Skip to main content
Log in

A survey of public perception and response to heat warnings across four North American cities: an evaluation of municipal effectiveness

  • Climate and Perception
  • Published:
International Journal of Biometeorology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To examine the efficacy of municipal heat watch warning systems, a thorough evaluation of the heat mitigation plans of four North American cities - Dayton (Ohio, USA), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA), Phoenix (Arizona, USA), and Toronto (Ontario, Canada) - was undertaken. In concert with this evaluation was a survey of residents in the metropolitan areas of these cities that gauged their perception of their own vulnerability to the heat, as well as their knowledge of heat warnings and the activities recommended to be undertaken to help mitigate the effects of the heat. In total, 908 respondents participated in the telephone survey. Some of the key results indicate that knowledge of the heat warning was nearly universal (90%), and likely due to pervasive media coverage more than any other means. Though knowledge of the event was widespread, knowledge of what to do was less common. Only around half of all respondents mentioned that they changed their behavior, and despite the diversity of information available on mitigating heat vulnerability, most respondents stated that they merely “avoided the outdoors” at all costs. Though air conditioning was nearly ubiquitous among respondents, over a third mentioned that economic factors of energy costs were considered in terms of how long or whether the air conditioner was turned on.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that, except where indicated, the phrase “warning” is used to encompass “excessive heat warning”, “heat advisory”, “extreme heat alert”, and “heat alert”.

References

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) Website: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/heat_guide.asp. Accessed 23 March 2006

  • Combined Health District of Montgomery County (2001) The Montgomery County Heat Advisory Plan, 59 pp

  • Combined Health District of Montgomery County (2003) Heat Plan Survey, unpublished document, 7 pp

  • Day N (2002) The hot weather response plan and heat-health alert system in Toronto, unpublished document, 4 pp

  • Kalkstein LS (2002) Description of our heat/health warning systems: their nature and extent and required resources, unpublished document, 31 pp

  • Klinenberg E (2002) Heat wave: a social autopsy of disaster in Chicago. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 305 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • National Climate Data Center (2006) Website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html, accessed 26 January 2006

  • Palecki MA, Changnon SA, Kunkel KE (2001) The nature and impacts of the July 1999 heat wave in the midwestern United States: learning from the lessons of 1995. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82:1353–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan SC, Kalkstein LS (2004) Progress in heat watch-warning system technology. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 85:1931–1941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2005) Web site: http://www.statcan.ca, accessed 10 July 2006

  • Toronto Public Health (2002) Summer safety: fan facts

  • US Census Bureau (2005) Website http://www.census.gov, accessed 10 July 2006

  • Ungar S (1999) Is strange weather in the air? A study of U.S. national network news coverage of extreme weather events. Clim Change 41:133–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman S, Good G, Donoghue ER, Benbow N, Shou W, Mou S (1997) Mortality in Chicago attributed to the July 1995 heat wave. Am J Public Health 87:1515–1518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would first and foremost like to thank the United States Environmental Protection Agency for its financial support (research award #XA-83105001-0) and guidance, particularly Mr. Alan Perrin. In addition, the following people are gratefully acknowledged for their assistance with this project: Laurence Kalkstein, for his helpful feedback on various aspects of this project. Nancy Day (Toronto Public Health), Jerry Libby (Philadelphia Department of Health), and Karen Tomic, for their assistance in the development of the questionnaire. Anton Haffer (Phoenix NWS), Chris Marshall (Environment Canada), Gary Szatkowski (Mt. Holly, New Jersey NWS), and Greg Tipton (Wilmington, Ohio NWS), for their contribution of meteorological information for this work. Ben Dutcher and Bruno Maier (Combined Health District of Montgomery County, Ohio), Don Herrington (Arizona Department of Health Services), Lawrence Robinson (Philadelphia Department of Health), and Marco Vittiglio (Toronto Public Health), for their assistance with health-related information. The Kent State Survey Research Lab, especially Brian McDonald, for their invaluable assistance with the questionnaire, and the flexibility to conduct the survey on short notice. Tim Dolney and Jason Senkbeil, for their assistance in several areas of the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott C. Sheridan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sheridan, S.C. A survey of public perception and response to heat warnings across four North American cities: an evaluation of municipal effectiveness. Int J Biometeorol 52, 3–15 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-006-0052-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-006-0052-9

Keywords

Navigation