Decision-Making of Residents Living in Potential Hurricane Impact Areas During a Hypothetical Hurricane Event in the Rio Grande Valley

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley ScholarWorks @ UTRGV

Sociology Faculty Publications and Presentations College of Liberal Arts

4-18-2018

Who Will Stay, Who Will Leave: Decision-Making of Residents Living in Potential Hurricane Impact Areas During a Hypothetical Hurricane Event in the Rio Grande Valley

Dean Kyne The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, [email protected]

Arlett Sophia Lomeli The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

William Donner The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Erika Zuloaga The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.utrgv.edu/soc_fac

Part of the Emergency and Disaster Management Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, and the Sociology Commons

Recommended Citation Kyne, D., Lomeli, A., Donner, W., & Zuloaga, E. (2018). Who Will Stay, Who Will Leave: Decision-Making of Residents Living in Potential Hurricane Impact Areas During a Hypothetical Hurricane Event in the Rio Grande Valley, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 15(2), 20170010. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2017-0010

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts at ScholarWorks @ UTRGV. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UTRGV. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd al 1: Table Weather (National wind and billion flooding $2 damage, over Dolly, property Hurricane and 2017b). of crops landfall 2017a, include the Service the which destroyed After which estimated, people. 2008, was of in hard- damages thousands Dolly been in of has Hurricane properties and and people the 1967 1,264,291 damaged in hosts Beulah and area lives Hurricane this 1); Census, (Table 2010 hurricanes the several tip of by southern As the hit River. at Grande located Rio is It the counties. along Starr Texas, and Willacy, of Cameron, Hidalgo, counties: four of consists RGV The Introduction 1 DOI: geographical unique a Keywords: in influenc- living factors Hispanics complex are provides RGV. who study of individuals The of location 5. decision-making Category evacuation of hurricane nature of expected the deadliest ing and the in place, im- even safe could residence, of a that place evacuation of during perception (NGOs) emergency, organizations an residents non-governmental pact facing reasons and area governments roles, disaster-prone both, maker characteristics, from a decision demographic leave help recommendations, elements: to Through- authority selected wanting community. of about not the awareness gathered for and of was following members information the are study, conditions, attending 785 the living students remaining of 275 the course participants: and the 1060 Valley out with Grande Texas-Rio questionnaire Rio survey of the University over online landfall evac- an the making the Hurricane uses understand a study to of event attempts The Valley. the warning study Grande in This the residents Texas. on Southern South research of in behavior systematic event decision-making Hurricane weather limited uation severe While is large-scale history. there a throughout contexts, to hurricanes response other and various in extensively by studied impacted been been has has evacuation (RGV) Valley Grande Rio The 3 2 1 Valley Grande Rio the in Event Hurricane Hypothetical a During Areas Impact Hurricane Potential in Living Residents of Decision-Making Leave: Will Who Stay, Will Who Kyne Dean GRUYTER DE 21 atrd rye mH Berlin/Boston. GmbH, Gruyter de Walter ©2018 Kyne Dean Abstract: eateto oilg,Uiest fTxsRoGad aly 21WUiest r,Eibr,T 83,UA E-mail: USA, 78539, TX Edinburg, Dr., University W 1201 Valley, Grande Rio Texas of University Sociology, of Department eateto cnmc,Uiest fTxsRoGad aly dnug X759 USA 78539, TX Edinburg, Valley, Grande Rio Texas of University Economics, of Department eateto oilg,Uiest fTxsRoGad aly dnug X759 USA 78539, TX Edinburg, Valley, Grande Rio Texas of University Sociology, of Department 09/4-5/1933 09/1886 2 1 Date No. [email protected]://orcid.org/[email protected]. 