1

The Protective Action Decision Model: Implications for Increasing Self-

Protective Behavior

Michael K. LindellHazard Reduction & Recovery CenterTexas A&M University

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants CMS9633595, CMS 0219155, and SES 0527699. None of the conclusions expressed here necessarily reflectsviews other than those of the author.

Protective Action Decision Model

2

Source characteristics

Channel access and preference

Social cues

Message characteristics

Receiver characteristics

Environmental cues

Behavioral response Information search Protective response Emotion-focused coping

Situational facilitators

Situational impediments

Pre-decision processes Exposure Attention Comprehension

Threat perceptions

Protective action

decisionmaking

Protective action

perceptions

Stakeholder perceptions

3

What Determines the Adoption of Hazard Adjustments?

Most studies on environmental hazards confirm that risk perception is correlated with the adoption of hazard adjustments– High certainty, severity, and immediacy of personal

consequences—death or injury of self or loved ones; damage to personal property

Risk perception is correlated with hazard experience Hazard experience is correlated with proximity to

hazard sources Demographic variables generally have small and

inconsistent correlations with hazard adjustment

4

What Determines the Adoption of Hazard Adjustments?

The (causal) chain from hazard proximity through hazard experience and risk perception to hazard adjustment is insufficient

It is also important to assess– Hazard intrusiveness: frequency of thought and discussion

about the hazard and its consequences– Stakeholder perceptions: expertise, trustworthiness, and

protection responsibility– Awareness of hazard adjustments– Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes:

• Hazard-related attributes: efficacy in protecting persons and property, utility for other purposes

• Resource-related attributes: economic cost, knowledge and skill, time and effort, social cooperation

5

Data From Three Recent Studies

Six City Earthquake Preparedness Study– 500 residents of six cities in the Los Angeles and Seattle

areas– Perceptions of seismic stakeholders on different attributes—

expertise, trustworthiness, and protection responsibility– Perceptions of 16 hazard adjustments on seven attributes

Dutch Flood Preparedness Study– 1000 coastal and inland flood risk area residents– Perceptions of six hazard adjustments on seven attributes

Florida Mitigation Incentives Study– 587 Florida homeowners who did not have hurricane

shutters at the time of the study– Expectations of participating in four programs for subsidizing

hurricane shutter installation

Perceptions of SeismicStakeholders on Multiple Attributes

6

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Mean

Rat

ing

Stakeholder

Hazard KnowledgeTrustworthiness Responsibility

Differences among stakeholders in expertise aresmall for this (familiar) hazard. The notabledifferences are in protection responsibility.

Stakeholder

Mea

n ra

ting

7

Perceived Stakeholder Characteristics

Some perceived stakeholder characteristics are correlated with the number of hazard adjustments adopted:– Self/family, peer, and employer knowledge – Self/family, trust, and employer trust – Self/family, peer, and employer protection responsibility

Perceived characteristics of federal, state, or local government and media were unrelated to the number of hazard adjustments adopted.

Six City: Profiles for Adjustments With the Highest Adoption Expectations

8

The most popular adjustmentshave multiple uses and lowresource requirements

Six City: Profiles for Adjustments With the Lowest Adoption Expectations

9

The least popular adjustmentshave lower efficacy and higherresource requirements

10

Predictors of Earthquake Hazard Adjustment Adoption

Earthquake hazard adjustment adoption was– significantly related to hazard-related attributes – nonsignificantly related to resource-related attributes.

Dutch Flood Study

11

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

ProPers ProProp OthUse Cost Skill Effort Cooperate WillDo

Emergency kit

Emeregency info

Household plan

Familiy Agreements

Sand bags

Insurance

12

Predictors of Flood Hazard Adjustment Adoption Expectations

Flood hazard adjustment adoption expectations were– significantly related to hazard-related attributes – nonsignificantly related to resource-related attributes.

13

Predictors of Flood Hazard Adjustment Adoption Expectations

The nonsignificant correlations of the resource-related attributes, especially cost, might be due to generally low resource requirements of the hazard adjustments in these studies.

If cost is a significant issue in the adoption of hazard adjustments, providing financial incentives might help.– The Florida study examined expectations of participating in

low interest loans, forgiveable loans, insurance premium reductions, or property tax reductions for installing hurricane shutters.

Florida Hurricane Hazard Mitigation Incentives Study

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low Interest Loan Forgiveable Loan Lower InsurancePremium

Property TaxReduction

Hazard Inspection

15

Predictors of Hurricane Mitigation Incentive Participation Expectations

Psychological: Hazard intrusiveness and risk perception were significant predictors of program participation expectations but hazard experience and self-rated hazard knowledge were not.

Demographic: Age was a significant predictors of program participation expectations but ethnicity, education, income, and gender were not.

Exposure: Residence in a coastal county and years in residence were not.

16

Future Directions for PADM Research

Examine the role of stakeholder perceptions. Is this an example of heuristic/peripheral route processing?

Examine the relationship between risk perception and hazard intrusiveness.– They are related, but it is unclear which is is more important

in changing behavior—emphasizing the likelihood of personal consequences or reminding people frequently about the risk.

Attempt to change perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes in lab and field experiments.

17

References

Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. (2004). Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Arlikatti, S., Lindell, M.K., & Prater, C.S. (2007). Perceived stakeholder role relationships and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 25, 218-256.

Lindell, M.K. & Hwang, S.N. (2008). Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multi-hazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28, 539-556.

Lindell, M.K., Arlikatti, S. & Prater, C.S. (2009). Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Analysis, 29, 1072-1088.

Terpstra, T. & Lindell, M.K. (2009). Citizens’ Perceptions of Flood Hazard Adjustments: An Application of the Protective Action Decision Model. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center.

Lindell, M.K. (in press). North American cities at risk: Household responses to environmental hazards. In T. Rossetto, H. Joffe & J. Adams (Eds.). Cities at Risk: Living with Perils in the 21st Century. Dordrecht: Springer.

Yue Ge, Walter Gillis Peacock & Lindell, M.K. (2010). Florida Households’ Expected Responses to Hurricane Hazard Mitigation Incentives. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center.