Laserfiche WebLink
<br />14 <br /> <br />Tourists were selected from lists provided by Inter-Faith, <br />newspaper articles, and state patrol records of vehicles which were <br />destroyed during the flood. An inventory of these sources revealed <br />an insufficient number of tourist groups. For additional information, <br />an advertisement was placed in five college newspapers requesting persons <br />who were in the canyon during the flood to call the researcher collect. <br />Those who called were interviewed for the study. <br />The study intended to analyze actions taken by the injured. The <br />majority of the 88 persons brought to the hospital were elderly persons <br />who were treated for exposure and released. Most people who were in the <br />canyon the night of the flood either survived unharmed or died. Since <br />the number of injured was relatively small, they were excluded from <br />the analysis. <br />The reported actions of those who died in the flood were taken <br />from second-hand accounts and sources, neighbors, friends, or reports <br />in newspaper articles. An assumption was made in cases of out-of-state <br />non-survivors. If, according to State Police records, an out-of state <br />car was totally destroyed during the flood and the owners were among <br />the victims, it was assumed they were in their cars at the time of their <br />deaths if no other information was available. <br />Biases <br /> <br />This study has certain biases which should be mentioned. First, <br />certain variables included in the hypotheses for this study (see Table 2) <br />were excluded from the analysis: environmental cues, warning characteris- <br />tics, sex, age and access to mobility. It was difficult to assess the <br />influence of environmental cues in the adoption of actions. Most of the <br />survivors (56%) reported that the rising river or heavy rain were their <br />fi rs t cl ues that somethi ng was wrong. However, envi ronmenta 1 cues can <br />