Brittany Brand: Using Map Your Hazards! in Volcanoes and Society at Boise State University

Unit 1

I began Unit 1 with an introduction to general natural hazards using the provided PowerPoint presentation. I then introduced the module as a whole, briefly describing the learning objectives of each unit and expectations. The module description and point breakdown was handed out at this time. At this point I also asked the students to distribute the survey for Unit 2 to their local social networks (friends, family, teams and clubs in the Boise area) via the survey web link. Each student was required to obtain three completed surveys. The survey participants were anonymous, but the surveys included the name of the student who sent the survey in the last survey question.

Note: You may need to obtain IRB approval for the survey. Because the survey is distributed as part of a classroom project and not intended for research, you may qualify for exempt IRB status (usually a quick approval) or you may not need IRB approval at all. I recommend looking into your institution's IRB requirements at least two months before you begin the module.

I divided the students into six 3-person groups and one 2-person group. Each group was given a PowerPoint file with a map. I chose small mapping areas that covered all of Boise and many of the surrounding populous regions (see the example completed Unit 1 assignments from Boise region). I chose the maps to ensure the entire region was covered and that the maps were different for each group. Note: You may choose to have your students pick their own mapping area.

One student (or more) in each group brought a laptop to class to complete the mapping exercise (I let them know ahead of time to bring the laptops). Unit 1 seemed to work best when there were at least two laptops — one to look up the credible data sources and one to produce the map. One issue that came up a few times was mapping local hazards inaccurately. We had group-by-group discussion about why it is important to be accurate with their map lines (e.g., outlines for areas prone to flooding or wildfire) in terms of land ownership, liability, insurance, and general decision making. This might be good to discuss as a class at the beginning of Unit 1.

Unit 1 took the students two 75-minute class periods to complete, which included the introduction to natural hazards presentation and the introduction to the module presentation. Each group submitted a PowerPoint or PDF file with their final materials (i.e., hazard, vulnerability and risk maps with keys, justification and sources cited).

The students told me it would have been helpful to provide a short tutorial for how to make shapes in PowerPoint, which would save a lot of time and frustration. We have since added this tutorial to the module materials. Otherwise the students found Unit 1 to be challenging but interesting.

Unit 2

The class collected 160 completed surveys from the Boise region. I compiled the data for the students and divided a set of graphs for each group to analyze for Unit 2 Part A. The point of this was for the students to familiarize themselves with the data before tackling the entire data set.

I had covered the basics of natural hazard and risk perception earlier in the term. As such, instead of using the "Introduction to Vulnerability, Risk and Risk Perception" PowerPoint, I simply began with a case study: Volcanic Risk Perception in the Vesuvius Population (Barberi et al., 2008). This case study and paper are now available as part of the module materials (a link to the paper can be found at the end of the "Introduction to Risk and Vulnerability for Geosciences' PowerPoint"). The students read the paper before coming to class and were ready to discuss the results. The Barberi et al., (2008) paper illustrates that, while the community living at risk from a future Vesuvius eruption has an accurate knowledge of volcanic risk, they rank other issues, such as public services, crime, pollution, traffic and unemployment, as bigger concerns. They also have a low self-efficacy (do not believe they can protect themselves from a future eruption), which appears to directly relate to their unwillingness to prepare for a future eruption. This is a great, quick example of how a variety of factors control a given population's risk perception and willingness to prepare for a future natural hazard event. The discussion took around 20 minutes in the third 75-minute class of the module.

Next I handed out the Unit 2 assignment and packets with the selected survey results. The students completed Unit 2 Part A during the same 75-minute class. We did not have time for a class discussion because the "Map Your Hazards" team had originally assigned more graphs and questions, which the students did not have time to complete. However, with our modifications the students should have time to complete Unit 2 Part A with time for a class discussion before tackling Unit 2 Part B. My students were encouraged to complete as much of Part B as they could before coming to the next class. My students consisted of 20 honors students; they all completed most of Part B before the next class. Note: This may not be the case in a more general level classroom.

The fourth 75-minute class began with a class discussion on Unit 2 Part B answers. The students were then instructed to work on their research questions. I helped the groups develop their research questions and supporting graphs during the class period. They complete and turned in Unit 2 Part B by the end of class.

Unit 3

Instructions and the rubric for completing Unit 3 were handed out and discussed at the beginning of the fifth 75-minute class. Students had been instructed to bring their computers and begin assembling their final presentations. Half of the groups were assigned to pitch their presentations to experts (i.e., local emergency managers), while the other half were assigned to pitch their presentations to the general public.

The students worked on their final presentations during the entire class period and the following (sixth) class period. They were required to practice their presentations for another group in the class before the end of the week (many practiced during the sixth class period). Students were encouraged to show me their presentations as well. Those who asked for my feedback on their presentations performed much better than those who did not. That being said, all of the groups did an excellent job with their presentations.

Final presentations were given during the 2-hour finals period. We had several special guests, including a few members of the general public (some friends of students), the Ada County and Boise State University emergency managers, a professor from Community and Regional Planning, and the chair of the Department of Geosciences. The students were told a week earlier that these guests might attend the final presentations, so they were prepared for their respective audiences. The groups did an exceptional job presenting their findings and answering questions from the audience. The Ada County emergency manager was particularly interested and impressed with the level of the students' work. He thanked them at the end of the class and told them he planned to adopt some of their suggestions for improving the Ada County emergency management website and outreach efforts. The students' feedback indicated that, while knowing they would present for experts made the presentations more stressful, it also made them feel like they were giving back to their community, making the entire experience more meaningful.

What did you get out of the mapping exercise (Unit 1)? ·

• Surprised at how many natural hazards are around us!
• It was interesting to overlay the hazards and vulnerabilities to identify high-risk areas.
• Gained perspective of where I live.
• Which areas were affected by specific hazards and reasons why.
• I got to learn about all of the natural hazards in the Treasure Valley. I will be living here for the next several years, so it really helps knowing about these.
• It was nice to see maps of the areas where I live and frequent and to know the hazards associated with these.
• Knowledge of natural hazards in my area leading to me wanting to be better prepared.
• I knew of the hazards but did not connect it to vulnerability so it was good to see all the vulnerable populations at risk.
• This definitely increased my understanding of how vulnerability and natural hazards interact to determine risk.
• I learned what areas can be more affected by natural disasters: also, what areas are at risk.
• My awareness has been really increased concerning this area.
• There are large areas that could be affected by natural hazards. Also that there are many vulnerable populations.
• Understanding of how risk maps are generated and how many necessary structures are at risk.
• I learned about all different types of natural hazards and the different likelihoods of them.
• A sense of which areas were most at risk. Topographic variables.

What did you learn from the surveys (Unit 2)?

• Level of preparedness lower than I thought it would be.
• People are generally not concerned or prepared for a natural disaster.
• The percent of male and female demographics and their correlations with self-efficacy.
• I had expected some demographics to feel more prepared than others. However, that was not the case. Unpreparedness was rather equally distributed.
• I learned a lot about the preparedness of the population. Most people were at least aware of the possibility of a natural hazard but were not concerned or prepared.
• I did not expect that people were so personally unprepared for natural hazards.
• I was surprised that we seem unprepared. However, compared to national averages we are doing a good job.
• People do not know about natural hazards in their area, and not many are prepared for anything.
• That not many people have emergency kits.
• Better knowledge of vulnerabilities in our area.
• The surveys definitely had surprising results and I feel like we could spend a very long time examining the various relationships. Most surprising to me was that so few people are prepared for natural disasters and longer residence does not increase awareness.
• Not a lot of people are concerned about the hazards that happen in Boise.
• People are not as aware or prepared as they should be.
• As a community we are not prepared.
• That length of residence did not really affect the knowledge. I thought there would be a direct correlation.
• More people are prepared than I thought. Females do not feel as prepared as men.
• Men think of themselves as more prepared. Most age groups were equally unprepared.

What did you learn from the presentations? How would you do your presentation differently (Unit 3)?

• It was great to see the different maps around Boise for when I buy a home one day!
• Participation in drills does not correlate with preparedness.
• Some presentations were repetitive.
• I need to create an emergency kit, and I need to make my parents create a kit too!
• Presentations need to address more diverse content. Maybe each group should be assigned a purpose?
• I learned about how to prepare for hazards and that I am not really prepared.
• I got to learn about what goes on where. The presentations reinforced that the area is in danger of different hazards.
• Assign different data to different groups. Some of the presentations were repetitive and I was sleepy.
• The presentations would be nice to see again with a larger demographic of people; 160 participants representing the entire area seems too small.
• The presentations were all great!
• Present an outline for household evacuation plans along with suggestions.
• The main thing I would change about all the presentations is individualizing the data to the area studied. However, we did not have enough data from some areas to make this possible.
• Clarification on the stakeholders (who am I addressing – public or experts) would have been useful.
• I would gather data on the areas being presented and separate the data to have a clearer risk perception for each mapping area.
• That being prepared is easy, but everyone in your community being prepared is key. I would have found another hypothesis to test on different data.
• I learned new ways of thinking about the data. I loved some of the recommendations! I think the presentations went well. Some groups needed to explain graphs and maps better for the general public, but I understood.

What are your recommendations for improving the module?

• Send out the surveys earlier to get more responses.
• Use more variation in the assigned group research questions.
• Have students in class take the survey early in the term so we can empathize with people who do not have knowledge or an accurate risk perception of local natural hazards.
• More hands-on experience out in the community versus PowerPoint presentations.
• The written instructions were sometimes confusing and unclear, making the grade aspect of the module slightly stressful.
• Try to get more survey data for more accurate (statistically significant) results.
• More clear questions on the survey and more survey respondents.
• More clearly explain Unit 1 and provide an example of how to draw shapes in PowerPoint. My biggest issue was that I did not know how to use PowerPoint in this way.
• Longer response time for surveys.
• Spending more time on the module! It would have been better if we could have spent longer on this portion of the class.
• Clarification on who is considered experts and who is considered general public would have been useful.
• I would say give us more time with it! It was a ton of work! It was interesting, but a lot of work.
• I felt like I needed more time. Clarity on who should fill out the surveys and who is being represented would help.
• I might not give multiple groups the same hypothesis (research question). That way each group is different entirely.
• Find a way to get a broader demographic (less college students). Less questions on the survey. Maybe make mini-surveys geared toward each individual hazard separately.
• Larger sample size. Strictly speaking, no hypothesis could be evaluated because none of our data was technically statistically significant. This means we cannot support hypothesis.