Natural Hazards

, Volume 79, Issue 1, pp 355–380 | Cite as

Strike probability judgments and protective action recommendations in a dynamic hurricane tracking task

  • Hao-Che Wu
  • Michael K. Lindell
  • Carla S. Prater
Original Paper


This experiment assessed the strike probability (p s) judgments and protective action recommendations (PARs) of students playing the roles of county emergency managers during four different hurricane scenarios. The results show that participants’ p s judgments (1) increased for target cities (projected landfall locations) and generally decreased for adjacent cities and remote cities as hurricanes approached landfall, and (2) were significantly correlated with PARs, but (3) were not consistent with the requirement that Σp s < 1.0 for a set of non-exhaustive events. Participants also (4) chose more PARs as hurricanes approached landfall, especially for the counties to which they participants were assigned, but (5) failed to choose as many PARS as appropriate, especially evacuating areas at risk of hurricane impacts. Overall, the results suggest that participants were able to utilize the available hurricane information to make reasonable p s judgments, but failed to make the appropriate inferences about the significance of those p s judgments. This suggests a need for further research on people’s interpretation of threat information, development of better training manuals on hurricane evacuation decision making, and better hurricane information displays to guide people’s responses to hurricane threats.


Hurricane tracking Hurricane strike probability Protective action recommendations Hurricane evacuation 


  1. Arlikatti S, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2007) Perceived stakeholder role relationships and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 25:218–256Google Scholar
  2. Baker EJ (1991) Hurricane evacuation behavior. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 9:287–301Google Scholar
  3. Baker EJ (1995) Public response to hurricane probability forecasts. Prof Geogr 47(2):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker EJ (2000) Hurricane evacuation in the United States. In: Pielke R (ed) Storms, vol 1. Routledge, New York, pp 306–319Google Scholar
  5. Baron J (2008) Thinking and deciding, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg R. (2009) NHC (National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL). Tropical cyclone report—Hurricane Ike. Final report 23 Jan. 2009-18 Mar. 2014. Miami: Florida International University (FL): 2011. Report No.: TCR-AL092008, p 55Google Scholar
  7. Christensen L, Ruch CE (1980) The effect of social influence on response to hurricane warnings. Disasters 4:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Czajkowski J (2011) Is it time to go yet? Understanding household hurricane evacuation decisions from a dynamic perspective. Nat Hazards Rev 12:72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Nat Hazards Rev 8:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox CR, Tversky A (1998) A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Manag Sci 44:879–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon ME, Slade LA, Schmitt N (1986) The ‘science of the sophomore’ revisited: from conjecture to empiricism. Acad Manag Rev 11:191–207Google Scholar
  13. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2009) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang SK, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2015) Who leaves and who stays? A review and statistical meta-analysis of hurricane evacuation studies. Environ Behav. doi: 10.1177/0013916515578485
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knabb R, Brown DP, Rhome JR (2005). NHC (National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL). Tropical cyclone report—Hurricane Katrina. Final report 20 Dec 2005-14 Sept 2011. Miami: Florida International University (FL): 2011. Report No.: TCR-AL122005, p 43Google Scholar
  17. Kunreuther HC, Pauly MV, McMorrow S (2013) Insurance and behavioral economics: improving decisions in the most misunderstood industry. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin C-C, Siebeneck LK, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu TH, Huang SK (2014) Evacuees’ information sources and reentry decision making in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards 70:865–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindell MK (2008) EMBLEM2: an empirically based large-scale evacuation time estimate model. Transport Res A 42:140–154Google Scholar
  20. Lindell MK (2013) Evacuation planning, analysis, and management. In: Bariru AB, Racz L (eds) Handbook of emergency response: a human factors and systems engineering approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 121–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindell MK (2014) Judgment and decision making. In: Webster M, Sell J (eds) Laboratory experiments in the social sciences, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp 403–431Google Scholar
  22. Lindell MK, Earle TC (1983) How close is close enough: public perceptions of the risks of industrial facilities. Risk Anal 3:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32:616–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindell MK, Prater CS, Hwang SN, Wu JY, Zhang Y (2002) Local population and estimated evacuation in risk areas of the Texas Gulf Coast. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center.
  26. Lindell MK, Villado A, Prater CS (2008) Hurricane evacuation decision making for local officials: development and assessment of a training manual. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, College StationGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindell MK, House D, Cox J, Wu HC (in preparation) DynaSearch: a computer program for collecting process tracing data in dynamic decision tasks. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, College StationGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer R, Broad K, Orlove B, Petrovic N (2013) Dynamic simulation as an approach to understanding hurricane risk response: insights from the Stormview lab. Risk Anal 33:1532–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mishra A, Mishra H (2010) Border bias: the belief that state borders can protect against disasters. Psychol Sci 21:1582–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murray-Tuite P, Wolshon B (2013) Evacuation transportation modeling: an overview of research, development, and practice. Transp Res Part C 27:25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Hurricane Center (NHC) (2014) National Hurricane Center Product Description Document: a user’s guide to hurricane products.
  32. Tversky A, Koehler DJ (1994) Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychol Rev 101:547–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WWF, de Vries NNK (2009) Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal 29:267–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wood MD, Bostrom A, Bridges T, Linkov I (2012) Cognitive mapping tools: review and risk management needs. Risk Anal 32:1333–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright G, Whalley P (1983) The supra-additivity of subjective probability. In: Stigum BP, Wenstop F (eds) Foundations of utility and risk theory with applications. Ridel, Dordrecht, pp 233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2012) Logistics of hurricane evacuation in hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Transp Res Part F 15:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Samuelson CD (2014) Effects of track and threat information on judgments of hurricane strike probability. Risk Anal 34:1025–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2015) Process tracing analysis of hurricane information displays. Risk Anal. doi: 10.1111/risa.12423
  39. Yates JF (1990) Judgment and decision making. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hao-Che Wu
    • 1
  • Michael K. Lindell
    • 2
  • Carla S. Prater
    • 2
  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction and Recovery CenterCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations