Natural Hazards

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 1093–1109 | Cite as

The logistics of household hurricane evacuation

  • Michael K. Lindell
  • Jung Eun Kang
  • Carla S. Prater
Original Paper

Abstract

Although there is a substantial amount of research on households’ hurricane evacuation decision making, there is much less research on the logistical issues involved in implementing those evacuations. The limited research on household evacuation logistics has consistently shown that most evacuees stay in the homes of friends and relatives or in commercial facilities rather than in public shelters. However, evacuation logistics—which can be defined as the activities and associated resources needed to reach a safe location and remain there until it is safe to return—encompasses a much broader range of behaviors than this. The present study extends previous research by reporting data on other aspects of evacuation logistics such as departure timing, vehicle use, evacuation routes, travel distance, shelter type, evacuation duration, and evacuation cost. Hurricane Lili evacuation data at the county level are generally consistent with the data from previous hurricanes, but there is notable variation across counties studied here. There were only modest correlations of demographic and geographic variables with the evacuation logistics variables, a result that indicates further research is needed to better understand what happens between the time an evacuation decision is made and the time re-entry is begun. Moreover, research is needed to understand the logistics of evacuation by special populations such as transients and households with disabled members.

Keywords

Hurricanes Evacuation Traffic management 

References

  1. Arlikatti S, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Zhang Y (2006) Risk area accuracy and hurricane evacuation expectations of coastal residents. Environ Behav 38:226–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker EJ (1991) Hurricane evacuation behavior. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 9:287–310Google Scholar
  3. Baker EJ (2000) Hurricane evacuation in the United States. In: Pielke R Jr, Pielke R Sr (eds) Storms, Ch. 16, vol 1. Routledge, London, pp 308–319Google Scholar
  4. Ballou RH (1987) Basic business logistics: transportation, materials management, physical distribution, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E (2000) The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opin Quar 64:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Nat Hazard Rev 8:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dash N, Morrow BH (2001) Return delays and evacuation order compliance: the case of Hurricane Georges and the Florida keys. Environ Hazard 2:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillman DA (1999) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  9. Dixit VV, Pande A, Radwan E, Abdel-Aty M (2008) Understanding the impact of a recent hurricane on mobilization time during a subsequent hurricane. Transport Res Record 2022:94–102Google Scholar
  10. Dow K, Cutter SL (2002) Emerging hurricane evacuation issues: Hurricane Floyd and South Carolina. Nat Hazard Rev 3:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drabek TE (1994) Disaster evacuation and the tourist industry. University of Colorado Institute of behavioral science program in environment and behavior monograph, Boulder, p 57Google Scholar
  12. Fu H, Wilmot CG (2004) Sequential logit dynamic travel demand model for hurricane evacuation. Transport Res Record 1882:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu H, Wilmot CG (2006) Survival analysis-based dynamic travel demand models for hurricane evacuation. Transport Res Record 1964:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fu H, Wilmot CG, Zhang H, Baker EJ (2007) Modeling the hurricane response curve. Transport Res Record 2022:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson JC, Wood DF (1996) Contemporary logistics, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Kang JE, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2007) Hurricane evacuation expectations and actual behavior in Hurricane Lili. J Appl Soc Psychol 37:881–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves RM, Presser S (2000) Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Quar 64:125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindell MK (2008) EMBLEM2: an empirically based large-scale evacuation time estimate model. Transport Res A 42:140–154Google Scholar
  19. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard. Environ Behav 32:590–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindell MK, Prater CS (2007a) Critical behavioral assumptions in evacuation analysis for private vehicles: examples from hurricane research and planning. J Urban Plan Dev 133:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindell MK, Prater CS (2007b) A hurricane evacuation management decision support system (EMDSS). Nat Hazard 40:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindell MK, Prater CW, Sanderson WG Jr, Lee HM, Zhang Y, Mohite A, Hwang SN (2001) Texas Gulf Coast residents’ expectations and intentions regarding hurricane evacuation. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, College StationGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindell MK, Lu JC, Prater CS (2005) Household decision making and evacuation in response to Hurricane Lili. Nat Hazard Rev 6:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindell MK, Prater CS, Peacock WG (2007) Organizational communication and decision making in hurricane emergencies. Nat Hazard Rev 8:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mileti DS, Fitzpatrick C (1993) The great earthquake experiment. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  26. Mileti DS, Sorensen JH, O’Brien PW (1992) Toward an explanation of mass care shelter use in evacuations. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 10:25–42Google Scholar
  27. Perry RW, Lindell MK, Greene MR (1981) Evacuation planning in emergency management. Heath Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips BD, Morrow BH (2007) Social science research needs: focus on vulnerable populations, forecasting, and warnings. Nat Hazard Rev 8:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 StationGoogle Scholar
  30. Prater CS, Zhang M, Arlikatti S, Lu JC, Zhang Y (2004) Management of the Hurricane Lili evacuation by local emergency managers. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, College StationGoogle Scholar
  31. Rushton A, Oxley J, Croucher P (2000) The handbook of logistics and distribution management. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Siebeneck LK, Cova TJ (2008) An assessment of the return-entry process for Hurricane Rita 2005. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 26:91–111Google Scholar
  33. Whitehead JC (2003) One million dollars per mile? The opportunity coasts of Hurricane evacuation. Ocean Coast Manag 46:1069–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolshon B, Hamilton EU, Levitan M, Wilmot C (2005a) Review of policies and practices for hurricane evacuation II: traffic operations, management, and control. Nat Hazard Rev 6:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolshon B, Urbina E, Wilmot C, Levitan M (2005b) Review of policies and practices for hurricane evacuation I: transportation planning, preparedness, and response. Nat Hazard Rev 6:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang Y, Prater CS, Lindell MK (2004) Risk area accuracy and evacuation from Hurricane Bret. Nat Hazard Rev 5:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael K. Lindell
    • 1
  • Jung Eun Kang
    • 1
  • Carla S. Prater
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations