City of Norman Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Input Survey Norman, Oklahoma. Table of Contents

Transcription

1 City of Norman Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Input Survey Norman, Oklahoma Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Survey Results... 3 Examples of Recruitment Information Paper Survey / Web Survey Frequency Distributions Descriptive Statistics City of Norman Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Input Information & Survey Data (2019) 1

2 Introduction To increase public participation beyond what is commonly seen utilizing a standard public meeting format for planning and plan purposes, the City of Norman opted to implement a webbased survey using the Qualtrics online survey tool. The survey results are presented below in tabular form after a brief discussion of the finds. Participants was recruited through a variety of methods, none of which was scientific but this was not deemed problematic since standard recruitment methods for encouraging participation in public meetings also do not use a formal, scientific recruitment strategy. The first method of contact deployed a face-to-face intercept strategy at the Norman, Oklahoma 2018 Earth Day Festival on Sunday, April 22 held from noon to 5:00 p.m. The Festival was organized by the Cleveland County Conservation District, and the City of Norman Parks Department and Environmental Services Division. There were over 50 booths at the festival and one of which was sponsored by the Norman Fire Department Emergency Management Coordinator. Laptops were made available at the festival, as were paper surveys, and information cards for those who preferred to respond to the survey at home. Additional methods of contact included attaching the survey link to Norman City Council Member Facebook pages, the Emergency Coordinator s Facebook page, sharing the link via the City of Norman nextdoor.com website, and providing information about how to participate in the survey online via an insert in the June and July City of Norman Water bills. Each of these methods were designed to increase the visibility of the survey while also providing information about the purpose and alternative means for participation. All methods of recruitment provided the name and telephone number for individuals that could answer additional questions about the survey or for obtaining a paper survey if participating online was not a desirable mode of participation for potential respondents. These individuals included the City of Norman Emergency Management Coordinator (David Grizzle) and the Survey Project Manager and project collaborator (Dr. Amy Sue Goodin, Director of the University of Oklahoma Public Opinion Learning Laboratory). Overall, 645 individuals participated in the survey online from April-August 2018; an additional four individuals accessed the survey but disqualified themselves from participating since they were not residents of the City of Norman and another responded twice so the duplicate record was removed. The following section discusses key issues for understanding attitudes and perceptions about the threats posed by various climatic and geologic events and the ability of emergency personnel to respond to such events. Specifically, the issues are examined aggregate responses to key questions and across various socio-demographic factors (as appropriate) to highlight the key issues of importance for planning purposes for the City of Norman. Following the discussion, the images for the different recruitment invitations are shown, as is the actual questionnaire used for the online and paper surveys. Note that the recruitment information, questionnaire, data tables for all questions asked (including tables for verbatim responses to open-ended questions), and descriptive statistics (as appropriate) can be found online at the end of this document. City of Norman Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Input Information & Survey Data (2019) 2

3 Survey Results Several questions were asked of respondents ranging from general awareness about hazard mitigation planning and the requirements for such by FEMA to receive funding to address hazard mitigation and planning. Respondents were also asked about things they have done in their homes to be prepared for hazardous events, how they prefer to receive information about how to prepare, as well as how they prefer to be notified about hazardous events. While important for the hazard mitigation planning process, it is also important to understand what types of events are of most concern to respondents, how prepared they believe local emergency personnel are in terms of responding to events, the types of experiences they have had with climatic and geologic events. All these issues are addressed below both in aggregate and broken out by different types of factors that might influence the intensity of responses. Even though federal programs require soliciting public input and it is an important facet for assuring plans continue to meet public needs, developing plans that respond to those needs is not easily achieved without sufficient characterization of the threats posed to the public. This was the impetus behind the development of the questions for this survey. However, due to the problems inherent to public meetings as a standard means for public input, one of which hinges on even knowing about such meetings, participants were asked if they knew that the county had a hazard mitigation plan or if they were even aware that FEMA requires counties to update their hazard mitigation plan every five years to be eligible to receive both federal pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation funds. The responses to these questions about awareness were not encouraging with 70% of respondents stating they were not aware Cleveland County had a plan and 78% were not aware of the FEMA requirements to access funding. To encourage later participation and to instill an interest in ongoing hazard preparation and learning opportunities participants were also asked to provide their contact information although not required. Specifically, they were asked if they would like to receive notification about other opportunities to provide public input or to learn about programs to help prepare for and protect your family from harm in the event of natural disasters. While about 71% showed little interest and did not provide contact information, 29% of respondents did provide information in multiple ways as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Willingness to Provide Contact Information to Learn About Programs for Preparing and Staying Safe from Natural Disasters 100% 80% 70.9% 60% 40% 20% 0% No contact info provided 20.7% Name/Ph Number/ 6.8% 0.5% 1.1% Name/ Name/Ph Number City of Norman Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Input Information & Survey Data (2019) 3