10.1515/jhsem-2017-0010 urcn itr nteRoGad Valley. Grande Rio the in History Hurricane stecrepnigauthor. corresponding the is vcaindcso aig urcn vcain i rneValley Grande Rio evacuation, Hurricane making, decision evacuation 1 retSpi Lomeli Sophia Arlett / ’ vcaindcso.Fnig eelteeaeanme fidvdaswowl eani their in remain will who individuals of number a are there reveal Findings decision. evacuation Storm Storm Type 2 ila Donner William / ora fHmln euiyadEegnyMngmn.21;20170010 2018; Management. Emergency and Security Homeland of Journal aeo County Cameron surge storm 13-foot City Brownsville Hurricane Indianola by surge Storm Areas Severity/Impacted 2 rk Zuloaga Erika / Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican – ot ar Island Padre South 3 Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM Authenticated 1 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ad n21 nteUie tts CNWr 2016). Wire (CNN States) Hurricane United after in evacuation living the Cate- mandatory people in largest a million the 2012 2 as as than in regarded categorized more Sandy was evacuated was (which authorities mph, Matthew Carolina 165 South Hurricane to and up before Georgia, gusts day Florida, and winds, a mph people example, 140 of For with evacuation priority. 4 the gory a oftentimes catastrophic, potentially is and are and large impacts No- essential its transporting agencies. becomes and involves non-governmental event evacuation and disaster governmental events, anticipated multiple the hurricane when of tably, of coordination case the through the populations In diverse operation. the of ture to lead-time sufficient is provide measure authorities and preventative highly advance best in is days evacuation evacuate. the several events, to tracked shelteringin hurricanes, hurricane be individuals In by can 2017). a resultof hurricanes caused (FEMA because feasible warnings injuries as evacuation and signal storm death authorities debris, when occurred the evacuate windborne normally rates minimize winds, To death high-speed and areas. by unsafe injured injuries and These flooding. killed weaker, and are while general, surge, In people Hurricanes, 2017b). many 2 2017a, events, Service and Weather (National hurricane 1 humans during Category to injury Whereas cause mph. and damage 111 still nevertheless exceeding could winds with disasters natural major 2017b). 2017a, Service Weather (National Source: adal oee,sm eiet i o epn rcml ihtewrig nete ieymne or 2 manner timely a either in Hurricane warnings the the to event with to prior comply Dolly preferred days several or and Hurricane orders all, respond the evacuation at not During and did 2016). warning residents provided Wire some only However, Similarly, agencies (CNN landfall. homes. local Matthew their and Hurricane in state of remained 2008, nevertheless ahead in many evacuated area, people the of evacuate 30% to order Presidential a Despite of President the evacuate. impacts, to severe residents-at-risk have the to warn anticipated to was had States hurricane United 4 the Category a Matthew, Hurricane Because 06/30/2010 9 09/12-13/2008 8 07/23/2008 7 08/23/1999 09/16-17/1988 6 5 08/10/1980 4 09/20-22/1967 3 vcaini h otcalnigts o oenetaece u otelresaeadcmlxna- complex and large-scale the to due agencies government for task challenging most the is Evacuation regardedas and 5are 4, 3, Category in Hurricanes Scale, Wind Hurricane Saffir-Simpson the to According o ol o etr orlf CNWr 2016). Wire (CNN life your restore not could you “ 2016). Wire (CNN morning Thursday warning dire a in said Scott Rick out running “ laeeaut o.Yucudrbidyu oe.Yucudrpi orhm aae.However, damages. home your repair could You homes. your rebuild could You now. evacuate Please Don out. get area, evacuation the in broadcasting) (TV this watching are you If yee al. et Kyne … hr r oecss o aet leave. to have You excuses. no are There “ atadsewa happen[ed] what see and wait urcn Alex Hurricane Ike Hurricane Dolly Hurricane wind mph 185 3: Category Bret Hurricane Gilbert Hurricane Allen Hurricane 8 mph, 109 to Busts mph, 136 Wind Beulah Hurricane hn3 nhso anali h otil fteSer Madre Sierra the of foothills the in Oriental rainfall of frommore inches Léon, 30 Nuevo than inMonterrey, flooding flash Severe Brownsville of beaches south Island Padre miles 100 South the on erosion severe caused of northeast Peninsula Galveston Bolivar the swallowed that storm The County Starr 12 of Benito Rainfall San and Port Harlingen, and Hondo, Vista Rio Laguna Isabel, through Island Padre South record of on Town hurricane Texas Madre destructive Laguna most fourth the The along Buoy Jose San Del Rincon mph Falfurrias 73 Sarita, of Bret, winds County, Sustained Kenedy mph, 98 County Gust andWillacy 4: Category Cameron