Impact of a workshop with visualization and ethics discussion on awareness of flood risk and intent to protect
Data files
Jul 31, 2025 version files 326.29 KB
-
README.md
36.09 KB
-
Supplemental_Materials_D1.csv
1.87 KB
-
Supplemental_Materials_D2.csv
172 B
-
Supplemental_Materials_D3.csv
640 B
-
Supplemental_Materials_D4.csv
1.31 KB
-
Supplemental_Materials_D5.csv
379 B
-
Supplemental-Materials-A-Characters-and-Matrices.md
41.98 KB
-
Supplemental-Materials-B–Workshop-Logic-Model.md
84.10 KB
-
Supplemental-Materials-B2-Survey-Instrument.md
79.42 KB
-
Supplemental-Materials-C-Terpstra-and-Lindell-Source-Guide.md
60.62 KB
-
Supplemental-Materials-D–Results.md
10.85 KB
-
Supplemental-Materials-E-June-2025-Coding-Manual.md
8.86 KB
Abstract
Disasters such as storm surge flooding pose an escalating threat to vulnerable coastal communities. While advances in weather models and forecasts are essential for informing protective actions, improving communication with the public for heightened storm preparedness is equally important. In this report, we provide a quantitative evaluation of lessons learned in an online workshop involving over 150 college students. The workshop employed simulated visuals of flooding and role-playing scenarios about a fictitious college campus. In addition, we used an "Ethical Matrix" (EM) tool to enable stakeholders to systematically represent, discuss, understand, and weigh tradeoffs and perspectives pertaining to potential impacts of anticipated flooding from an impending hurricane. Building on a brief overview of the workshop (Colle et al. 2023), this report presents quantitative and qualitative results from hypotheses about the workshop’s effects on feelings of worry, intent to take protective action, and increased awareness of others’ situations and concerns. These findings provide insights for refining hypotheses and designs for testing workshops with communities vulnerable to storm surge flooding.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.fttdz0956
Description of the data and file structure
Overview. This repository contains supplemental materials supporting the research findings presented in Impact of a Workshop with Visualization and Ethics Discussion on Awareness of Flood Risk and Intent to Protect, WCAS-D-24-0092, on flood risk communication strategies. The study demonstrates that communication methods that foster emotional connections to flood risk significantly enhance protective intentions for both self and for others among the study sample.
Files and variables
File: Supplemental-Materials-A-Characters-and-Matrices.md
Description:
Contents: An introduction to the Ethical Matrix methodology, Example Values Matrix and Consequences Matrix, six detailed character descriptions for the role-play scenarios, additional character profiles for extended workshop use.
Details: This document contains the foundational materials for an Ethical Matrix workshop designed to explore stakeholder perspectives in emergency decision-making scenarios. The materials support a role-playing exercise where participants examine dilemmas related to campus evacuation decisions during a severe weather event. The Ethical Matrix Framework is a 3-step methodology based on well-being, autonomy, and justice principles. The example Values Matrix provides a sample of what stakeholder perspectives across ethical dimensions might look like when participants fill out the matrix. The example Consequences Matrix provides a template and a completed example of what a participant-led collaborative decisionmaking may look like. The character descriptions provide role-playing profiles that can be used to help represent a diverse university community with members from the student body, staff, and faculty.
Summary information about the Ethical Matrix
1. Example Values Matrix
The values matrix expresses each stakeholders’ interests relating to their wellbeing, autonomy (freedom), and justice. The values matrix is used to help understand other’s views and values. The table begins blank and is filled in by the participants.
