a Statistical Life: The Case of Road Safety," Cahiers de recherche 02-04, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    7. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    8. Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:297-306 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Dwight R. Lee & J. R. Clark, 2018. "Can behavioral economists improve economic rationality?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 23-40, January.
    11. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo, 2015. "Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 195-214, June.
    12. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    13. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    14. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    17. Lunn, Peter D. & Timmons, Shane & Belton, Cameron A. & Barjaková, Martina & Julienne, Hannah & Lavin, Ciarán, 2020. "Motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    18. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Tilman Br�ck & Manuel Schubert, 2014. "The Perception of Lethal Risks - Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," HiCN Working Papers 188, Households in Conflict Network.
    21. Lenka Fiala & Charles N. Noussair, 2017. "Charitable Giving, Emotions, And The Default Effect," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1792-1812, October.
    22. Giuseppe Danese & Luigi Mittone, 2022. "The Tragedy of the Masks: curbing stockpiling behavior through a 'victim'," CEEL Working Papers 2201, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    23. Bodo Aretz & Sebastian Kube, 2013. "Choosing Your Object of Benevolence: A Field Experiment on Donation Options," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(1), pages 62-73, January.
    24. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2017. "Motivated Errors," Harvard Business School Working Papers 18-017, Harvard Business School, revised May 2018.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04400-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.