, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 533–552 | Cite as

A qualitative study of mobile home resident perspectives on tornadoes and tornado protective actions in South Carolina, USA

  • Kevin D. AshEmail author


Occupants of mobile or manufactured homes in the United States of America (USA) are highly exposed and susceptible to injury or death from tornado hazards. This problem is most pronounced in the southern and eastern USA, where tornadoes are frequent and mobile homes comprise upwards of 15 % of the housing stock. Recognizing this vulnerability, emergency management entities and the USA National Weather Service often recommend that mobile home residents evacuate to a nearby sturdy building or a specially-built tornado shelter when tornadoes threaten their communities. Previous research suggests, however, that only 30 % of residents follow this recommendation. In this research I aim to provide insight as to why many mobile home residents seldom undertake the suggested course of action for tornadoes. Using excerpts from twenty semi-structured interviews conducted during 2013 in South Carolina, I show that some individuals understand physical characteristics of tornadoes very differently than experts do. In addition, mobile home residents may also hold views that differ from experts about the ability of their homes to withstand tornadic winds and debris. Even if mobile home occupants pay close attention to thunderstorm hazards and might be willing to evacuate, they may prioritize protective actions for lightning or flash flooding over those recommended for tornadoes. Finally, the interviews reveal that there is much confusion over where to go, when to leave, and which route to take to arrive safely at a sheltering place for tornado hazards. I discuss some of the potential ramifications of the findings for theory and practice and suggest how future research might build on this work.


Tornado Thunderstorm Protective action Evacuation Perception Mobile home South Carolina 



This research was funded by the United States National Science Foundation via a Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement grant through the Geography and Spatial Sciences program, award #1301822. All findings, conclusions, recommendations, and views expressed in this article solely represent the author and do not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I would like to thank the Department of Geography, the Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute at the University of South Carolina, and the Bilinski Foundation for additional monetary support, as well as the Postdoctoral Scholar program and School of Geosciences at the University of South Florida. Many thanks to Susan Cutter, Jerry Mitchell, Sarah Battersby, Andrea Tanner, Chris Emrich, and Ronnie Schumann for constructive feedback and support of this research. Finally, I extend gratitude to the research participants who graciously took time to speak about their experiences and perspectives.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

At the outset of each interview, I briefly outlined the purpose and scope of the study and disclosed the funding sources for the research (National Science Foundation and the University of South Carolina). This was followed by a short explanation of how the interview would be conducted, including the fact that the audio would be recorded for later transcription and analysis, and that any information given by participants would not be divulged to any other parties. The recruits were made aware of efforts to protect the privacy and confidentiality of their responses and information contained therein, as well as their right to refuse to answer any question or stop the interview at any time. If recruits agreed to participate after acknowledging the above information, they were considered to have given their informed consent. There was a $25 cash incentive to participate in the interviews. The research protocols and materials for the work presented herein were approved by the University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board, ID Pro00021269.


  1. American Community Survey. (2014). 20092013 5-Year estimates. United States Census Bureau, Deparment of Commerce. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.
  2. Ashley, W. S. (2007). Spatial and temporal analysis of tornado fatalities in the United States: 1880–2005. Weather and Forecasting, 22(6), 1214–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barusch, A. S. (2011). Disaster, vulnerability, and older adults: Toward a social work response. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54(4), 347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamish, J. O., Goss, R. C., Atiles, J. H., & Kim, Y. (2001). Not a trailer anymore: Perceptions of manufactured housing. Housing Policy Debate, 12(2), 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreno, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., et al. (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: The MOVE framework. Natural Hazards, 67(2), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boruff, B. J., Easoz, J. A., Jones, S. D., Landry, H. R., Mitchem, J. D., & Cutter, S. L. (2003). Tornado hazards in the United States. Climate Research, 24(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brotzge, J., & Donner, W. (2013). The tornado warning process: A review of current research, challenges, and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(11), 1715–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 3), 14062–14068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, E. R., Abrahams, D., de la Poterie, A. T., Suarez, P., & Koelle, B. (2015). Vulnerability assessments, identity and spatial scale challenges in disaster-risk reduction. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 7(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. Carr, E. R., & Thompson, M. C. (2014). Gender and climate change adaptation in agrarian settings: Current thinking, new directions, and research frontiers. Geography Compass, 8(3), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casteel, M. A., & Downing, J. R. (2013). How individuals process NWS weather warning messages on their cell phones. Weather, Climate, and Society, 5(3), 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaney, P. L., & Weaver, G. S. (2010). The vulnerability of mobile home residents in tornado disasters: The 2008 Super Tuesday tornado in Macon County, Tennessee. Weather, Climate, and Society, 2(3), 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaney, P. L., Weaver, G. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Pitts, K. (2013). Household preparedness for tornado hazards: The 2011 disaster in DeKalb County, Alabama. Weather, Climate, and Society, 5(4), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2013). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewitt, B., Fischhoff, B., Davis, A., & Broomell, S. B. (2015). Environmental risk perception from visual cues: The psychophysics of tornado risk perception. Environmental Research Letters, 10(12), 124009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donner, W. R., Rodriguez, H., & Diaz, W. (2012). Tornado warnings in three southern states: A qualitative analysis of public response patterns. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 9(2), Article 5.Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, R., LaDue, J. G., Ferree, J. T., Scharfenberg, K., Maier, C., & Coulbourne, W. L. (2013). Tornado intensity estimation: Past, present, and future. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(5), 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emrich, C. T., & Cutter, S. L. (2011). Social Vulnerability to Climate-Sensitive Hazards in the Southern United States. Weather, Climate, and Society, 3(3), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Enarson, E., Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2007). Gender and disaster: Foundations and directions. Handbook of disaster research (pp. 130–146). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eriksen, C. (2014). Gendered risk engagement: challenging the embedded vulnerability, social norms and power relations in conventional Australian Bushfire Education. Geographical Research, 52(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eriksen, C., & Gill, N. (2010). Bushfire and everyday life: Examining the awareness-action ‘gap’ in changing rural landscapes. Geoforum, 41(5), 814–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eriksen, C., & Prior, T. (2013). Defining the importance of mental preparedness for risk communication and residents well-prepared for wildfire. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 6, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. L. (2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl 4), 13664–13671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, G. (2012). The science and practice of risk ranking. In B. Fischhoff (Ed.), Risk analysis and human behavior (pp. 379–389). New York: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  26. Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hannon, L., & Shai, D. (2003). The truly disadvantaged and the structural covariates of fire death rates. The Social Science Journal, 40(1), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, C., & Popke, J. (2011). “Because you got to have heat”: The networked assemblage of energy poverty in eastern North Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(4), 949–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hart, J. F., Rhodes, M. J., & Morgan, J. T. (2002). The unknown world of the mobile home. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute. (2015). Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS), Version 13.1. University of South Carolina. Accessed 5 Feb 2015.
  31. Holt, A. (2010). Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howe, P. D., Yarnal, B., Coletti, A., & Wood, N. J. (2013). The Participatory vulnerability scoping diagram: Deliberative risk ranking for community water systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2015). Who leaves and who stays? A review and statistical meta-analysis of hurricane evacuation studies. Environment and Behavior (forthcoming). doi: 10.1177/0013916515578485.
  34. Iowa Environmental Mesonet. (2015). Archived NWS Watch/Warnings. Iowa State University. Accessed 29 March 2015.