4 Turning to key issue for hazard mitigation planning, we thought it important to ascertain the hazards that cause the greatest concern for Norman residents. To evaluate this issue, participants were asked the following: Using a scale ranging from zero to ten (zero means not at all concerned and ten means extremely concerned), please rate your level of concern about the threat posed to you and your family from each of the following types of natural hazards. Flooding Ice storms Severe thunderstorms Severe winds Tornadoes Wildfires / Brushfires Earthquakes Drought Extreme temperatures As is evident in Figure 2, Norman residents are most concerned about tornadic activity not surprising since it is located in Tornado Alley with an average rating of 7.6 on a zero to ten scale where zero means not at all concerned and ten means extremely concerned. Flooding received the lowest average rating with a score of 3.2 on the same scale. This is interesting in light of public outcry over this issue when rain events occur. However, it is likely that the context of the issue does not stand up when compared to more extreme events that can have larger impacts both physically and monetarily at the city level. Figure 2: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events (0=Not at Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Tornadoes Severe Winds Severe Thunderstorms Ice Storms Extreme Temperatures Drought Wildfires/Brushfires Earthquakes Flooding While understanding the overall average ratings for level of concern about the threat posed by various types of events, there is always a need to consider how perceptions are influenced by City of Norman Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Input Information & Survey Data (2019) 4

5 other factors. Such factors include age, income 1, gender, having kids in the home, region of residence over the past five years, home ownership, type of home living in, and the types of impacts experienced by respondents over the past five years 2. The following tables show the mean scores for the various factors examined; the percent of variance explained is shown for the model items as well as statistically significant differences for each variable considered when evaluating differences in levels of concern. When comparing the level of concern for each of the different events across different aspects of the aforementioned factors, the results are mixed. The results are discussed in detail below. Table 1 shows the average level of concern for each of the events evaluated based on the gender of the respondent. Overall, women tended to attribute higher levels of concern for the climatological and geologic events in all but three of the nine cases and the observed variations in ratings were statistically significantly different; the exceptions were for ice storms, severe thunderstorms, and severe winds. Further, in only one case did men have an average response that was greater than that expressed by women; men showed a nominally higher average concern rating for severe thunderstorms than was true for women, although the difference was not statistically significant. 3 Table 1: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Gender Gender (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Male Female Eta Squared Tornadoes * % Severe Winds % Severe Thunderstorms % Ice Storms % Drought * % Extreme Temperatures * % Wildfires / Brushfires * % Earthquakes * % Flooding * % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Concern for different events also varied across age groups, but the differences in ratings for all factors was only statistically significantly different for flooding, ice storms, and drought (Table 2). Concerns about drought increase with increasing age with the Silent generation showing the highest average concern above the scale midpoint of 5. When considering ice storms, average ratings were at or above the scale midpoint of five with the lowest concern exhibited by the youngest cohort. On the other hand, average concern ratings decrease with age for flooding events, even though overall concern is below the scale midpoint of five across all generations. These differences notwithstanding, the average ratings for levels of concern across all age groups were greatest for tornadoes followed by severe winds, severe thunderstorms, and ice storms; they 1 The income variable was created closely following Pew Research Center s guidelines; in Oklahoma it is reasonable to assume low is <$60,000, middle is $60,000 - <$110,000, and high is >=$110,000 for households. 2 Five years was used to frame questions since this data was intended to depict the time frame for revising hazard mitigation plan. 3 The standard alpha for statistical significance deployed throughout is 0.05, which means the observed values will hold 95% of the time and thus cannot be construed to occur by random chance. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 5

6 were lowest for earthquakes, but this is not surprising since Norman is nominally affected by them and they are considered to mostly be linked to fracking practices of oil industries. Table 2: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Age Age Groups (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Gen Y-Gen X (18-37) Gen X (38-53) Boomers (54-72) Silent (73 +) Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Winds % Severe Thunderstorms % Ice Storms * % Extreme Temperatures % Wildfires / Brushfires % Drought * % Flooding * % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Levels of concern showed little variation in terms of statistical significance when considering income with the only event standing out being extreme temperatures; the greatest concern was among those in the lower income group and the least among the highest income group. It is worth noting that there are some interesting patterns evident when examining differences across income groups despite no evidence of variations being statistically significantly different. For instance, those with higher incomes are least concerned about flooding compared to those in lower income groups. On the other hand, lower income groups were least concerned with earthquakes compared to their higher income counterparts. These comparisons are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Income Income Groups 4 (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Lower Middle Upper Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Winds % Ice Storms % Severe Thunderstorms % Extreme Temperatures * % Drought % Wildfires / Brushfires % Earthquakes % Flooding % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Among households with children, the only statistically significant differences in terms of concern are for ice storms and severe winds; childless households tended to be more concerned than their counterparts. Again, tornadoes rank highest for these two groups followed by severe winds, severe thunderstorms, and ice storms. Only in three cases do households with children 4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 6

7 rank events nominally higher than their counterparts without children: tornadoes, wildfires, and flooding. Table 4: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Kids in Home Kids (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Yes No Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Winds * % Severe Thunderstorms % Ice Storms * % Extreme Temperatures % Drought % Wildfires / Brushfires % Earthquakes % Flooding % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Home ownership has no impact on the ranking of the top concerns about threats, although there are statistically significant differences in ratings for drought and flooding. Homeowners are significantly less concerned about flooding than their counterparts, but the inverse is true when considering drought (Table 5). Table 5: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Home Ownership Home Ownership (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Yes No Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Winds % Ice Storms % Severe Thunderstorms % Drought * % Extreme Temperatures % Wildfires / Brushfires % Earthquakes % Flooding * % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. The only statistically significant difference in level of concern based on the type of home lived in is for flooding; respondents who live in a single-family home are significantly less concerned about flooding than those living in other types of homes. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 7

8 Table 6: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Home Type Home Type (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Single Family Other Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Winds % Severe Thunderstorms % Ice Storms % Extreme Temperatures % Drought % Wildfires / Brushfires % Earthquakes % Flooding * % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Flooding occurs in several areas throughout Norman during heavy rainfall events. Consequently, respondents were asked whether they live in a flood plain and have flood insurance. Table 7 shows the average ratings for concern about the types of events causing the most rainfall throughout the city. Interestingly, even though living in a flood plain and having flood insurance produce statistically significant differences in responses about concern related to flooding, average ratings about the types of events that evoke the greatest concern maintain the same order in terms of perceived threat as when evaluating other factors vis-à-vis events. Table 7: Average Responses to Level of Concern for Select Events Based on Residence in Flood Plain & Flood Insurance Live in Flood Plain Flood Insurance (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Yes No Eta Squared Yes No Eta Squared Tornadoes % % Severe Thunderstorms % % Flooding * % % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Average levels of concern for climatologic and geologic events based on whether respondents have lived in the Norman area for more than five years versus elsewhere in Oklahoma or the US are shown in Table 8. Statistically significant differences in perceptions based on prior region of residence exist for ice storms, drought, and flood events. Longer term Norman residents express higher levels of concern when considering ice storms, although drought evokes higher levels of concern among those that have lived elsewhere in the US prior to coming to Norman, and flooding is more of a concern for those that came to Norman from elsewhere in Oklahoma. Severe thunderstorms, while not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, are significant at the 0.10 level with the greatest concern expressed by those from elsewhere in the US followed by longer term Norman residents. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 8

9 Table 8: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Prior Region of Residence Region (0=Not Concerned to 10=Extremely Concerned) Norman 5 Oklahoma US Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Winds % Ice Storms * % Severe Thunderstorms % Extreme Temperatures % Drought * % Wildfires / Brushfires % Earthquakes % Flooding * % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. While understanding perceptions about the level of threat posed by different weather and geologic events is helpful for identifying potential areas for focusing mitigation efforts, confidence in preparedness levels of first responders is another important issue meriting consideration. Specifically, respondents were asked the following: Using a scale ranging from zero to ten where zero means not at all prepared and ten means extremely prepared, how prepared do you feel local officials and emergency responders are in terms of being able to respond to each of the following types of natural hazards? Flooding Ice storms Severe thunderstorms Severe winds Tornadoes Wildfires / Brushfires Earthquakes Drought Extreme temperatures Responses about preparedness for different events are shown in Figure 3. Average ratings of preparedness were above the scale midpoint of five for several events, with confidence highest for tornadic activity, severe thunderstorms, and severe winds. The lowest level of confidence in preparedness efforts is a response to earthquakes. 5 Cleveland County locations are combined with Norman because the 13 cases were on the fringe of Norman City limits and it is unclear whether the may really be within the bounds of Norman for the purposes of this study. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 9

10 Figure 3: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological Events (0=Not at Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Tornadoes Severe Thunderstorms Severe Winds Wildfires/Brushfires Ice Storms Flooding Extreme Temperatures Drought Earthquakes Table 9 shows the average ratings for perceptions about response preparedness for different events broken out by gender. There are no statistically significant differences in attitudes between men and women when examining responder preparedness. Table 9 Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Gender Gender (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Male Female Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Thunderstorms % Severe Winds % Wildfires / Brushfires % Ice Storms % Flooding % Extreme Temperatures % Drought % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. While men and women did not differ significantly in their views about the ability of emergency response personnel to respond to different climatological or geologic events, this was not the case when considering response ability by age. Age explains 4.1% of the variation in responses when considering response preparedness in the aftermath of a tornado, 3.7% when considering severe thunderstorms, 2.4% for severe storms, 2.7% for addressing extreme temperatures, and 1.9% for responding to drought. Confidence in preparedness to respond to an earthquake received the lowest average rating. Overall, perceptions about preparedness abilities diminish with increasing age (Table 10). Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 10

11 Table 10: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Age Age Groups (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Gen Y-Gen X (18-37) Gen X (38-53) Boomers (54-72) Silent (73 +) Eta Squared Tornadoes * % Severe Thunderstorms * % Severe Winds * % Ice Storms % Wildfires / Brushfires % Extreme Temperatures * % Flooding % Drought * % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Income is not as strong of a predictor of preparedness for different activities. As is evident in Table 11, the only significant difference is for tornadoes with income explaining 3.7% of the variation with higher income groups providing the greatest preparedness scores. Scores were also high when considering severe thunderstorms (explaining 1.4% of the variation) and severe winds (explaining 1.3% of the variation. Lower income respondents give lower preparedness ratings for tornadoes with ratings increasing with an increase in income and this was also true when evaluating severe thunderstorm and severe wind events. While this pattern generally holds for all events, the two exceptions are for drought and earthquakes; households in the middle-income bracket rate response efforts for these events slightly higher than their lower and upper income counterparts. Except as noted above, the differences are not statistically significant for the items. Table 11: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Income Income Groups (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Lower Middle Upper Eta Squared Severe Thunderstorms % Tornadoes * % Severe Winds % Ice Storms % Wildfires / Brushfires % Flooding % Extreme Temperatures % Drought % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Households with children provide nominally higher ratings for nearly all events except when considering response efforts for extreme temperature events; for such events the differences are statistically significantly different and children in the home explains about 1% of the variation in the response (Table 12). Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 11

12 Table 12: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Kids in Home Kids (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Yes No Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Thunderstorms % Severe Winds % Ice Storms % Wildfires / Brushfires % Flooding % Extreme Temperatures * % Drought % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Home ownership has a nominal impact on variations in responses for the different types of climatological and geologic events; none of the differences are statistically significant (Table 13). Table 13: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Home Ownership Home Ownership (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Yes No Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Thunderstorms % Severe Winds % Wildfires / Brushfires % Ice Storms % Flooding % Extreme Temperatures % Drought % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Type of residence does not have a significant impact on attitudes about levels of preparedness for responding to the different climatological and geologic events (Table 14). Table 14: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Home Type Home Type (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Single Family Other Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Thunderstorms % Severe Winds % Wildfires / Brushfires % Ice Storms % Flooding % Extreme Temperatures % Drought % Earthquakes % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 12

13 Participants who live in a flood plain give nominally lower response preparedness ratings when the weather events are severe thunderstorms or tornadoes, but responses are essentially the same for flood events. The inverse relationship holds for respondents with flood insurance; having flood insurance leads to nominally higher ratings for all events (Table 15). However, none of the differences are significant. Table 15: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Events Based on Residence in Flood Plain & Flood Insurance Live in Flood Plain Flood Insurance (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Yes No Eta Squared Yes No Eta Squared Severe Thunderstorms % % Tornadoes % % Flooding % % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Region of residence is a predictor of statistically significant response differences for earthquakes and extreme temperatures events. While being prepared for earthquakes evokes the lowest levels of confidence, those who live elsewhere prior to coming to Norman provide the highest rating and longer-term Norman residence the lowest as was also true for extreme temperatures events (Table 16). Table 16: Average Responses to Level of Responder Preparedness for Select Climatological & Geologic Events Based on Prior Region of Residence Region (0=Not Prepared to 10=Extremely Prepared) Norman 6 Oklahoma US Eta Squared Tornadoes % Severe Thunderstorms % Severe Winds % Wildfires / Brushfires % Ice Storms % Flooding % Extreme Temperatures * % Drought % Earthquakes * % Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05; Eta Squared reflects the variance explained for each item. Beyond examining attitudes pertaining to concern over a range of climatological and geologic events and perceptions about the levels of preparedness of emergency responders to act in the aftermath of such events, residents were also asked to rank their preferences on how best to proceed with efforts to mitigate threats. Specifically, respondents were asked the following: Using each number only once, please rank the following four types of activities in terms of importance for reducing threats from natural hazards using a value of one for the most important and four for the least important. 6 Cleveland County locations are combined with Norman because the 13 cases were on the fringe of Norman City limits. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 13

14 a. Structure & Infrastructure - Design/improve buildings and community infrastructure to eliminate or reduce impacts from hazards, including ditches/culverts, storm-proofing windows, etc. b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response - Assure framework is in place for facilitating and coordinating response and mitigation activities, including integrating administration and enforcement plans in community operations. c. Education & Awareness - Develop education and community outreach strategies to promote awareness of hazard-specific risks and to encourage participation in individual or community-wide efforts to reduce risk. d. Local Plans & Regulations - Integrate mitigation into local bylaws, ordinances and regulations to protect vulnerable resources and reduce risk, including development restrictions in flood zones, capital planning for mitigation projects, etc. Overall, 38% of participants believe Structure and Infrastructure changes will best mitigate risks from climatological and geologic threats; one-third believe Preparedness, Coordination and Response efforts are the solution; 12% view Education and Awareness are key; and, finally, 17% think the way to mitigate risks involves promulgating Local Plans and Regulations (Figure 4). Figure 4: Percent Rankings of Strategies to Mitigate Risks from Climatological and Geologic Events d. 17% a. Structure & Infrastructure c. 12% a. 38% b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response c. Education & Awareness b. 33% d. Local Plans & Regulations While examining basic percent rankings for the priority methods for mitigating risks is useful, perhaps more beneficial is considering how these rankings change based on various demographic factors. Table 17 provides the break out of rankings based on age. A majority (51%) of Gen Y/Gen Z respondents believe that addressing structure and infrastructure issues is the best means for mitigating risks and a plurality of Gen X (46%) believe similarly; in contrast, a plurality of Boomers (41%) and the Silent generation (44%) believe problems are best fixed through preparedness, coordination, and response efforts. The differences are highly statistically different. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 14

15 Table 17: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Age Age Groups (Model Significance: p=0.000) Gen Y-Gen Z Gen X Boomers Silent (18-37) (38-53) (54-72) (73 +) Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 51.3% 46.0% 28.0% 20.0% 37.7% 200 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 20.4% 28.6% 40.6% 44.0% 33.0% 175 c. Education & Awareness 13.3% 10.6% 12.1% 14.0% 12.1% 64 d. Local Plans & Regulations 15.0% 14.9% 19.3% 22.0% 17.3% 92 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count Table 18 illustrates preferences for mitigation strategies based on gender, although the differences are not statistically significant. Women (40%) tend to prefer addressing problems through structure and infrastructure compared to men who are virtually split between structure and infrastructure (34%) and preparedness, coordination, and response (36%). Table 18: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Gender Gender Female Male Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 40.0% 33.6% 37.4% 197 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 31.6% 35.5% 33.2% 175 c. Education & Awareness 10.0% 14.7% 12.0% 63 d. Local Plans & Regulations 18.4% 16.1% 17.5% 92 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 527 Count Statistically, income does not serve as a strong predictor of preferences for mitigating risks. Nevertheless, pluralities of lower (39%) and middle-income group participants (44%) prefer structure and infrastructure while upper income participants desire to see preparedness, coordination, and response efforts (36%). The results are presented in Table 19. Table 19: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Income Income Groups Lower Middle Upper Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 39.0% 43.6% 32.8% 39.2% 174 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 29.8% 33.1% 36.1% 32.9% 146 c. Education & Awareness 15.6% 8.8% 11.5% 11.7% 52 d. Local Plans & Regulations 15.6% 14.4% 19.7% 16.2% 72 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 444 Count Having lived elsewhere before coming to Norman over the past five years had little impact on definition of preferences for mitigation strategies (Table 20). All respondents opted for structure and infrastructure strategies, even though those who lived in Norman for the past five years (36%) were less likely to identify this option compared to those who lived elsewhere in Oklahoma (53%) or in the US (49%) during the same period. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 15

16 Table 20: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Prior Locale of Residence (Within 5 yrs) Norman 7 Oklahoma US Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 36.2% 53.1% 48.6% 38.0% 210 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 33.1% 28.1% 28.6% 32.5% 180 c. Education & Awareness 13.2% 9.4% 5.7% 12.5% 69 d. Local Plans & Regulations 17.5% 9.4% 17.1% 17.0% 94 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 553 Count Tables 21 and 22 reflect preferences for mitigation strategies by home ownership and type of residence, respectively. Table 21 shows home ownership does not play a strong role in preferences, although homeowners are slightly less likely to choose structure and infrastructure than their counterparts despite it still being their first choice. Housing type also has little influence on strategies for mitigation with roughly equal percentages in both groups selecting structure and infrastructure to mitigate risks (Table 22). Table 21: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Owning Residence Own Current Residence No Yes Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 40.4% 37.4% 37.9% 210 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 28.1% 33.5% 32.7% 181 c. Education & Awareness 16.9% 11.6% 12.5% 69 d. Local Plans & Regulations 14.6% 17.4% 17.0% 94 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 554 Count Table 22: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Housing Type Housing Type Single Family Home Other Home Types Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 38.0% 38.2% 38.0% 210 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 33.3% 27.3% 32.7% 181 c. Education & Awareness 12.2% 12.7% 12.3% 68 d. Local Plans & Regulations 16.5% 21.8% 17.0% 94 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 553 Count Structure and infrastructure are the primary issue for both households with and without kids as well, but preparedness, coordination, and response are ranked second (Table 23). Table 23: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Kids in Home Kids in Home No kids Kids Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 35.7% 44.0% 38.8% 173 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 32.5% 28.9% 31.2% 139 c. Education & Awareness 13.2% 12.0% 12.8% 57 d. Local Plans & Regulations 18.6% 15.1% 17.3% 77 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 446 Count Cleveland County locations are combined with Norman because the 13 cases were on the fringe of Norman City limits. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 16

17 A final comparison for assessing strategies for mitigating risks focuses on the experience of respondents with various types of climatological and geologic events. When respondents were asked to characterize the single biggest threat posed to them by weather over the past five years, the verbatim responses fell into four primary categories: severe weather, winter weather, wildfires, and earthquakes. While the rankings are not statistically significantly different across the hazard categories and mitigation strategy groups, there are some variations in responses (Table 24). About 39% of respondents naming severe weather selected structure and infrastructure as their primary choice; this was also the case for those who experienced wildfires/brushfires (44%). In contrast, 42% of those singling out winter weather believe preparedness, coordination, and response is the best means for mitigating risks while those focusing on earthquakes were equally divided between those same two mitigation options (33%). Table 24: Preferences for Mitigating Threats Based on Primary Threat Experience Primary Threat Experience Last 5 yrs Severe Weather Winter Weather Wildfires Earthquakes Total Count a. Structure & Infrastructure 39.2% 32.8% 44.4% 33.3% 38.2% 164 b. Preparedness, Coordination & Response 31.7% 42.2% 22.2% 33.3% 33.1% 142 c. Education & Awareness 12.2% 15.6% 22.2% 16.7% 13.1% 56 d. Local Plans & Regulations 16.9% 9.4% 11.1% 16.7% 15.6% 67 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 429 Count Tables 25 through 36 illustrate the ways respondents protect themselves in their homes, the types of preparations made to stay safe during disasters, the preferred means for gaining insight about how to be prepared and stay safe during hazardous events, and, finally, how respondents prefer to receive notifications about hazardous events. Each of these issues is examined by age, gender, and income. Note that each set of questions involved lists where respondents could select all that apply. Considering safety actions in the home (Table 25), the only statistically significant difference was in responses pertaining to the use of weather radios; even though a majority of all age groups use weather radios, the youngest respondents were least likely (62%) and Gen X was the most likely (76%). About 71% of both Boomers and the Silent generations had weather radios. Table 25: Safety Items in the Home Based on Age Age Groups Gen Y-Gen Z (18-37) Gen X (38-53) Boomers (54-72) Silent (73 +) Total Smoke Detector on every level of the home 98.3% 98.2% 96.6% 96.2% 97.4% Carbon Monoxide Detectors 59.8% 57.3% 52.4% 59.6% 56.2% Weather Radio * 61.5% 75.6% 71.6% 71.2% 70.6% Emergency supply kit 38.5% 43.9% 50.5% 36.5% 44.5% Go bag 47.9% 45.1% 43.3% 36.5% 44.2% Storm Shelter 39.3% 53.7% 47.1% 48.1% 47.5% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Examining preparations across age groups (Table 26), having a list of emergency contacts for all family members, plans for testing smoke detectors, removing trash or brush from around homes, and attending meetings/trainings on emergency preparedness all show statistically significant differences across age groups. Boomers are the most likely to have a list of contacts and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 17

18 youngest generation the least likely (67% versus 47%, respectively); this was also the case for regularly testing smoke detectors (63% Boomers versus 47% Gen Y/Z). Removing trash and brush from around homes was most often identified by the Silent generation (85%) and the least identified activity by the youngest generations even though a majority still engages in this activity (61%). Another statistically significant difference in responses pertained to attending meetings or trainings on emergency preparedness; the youngest generations were the most likely (29%) and the least likely was the Silent generation (12%). Table 26: Preparations for Disasters Based on Age Age Groups Gen Y-Gen Z (18-37) Gen X (38-53) Boomers (54-72) Silent (73 +) Total Have an emergency plan for meeting up if separated in a disaster 31.6% 39.6% 35.1% 23.1% 34.6% Have a list of emergency contacts for all family members * 47.0% 55.5% 67.3% 55.8% 58.2% Have a home evacuation plan 50.4% 49.4% 50.0% 40.4% 49.0% Have a community evacuation plan 2.6% 4.9% 7.2% 5.8% 5.4% Made a plan to shut off utilities like the gas main in the event of a disaster 11.1% 13.4% 18.3% 15.4% 15.0% Made a plan for regularly testing smoke detectors * 47.0% 56.1% 63.0% 50.0% 56.2% Made sure trash or brush is not stockpiled close to the home * 60.7% 73.2% 81.3% 84.6% 74.7% Been trained in First Aid and/or CPR 57.3% 60.4% 53.8% 51.9% 56.4% Attended meetings or training on emergency preparedness 29.1% 25.6% 21.6% 11.8% 23.5% Attended meetings or training on what to do in the event of a disaster 23.3% 22.0% 19.7% 13.5% 20.6% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 There are some statistically significant differences pertaining to the manner in which participants desire to receive information on how to protect themselves and their families. While 52% of the Silent generation prefers newspapers, newspaper use declines precipitously with declining age cohort; only 28% of Boomers rely on newspaper with fewer still among the two younger age cohorts the least was among Gen Y/Z at 8.5% (Table 27). A majority of the Silent generation (62%) also like information in their utility bills compared to 49% of Boomers, 35% of Gen X, and 42% of Gen Y/Z. Not surprisingly, the younger age cohorts are more likely to rely on social media to receive information; this was true for 83% of Gen Y/Z, 74% of Gen X, and 58% of Boomers compared to only 38% of the Silent generation. Table 27: Preferred Means for Receiving Information About Protecting Families Based on Age Age Groups Gen Y-Gen Z (18-37) Gen X (38-53) Boomers (54-72) Silent (73 +) Total Newspaper 8.5% 12.2% 28.4% 51.9% 21.4% TV News 47.9% 50.0% 60.1% 73.1% 55.6% Radio 37.6% 36.6% 39.9% 44.2% 38.8% Utility bill enclosures 41.9% 34.8% 48.6% 61.5% 44.2% Direct mailing 28.2% 28.7% 29.8% 42.3% 30.3% 49.6% 53.0% 54.3% 65.4% 54.0% Town / City website 34.2% 39.0% 28.8% 28.8% 33.1% Town / City meetings 9.4% 7.9% 12.0% 7.7% 9.8% Information at local library 13.7% 14.6% 13.5% 9.6% 13.5% Roadside message boards 24.8% 22.0% 18.3% 17.3% 20.7% Social media (like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) 82.9% 73.8% 58.2% 38.5% 66.4% Other 12.0% 6.1% 6.3% 3.8% 7.2% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 18

19 Participants across all age groups see the benefit of using multiple types of information to receive emergency notifications, but some forms of notification are relied upon more than others (Table 28). TV News, , social media, TV emergency alerts, cell phone apps, and phone alert systems were types of notification showing statistically significant differences across age groups. Majorities of all age groups said TV News is a good method, although the percentage stating this was the case increased with age from a low among the youngest to a high among the older Silent generation. Majorities of the two youngest age cohorts identified social media and phone alert systems; a majority of all age cohorts believe cell phone apps are a good notification system. With the exception of Gen X, a majority of all other age cohorts cited TV emergency alerts as well although almost half of Gen X (48%) identified TV emergency alerts. Interestingly, was mentioned and the differences across cohorts were statistically significant; the most likely to prefer was the Silent generation (19%) and the lowest reliance was among Gen Y/Z (5%). Table 28: Preferred Means for Receiving Severe Weather Notifications Based on Age Age Groups Gen Y-Gen Z (18-37) Gen X (38-53) Boomers (54-72) Silent (73 +) Total TV News 67.5% 73.8% 82.2% 84.6% 76.7% Radio 53.0% 51.8% 47.6% 46.2% 49.9% Direct mailing 1.7% 0.5% 0.6% 5.1% 11.0% 8.2% 19.2% 9.4% Town / City website 1.7% 0.6% 3.4% 5.8% 2.4% Roadside message boards 8.5% 7.3% 4.8% 5.9% Social media (like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) 66.7% 57.9% 26.4% 25.0% 44.5% TV emergency Alerts 50.4% 48.2% 65.4% 69.2% 57.3% Cell phone app 79.5% 79.3% 68.8% 67.3% 74.1% Phone alert system 70.9% 56.1% 40.4% 25.0% 50.3% Other 9.4% 12.2% 15.4% 17.3% 13.3% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Turning from comparisons across age to gender, all participants have some form of safety device or emergency preparation and go bags in their homes. However, the two cases with statistically significant differences between men and women pertain to weather radios and emergency supply kits (Table 29). While 75% of men said they have a weather radio in their home this was only true according to 67% of women. Additionally, while 53% of men said they have an emergency supply kit, this was only true for 38% of women. Table 29: Safety Items in the Home Based on Gender Gender Female Male Total Smoke Detector on every level of the home 97.2% 97.3% 97.2% Carbon Monoxide Detectors 56.0% 55.0% 55.6% Weather Radio 66.7% 75.0% 70.1% Emergency supply kit 38.4% 52.7% 44.2% Go bag 44.0% 42.7% 43.5% Storm Shelter 45.3% 49.5% 47.0% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Testing smoke detectors, having a list of emergency contacts, and having an emergency plan for meeting up are the most frequently cited preparations among men and women; the variations Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 19

20 across gender are statistically significant. Other types of preparations where there are statistically significant differences are for having a community evacuation plan, plans for shutting off utilities, attending emergency preparedness meetings, and meetings to learn what to do in the event of a disaster. In all cases men were more likely to have made some sort of preparations compared to women (Table 30). Table 30: Preparations for Disasters Based on Gender Gender Female Male Total Have an emergency plan for meeting up if separated in a disaster 29.6% 41.4% 34.4% Have a list of emergency contacts for all family members 53.1% 64.5% 57.8% Have a home evacuation plan 45.9% 53.2% 48.9% Have a community evacuation plan 3.1% 8.6% 5.4% Made a plan to shut off utilities like the gas main in the event of a disaster 10.1% 22.3% 15.1% Made a plan for regularly testing smoke detectors 50.6% 61.8% 55.2% Made sure trash or brush is not stockpiled close to the home 73.0% 78.2% 75.1% Been trained in First Aid and/or CPR 54.7% 57.7% 55.9% Attended meetings or training on emergency preparedness 18.9% 28.3% 22.7% Attended meetings or training on what to do in the event of a disaster 16.4% 25.5% 20.1% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Social media is an important method for receiving information about how to protect families, as is and TV News among a majority of respondents (Table 31). However, with the exception of city websites and meetings, as well as information at libraries and on roadside message boards, men tend to prefer all other forms of getting information compared to women and in some cases the differences were nominal. Additionally, while for most comparisons the variations between men and women are not statistically significant, they are for newspapers, information at libraries, roadside message boards, and social media. Table 31: Preferred Means for Receiving Information About Protecting Families Based on Gender Gender Female Male Total Newspaper 18.6% 25.5% 21.4% TV News 55.0% 57.3% 55.9% Radio 35.8% 42.7% 38.7% Utility bill enclosures 43.7% 45.0% 44.2% Direct mailing 28.9% 32.7% 30.5% 50.9% 57.3% 53.5% Town / City website 33.3% 31.8% 32.7% Town / City meetings 10.4% 8.6% 9.7% Information at local library 15.4% 9.5% 13.0% Roadside message boards 23.0% 16.8% 20.4% Social media (like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) 73.9% 55.0% 66.2% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Finally, the top modes for receiving emergency notifications among men and women are TV news, radio, social media, TV emergency alerts, cell phone apps, and phone alert systems (Table 32). However, the differences in opinions between men and women are only statistically significant for social media and phone alert systems with women preferring these modes compared to men. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 20

