IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v111y2022i1d10.1007_s11069-021-05064-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual hurricane evacuation intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights for risk communication and emergency management policies

Author

Listed:
  • W. J. Wouter Botzen

    (Vrije Universiteit
    Utrecht University
    University of Pennsylvania)

  • Jantsje M. Mol

    (Vrije Universiteit
    University of Amsterdam)

  • Peter J. Robinson

    (Vrije Universiteit)

  • Juan Zhang

    (Eastern Kentucky University)

  • Jeffrey Czajkowski

    (National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC))

Abstract

The U.S. 2020 hurricane season was extraordinary because of a record number of named storms coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study draws lessons on how individual hurricane preparedness is influenced by the additional risk stemming from a pandemic, which turns out to be a combination of perceptions of flood and pandemic risks that have opposite effects on preparedness behavior. We conducted a survey in early June 2020 of 600 respondents in flood-prone areas in Florida to obtain insights into households’ risk perceptions and preparedness for the upcoming hurricane season under COVID-19. The results show that concerns over COVID-19 dominated flood risk perceptions and negatively impacted people’s evacuation intentions. Whereas hotel costs were the main obstacle to evacuating during Hurricane Dorian in 2019 in the same geographic study area, the main evacuation obstacle identified in the 2020 hurricane season is COVID-19. Our statistical analyses investigating the factors influencing evacuation intentions show that older individuals are less likely to evacuate under a voluntary order, because they are more concerned about the consequences of becoming infected by COVID-19. We observe similar findings based on a real-time survey we conducted in Florida with another group of respondents under the threat of Hurricane Eta at the end of the hurricane season in November 2020. We discuss the implications of our findings for risk communication and emergency management policies that aim to improve hurricane preparedness when dealing with additional health risks such as a pandemic, a situation that may be exacerbated under the future climate.

Suggested Citation

  • W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jantsje M. Mol & Peter J. Robinson & Juan Zhang & Jeffrey Czajkowski, 2022. "Individual hurricane evacuation intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights for risk communication and emergency management policies," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(1), pages 507-522, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:111:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-021-05064-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-021-05064-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-021-05064-2
    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/s11069-021-05064-2?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. Mohammad Amin Hariri-Ardebili & Upmanu Lall, 2021. "Superposed Natural Hazards and Pandemics: Breaking Dams, Floods, and COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    2. Carly A. Phillips & Astrid Caldas & Rachel Cleetus & Kristina A. Dahl & Juan Declet-Barreto & Rachel Licker & L. Delta Merner & J. Pablo Ortiz-Partida & Alexandra L. Phelan & Erika Spanger-Siegfried &, 2020. "Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(7), pages 586-588, July.
    3. Adil Ashraf, 2021. "Lessons learned from COVID-19 response for disaster risk management," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(2), pages 2027-2032, June.
    4. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2019. "Determinants of Probability Neglect and Risk Attitudes for Disaster Risk: An Online Experimental Study of Flood Insurance Demand among Homeowners," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2514-2527, November.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:365-385 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Howard Kunreuther & Mark V. Pauly, 2018. "Dynamic Insurance Decision-Making for Rare Events: The Role of Emotions," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 335-355, April.
    7. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:237-245 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Steven Woloshin & Lisa M. Schwartz & Stephanie Byram & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Gilbert Welch, 2000. "A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 298-307, July.
    10. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Jeffrey Czajkowski & Hans de Moel, 2019. "Adoption of Individual Flood Damage Mitigation Measures in New York City: An Extension of Protection Motivation Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2143-2159, October.
    11. Mark C. Quigley & Januka Attanayake & Andrew King & Fabian Prideaux, 2020. "A multi-hazards earth science perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic: the potential for concurrent and cascading crises," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 199-215, June.
    12. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    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. Brielle Lillywhite & Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Risk Narrative of Emergency and Disaster Management, Preparedness, and Planning (EDMPP): The Importance of the ‘Social’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-36, December.

    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. Osberghaus, Daniel & Botzen, Wouter & Kesternich, Martin & Iurkova, Ekaterina, 2022. "The Intention-Behavior Gap in Climate Change Adaptation," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264073, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Andra-Cosmina Albulescu, 2023. "Exploring the links between flood events and the COVID-19 infection cases in Romania in the new multi-hazard-prone era," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(2), pages 1611-1631, June.
    3. Sebastian Seebauer & Philipp Babcicky, 2020. "The Sources of Belief in Personal Capability: Antecedents of Self‐Efficacy in Private Adaptation to Flood Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1967-1982, October.
    4. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    5. W.J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 365-385, July.
    6. Delin Liu & Xiaole Chang & Siyu Wu & Yongling Zhang & Nana Kong & Xiaobing Zhang, 2024. "Influencing Factors of Urban Public Flood Emergency Evacuation Decision Behavior Based on Protection Motivation Theory: An Example from Jiaozuo City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, June.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:365-385 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    9. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    10. Oscar Frausto-Martínez & Cesar Daniel Aguilar-Becerra & Orlando Colín-Olivares & Gabriel Sánchez-Rivera & Adel Hafsi & Alex Fernando Contreras-Tax & Wilberth David Uhu-Yam, 2020. "COVID-19, Storms, and Floods: Impacts of Tropical Storm Cristobal in the Western Sector of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    14. Takako Izumi & Sangita Das & Miwa Abe & Rajib Shaw, 2022. "Managing Compound Hazards: Impact of COVID-19 and Cases of Adaptive Governance during the 2020 Kumamoto Flood in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    16. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    17. Francesco Serinaldi & Florian Loecker & Chris G. Kilsby & Hubert Bast, 2018. "Flood propagation and duration in large river basins: a data-driven analysis for reinsurance purposes," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(1), pages 71-92, October.
    18. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    19. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Dante Di Matteo, 2020. "Climate Change and Social Perception: A Case Study in Southern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-24, August.
    20. Stefan Pichler & Nicolas R. Ziebarth, 2015. "The Pros and Cons of Sick Pay Schemes: Testing for Contagious Presenteeism and Shirking Behavior," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1509, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    21. Osberghaus, Daniel & Reif, Christiane, 2021. "How do different compensation schemes and loss experience affect insurance decisions? Experimental evidence from two independent and heterogeneous samples," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).

    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:nathaz:v:111:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-021-05064-2. 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.