in Costal flooded surge Storm water of feet 4 with inundated Brownsville surge storm 12-foot mph; 138 to Gust prior 3 Category Gulf, the landfall into entering before 5 Category Boca and Isabel, Port Chica Island, Valley, Padre Grande South Texas, Rio Harlingen, South in Deep rooftop to up homes Flooded County Cameron/Willacy the along Pharr tides 18-foot and Edinburg in gusts mph 100 ” ” Ri ta.2008). al. et (Ruin vcae vcae evacuate evacuate, Evacuate, Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican – 8ice nCmrn iag,Wlay and Willacy, Hidalgo, Cameron, in inches 18 Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM ’ aeacac.Tm is Time chance. a take t – 4fo tr tide storm 14-foot , ” lrd Governor Florida Authenticated EGRUYTER DE Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd EGRUYTER DE nrsdnswolv ntevle,wo eiet eano ev nteeeto urcn anns and warnings, toevacuation hurricane in of particular, relating, event elements the various in at leave looks study or this remain so, to do decision-making. educational To decide diverse whom decisions. valley, from data these and collect the populations effects what in Hispanic evaluate will live or study who which this Latino gap, residents in mostly the knowledge on fill of To of statuses. population wealth socioeconomic a a and occupations, holds analyze achievements, area to This able evacuation onthe residents. are on Valley focusing focus studies Grande no studies which Rio 2016), are of Prater there specifically, decision-making and More evacuation Lindell, events. hurricane Huang, andthere during 2012) 2013; individuals Brown andBritt of andthe and decision-making Bethel, Thiede Burke, (e.g. 2005; forevacuation, studies Highfield and limited Brody, Peacock, oftransportation are (e.g. rare lack language are Latinos from or range difficulties, are Hispanic on can eventseasonal financial farmworkers, Burke, disaster preparation event, and potential 2009; of a the lack Malina of of migrants their underestimation and knowledge to isolated Balbus of contributing socially Factors (e.g. lack inparticular, disaster. studies barriers, natural et addition, a Cutter Latinos, for In 1997; find prepared Morrow 2015). not 2012) and Cormier Britt (Enarson and disasters and Baker during Bethel, andlow-income- 2006; vulnerable these Peguero minorities more of population of ethnic 2006; be population total total to al. consists the tend the population of which of specific 31.1% Bureau individuals, This 91.8% and poverty. (Census status 30.9%, under and Latino 35.4%, living 96.3%, or 32.0%, are Hispanic (2016), 88.1%, counties Bureau as four 89.4%, Census identify origin; respectively, the to County Latino According Hidalgo of 2010). and or Starr, Willacy, Hispanic Cameron, are in who of majority as a ineffective, be could or distributed. resources many poorly of too and/or utilization risks utilized re- and which, under/non areas of allocation be impact absence the may an potential understanding, they evacuate, such the to Without in likely federal, buses. are people few all people evacuate too many for to how essential buses of is preparing estimates areas reasonable instance, quires For prone authorities. hurricane local in and living state, individuals of process decision-making evacuation tocommunicate plan a strategic communities. their into for implemented evacuations are effective that and strategies res- risk formulate protect by effectively to gain, to Authorities decisions ability areas. making and the at-risk information, in idents, risk-related risks the potential utilizing the communication, individuals from risk Gut- how themselves understanding and protect and to communication Lindell, Terpstra, decisions risk make understand (e.g. astudy and to studies in respond authorities are government There flood recommend 2008). that from respon- Gutteling 2009) damages the and teling against (Terpstra of protection Netherland 73% for the example, responsible in For primarily conducted as 2006). government Perry the and perceive Parter, dents (Lindell, and evacuation home and housing, preparedness, 2008). Emer- temporary al. munication, Federal for et the residents (Ruin costs 2008, to related in aid other Dolly in as buses toevacuate million Hurricane well as $44 of of1350 repairs, than event business more the provided the In preparation (FEMA) 2008). Agency included (Zucchino gency officials areas hurri- state dangerous the by from after efforts and residents evacuation to 