Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
been blocked off and safety officials were assessing the risk (see online appendix
for details). Respondents were then asked a number of questions pertaining to their
initial reaction to the attack. Following this, respondents read a follow-up report
describing the findings and actions of safety officials and the mayor over the
previous 3 days with headline “
Chlorine Gas Levels Throughout Los Angeles
Pose Little Threat says Panel of Health Officials! Today the Mayor Received a
Reassuring Report from a Team of Chemical Experts Regarding Long-term
Health Risks. The Downtown to Re-Open”.
The report emphasized that the
mayor received reassuring news about the area's safety and that the downtown
area is cleared to resume normal activities.
Initial questions involved perceived risk (very low risk to very high risk), fear
(not fearful to very fearful), attention to media coverage (none to more than 8 h/day
during the first week), worry (not worried to very worried) and trust in first
responders (no trust to very high trust). These were followed by questions
pertaining to respondents' willingness to buy products or work near the financial
district. Respondents were asked to indicate how long they would delay buying
products, using services or working in this area ranging from no intention to delay
to indefinite delay. Specifically, we focused on professional services, food products
unique to LA, electronic products and taking a vacation near the downtown area.
We also asked what incentives might be needed (e.g. product discounts, higher
wages) to immediately resume buying products or working near the downtown
area, Table
16.1
reports survey results for respondents who evaluated the chlorine
attack.
Notice that willingness to use services, purchase goods, or work in downtown
LA immediately following the Mayor's “all clear” is greatest for professional
services and electronic products and least for food and vacation (first percentage
in each cell). Using these responses we calculated the percentage of people who
remain unwilling to use services, buy products or work near the financial district at
different points in time (percentage in parentheses). For example, after 6 months, at
least 18 % of respondents indicated they still would not consider economic
transactions in the financial district. The greatest reticence involved food products
and vacations with 11 and 14 % respectively saying they would never buy food or
vacation near the financial district in the future. In comparison, Giesecke
et al. (
2012
) investigated an RDD attack on the same area with similar casualties.
The authors found that after 6 months, at least 41 % of respondents indicated they
still would not do business in the financial district. The greatest reservation again
involved food products and vacations with 17 and 12 %, respectively, saying they
would never buy food or vacation near the financial district in the future. As we
describe below, we use the percentages within each column to approximate the
decay in perceived risk over time for each product type or job.
We also asked respondents what percentage price reduction or wage increase
they would require to consider consuming or working in downtown LA immedi-
ately following the Mayor's “all clear” (see Table
16.2
). Notice that almost half of
the respondents said they would not buy food near the financial district right away
