Abstract
In the aftermath of a hurricane, local emergency managers need to communicate reentry plans to households that might be scattered over multiple counties or states. To better understand evacuees’ households’ reliance on different information sources at the time they decided to return home, this study collected data on reentry after Hurricane Ike. The results from a survey of 340 evacuating households indicated that there was low compliance with official reentry plans and that none of the information sources produced greater compliance with official reentry plans. Nonetheless, there were significant changes in the utilization of different sources of emergency information over the course of an evacuation but local news media remained the most common sources throughout the event. There also were significant differences in the relative importance of different sources of reentry information, with people relying most on information from peers. In summary, local authorities need to identify more effective ways to communicate with evacuees that have relocated to distant communities and to motivate them to comply with official reentry plans.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker EJ (1979) Predicting response to hurricane warnings: a reanalysis of data from four studies. Mass Emerg 4:9–24
Baker EJ (1991) Hurricane evacuation behavior. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 9:287–310
Baker EJ (1993) Empirical studies of public response to tornado and hurricane warnings in the United States. In: Nemec J, Nigg J, Siccardi F (eds) Prediction and perception of natural hazards. Kluwer, London, pp 65–74
Beatley T, Brower DJ (1986) Public perception of hurricane hazards: examining the differential effects of Hurricane Diana. Coast Manag 14:241–269
City of Galveston (2008) City Galveston Hurricane Ike reentry flyer for 9/24/08. http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Ike/topics/reentry.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Nat Hazard Rev 8:69–77
Dash N, Morrow BH (2000) Return delays and evacuation order compliance: the case of Hurricane Georges and the Florida Keys. Environ Hazard 2:119–128
Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Dow K, Cutter SL (1998) Crying wolf: repeat responses to hurricane evacuation orders. Coast Manag 26:237–252
Gladwin H, Peacock WG (1997) Warning and evacuation: a night for hard houses. In: Morrow BH, Gladwin H (eds) Hurricane Andrew: gender, ethnicity and the sociology of disasters. Routledge, New York, pp 52–74
Huang SK, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu HC, Siebeneck LK (2012) Household evacuation decision making in response to Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards Rev 13:283–296
Krauss C, McKinley JC Jr (2008) Storm damage is extensive and millions lose power. New York Times (September 13). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/14ike.html?pagewanted=1. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
Lindell MK (2013) North American cities at risk: household responses to environmental hazards. In: Joffe H, Rossetto T, Adams J (eds) Cities at risk: living with perils in the 21st century. Springer, Netherlands, pp 109–130
Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32:616–632
Lindell MK, Prater CS (2008) Behavioral analysis: texas hurricane evacuation study. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center
Lindell MK, Lu J, Prater CS (2005) Household decision making and evacuation in response to Hurricane Lilli. Nat Hazard Rev 6:171–179
Lindell MK, Prater CS, Peacock WG (2007) Organizational communication and decision making in hurricane emergencies. Nat Hazard Rev 8:50–60
Mileti DS, O’Brien PW (1992) Warnings during disaster: normalizing communicated risk. Soc Probl 39:40–57
NHC (2010) National Hurricane Center: Hurricane Ike tropical cyclone report. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL092008_Ike_3May10.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2012
Perry RW, Lindell MK, Greene MR (1981) Evacuation planning in emergency management. Heath Lexington Books, Lexington
Prater CS, Wenger D, Grady K (2000) Hurricane Bret post storm assessment: a review of the utilization of hurricane evacuation studies and information dissemination. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, College Station, TX
Siebeneck LK, Cova TJ (2008) An assessment of the return entry process for Hurricane Rita 2005. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 26:91–111
Siebeneck LK, Cova TJ (2012) Spatial and temporal variation in evacuee risk perception throughout the evacuation and reentry process. Risk Anal 32:1468–1480
Siebeneck LK, Cova TJ (in press) Risk communication after disaster: re-entry following the 2008 Cedar River flood. Nat Hazard Rev
Siebeneck LK, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu HC, Huang SK (2013) Evacuees’ reentry concerns and experiences in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards 65:2267–2286
Stallings RA (1991) Ending evacuations. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 9:183–200
Witzig WF, Shillenn JK (1987) Evaluation of protective action risks (NUREG/CR-4726). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2012) Logistics of hurricane evacuation in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 15:445–461
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant SES-0838654 and IMEE-113861. The opinions, finding, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, CC., Siebeneck, L.K., Lindell, M.K. et al. Evacuees’ information sources and reentry decision making in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards 70, 865–882 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0853-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0853-1