| Wellbeing | Autonomy (Freedom) | Justice | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Hunter: Residential Student | safety and accommodations for mobility issues; | the right to have input with respect to what he needs to be safe and productive | the right to a fun and safe campus environment, where |
| (2) Sean: Residential Student | needs to keep up with classes; needs to maintain his new car;; | The right to see his family, who live near campus; the ability to choose when to travel. Wants to find a rewarding career. | the right to a fun and safe campus environment, where |
| (3) Alex: | Learn and do well in school! Make money to afford school. Avoid stress, as that could trigger a seizure; juggle work and school. keep track of dorm students and keep them safe. | Don’t let mother’s anxiety interfere. Have input into dorm decisions and policies (such as when to evacuate); need to have timely information about safety. | Everyone deserves to be safe and to thrive on campus. |
| (4) Pat: University Maintenance Staff | Need to make a living; | needs to be able to prepare for the storm and minimize damage to buildings on campus; needs to be able to decide how to juggle work and family responsibilities | Everyone deserves an equitable, safe, and stable workplace, plus adequate resources to do their job. |
| (5) Jordan: University Facilities Director | Need to manage 275 employees. Need to juggle the wellbeing of 2 kids at home - fortunately close to campus - but are they ok? | needs information to manage responsibilities and make timely decisions. Needs good channels of communication. Needs to rely on new Assoc. Director. | The University physical plant should be a safe and productive environment for all. |
| (6) Sandra: University Provost | PhD/research background in Clinical Psy; support research and instruction on campus; take care of pet dog Ralphie; juggle home life with wife, who works as a nurse | Be able to make decisions about the University and campus. Will the storm really hit? When to evacuate? | Maintain safe and productive environment for all students, faculty, and staff; create good relatgions with the outside community; maintain the university’s reputation; uphold intellectual freedom |
The values matrix expresses each stakeholders’ interests relating to their wellbeing, autonomy (freedom), and justice. The values matrix is used to help understand other’s views and values.
Table 2. Example Consequences Matrices
The consequences matrix aggregates stakeholders’ input and captures the logistical challenges, tradeoffs, and concerns to encourage buy-in from other stakeholders during the joint decision-making process. To fill out the consequences matrix, first begin with the results of the values matrix from the autonomy and justice columns filled in. The findings from the values matrix, “Autonomy” and “Justice’ categories should be copied over. See the example of our starting consequences matrix next. Note: These participants were time-restricted to the workshop event time, and each group of participants is likely to provide a variation of responses.
Table 2a. Starting Consequences Matrix
| Stakeholders | Benefits to increase | Harms to reduce | Autonomy/Freedom | Justice/Fairness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Hunter: Residential Student | the right to have input with respect to what he needs to be safe and productive | the right to a fun and safe campus environment, where | ||
| (2) Sean: Residential Student | The right to see his family, who live near campus; the ability to choose when to travel. Wants to find a rewarding career. | The right to see his family, who live near campus; the ability to choose when to travel. Wants to find a rewarding career. | ||
| (3) Alex: Student Residential Assistant (RA) | Don’t let mother’s anxiety interfere. Have input into dorm decisions and policies (such as when to evacuate); need to have timely information about safety. | Everyone deserves to be safe and to thrive on campus. | ||
| (4) Pat: University Maintenance Staff | needs to be able to prepare for the storm and minimize damage to buildings on campus; needs to be able to decide how to juggle work and family responsibilities | Everyone deserves an equitable, safe, and stable workplace, plus adequate resources to do their job. | ||
| (5) Jordan: University Facilities Director | needs information to manage responsibilities and make timely decisions. Needs good channels of communication. Needs to rely on new Assoc. Director. | The University physical plant should be a safe and productive environment for all. | ||
| (6) Sandra: University Provost/ Student Affairs | Be able to make decisions about the University and campus. Will the storm really hit? When to evacuate? | Maintain safe and productive environment for all students, faculty, and staff; |
Table 2b: Filled-in Consequences Matrix
Given the starting point, the participants then discuss, collectively, to fill in the remaining columns of the consequences matrix. An example of a filled-in consequences matrix is below.
