Use of Social Media to Seek and Provide Help in Hurricanes Florence and Michael
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Social Media Use in Resilient Smart Cities
2.2. Social Media Use during Hurricanes
2.3. Theory of Planned Behavior
3. Hypothesis Development and Proposed Models
3.1. Attitude toward Social Media
3.2. Subjective Norms
3.3. Perceived Behavioral Control
3.4. Intention
3.5. Urgency
3.6. Posting Frequency
3.7. Number of Help Posts
4. Method
4.1. Sample
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior Variables, Intention, and Behaviors
4.2.2. Hurricane Damage Measures
4.2.3. Posting Frequency and Number of Help Posts Seen
5. Results
5.1. Survey Results: Social Media Use
5.2. Survey Results: Hurricane Damages
5.3. Survey Results: TPB and Regression Parameters
5.4. Correlation
5.5. Theory of Planned Behavior Regression Analysis
Hypothesis Testing and Concept Model
6. Discussion
6.1. Limitations
6.2. Contributions and Future Work
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Data Availability Statement
Appendix A. Survey Questions
- Multiple times in a day (1)
- About once a day (2)
- About once a week (3)
- Every few weeks (4)
- Less than once per month (5)
- Never (6)
- Facebook (1)
- Twitter (2)
- Snapchat (3)
- Instagram (4)
- Zello (5)
- Prefer not to say (6)
- None (7)
- Between 0 and 50 (1)
- Between 50 and 100 (2)
- Between 100 and 200 (3)
- Between 200 and 300 (4)
- More than 300 (5)
- I’m not sure (6)
- Prefer not to say (7)
- Between 0 and 50 (1)
- Between 50 and 100 (2)
- Between 100 and 200 (3)
- Between 200 and 300 (4)
- More than 300 (5)
- I’m not sure (6)
- Prefer not to say (7)
- Between 0 and 50 (1)
- Between 50 and 100 (2)
- Between 100 and 200 (3)
- Between 200 and 300 (4)
- More than 300 (5)
- I’m not sure (6)
- Strongly agree (1)
- Agree (2)
- Somewhat agree (3)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4)
- Somewhat disagree (5)
- Disagree (6)
- Strongly disagree (7)
- Strongly agree (1)
- Agree (2)
- Somewhat agree (3)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4)
- Somewhat disagree (5)
- Disagree (6)
- Strongly disagree (7)
- Strongly agree (1)
- Agree (2)
- Somewhat agree (3)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4)
- Somewhat disagree (5)
- Disagree (6)
- Strongly disagree (7)
- Strongly agree (1)
- Agree (2)
- Somewhat agree (3)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4)
- Somewhat disagree (5)
- Disagree (6)
- Strongly disagree (7)
- Strongly agree (1)
- Agree (2)
- Somewhat agree (3)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4)
- Somewhat disagree (5)
- Disagree (6)
- Strongly disagree (7)
- Strongly agree (1)
- Agree (2)
- Somewhat agree (3)
- Neither agree nor disagree (4)
- Somewhat disagree (5)
- Disagree (6)
- Strongly disagree (7)
- Multiple times in a day (1)
- About once a day (2)
- About once a week (3)
- Every few weeks (4)
- Less than once per month (5)
- Not sure (6)
- Prefer not to say (7)
- Florida (1)
- North Carolina (2)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Yes, at first, but the evacuation was lifted (3)
- Not sure (4)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Less than 1000 USD (1)
- 1000 USD to under 10,000 USD (2)
- 10,000 to under 50,000 USD (3)
- More than 50,000 USD (4)
- Not sure (5)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Less than 24 h (1)
- One day (2)
- Two to three days (3)
- Four to five days (4)
- Six to seven days (5)
- More than one week (6)
- Not sure (7)
- Water rescue (being trapped on upper floors, roof, or outside during a flood) (1)
- Trapped car/car accident (2)
- Flooding in the house (3)
- Other (please describe): (5)
- We did not experience an emergency (6)
- Word of mouth, shouted for help (1)
- Called 9-1-1 (2)
- Made a post to social media (3)
- Called someone I know for help (4)
- Just waited/unable to ask for help (5)
- Other (please specify): (6)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Fewer than 15 min (1)
- 15 to 30 min (2)
- 30 min to one hour (3)
- Longer than one hour (4)
- I am not sure (5)
- Extremely satisfied (1)
- Somewhat satisfied (2)
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
- Somewhat dissatisfied (4)
