Table 1. Summary of variables used in the analysis

Indicators of interest Categories of response Distribution of responses
Response to warning
Evacuation Not evacuated 75 (35.4%)
Evacuated 137 (64.6%)
Voluntary evacuation Not evacuated 89 (42%)
Evacuated 123 (58%)
Voluntary Shelter evacuation Not evacuated 118 (55.7%)
Evacuated 94 (44.3%)
Formal education Range: 0 to 17 years; Median: 7 years
Hazard specific traditional knowledge base Couldn’t tell anything 111
Reported observing cues and could provide some or more detail on the cues 101
Income and socioeconomic status
Income Range: INR 3000 p.a. to INR 60,000 p.a.
Median: INR 12,000 p.a.
Housing Quality Thatched huts 113
Tiled roof house 20
Concrete roof house 79
Indicators related to access, understanding, and
interpretation of warning information
Whether the following were included in
the warning message:
Severity of cyclone No 61
Yes 151
Landfall Location of cyclone No 66
Yes 146
Landfall time of cyclone No 74
Yes 138
Evacuation order in the warning No 36
Yes 176
Protective guidance in the warning No 81
Yes 131
Clarity of the warning message
(Whether all or few words understood?)

A few

All 130
Type of channel through which warning was received
Face to face channels

Village Secretary

Revenue dept. official 44
Fisheries dept. official 27
Church person 10
NGO personnel 18
Community members 42
Media Channels Public address system 48
Television 99
Radio 71
Newspaper 37
Others 21
Estimate of damage due to cyclone given a particular severity Either some vague estimate of damage or could not estimate damage 88
Some concrete estimate of damage 124