| Stakeholders | Benefits to increase | Harms to reduce | Autonomy/Freedom | Justice/Fairness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Hunter: Residential Student | Emergency planning should include securing alternate housing in other areas, establishing funds and resources for family support, researching advice from similar past events, and developing multiple response options to avoid mandatory evacuation scenarios. | Clarity on where to go and how to get there | Disability can affect their autonomy | Ability to restart their education with scholarships if the semester has to be canceled. Have different option(s) in case of need, adverse weather conditions, etc. (rather than going home). Family support social support. |
| (2) Sean: Residential Student | Given more specific, real-time, and tangible updates from trusted sources | Clarity on where to go and how to get there | Make his own decisions, and career decisions (encouraged from parents) | Comfortable speaking in class |
| (3) Alex: | Knowledge of and more resources for evacuating campus | RAs should not be pressured to stay on campus, similar to facilities. | Ability to put herself first and then the students | Other RAs are in the same situation. Make sure that all RAs have proper support that they need to be successful. |
| (4) Pat: University Maintenance Staff | Campus-wide alert for students and staff that evacuation is mandatory | Maintenance staff having to worry about whether everyone has evacuated | Work/life balance; balance as being essential worker and wanting to protect herself/family on her desired timeline | There is advocacy for her and work that she does; should not fear penalty for voicing concerns; union membership; maintaining log book of observations |
| (5) Jordan: University Facilities Director | Mental health resources and planning, to handle aftermath | -Faulty, old equipment with potential to cause harm | have the freedom to spend time with his kids around work; be able to handle his job in the way he believes is right | have a world where his children can attend college when they are of age |
| (6) Sandra: University Provost/ Student Affairs | Regular emergency alert tests | Lack of communication/decreased communication due to power outages | Disability can affect their autonomy | Ability to restart their education with scholarships if the semester has to be canceled. Have different option(s) in case of need, adverse weather conditions, etc. (rather than going home) Family support social support. |
File: Supplemental-Materials-B–Workshop-Logic-Model.md
Description:
Contents: Workshop Components and Study Logic Information, including theoretical basis.
Details: This file contains the theoretical framework description for the workshop. The four-component logic model and the underlying research design is documented. The four-component theoretical framework includes risk perception, emergent norm theory, visualization vs. control conditions, and predicted outcomes. This document provides the complete methodological framework for studying how risk visualization and group discussion may influence flood risk perception, protective behaviors, and social connectedness in emergency scenarios.
Workshop Components and Study Logic
| **Makes Risk “Feel-able:” make the consequences of flooding for property and people visualize-able or discuss-able **(Theoretical basis: “Risk as Feeling,” e.g., Slovic, P. 1987) | **“Milling” or communicating to make sense of situations and feelings **(Theoretical basis: Emergent Norm Theory, e.g., Wood et al. 2018) |
|---|---|
| **Group 1 (Visualization) - **Workshop experience with narrative, forecasts, story characters’ dilemmas, forecasts, evacuation order and simulated visualizations embedded in narrative | Listen to and discuss narrative as assigned character; roleplay characters with differing ages, jobs, as well as differing family, financial, and racial characteristics; using the Ethical Matrix, discuss in facilitated groups all stakeholders’ needs for wellbeing, autonomy, and justice in the scenarios presented in the narrative (e.g., being required by job to stay on campus, worries about access to food or medicine if forced to remain on campus during flooding) |
| **Group 2 (Control) - **Workshop experience with narrative, forecasts, story characters’ dilemmas, forecasts, and evacuation order | |
| Predicted Outcomes: increased worry about self and others; increased intent to protect self and others; increased awareness of the interdependency of self and community (Repeated measures comparisons were made from early in the workshop to after the workshop, as well as between Visualization vs. Control groups.) |
File: Supplemental-Materials-B2-Survey-Instrument.md
Description:
Contents: Complete 4-hour workshop survey instrument including pre-test, story segments, and post-test measures, demographic questionnaire, and verification questions.
