Public Concerns About Future Disasters: Policy Implications

1
Public Concerns About Future Disasters Policy
Implications

• Chad Thomas, MPH
• Brenda F. Seals, Ph.D., MPH
• Alice Hausman, Ph.D., MPH
• Temple University, Department of Public Health

2
Overview

• The Pennsylvania Quality of Life Survey was
  designed to capture community characteristics and
  public opinion.
• An additional Emergency Preparedness section
  asked PA residents about
• - personal disaster planning
• - perceptions of readiness
• - preferred communication channels
• - concerns about disasters and terrorism

3
Rationale

• Pennsylvania has been exposed to both natural
• and man-made disasters.
• This study offers a unique opportunity to gauge
  Pennsylvanians concerns about future disasters.

4
Methods

• Annual random digit dialing survey (Fall, 2004)
• Heads of households ages 18 or older in the
• Philadelphia metropolitan area and in the rest
  of the state
• Total N 1618.
• Sample was weighted to approximate PA Census
  demographics

5
Exposure to Disaster

• Respondents were asked if they personally knew
• someone who had been
• affected by a natural disaster such as a flood,
  tornado or earthquake
• killed or injured in any of the terrorism attacks
  on 9/11
• exposed to anthrax that was spread illegally
  through the mail

6
Table 1. Exposure to Disaster
7
Concerns about Terrorism

• People were asked to rate how concerned they were
• that a particular event would happen in their
• community in next two years.
• Responses ranged from 0 not at all concerned
• to 3 very concerned.
• On average, respondents were less than somewhat
  concerned that a terror event or natural disaster
  would occur.

8
Table 2. Percent who reported being Somewhat /
Very Concerned that specific events would affect
their community in next two years
9
Demographic Items

• Age
• Gender
• Race
• Education Level
• Total HH income
• Rent or Own property
• Number of children in HH under 18 y.o.

10
Income

• Policy makers study the huge economic impact of
  disasters, including flooding in PA and the 9/11
  attacks
• Income levels can predict, from a policy
  standpoint,
• how quickly someone can recover from a disaster
• Income levels are a good proxy for almost all
  other demographic variables, and are good
  neighborhood indicators (especially in urban
  areas)

11
Table 3. Total Household Income
12
Figure 1. Total household income vs. concern
with receiving mail with anthrax or some type of
poison in it
13
Figure 2. Total household income vs. concern
with exposure to smallpox or other deadly
infectious disease
14
Figure 3. Total household income vs. concern with
tornados touching down
15
Figure 4. Total household income vs. concern of
exposure to a toxic chemical
16
Figure 5. Total household income and concern
about intentional contamination of the food or
water supply
17
Figure 6. Total household income vs. concern
about a hijacking of an airplane or other public
transportation
18
Figure 7. Total household income vs. concern
about a bombing
19
Figure 8. Total household income and concern
about exposure to radiation
20
Figure 9. Total household income vs. concern
about massive flooding in your neighborhood
21
Key Findings

• The lowest income category had the highest
  proportional levels of concern about anthrax,
  smallpox, tornados, toxic chemicals,
  contamination, tornados, hijacking, bombing,
  radiation exposure, and flooding

22
Policy Implications

• Historically, lower income brackets have included
  disproportionately high numbers of underserved
  populations
• - non-whites
• - renters
• - single-parent families
• - persons with lower levels of education

23
Policy Implications

• These populations
• - have fewer resources
• - are typically less mobile in the case of
• a natural disaster or terrorist attack
• - have less trust in government measures
• - have the most to lose!

24
Policy Implications

• Higher concern levels among lower income groups
  demonstrate that these populations already know
  that they are ill-equipped to deal with disasters
  (underlined by more recent events, including
  Hurricane Katrina)
• Increasing levels of personal preparedness could
  alleviate some concerns about disasters

25
Policy Implications

• Effective disaster planning policy should involve
  smooth coordination between levels of government,
  infrastructure, and relief organizations
• City and state disaster planning authorities
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• Public transportation system authorities
• Red Cross, Salvation Army

26
Policy Implications

• Effective policy should include an engaging
  education component that addresses concerns of
  low-income and minority populations
• - Culturally, linguistically, and
  technologically appropriate
• - Face-to-face interactions

27
Policy Implications

• Education component should incorporate
  institutions that work with underserved
  populations
• - Public Health Departments
• - Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)
• - Dept. Health and Human Services
• - Universities and other research institutions
• - Advocacy foundations

28
Policy Implications

• Effective policy should use new and existing
  technology in city planning
• - ex Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
  mapping for determining floodplains, evacuation
  routes, shelter locations, nearest hospitals
• Effective policy should plan for both short-term
  and long-term disasters (shelters, electricity,
  water)

29
Conclusions

• Although some disasters may be difficult to
  predict, others are not (hurricanes in the Gulf
  states, wildfires in California, etc.).
• Effectively planning ahead of disasters (ex do
  not build low-income housing in flood plains) can
  effectively prevent huge loss of life, property,
  and economic livelihood.
• Evaluating and addressing concerns of at-risk
  populations can potentially alleviate fears and
  also reduce casualties in the event of an actual
  disaster.

30
Conclusions

• Policy-makers need to coordinate more effectively
  between local, state, and federal levels of
  government, relief organizations, and low-income
  populations.
• Public Health institutions are positioned ideally
  to improve communication between these groups,
  and should take a more active role in advocating
  for disaster preparedness for disadvantaged /
  underserved populations