Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:34:57.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quaking in their boots? Inaccurate perceptions of seismic hazard and public policy inaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

MATTHEW MOTTA Open the ORCID record for MATTHEW MOTTA [Opens in a new window]  and
ANDREW ROHRMAN
MATTHEW MOTTA*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
ANDREW ROHRMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Matthew Motta, Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA. Email: matthew.motta@appc.upenn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few Americans demand that their local policy-makers take action to address the effects of large earthquakes, even in ‘high-risk’ areas. This poses an important political problem. If policy-makers do not perceive a mandate to prepare for catastrophe, certain areas of the country may be vulnerable to loss of life and economic productivity. Why do Americans not demand more from their policy-makers? We propose a simple answer – many Americans do not accurately appraise the likelihood that they will experience a major earthquake. In a unique survey of West Coast adults, we compared respondents’ perceived likelihood of experiencing a major earthquake to their actual geocoded hazard. We uncover a wide disconnect between actual and perceived earthquake hazard, even in areas where earthquakes are comparatively more common. Critically, and in contrast to previous public policy research, we show that threats in the physical environment can shape policy opinion, but only under certain circumstances. We show that accurate appraisals of hazard significantly increase the likelihood that respondents will support preventative local policy measures. Our results shed new light on the opinion dynamics of public attitudes toward natural disasters and ameliorative policy efforts and highlight the policy importance of communicating earthquake hazard to at-risk constituencies.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 301 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, C. H. and Bartels, L. M. (2017), Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Achen, C. H., Bartels, L. M. (2004), Blind retrospection: Electoral responses to drought, flu, and shark attacks. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Maghelal, P., Grover, H. and Highfield, W. E. (2007), ‘The rising costs of floods: Examining the impact of planning and development decisions on property damage in Florida’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(3): 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T. H. and Kay, A. C. (2014), ‘Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5): 809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comerio, M. C. (2004), ‘Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective’, Building Research & Information, 32(5): 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A. and McClellan, O. A. (2019), ‘Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents’, Research & Politics, 6(1): doi:10.1177/2053168018822174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, P. J. and Mullin, M. (2012), ‘Turning personal experience into political attitudes: The effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming’, Journal of Politics, 74(3): 796–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K. and Carlisle, C. (1999), ‘Public support for earthquake risk mitigation in Portland, Oregon’, Risk Analysis, 19(2): 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, T., Singhvi, A. and Williams, J. (2018), San Francisco's Big Seismic Gamble. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/17/us/san-francisco-earthquake-seismic-gambleGoogle Scholar
Gans, H. J. (1979), Deciding what news: a study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time, Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Healy, A., and Malhotra, N. (2009), ‘Myopic voters and natural disaster policy’, American Political Science Review, 103(3): 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, S. L. (1996), Earthquake geotechnical engineering. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. (1991), ‘Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3): 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindell, M. K., Arlikatti, S. and Prater, C. S. (2009), ‘Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes’, Risk Analysis, 29(8): 1072–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindell, M. K. and Whitney, D. J. (2000), ‘Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption’, Risk Analysis, 20(1): 13–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindell, M. K. and Prater, C. S. (2000), ‘Household adoption of seismic hazard adjustments: A comparison of residents in two states’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18(2): 317–338.Google Scholar
Lyons, B. A., Hasell, A. and Stroud, N. J. (2018), ‘Enduring Extremes? Polar Vortex, Drought, and Climate Change Beliefs’, Environmental Communication, 12(7): 876–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (1974), Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Frankel, A.D., Zeng, , et al. , (2014), Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1091, 243 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prater, C. S. and Lindell, M. K. (2000), ‘Politics of hazard mitigation’, Natural Hazards Review, 1(2): 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, H. and Presser, S. (1981), Questions and answers: Experiments on question form, wording, and context in attitude surveys, New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Shao, W. and Goidel, K. (2016), ‘Seeing is believing? An examination of perceptions of local weather conditions and climate change among residents in the US Gulf Coast’, Risk Analysis, 36(11): 2136-2157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980), ‘Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk’. In: Societal Risk Assessment (pp. 181–216). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Switzer, D. and Vedlitz, A. (2017), ‘Investigating the Determinants and Effects of Local Drought Awareness. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(4): 641–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J. and Rasinski, K. (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, D. J., Lindell, M. K. and Nguyen, H. H. D. (2004), ‘Earthquake beliefs and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments’, Risk Analysis, 24(1): 87–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahran, S., Brody, S. D., Grover, H. and Vedlitz, A. (2006), ‘Climate change vulnerability and policy support’, Society and Natural Resources, 19(9): 771–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Motta and Rohrman supplementary material

Motta and Rohrman supplementary material
Download Motta and Rohrman supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 151.7 KB