Details: This document provides the full participants’ survey with skip logic and branching conditions. The full survey with 156 questions, skip logics, verification codes, and branching paths are included. The survey includes the pre-test measures, the story narrative with embedded forecast updates, evacuation decision points, post-workshop measures, and the built-in verification codes used for workshop coordination.
File: Supplemental-Materials-C-Terpstra-and-Lindell-Source-Guide.md
Description:
Contents: The Appendix from Terpstra and Lindell’s (2013) Citizens’ perceptions of flood hazard adjustments: an application of the protective action decision model, which we drew on for many survey questions.
Details: This contains the complete survey instrument and validation methodology from Terpstra & Lindell (2013) for measuring citizen perceptions of flood hazard adjustments. This document provides the difficult-to-find full questionnaire items, scales, and statistical validation procedures used to assess the protective action decision model for flood risk contexts. This validated instrument is for measuring how citizens perceive the effectiveness and feasibility of various flood preparedness actions, supporting research on protective behavior adoption and risk communication effectiveness in flood areas. This survey was used to help develop the survey questions that were developed and shown in the Supplemental Materials B2 survey instrument.
File: Supplemental-Materials-D–Results.md
Description: Complete Research Results.
Contents: Each table below is represented through a separate .csv file containing the comprehensive results from the study including participant demographics, the outcomes of research questions outlined in the full paper, and a quantitative representation of the qualitative findings.
Details: This file documents statistical analyses examining the effects of workshop participation on flood risk perception, protective intentions, and social awareness. Please see Supplemental_Materials_D4.csv for complete statistical results for all research questions.
File: Supplemental_Materials_D1.csv
Description: Participant demographic measures
| Variable | Question | Response Scale | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | With which gender do you identify? | 0 = Man; 1 = Woman; 2 = I identify with another gender | 37.3; 61.4; 1.3 |
| Age | What is your current age? | Under 18 (0) … 75 and better | 18-20: 26.1; 21-24: 28.8; 25-29: 28.8; 30-34: 8.5; 35-39: 5.9; 40-44: 1.3; 55-59: 0.7 |
| Educational status | Are you a… | Undergraduate student; Graduate Student; Other | 58.8; 40.5; 0.7 |
| Educational institution | What is the name of your college or university? | Text entry | - |
| Educational program | What is your major or the name of your degree program? | Text entry | - |
| Living situation | Do you currently rent or own your home? | Live on Campus; Live with Family; Rent; Own; Something else | 29.4; 15.0; 51.0; 3.9; 0.7 |
| Geographic location | What is your zip code? | Text entry | - |
| Income | What was your total household income before taxes during the past 12 months? | Less than $25,000; $25,000 - $49,000; $50,000 - $74,999; $75,000 - $99,999; $100,000 - $149,999; $150,000 or more; Prefer not to say | 43.8; 21.6; 5.2; 6.5; 7.2; 3.9; 11.8 |
| Hispanic/Not Hispanic origin | Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? | No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin; Yes, Cuban; Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin | 90.2; 0; 2.6; 0; 5.2 |
| Race and Ethnicity | Please indicate your race | I identify with multiple races; Indigenous (First People, Alaska Native); Black or African American; White; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; Middle Eastern or North African; I identify with a race not listed here | 7.8; 0; 10.5; 53.6; 22.9; 0; 2.0; 3.3 |
| If multiple races… | Which races do you identify with, please select all that apply | Indigenous (First People, Alaska Native); Black or African American; White; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; Middle Eastern or North African; Another race | - |
File: Supplemental_Materials_D2.csv
Description: Academic majors and degree programs
Table 2. Participants’ majors and degrees.