- Extremely dissatisfied (5)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Facebook (1)
- Twitter (2)
- Snapchat (3)
- Instagram (4)
- Zello (5)
- Whatsapp (6)
- CrowdSource Rescue (7)
- None (8)
- Prefer not to say (9)
- Fewer than 15 min (1)
- More than 15 min but less than one hour (2)
- One to six hours (3)
- More than six hours but less than 24 h (4)
- 24 to 48 h (5)
- Three to five days (6)
- More than five days (7)
- I am not sure (8)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not Sure (3)
- I don’t know what Cajun Navy is (4)
- Fewer than 15 min (1)
- More than 15 min but less than one hour (2)
- One to six hours (3)
- More than six hours but less than 24 h (4)
- 24 to 48 h (5)
- Three to five days (6)
- More than five days (7)
- I am not sure (8)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Fewer than 15 min (1)
- 15 to 30 min (2)
- 30 min to one hour (3)
- Longer than one hour (4)
- I am not sure but I eventually received help (5)
- I never received the help I reQuested (6)
- Extremely satisfied (1)
- Somewhat satisfied (2)
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
- Somewhat dissatisfied (4)
- Extremely dissatisfied (5)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Yes (1)
- No (2)
- Not sure (3)
- Less than one hour (1)
- One to six hours (2)
- More than 6 h but less than 24 h (3)
- 24–48 h (4)
- Three to five days (5)
- Six to seven days (6)
- More than one week (7)
- I am not sure how long but I did eventually receive help (8)
- I never received the supplies I reQuested (9)
- Extremely satisfied (1)
- Somewhat satisfied (2)
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
- Somewhat dissatisfied (4)
- Extremely dissatisfied (5)
- To let people know we were safe (1)
- To share what was happening at my location (like road blocked or flood area) (2)
- To organize help or rescue for someone else (3)
- Look for supplies like food water or fuel (4)
- Get emergency help (5)
- Other (Please describe): (6)
- Yes, I saw at least one post asking for help (1)
- Yes, I saw multiple posts asking for help (2)
- No, I don’t remember seeing that (3)
- Facebook (1)
- Twitter (2)
- Whatsapp (3)
- Zello (4)
- Snapchat (5)
- Other (6)
- Yes, I went to help them (1)
- Yes, I shared or re-posted their message on my page (2)
- Yes, I responded with tagging or hashtagging to get attention of someone who could help (3)
- Yes, I called 9-1-1 (4)
- No, I did not interact with any social media posts asking for help (5)
- Other—Please elaborate on how you responded to seeing posts for help (6)
- Extremely satisfied (1)
- Somewhat satisfied (2)
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
- Somewhat dissatisfied (4)
- Extremely dissatisfied (5)
- Male (1)
- Female (2)
- Prefer not to say (3)
- Less than high school degree (1)
- High school degree (2)
- Some college but no degree (3)
- College degree (4)
- Graduate school degree (5)
- Prefer not to say (6)
- Less than 10,000 USD (1)
- 10,000–19,999 USD (2)
- 20,000–39,999 USD (3)
- 40,000–59,999 USD (4)
- 60,000–79,999 USD (5)
- 80,000–99,999 USD (6)
- More than 100,000 USD (7)
- Prefer not to say (8)
- 1 (1)
- 2 (2)
- 3 (3)
- 4 (4)
- 5 (5)
- 6 (6)
- More than 6 (7)
- Prefer not to say (8)
- 18–24 (1)
- 25–34 (2)
- 35–44 (3)
- 45–54 (4)
- 55–64 (5)
- 65+ (6)
- Prefer not to say (7)
References
- Hajikhani, A. Impact of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Discussions in Smart Cities: Comprehensive Assessment of Social Media Data. Smart Cities 2020, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doran, D.; Gokhale, S.; Dagnino, A. Human sensing for smart cities. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM 2013, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 25–28 August 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1323–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.F.; Fraustino, J.D.; Jin, Y. Social Media Use During Disasters. Commun. Res. 2016, 43, 626–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fraustino, J.; Daisy, B.; Liu, Y.J. Social Media Use during Disasters: A Review of the Knowledge Base and Gaps; Technical Report; US Department of Homeland Security: College Park, MD, USA, 2012.
