IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v40y2020i1d10.1007_s10669-019-09741-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

If you love it, let it go: the role of home attachment in wildfire evacuation decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Hugh D. Walpole

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Robyn S. Wilson

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Sarah M. McCaffrey

    (Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service)

Abstract

Evacuation is the preferred method in the U.S. for preserving public safety in wildfire. However, alternatives such as staying and defending are used both in North America and Australia. Dangerous delays in the decision to evacuate are also common. One contributor to the evacuation decision is attachment to the home, however, little research has examined its role in evacuation decisions. We explored the role of home attachment in the evacuation decision and the effectiveness of communication and other cues in motivating safer, more decisive response actions. Using an online sample (n = 268), we conducted a 3 (information) × 2 (physical cue) experimental design. We hypothesized that higher home attachment would increase intentions to stay and defend the home, or to wait and see before making the decision to evacuate. We also hypothesized that the effect of information and cues on behavioral intentions would be conditional on residents’ attachment to their home. Surprisingly, with high attachment, defense benefit information and the presence of physical cues decreased waiting intentions. With low attachment, defense benefit information increased waiting intentions and cues had no effect. Our findings suggest that caution should be used when communicating about the benefits of home defense in isolation, as this may motivate decision delays.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugh D. Walpole & Robyn S. Wilson & Sarah M. McCaffrey, 2020. "If you love it, let it go: the role of home attachment in wildfire evacuation decisions," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 29-40, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:40:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-019-09741-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-019-09741-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-019-09741-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-019-09741-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    2. Carole Adam & Benoit Gaudou, 2017. "Modelling Human Behaviours in Disasters from Interviews: Application to Melbourne Bushfires," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(3), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert & Igor Linkov, 2020. "Interdisciplinary mathematical methods for societal decision-making and resilience," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 1-2, March.
    2. Stephen D. Wong & Jacquelyn C. Broader & Joan L. Walker & Susan A. Shaheen, 2023. "Understanding California wildfire evacuee behavior and joint choice making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1165-1211, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    3. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    4. Boon, L.N. & Brière, M. & Rigot, S., 2018. "Regulation and pension fund risk-taking," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 23-41.
    5. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    6. Silvia Jordan & Corinna Treisch, 2010. "The perception of tax concessions in retirement savings decisions," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 2(3), pages 157-184, October.
    7. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    8. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    9. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    10. Paolo E. Giordani & Nadia Rocha & Michele Ruta, 2012. "Food Prices and the Multiplier Effect of Export Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 3783, CESifo.
    11. Costa-Font, Joan & Vilaplana-Prieto, Cristina, 2022. "Health shocks and housing downsizing: How persistent is ‘ageing in place’?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 490-508.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    13. Guy Barokas, 2021. "Dynamic choice under familiarity-based attention," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(4), pages 703-720, November.
    14. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    15. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    16. Robin Gregory & Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling & Ken Richards, 1991. "Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 667-675, December.
    17. Anna Fielder & Riina Vuorikari & Nuria Rodriguez-Priego & Yves Punie, 2016. "Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature," JRC Research Reports JRC103332, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Jae‐Do Song, 2023. "Excessive banking preference in emissions trading," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 448-458, January.
    19. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    20. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:40:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-019-09741-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.