Citation

Beatley T, Brower DJ. Coast. Zone Manage. J. 1986; 14(3): 241-269.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1986, Crane, Russak)

DOI

10.1080/08920758609362004

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a telephone survey of two coastal regions in North Carolina in the aftermath of hurricane Diana: one that received a direct hit from the storm (Oak/Pleasure Island area) and one that received only media reports of the storm and its impacts (Nags Head area). It was hypothesized that the hurricane had differential effects on attitudes in these two regions. It was predicted that because of the media depiction of Diana as a large hurricane, contrasted with the actual low levels of damages to result, support for mitigation programs in the region of greatest impact would be low. Conversely, it was expected that awareness and support of mitigation programs would be higher in the unaffected region, where the media images of disaster were not neutralized by firsthand observation of the storm's impact. Data from the study indicate that there are statistically significant differences between these groups in their perceptions of Diana's impact and hurricane hazards generally. While respondents in the area of greatest impact more accurately sized up the effects of Diana and expressed greater faith in the ability of structures in their communities to withstand future hurricanes, this did not result in lower levels of support for mitigation measures as expected. Rather, the survey results indicate that the residents in the affected area were more supportive, in most cases by a considerable margin. Furthermore, such factors as perceived level of storm damages were not generally associated with the perceived need for mitigation in either sample. Considering both samples, a high degree of support for all mitigation measures was expressed by respondents.