2008, prior in areas Ike would-be-impacted Hurricane taxpayers the of efforts from great millions residents made Spending the agencies cane; local evacuating and and state, federal, for history, hurricane preparing past in the In 2016). (Kolen costs and money, 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. h td lmnsinclude: elements study The people, million 1.3 than more host that counties four of consists Valley Grande Rio the of area study The the understanding accordingly, resources andallocate plan an evacuation develop effectively to order In com- risk effective of dissemination the for responsible are governments local stakeholders, various Among time, with associated highly is it areas, at-risk in living individuals of lives save could evacuation an While xetdhlsfo oenetadNGOs and Government from helps Expected of Perception Evacuation Refusing for Reason Role Maker Decision area) flooded and Order Authority size, household materials, house living, of (story Conditions Living size) household level, education age, (gender, Characteristics Demographic “ aePlace Safe ” ’ oiscryn u h vcainadohrrltdatvte.During activities. related other and evacuation the out carrying monies ’ eaieipcs nteeitn ieaue h tde focusing studies the literature, existing the In impacts. negative s Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM Authenticated yee al. et Kyne 3 ’ Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd al 3: Table 2017). (FEMA Source: 2: Table higher McAllen, a Edinburg, shows Raymondville, respondents of Brownsville, 962individuals distribution Harlingen, The of City.set included 1). areas Grande Figure Rio code 3, data and zip (Table Roma, final Pharr, codes the the Mission, zip in (53), RGV valley respondents total the of 57 of number the outside of community was 46 780 code in survey of study. entire total zip living the the a complete whose in were not did and included There who area 2016. (45) respondents November the the questions of all of dropping end After boundaries survey. the the to the completed October who within members nearby, late resided from lasted but who taking period friends, roof, survey or Individuals same members The participate. family the extended to under their want of live their not four not for to did link did students survey who to the those forward provided Hidalgo to for was encouraged in were provided credit survey working was the Extra option survey. individuals second the and a completed classes, students and Sociology possible participation 468 to the Introduction was of questionnaire four survey 275 WindScale in County. the Hurricane approval, students (IRB) Board to on the Saffir-Simpson Review online Internal distributed the receiving the based After about 2). online- categories (Table asks an hurricane 2017) questionnaire data, (FEMA five survey collect the To The (RGV). developed. surrounding Valley was Grande elements questions, Rio study 14 the of in consists living which individuals questionnaire, include survey study the of subjects The Data and Methods 2 4 (major) 5 (major) 4 epnerate Response Respondents sample Survey 1 Category culrsos rate response Actual responses useable Total responses Excluded (major) 3 2 epnet h i o iei RGV in live not did survey who Respondents the complete not did who Respondents yee al. et Kyne apeadRsos Rate. Response and Sample Scale. Wind Hurricane Saffir-Simpson The 5 p rhge aatohcdmg iloccur will damage Catastrophic higher or mph 157 130 111 96 utie id ye fDmg u oHriaeWinds Hurricane to Due Damage of Types 74 Winds Sustained – – – – mph 110 5mph 95 5 mph 156 2 mph 129 aatohcdmg iloccur will damage Catastrophic eattn aaewl occur will damage Devastating hs xrml agru id ilcueetniedamage extensive cause will winds dangerous extremely These hs eydneoswnswl rdc oedamage some produce will winds dangerous very These Students 59% Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican 275 468 omnt Members Community Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM 1100 71% 785 Authenticated EGRUYTER DE Total 1060 1568 61% 68% − − 962 53 45 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd epnet a eepce osetri lc.Smlry nteeeto aeoy4o urcn,about Hurricane, 5 or respectively, residence. 