- Guan, X.; Chen, C. Using social media data to understand and assess disasters. Nat. Hazards 2014, 74, 837–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houston, J.B.; Hawthorne, J.; Perreault, M.F.; Park, E.H.; Goldstein Hode, M.; Halliwell, M.R.; Turner McGowen, S.E.; Davis, R.; Vaid, S.; McElderry, J.A.; et al. Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters 2015, 39, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS). System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Innovative Uses of Social Media in Emergency Management. 2013. Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Social-Media-EM_0913-508_0.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2020).
- Varghese, R.; Yadukrishnan, T.A. Role of social media during Kerala floods 2018. Libr. Philos. Pract. e-J. 2019. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2754/ (accessed on 28 August 2020).
- Dong, H.; Halem, M.; Zhou, S. Social Media Data Analytics Applied to Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Social Computing, Alexandria, VA, USA, 8–14 September 2013; pp. 963–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, D.; Ukkusuri, S.V. Enhancing demographic coverage of hurricane evacuation behavior modeling using social media. J. Comput. Sci. 2020, 45, 101184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Alvarez, F.; Morales-Esteban, A. Big data and natural disasters: New approaches for spatial and temporal massive data analysis. Comput. Geosci. 2019, 129, 38–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Ye, X. Social media analytics for natural disaster management. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2018, 32, 49–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, F.Y.; Young, M.L. Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention: A test of competing models. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 2697–2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhmann, A.; Brønn, P.S. Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior to predict practitioners’ intentions to measure and evaluate communication outcomes. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2018, 23, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelling, E.L.; White, K.M. The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Young People’s Use of Social Networking Web Sites. CyberPsychology Behav. 2009, 12, 755–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, E.; Lee, J.A.; Sung, Y.; Choi, S.M. Predicting selfie-posting behavior on social networking sites: An extension of theory of planned behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.F. Understanding Behavioral Intention to Participate in Virtual Communities. CyberPsychology Behav. 2006, 9, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Compeau, D.R.; Higgins, C.A. Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riad, J.K.; Norris, F.H. Hurricane Threat and Evacuation Intentions: An Analysis of Risk Perception, Preparedness, Social Influence, and Resources; Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware: Newark, DE, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Kellens, W.; Zaalberg, R.; De Maeyer, P. The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public’s Information-Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1369–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Najafi, M.; Ardalan, A.; Akbarisari, A.; Noorbala, A.A.; Elmi, H. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Disaster Preparedness. PLoS Curr. 2017, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kossin, J.P. A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed. Nature 2018, 558, 104–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Richthofen, A.; Tomarchio, L.; Costa, A. Identifying Communities within the Smart-Cultural City of Singapore: A Network Analysis Approach. Smart Cities 2019, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lim, C.; Kim, K.J.; Maglio, P. Smart cities with big data: Reference models, challenges, and considerations. Cities 2018, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinillo, S.; Anaya-Sánchez, R.; Morrison, A.M.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Smart city communication via social media: Analysing residents’ and visitors’ engagement. Cities 2019, 94, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkhatib, M.; El Barachi, M.; Shaalan, K. An Arabic social media based framework for incidents and events monitoring in smart cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 771–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ning, H.; Li, Z.; Hodgson, M.E.; Wang, C.S. Prototyping a Social Media Flooding Photo Screening System Based on Deep Learning. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berglund, E.Z.; Monroe, J.G.; Ahmed, I.; Noghabaei, M.; Do, J.; Pesantez, J.E.; Khaksar Fasaee, M.A.; Bardaka, E.; Han, K.; Proestos, G.T.; et al. Smart Infrastructure: A Vision for the Role of the Civil Engineering Profession in Smart Cities. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2020, 26, 03120001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Jeitner, C.; Pittfield, T.; Donio, M. Trusted information sources used during and after superstorm sandy: TV and radio were used more often than social media. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A Curr. Issues 2013, 76, 1138–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- American Red Cross. Social Media in Disasters and Emergencies; Technical Report; The American Red Cross: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.; Davis, G.; David, F. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pearson, M.; Hamilton, K. Investigating driver willingness to drive through flooded waterways. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 72, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Du, E.; Cai, X.; Sun, Z.; Minsker, B. Exploring the Role of Social Media and Individual Behaviors in Flood Evacuation Processes: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 9164–9180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I.; Driver, B.L. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Leisure Choice. J. Leis. Res. 1992, 24, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salonen, A.O.; Åhlberg, M. Obstacles to sustainable living in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013, 8, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, J.S.; Taylor, H.L.; Doody, B.J.; Wright, K.C.; Gruntfest, E.; Webber, D.; Becker, J.S.; Taylor, H.L.; Doody, B.J.; Wright, K.C.; et al. A Review of People’s Behavior in and around Floodwater. Weather. Clim. Soc. 2015, 7, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, N.; Rau, P.P.L.; Ma, L. Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 38, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United States Pew Research Center. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media (accessed on 20 February 2020).
