4.6 Article

Previous hurricane evacuation decisions and future evacuation intentions among residents of southeast Louisiana

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.003

关键词

Evacuation; Hurricane; Social vulnerability; Hurricane Katrina; Risk perception

资金

  1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  2. Federal Emergency Management Agency
  3. Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
  4. Dewberry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population evacuation is an important component of emergency management planning for a variety of hazards, especially hurricanes and tropical storms that threaten coastal communities. This study examined previous evacuation decisions and evacuation intentions across 13 southeast Louisiana coastal parishes. Overall, the results indicate that most people will evacuate from strong storms, especially when ordered to do so. Future evacuation intentions correlated with previous evacuation decisions and corresponded to storm strength and official evacuation orders. Demographic factors had varying effects on behavior and intentions, with gender and race having the most consistent effects. The effects of income, education, homeownership, and housing type varied by storm strength and had different effects for intentions than previous behaviors. Previous flooding and wind damage had minimal effects on evacuation intentions. Risk perception, especially perception of the safety of one's own home, had strong effects on evacuation intentions. Qualitative results support the quantitative findings showing that people continue to rely on storm strength, especially Category or wind speed, as an indicator of risk and that persons who would not evacuate felt their homes were safe or had jobs that required them to report for duty. The results call for more research into how predictors of actual behaviors and intentions vary even while behaviors and intentions are correlated and how individuals determine that their house is safe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据