  35. Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, S. A., & McGarrity, M. E. (2013). “Black Snakes”: Identification and Ecology. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. WEC214, 1-7. Accessed 28 Jan 2016.
  37. Jones, N., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), Article 46.Google Scholar
  38. Klockow, K. (2011). Investigation of individual spatial awareness relating to response during the April 27, 2011 tornado outbreak. Quick Response Report #224. Natural Hazards Center. Accessed 29 March 2015.
  39. Klockow, K. E., Peppler, R. A., & McPherson, R. A. (2014). Tornado folk science in Alabama and Mississippi in the 27 April 2011 tornado outbreak. GeoJournal, 79(6), 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kusenbach, M. (2009). Salvaging decency: Mobile home residents’ strategies of managing the stigma of “trailer” living. Qualitative Sociology, 32(4), 399–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kusenbach, M. (2015). “Look at my house!” Home and mobile home ownership among Latino/a immigrants in Florida. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (forthcoming). doi: 10.1007/s10901-015-9488-8.
  42. Kusenbach, M., Simms, J. L., & Tobin, G. A. (2010). Disaster vulnerability and evacuation readiness: Coastal mobile home residents in Florida. Natural Hazards, 52(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lazo, J. K., Bostrom, A., Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., & Lazrus, H. (2015). Factors affecting hurricane evacuation intentions. Risk Analysis (forthcoming). doi: 10.1111/risa.12407.
  44. Lazrus, H. L., Morrow, B. H., Morss, R. E., & Lazo, J. K. (2012). Vulnerability beyond stereotypes: Context and agency in hurricane risk communication. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4(2), 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lazrus, H., Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., Lazo, J. K., & Bostrom, A. (2015). “Know what to do if you encounter a flash flood”: Mental models analysis for improving flash flood risk communication and public decision making. Risk Analysis (forthcoming). doi: 10.1111/risa.12480.
  46. Li, D., Cova, T. J., & Dennison, P. E. (2015). A household-level approach to staging wildfire evacuation warnings using trigger modeling. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54, 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindell, M. K., & Brooks, H. (2013). Workshop on weather ready nation: science imperatives for severe thunderstorm research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(12), ES171–ES174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lubchenco, J., & Karl, T. R. (2012). Predicting and managing extreme weather events. Physics Today, 65(3), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacTavish, K., Eley, M., & Salamon, S. (2006). Housing vulnerability among rural trailer-park households. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law & Policy, XIII(1), 95–117.Google Scholar
  51. Manufactured Homes Survey. (2015). Manufactured homes placed by state. United States Census Bureau. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.
  52. Mason, J. B., & Senkbeil, J. C. (2015). A tornado watch scale to improve public response. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2), 146–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCaffrey, S., Rhodes, A., & Stidham, M. (2015). Wildfire evacuation and its alternatives: perspectives from four United States’ communities. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24(2), 170–178.Google Scholar
  54. McPeak, B. G., & Ertas, A. (2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly facts of tornado survival. Natural Hazards, 60(3), 915–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mimura, Y., Sweaney, A. L., Reeves, J. H., & Eaves, C. P. (2010). Consumer perception of manufactured homes: does knowing they are manufactured homes matter? International Journal for Housing Science, 34(4), 275–286.Google Scholar
  56. Mitchell, J. T. (2009). Hazards education and academic standards in the Southeast United States. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(2), 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mitchell, J. T., Borden, K. A., & Schmidtlein, M. C. (2008). Teaching hazards geography and geographic information systems: A middle school level experience. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(2), 170–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Montz, B. E. (2012). Assessing responses to National Weather Service warnings: the case of a tornado. In R. Stimson & K. E. Haynes (Eds.), Studies in applied geography and spatial analysis: Addressing real world issues (pp. 311–324). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morss, R. E., Wilhelmi, O. V., Meehl, G. A., & Dilling, L. (2011). Improving societal outcomes of extreme weather in a changing climate: An integrated perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mulilis, J.-P., Duval, T. S., & Rombach, D. (2001). Personal responsibility for tornado preparedness: Commitment or choice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(8), 1659–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mullins, R. F., Alarm, B., Mian, H., Anwarul, M., Samples, J., Friedman, B. C., et al. (2009). Burns in mobile home fires—descriptive study at a Regional Burn Center. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 30(4), 694–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Murphy, M. (2014). Tiny houses as appropriate technology. Communities, 165, 54–59.Google Scholar
  63. Nagele, D. E., & Trainor, J. E. (2012). Geographic specificity, tornadoes, and protective action. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4(2), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. National Weather Service. (2015). Thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning…nature’s most violent storms: A preparedness guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA Department of Commerce. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
