Affordable Access

Wind Speed Perception and Risk

PLoS One
Publication Date
  • Communication


pone.0049944 1..8 Wind Speed Perception and Risk Duzgun Agdas1, Gregory D. Webster2*, Forrest J. Masters1 1 Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment, College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 2Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America Abstract Background: How accurately do people perceive extreme wind speeds and how does that perception affect the perceived risk? Prior research on human–wind interaction has focused on comfort levels in urban settings or knock-down thresholds. No systematic experimental research has attempted to assess people’s ability to estimate extreme wind speeds and perceptions of their associated risks. Method: We exposed 76 people to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 mph (4.5, 8.9, 13.4, 17.9, 22.3, and 26.8 m/s) winds in randomized orders and asked them to estimate wind speed and the corresponding risk they felt. Results: Multilevel modeling showed that people were accurate at lower wind speeds but overestimated wind speeds at higher levels. Wind speed perceptions mediated the direct relationship between actual wind speeds and perceptions of risk (i.e., the greater the perceived wind speed, the greater the perceived risk). The number of tropical cyclones people had experienced moderated the strength of the actual–perceived wind speed relationship; consequently, mediation was stronger for people who had experienced fewer storms. Conclusion: These findings provide a clearer understanding of wind and risk perception, which can aid development of public policy solutions toward communicating the severity and risks associated with natural disasters. Citation: Agdas D, Webster GD, Masters FJ (2012) Wind Speed Perception and Risk. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49944. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049944 Editor: Luis M. Martinez, CSIC-Univ Miguel Hernandez, Spain Received March 28, 2012; Accepted October 19, 2012; Publi

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.