4 of of thetotal 91%, Category place 34% a and their of in 85%, event remain 66%, the this suggests would in they 5), Similarly, responded respectively, 3Hurricanes, place. and 8%, in 4, and shelter Category 14% 3, to for Specifically, expected (Category area. be events may the Hurricane leave respondents major to intention of an event reported the In a 2). in (Figure live 65% and home 95 single-family a in live 4)]. respondents (Table of [Appendix 66% home brick residence, being of (67%) respondents terms the In of college/university. majority the 18 with females, the 61% and in participants male 39% included sample The Results 3 school high a hold RGV the in age of years 25 the over instance, For individuals attributes. of of 60% variety diploma. roughly a reports on sample (2016) parameters The population Bureau areas. matches potential Census coastal infras- poor, it however, the of from randomized; into terms populations not as, in insights well also area interesting as is Texas, unique provide South a do of is populations data Texas of the South behavior to evacuation Nevertheless, Deep findings States. generalizing culture. United in and exercised the demographics, be in Valley should tructure, caution Grande First, Rio fronts. the two beyond on areas results the of generalizability the to 1: Figure GRUYTER DE iue2: Figure – 1 p) vrl idnsso bu 2 n 0 ftersodnspandt vcae respectively toevacuate, planned therespondents of 40% and 22% about 74 show of findings speed overall (wind mph), 1 110 Category Hurricane of event the In relates issue One caution. with approached be cases, some in should nature, in exploratory being data The ubro epnet yZpCd nEauto eiinMkn Survey. Decision-Making Evacuation in Code Zip by Respondents of Number vcainDcso-aigo eiet iigi h G nCs faHriaeEvent. Hurricane a of Case in RGV the in Living Residents of Decision-Making Evacuation – 5yasodrne 5 aigrcie hi ihsho ilm,ad1%o hmgraduated them of 15% and diploma, school high their received having 65% range, years-old 25 – 6mh n urcn aeoy2(idsedof speed (wind 2 Category Hurricane and mph) 96 Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM Authenticated yee al. et Kyne 5 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ec nodrt netgt h soito ewe edradeauto eiinmkn aibe.The indepen- variables. of decision-making test evacuation chi-square and a gender performs between study association The the Hurricane. investigate 5 to Category order the in a in say observed in dence females is except of whomake respondents 91% categories, individuals female and hurricane event among of males all of percent Hurricane 91% higher 5 risk; a However, the avoid 4). Category ofa equally (Figure re- genders case both who leave, the to individuals In decision the a categories. among hurricane show evident five to all was tend across per- It subjects to Female decisions. likely 1994). evacuation more Mertz also making sponded and and in Slovic, 2002) (Flynn, Edwards orientation males risk-averse and females than (Bateman given their surprise not higher past as the does risks in which finding evacuate environmental a ceive to 4), likely (Figure more male isacorrelation found are 18% been there evac- whereas have would female, who are individuals reveal them the of of decision-making 24% 32% among uate, and evacuation example, For decision-making. on gender evacuation and gender findings between First, Valley. Grande Rio the characteristics size demographic household between and relationship level, the examines study This Decision-Making Evacuation and Characteristics Demographic 3.1 Valley. Grande Rio 3: Figure 6 Category5 a of case in the of toevacuate distribution want geographic all individuals the about not notable show is findings The What hurricane. hurricane. 5 Category a of case in onyapa omr rls ieyta iag rSarCut eiet oeaut.I atclr this particular, In evacuate. to residents as concern. County threat some evokes Starr in This or categories. diminishing Hidalgo strength strength, than all Cameron across likely peak from similar and make less its respondents remained Unexpectedly, or pattern at County. coast more Starr is the no subsequently Hurricane off appear and originate the County Hidalgo storms point Valley, towards Grande inland which moves Rio at it the County, In Cameron risk. in objective landfall to correlate poorly to seems iue3sossaildsrbto frsodnswomd h vcaindcso olaeterresidence their leave to decision evacuation the made who respondents of distribution spatial shows 3 Figure yee al. et Kyne pta itiuino h ecn fRsodnsWoWudEaut nteFv urcn aeoisi the in Categories Hurricane Five the in Evacuate Would Who Respondents of Percent the of Distribution Spatial “ no ” oeaut;tenme ffmlsaels hntenme fmls uhted