  65. Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research in Nursing & Health, 31(4), 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Paul, B. K., Stimers, M., & Caldas, M. (2015). Predictors of compliance with tornado warnings issued in Joplin, Missouri, in 2011. Disasters, 39(1), 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Paveglio, T. B., Carroll, M. S., Absher, J., & Robinson, W. (2010). Symbolic Meanings of wildland fire: A study of residents in the U.S. inland Northwest. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 24(1), 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paveglio, T., Prato, T., Dalenberg, D., & Venn, T. (2014). Understanding evacuation preferences and wildfire mitigations among Northwest Montana residents. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 23(3), 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Perreault, M. F., Houston, J. B., & Wilkins, L. (2014). Does scary matter? Testing the effectiveness of new National Weather Service tornado warning messages. Communication Studies, 65(5), 484–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Phillips, B. D. (2014). Qualitative disaster research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pielke, R, Jr, Gratz, J., Landsea, C., Collins, D., Saunders, M., & Musulin, R. (2008). Normalized hurricane damage in the United States: 1900–2005. Natural Hazards Review, 9(1), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Powell, M. D., Dodge, P. P., & Black, M. L. (1991). The landfall of Hurricane Hugo in the Carolinas: Surface wind distribution. Weather and Forecasting, 6(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Presseau, J., Boyd, E., Francis, J. J., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2015). Goal conflict and goal facilitation in community-based cardiac rehabilitation: A theory-based interview study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(2), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. (2015). Tornadoes. Ready campaign. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
  76. Ripberger, J. T., Silva, C. L., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Carlson, D. E., James, M., & Herron, K. G. (2015). False alarms and missed events: The impact and origins of perceived inaccuracy in tornado warning systems. Risk Analysis, 35(1), 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmidlin, T. W., Hammer, B., & Knabe, J. (2001). Tornado shelters in mobile home parks in the United States. Journal of the American Society of Professional Emergency Planners, 8, 1–15.Google Scholar
  78. Schmidlin, T. W., Hammer, B. O., Ono, Y., & King, P. S. (2009). Tornado shelter-seeking behavior and tornado shelter options among mobile home residents in the United States. Natural Hazards, 48(2), 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schwering, A., Wang, J., Chipofya, M., Jan, S., Li, R., & Broelemann, K. (2014). SketchMapia: Qualitative representations for the alignment of sketch and metric maps. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 14(3), 220–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sedgwick, M., & Spiers, J. (2009). The use of videoconferencing as a medium for the qualitative interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sherman-Morris, K. (2010). Tornado warning dissemination and response at a university campus. Natural Hazards, 52(3), 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sherman-Morris, K. (2013). The public response to hazardous weather events: 25 Years of research. Geography Compass, 7(10), 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25(1), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Silver, A., & Andrey, J. (2014). The influence of previous disaster experience and sociodemographics on protective behaviors during two successive tornado events. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simmons, K. M., & Sutter, D. (2008). Manufactured home building regulations and the February 2, 2007 Florida tornadoes. Natural Hazards, 46(3), 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simmons, K. M., & Sutter, D. (2011). Economic and societal impacts of tornadoes. Boston: American Meteorological Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Simmons, K. M., & Sutter, D. (2012). Deadly season: Analysis of the 2011 tornado outbreaks. Boston: American Meteorological Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sorensen, J. H., Shumpert, B. L., & Vogt, B. M. (2004). Planning for protective action decision making: Evacuate or shelter-in-place. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 109(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stewart, A. E. (2009). Minding the weather: The measurement of weather salience. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(12), 1833–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stewart, A. E. (2015). The measurement of personal self-efficacy in preparing for a hurricane and its role in modeling the likelihood of evacuation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 3(3), 630–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Storm Prediction Center. (2015). SVRGIS. National oceanic and atmospheric administration. Accessed 18 Jan 2016.
  92. Sutter, D., & Poitras, M. (2010). Do people respond to low probability risks? Evidence from tornado risk and manufactured homes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(2), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Trainor, J., Murray-Tuite, P., Edara, P., Fallah-Fini, S., & Triantis, K. (2013). Interdisciplinary approach to evacuation modeling. Natural Hazards Review, 14(3), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space. Environment & Behavior, 35(1), 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Van Voorst, R., Wisner, B., Hellman, J., & Nooteboom, G. (2015). Introduction to the “risky everyday”. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 24(4)Google Scholar
  96. Whittaker, J., Eriksen, C., & Haynes, K. (2015). Gendered responses to the 2009 black saturday bushfires in Victoria, Australia. Geographical Research (forthcoming). doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12162.
  97. Wilson, B. (2012). An examination of electricity consumption patterns in manufactured housing units. Housing Policy Debate, 22(2), 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Yes Communities. (2014). What is the difference between a singlewide and a doublewide home? Accessed 23 Jan 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.University of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations