NSF Award
2501471
As the deadliest U.S. mainland hurricane since Katrina, with over 230 fatalities, Hurricane Helene exposed significant vulnerabilities in hazard warning reception and response within mountain and inland communities in the U.S. Southeast. Risk perception, warning reception, and response in these communities have been largely understudied, leaving critical gaps in understanding how these populations perceive and react to hurricane-related threats, as most research has focused on coastal areas. This work contributes to reducing losses by improving the understanding of hurricane-related risks within mountain and inland communities, leading to improved and more equitable weather warning and response systems. The findings have the potential to benefit mountain and inland communities, National Weather Service forecasters, emergency management professionals, and especially under-resourced communities.<br/><br/>Utilizing decision sciences that integrate social and behavioral sciences with weather hazard practices and policies, this project collects time-sensitive information to identify how households and weather stakeholders (forecasters, emergency managers) in mountain and inland communities received, perceived, and responded to risk information related to Hurricane Helene. The project then integrates social and behavioral science data with physical and built-environment characteristics using geographic information systems and multivariate modeling to explore how these contextual characteristics and factors may influence warning reception and protective decision making. The research advances fundamental knowledge in: (1) understanding the decision-making context among mountain and inland community households and weather hazard decision makers impacted by Hurricane Helene; and (2) identifying physical, social, and environmental factors that prevent or support hazard warning reception and protective decisions in mountain and inland communities.<br/><br/>This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