r observed are trends Such males. of number the than less are females of number the evacuate; to – hc ih nlec h vcaindcso-aigo niiul iigin living ofindividuals decision-making evacuation the influence might which Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican “ yes ” epnei h neto oevacuate to intention the is response – Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM aeygne,ae education age, gender, namely “ Don ’ know t “ ” yes aeoyacross category Authenticated ” oevacuate to EGRUYTER DE Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd aigvrals h soito a o ttsial infcn nalfv yohtclhriaecategories hurricane five hypothetical all chi-square in a significant performs statistically decision- study evacuation 6). observed not The and (Figure were was education 2000). education of association al. level of The between et association levels variables. (Balluz the higher making investigate al. warning to with et order tornado in Hasan those a independence 2010; Arkansas, following of al. in test shelter et 1997, seek Lazo 1, to (e.g. (24%, March likely sheltering percent on more and confirms highest tornado education finding the This regarding a remain. literature Hurricane, During to the 5 2011). observed in are and seen school 4, high commonly 3, some is with what Category individuals the of respectively) in 9%, Similarly, and 6). 13%, (Figure the in degrees be to graduate found with was (9%) percent Category ofa highest case the stay, the to school In decide who certificate). individuals and with among diploma, as individuals Hurricane, school 5 themselves middle identified degree, (who bachelor other on working and Bache- degree, Ph.D.) diploma, associate or school Masters high school, (either high degree some Graduate completed: Degree, levels education lor six on data collected study This cess. 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 5: Figure 5). (Figure respectively Hurricane, testofindependence 3 and association 2, The chi-square variables. 1, a decision-making Category performs evacuation Settanni study and The and age trend. between Sotgiu, significant, this was association Miceli, the investigate 2006; toexplain to (Motoyoshi order serve disasters in may future which islikely higher over finding with disasters in a concern evacuate 2007), com- experience and to in suggests opt the literature hurricanes preparedness more may of because experienced adults have significant predictive may older is 75 why This than cohorts. reason younger older Another to those parison 5). experience; disaster (Figure to Hurricane relate 5 may numbers and 4 Hurricane. 5 Category Category a a 56 for of groups, case in age individuals areas of the the leave percent in “ to higher say people group a is age particular, same notion In the One of older. in decision individuals or a the making age of with of 100% observed categories whereas years is tomakea old hurricane 76 tend years five 18 of all groups under group age are in in all who the themselves evacuate in to individuals except more decision decision, show a findings uation 1, made Category old hurricane years In 76 5). (Figure than older are who dents 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 4: Figure 4). (Figure respectively Hurricane, 3 significant, is association GRUYTER DE yes hr santberltosi ewe dctoa ee tandadteeauto eiinmkn pro- decision-making evacuation the and attained level educational between relationship notable a is There respon- All decision-making. evacuation their and respondents of age between trend interesting an is There ” or ” ru.I h aectgr,tehgetpret(6)o niiul h eiet ev r those are leave to decide who individuals of (96%) percent highest the category, same the In group. g s vcainDcso-aigi aeo urcn Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Age Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation and Gender “ no, ” n hyd o hwawi-n-e tiue snn fte niae a indicated them of none as attitude; wait-and-see a show not do they and X 2 1)=3.5 0.05, < p 31.75, = (18) X 2 1)=1.,p<00 and 0.05 < p 12.9, = (12) X 2 – 1)=3.5 .1 and 0.01, < p 34.95, = (13) 5ad7 er rodr hwacerdcso-aigo either of decision-making clear a show older, or years 76 and 75 X 2 1)=2.3 .0 nahpteia aeoy2and 2 Category hypothetical a in 0.001 < p 22.63, = (12) Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican “ no ” X olaei aeo urcn aeoy1, Category Hurricane of case in leave to 2 1)=2.2 .5i hypothetical a in 0.05 < p 