| Participants | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Communications | 26 | 17.0 |
| Humanities | 2 | 1.3 |
| Interdisciplinary | 24 | 15.7 |
| Science and Engineering | 93 | 60.8 |
| Social Science | 8 | 5.2 |
| Total | 153 | 100 |
File: Supplemental_Materials_D3.csv
Description: Financial willingness and time investment measures
Table 3.** **Additional Composite Variables: Financial Willingness, Time for Self-Preparedness, Time for Preparing Others
| Financial Willingness, (How much would you spend to…) | Put together an emergency kit including food, water, medicine, battery-powered radio, first aid kit, etc.? | Reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.835 | 2.77 | 1.08 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time for Self-Preparedness (How much time and effort would you put into…) | Put together an emergency kit including food, water, medicine, battery-powered radio, first aid kit for yourself? | ** **Acceptable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.61 | 1.40 | 0.41 |
| **Time for Preparing Others **(How much time and effort would you put into…) | Helping others put together emergency kits including food, water, medicine, a battery-powered radio, first aid kit, etc. | Reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76 | 1.32 | 0.46 |
File: Supplemental_Materials_D4.csv
Description: Complete statistical results for all research questions
Variables - Please see the file for Research Question, Analysis Method, Key Findings
File: Supplemental_Materials_D5.csv
Description: Qualitative coding analysis results
Variables - Please see the file
- Condition
- Danger to Self
- Intent Protect Self
- Awareness of Others
- Intent: Help Others
- Unclear
- Blank
- Total
File: Supplemental-Materials-E-June-2025-Coding-Manual.md
Description:
Content: This file provides the five-category coding system used for open-ended responses to the survey instrument question Q140. It includes inter-rater reliability procedures, practice examples and coding decision trees, and guidelines for analyzing protective behavior intentions.
Details: Contains the complete coding manual for analyzing collected qualitative responses to survey item Q140, which asked participants to describe how workshop experiences might impact their future lives. It provides detailed coding procedures, decision rules, and practice examples for categorizing participant responses into five distinct categories. Following this manual enables systematic and reliable analyses of participants’ reflections on how emergency preparedness workshops influence their future intentions and awareness, supporting research on intervention effectiveness in disaster preparedness contexts.
Methodological Framework.
The materials support a 4-hour online workshop examining coastal flood risk communication through: narrative-based learning, role-playing, ethical matrix discussions, and visualization conditions.
Key Innovations:
1. Communication approaches that leverage emotional connection to move beyond traditional forecast-messaging and enhance protective intentions.
2. Using the Ethical Matrix to consider diverse viewpoints and integrate stakeholder perspectives in decision-making.
3. Mixed-Methods Design where both quantitative measures and qualitative responses are collected.
4. Replicable methodology, where complete materials are provided for independent implementation.
Guidelines for Replication.
For Workshop Implementation: Use Supplemental Materials A for character assignments and Ethical Matrix setup; follow the logic model in Supplemental Materials B for session structure; implement the complete survey instrument for pre/post comparisons. Apply the coding manual (Materials E) for qualitative analysis.
For Survey Adaptation: Materials C provides validated instruments adaptable to other hazard contexts; demographic measures in Materials D can be modified for different populations; and coding categories in Materials E are transferable to similar risk communication studies.
Statistical Considerations:
Minimum sample size: N=150 based on power analysis
Inter-rater reliability target: >80% agreement for qualitative coding
Control for visualization condition effects in analysis
Consider individual difference predictors (race, previous experience, etc.)
Citation and Usage.
When using these materials, please cite the original publication from WCAS-D-24-0092 and acknowledge that these supplemental materials enable replication and adaptation of the theoretically-based approaches to improve flood risk communication.
Contact Information
For questions regarding implementation, coding procedures, or methodological details, please contact the corresponding author referenced in the main publication.
Code/software
SPSS 31
Human subjects data
Stony Brook University’s Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (IRB) approved our IRB package (IRB ID - IRB2021-00559).
Consent: The package included Supplement Form G* (Request for Waiver, Alteration and/or Documentation of Consent)., which sought a waiver the requirement to obtain consent from research subjects.
De-identifying data: No identifiable private information was collected. Email addresses of those who registered for the workshop were kept only as long as needed to email the participants their gift cards after the workshop. An identifier was used to link together the repeated measures survey responses of individual participants, without including email addresses.