- “Counties” [basemap]. Hazard Exposure Map 09152018 and Hazard Exposure Map 10102018. Owner: FEMAMAC Esri ArcGIS Online. Available online: azardExposureMap10102018 (accessed on 20 October 2019).
- Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez, L.; Borsi, K.; Rodrigues, L. The role of social network analysis on participation and placemaking. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohoo, I.R.; Ducrot, C.; Fourichon, C.; Donald, A.; Hurnik, D. An overview of techniques for dealing with large numbers of independent variables in epidemiologic studies. Prev. Vet. Med. 1997, 29, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.J. Solving multicollinearity in the process of fitting regression model using the nested estimate procedure. Qual. Quant. 2008, 42, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Straus, J.; Chang, H.; Hong, C.Y. An exploratory path analysis of attitudes, behaviors and summer water consumption in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 23, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaccard, J.; Turrisi, R.; Wan, C.K. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990; p. 95. [Google Scholar]
- Kontokosta, C.E.; Malik, A. The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index: Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 36, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, R.J. Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheeran, P.; Gollwitzer, P.M.; Bargh, J.A. Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychol. 2013, 32, 460–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social Capital and Community Resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
Gender | North Carolina (233) | Florida (201) | Combined Sample (434) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | 30.90% | 27.86% | 29.49% | |
Female | 69.10% | 72.14% | 70.51% | |
Survey Age Group | ||||
18–24 | 11.59% | 6.97% | 9.45% | |
25–34 | 14.16% | 16.92% | 15.44% | |
35–44 | 16.74% | 16.42% | 16.59% | |
45–54 | 18.03% | 14.93% | 16.59% | |
55–64 | 20.60% | 23.38% | 21.89% | |
65+ | 18.88% | 20.90% | 19.82% | |
Level of Education | ||||
Less than high school degree | 0.86% | 3.98% | 2.3% | |
High school degree | 17.17% | 22.39% | 19.59% | |
Some college | 31.33% | 25.37% | 28.57% | |
College degree | 36.48% | 29.85% | 33.41% | |
Graduate School degree | 13.30% | 18.41% | 15.67% | |
Income Group | ||||
Under 10,000 USD | 8.15% | 4.98% | 6.68% | |
10,000–29,000 USD | 6.01% | 9.95% | 7.83% | |
20,000–39,000 USD | 21.03% | 26.37% | 23.50% | |
40,000–59,000 USD | 18.03% | 12.44% | 15.44% | |
60,000–79,000 USD | 12.45% | 12.94% | 12.67% | |
80,000–99,000 USD | 9.01% | 8.46% | 8.76% | |
100,000+ USD | 15.02% | 18.41% | 16.59% | |
Prefer not to say | 10.30% | 6.47% | 8.53% |
Survey Question | Response | Points Assigned toward Urgency Score (U) |
---|---|---|
Please estimate the cost of property damages your household because of [hurricane]: | 1000 to under 10,000 USD | 1 |
10,000 to under 50,000 USD | 2 | |
More than 50,000 USD | 3 | |
Not sure | 0 | |
Did your household experience any of the following emergency situations because of [hurricane]: | Water rescue | 2 |
Trapped in car/ Car accident | 1 | |
Flooding in the house | 1 | |
No emergency | 0 | |
Other | 1–3, Text analyzed and coded for severity (e.g., some water = 1; wind, roof damages = 2; injury and fires = 3) |
Model | Regression Parameter | VIF |
