4.4 Article

Evaluation of Hurricane Evacuation Order Plans: Hurricane Florence Case Study

Journal

NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000589

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1331269]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces an approach to evaluate the performance of hurricane evacuation plans and demonstrates its application in the case of Hurricane Florence in North Carolina. The results suggest that the actual evacuation was effective and that the integrated scenario-based evacuation (ISE) decision support tool could have further improved the evacuation performance.
This paper introduces an approach to evaluate the performance of a previously implemented or proposed hurricane evacuation plan that describes where and when official evacuation orders are issued. The approach involves use of the new integrated scenario-based evacuation (ISE) decision support tool to define a best track evacuation plan as a reference point and measure the performance of other plans in relation to that according to their ability to meet multiple stated objectives: minimizing risk to the population, travel time, and time people are away from their homes. Using North Carolina in Hurricane Florence (2018) as a case study, we demonstrate the process by evaluating performance of both the actual set of orders as executed and the orders that would have been recommended if the new ISE decision support tool had been used during the event. All three plans were evaluated for two cases-assuming the hurricane unfolds as it actually did, and if the hurricane had instead evolved like one of 21 other realistic scenarios. Results suggest the actual evacuation was quite good, and the ISE tool could have resulted in improved evacuation performance. (C) 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available