29.92, = (13) Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM “ don ’ know t Authenticated yee al. et Kyne “ “ oehigh some no ” answer ” evac- 7 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd fsrcua rtcin(eptaadGteig20) h td ahrdifraino h aeil fthe of materials the on information gathered study The 2008). effectiveness Gutteling the overestimated and Katrina (Terpstra Hurricane protection during Orleans structural self-protective New of a in 2009). residents take Gutteling evident to and was Lindell, unlikely Terpstra, it 2008; are example, Gutteling For residents and low, Terpstra 1974; is Parker and risk (Harding perceived evacuate to the action risk-levelassociated with When perceived of event. the protection live hurricane Structural potential the they effectiveness construction. a during tooverestimate floor with them used First,ahouse the materials may cause materials, the evacuate. materials house house to on different depending including theirdecision-making vary respondents would influence the wind might hurricane of which conditions areas, flooding living and the on, into looks study The Decision-Making Evacuation and Conditions Living 3.2 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 7: Figure with 10% school, high with are them evacuate. of to 80% money money, no no bachelor. indicated 12% had with who school, who 10% Ph.D. high and and or some school, stay master high with to with some 13% remained 4% includes and who 5 bachelor, people Category with hurricane Among 10% the and that in school, indicates leave hurricane high money to five no hypothetical with want and all attainment not education in do the who between association respondents significant of evacuation statistically analysis and An not 7). size (Figure was household categories between 2%ofhouse- association association The the remain; investigate variables. to to tends order decision-making in have independence group to of this perceived test be show chi-square say could findings member member household members but easily, 1 one of their themselves with with sake evacuate households holds or contrast, for the leave find In to might Hurricane. leave ability 5 more) to interestingly Category or the is a (8 arewilling It of members Hurricane. case of 4 they in number and reveal safety larger 3, findings However, a 2, leave. 1, with to Category households harder 5Hurricane, a dictate it Category of would events a of sense the common event in that stay to noted In the decide that event. individuals they 1 or of 2 stated number respondents 5 same with households the aCategory However, the as approach. 2 safer might with identified members a households were hurri- household take the hurricane category of to number a major large seemed if the a families stay of with would these one Moving but 7). before easy, (Figure leave Hurricanes) be would the 5 not they with and responded 4, households more) 3, the or (Category demonstrate canes (8 Findings members process. of decision-making between number correlation evacuation largest the the examines study and The 2010). size Letson and household Thomas, (Solis, evacuate to decisions shape hold, 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 6: Figure 8 hr ssm vdnet ugs oshl ie atclrytenme fcide rsn ntehouse- the in present children of number the particularly size, household suggest to evidence some is There yee al. et Kyne oshl iev vcainDcso-aigi aeo urcn Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs Size Household Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Attainment Education – – ebr r h ags ecn 4)ta ol eani hi oe,floe by followed homes, their in remain would that (4%) percent largest the are members 4 ebr 3)(iue7.Hueod htaemd po ebraetelargest the are member 1 of up made are that Households 7). (Figure (3%) members 7 “ no ” n %say 3% and “ don ’ know t ” hnrsodn olaig h td efrsa performs study The leaving. to responding when Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM Authenticated ’ eitneto resistance s EGRUYTER DE ’ Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd aigvrals h soito a o ttsial infcn nalfv yohtclhriaecategories hurricane decision- five hypothetical and evacuation all on in living significant than the3rd performsachi-square floor statistically between 9). not The study (Figure higher association was on association the Hurricane. investigate living 5 The Category to variables. a of individuals order making case following in in highest independence and third leave of to