---|---|---|
Intention Model | A | 1.916 |
1.416 | ||
PBC | 1.991 | |
SN | 1.354 | |
Help-Seeking Model | U | 1.004 |
I | 1.004 | |
Help-Responding Model | 1.131 | |
1.182 | ||
U | 1.007 | |
I | 1.131 |
Dataset | Independent Variables | Unstandardized Coefficient (B) | Standard Error | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Florida (N = 201, R2 = 0.10, F = 5.02) | A | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.483 |
0.003 | 0.034 | 0.927 | ||
0.030 | 0.013 | 0.027 * | ||
0.028 | 0.023 | 0.231 | ||
North Carolina (N = 233, R2 = 0.24, F = 16.57) | A | 0.056 | 0.014 | 0.000 ** |
−0.056 | 0.028 | 0.045 * | ||
0.013 | 0.010 | 0.212 | ||
0.048 | 0.021 | 0.021 * | ||
Combined Sample (N = 434, R2 = 0.17, F = 19.82) | A | 0.037 | 0.010 | 0.000 ** |
−0.030 | 0.022 | 0.165 | ||
0.020 | 0.008 | 0.013 * | ||
0.038 | 0.015 | 0.014 * |
Dataset | Independent Variables | Unstandardized Coefficient (B) | Standard Error | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Florida (N = 201, R2 = 0.10, F = 11.5) | I | 0.112 | 0.089 | 0.191 |
U | 0.078 | 0.018 | 0.000 ** | |
North Carolina (N = 233, R2 = 0.48, F = 34.9) | I | 0.103 | 0.054 | 0.058 |
U | 0.120 | 0.015 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall (N = 434, R2 = 0.12, F = 29.5) | I | 0.106 | 0.050 | 0.034 * |
U | 0.080 | 0.011 | 0.000 ** |
Dataset | Independent Variables | Unstandardized Coefficient (B) | Standard Error | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Florida (N = 201, R2 = 0.210, F = 12.057) | U | 0.081 | 0.019 | 0.000 ** |
I | −0.047 | 0.097 | 0.627 | |
0.143 | 0.039 | 0.000 ** | ||
0.070 | 0.028 | 0.013 * | ||
North Carolina (N = 233, R2 = 0.126, F = 8.68) | U | 0.070 | 0.014 | 0.000 ** |
I | 0.037 | 0.070 | 0.599 | |
0.063 | 0.031 | 0.000 ** | ||
0.021 | 0.020 | 0.297 | ||
Overall (N = 434, R2 = 0.367, F = 58.77) | U | 0.041 | 0.078 | 0.052 |
I | −0.018 | 0.108 | 0.870 | |
0.598 | 0.045 | 0.000 ** | ||
0.091 | 0.030 | 0.003 ** |
Result | NC Dataset | FL Dataset | Combined |
---|---|---|---|
H1. A is positively related to I. | Accepted | Rejected | Accepted |
H2. is positively related to I. | Accepted | Rejected | Rejected |
H3. is positively related to I. | Rejected | Accepted | Accepted |
H4a. I is positively related to . | Rejected | Rejected | Accepted |
H4b. I is positively related to . | Rejected | Rejected | Rejected |
H5a. U positively related to . | Accepted | Accepted | Accepted |
H5b. U is negatively related to . | Rejected * | Rejected * | Rejected ** |
H6. is positively related to I. | Accepted | Rejected | Accepted |
H7. is positively related to . | Accepted | Accepted | Accepted |
† is positively related to . | False | True | True |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
DiCarlo, M.F.; Berglund, E.Z. Use of Social Media to Seek and Provide Help in Hurricanes Florence and Michael. Smart Cities 2020, 3, 1187-1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities3040059
DiCarlo MF, Berglund EZ. Use of Social Media to Seek and Provide Help in Hurricanes Florence and Michael. Smart Cities. 2020; 3(4):1187-1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities3040059
Chicago/Turabian StyleDiCarlo, Morgan Faye, and Emily Zechman Berglund. 2020. "Use of Social Media to Seek and Provide Help in Hurricanes Florence and Michael" Smart Cities 3, no. 4: 1187-1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities3040059