21 Table 32: Preferred Means for Receiving Severe Weather Notifications Based on Gender Gender Female Male Total TV News 76.4% 79.1% 77.5% Radio 46.9% 54.1% 49.8% Direct mailing 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 7.9% 11.8% 9.5% Town / City website 2.8% 1.8% 2.4% Roadside message boards 6.9% 4.5% 5.9% Social media (like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) 50.9% 34.1% 44.1% TV emergency Alerts 58.2% 56.4% 57.4% Cell phone app 76.4% 70.5% 74.0% Phone alert system 54.7% 42.7% 49.8% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Turning to a discussion of income groups, the top safety feature according to participants is smoke detectors with more than 94% of all groups indicating that they have them; however, the lower one s income the least likely to have one despite the high rate of usage and the differences are statistically significant. The other three highly utilized items include carbon monoxide detectors, weather radios, and storm shelters and the differences are also statistically significant. Lower and middle-income groups both equally utilize carbon monoxide detectors (around 50%) while about 73% of upper income groups have them in their homes. Lower income groups are the least likely to have weather radios despite a majority of all groups stating they have access to them; usage increases with income. Storm shelters are the least utilized with higher income groups more likely to have them, which is not surprising. These results are presented in Table 33. Table 33: Safety Items in the Home Based on Income Income Lower Middle Upper Total Smoke Detector on every level of the home 93.7% 97.8% 100.0% 97.1% Carbon Monoxide Detectors 50.3% 49.7% 72.6% 56.2% Weather Radio 61.5% 69.2% 79.0% 69.5% Emergency supply kit 37.8% 42.7% 49.2% 42.9% Go bag 46.2% 40.0% 47.6% 44.0% Storm Shelter 26.6% 48.6% 66.1% 46.5% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Participants utilize a variety of means to prepare for disasters, but the only case where the differences in responses are statistically significant across income groups is for having a home evacuation plan. Lower income groups are more likely to have such plans compared to middle and upper income groups (Table 34). Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 21

22 Table 34: Preparations for Disasters Based on Income Income Lower Middle Upper Total Have an emergency plan for meeting up if separated in a disaster 35.7% 36.8% 32.3% 35.2% Have a list of emergency contacts for all family members 59.4% 58.4% 55.6% 58.0% Have a home evacuation plan 55.2% 49.2% 37.9% 48.0% Have a community evacuation plan 4.9% 3.2% 6.5% 4.6% Made a plan to shut off utilities (like gas main) in the event of disaster 14.7% 14.1% 16.1% 14.8% Made a plan for regularly testing smoke detectors 51.7% 53.0% 55.6% 53.3% Made sure trash or brush is not stockpiled close to the home 68.5% 74.6% 79.8% 74.1% Been trained in First Aid and/or CPR 60.8% 57.8% 54.0% 57.7% Attended meetings or training on emergency preparedness 21.7% 24.9% 26.8% 24.4% Attended meetings or training on what to do in the event of a disaster 18.2% 20.5% 25.8% 21.2% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Tables 35 and 36 reflect the best means for obtaining information about how to protect oneself and families and for receiving emergency notifications across income groups, respectively. Looking at the first issue considering where to obtain information there are several statistically significant differences across income groups (Table 35). When considering newspapers and as sources for obtaining information, the use of these resources increases with increasing income (Table 35). On the other hand, reliance on city websites and meetings for information decreases with increasing income. Table 35: Preferred Means for Receiving Information About Protecting Families Based on Income Income Lower Middle Upper Total Newspaper 14.0% 24.3% 25.0% 21.2% TV News 55.2% 55.7% 50.8% 54.2% Radio 42.0% 39.5% 31.5% 38.1% Utility bill enclosures 39.9% 45.9% 44.4% 43.6% Direct mailing 25.2% 33.5% 30.6% 30.1% 48.3% 51.9% 66.1% 54.6% Town / City website 34.3% 34.1% 32.3% 33.6% Town / City meetings 14.7% 10.3% 5.6% 10.4% Information at local library 14.7% 14.1% 10.5% 13.3% Roadside message boards 21.7% 24.3% 14.5% 20.8% Social media (like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) 70.6% 70.8% 60.5% 67.9% Other 7.0% 8.6% 8.1% 8.0% Items bolded and marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different at an alpha of <= 0.05 Across income groups, cell phone app usage is the only notification strategy that shows significant differences across groups. Cell phone apps are most relied upon by middle-income groups and nearly equally by lower and upper income groups. TV news, TV emergency alerts, and phone alert systems are also heavily relied upon across income cohorts. These results are presented in Table 36. Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 22

23 Examples of Recruitment Information Utility Bill Insert Miscellaneous Facebook and Nextdoor.com Notifications Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 23

24 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Project: City of Norman, OK (2018) 24