test the second decision their are demonstrate to floor floor 2nd and 1st the on 1 n 9 fidvdaswolv nfodaesaeucranaottereauto eiinmkn in decision-making their evacuation about are uncertain areas 20%, flood About 57% 10). in individuals, (Figure live decision of who their group about individuals same certain of this not were of 19% 20% Furthermore, and remaining Hurricane. the 21% 1 and Category homes their a in of stay case would in leave to decision their 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 9: Figure leaveincaseofa to a Category on a decided held of them living 40%, case 80% of in Individuals rest, leave and to 9). the decided (Figure (60%) 67%, whereas decided individuals 5) Hurricane same all 60%, The and respectively. 5 demonstrated they 20%, Hurricane, however, 4, 4 higher and 3, Hurricane; decisions; 3, and of 2, evacuation 2, 1 floor 1, mix (Category Category Category a 3rd categories a the four show of floor other on event 3rd the living the the across in individuals places homes All their their wind. leave in to the remain of to speed willingness the their and building the of 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 8: Figure (Figure 8). investigate categories to was hurricane association order five hypothetical The in all variables. independence in decision-making evacuation of significant and test statistically house chi-square not the toother a of performs materials incomparison between study association The against fromthe drowning safety. ordecided of isdelayed less protection assumption if evacuation or the away or swept under floodwaters no more by trapped be tothe offer may water, Inhabitants more resistant structures. and while winds con- in buildings, of when andmortar bricks impacts especially of brick Hurricane Katrina). physical concerning, occurs, (e.g. made flooding somewhat major homes during Hurricanes where is rates their circumstances This such mortality in Under Hurricane). thehigher safe for 5 feel accounts and oftentimes they 4, flooding total)sidering while 3, develops the (Category situation of events the hurricane 20% major how than wait-and-see (more to individuals like among would observed Hurricane event, answered was who 5 homes trend Category brick with interesting a of in built living One case houses homes. in the in their by living leaving supported respondents Furthermore, on 8). was of It (94%) builtwith (Figure 2011). percent or homes categories highest al. wood hurricane in the et five (Hasan living the might material across houses of ofrespondents leave brick types to and percent other ahigher block and wood general, that than In findings Styrofoam. wind to and resistant aluminum, more wood, be and RGV brick the for stucco, particular planks, In other. cement and wood, brick, block, categories: four the study, are There in. live respondents the house GRUYTER DE idnsidct ftoeidvdaslvn nfodpoeaesatrnnhriaeri,ol 23% show only rain, non-hurricane after areas flood-prone in living individuals those of indicate Findings height the on depending vary might event hurricane a in wind by damage home of severity the general, In lo iigo s vcainDcso-aigi aeo urcn Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. on Living Floor Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. House of Materials “ Other ” aeoy(nwih3 epnet eotdt eie nldsmbl oe ea,fiber metal, home, mobile includes reside) to reported respondents 32 which (in category “ don ’ know t “ don ’ know t ” o aeoy1 ,ad3eet.I ol eipidresidents implied be could It events. 3 and 2, 1, Category for ” eiin npriua,ietfigidvdasliving individuals identifying particular, In decision. Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican “ other ” aeil r bevdt decide to observed are materials Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM “ other ” aeil ol like would materials Authenticated yee al. et Kyne 9 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd in n 5 tes hr eesxrsodnswoidctd tes nwihte xli hi judgment their explain they which in others, indicated, recommenda- who friend respondents (4) six recommendation, were to baseon,namely family There (3) orifothers others. judgments judgment, (5) judgment own five and own collected your tion, their survey on (2) The based recommendation, and authorities. authority decision (1) make members, ifresidents family friends, out it: find influence to like would study The decision. 0.001, < authorities p between per- significant, 47.65, association study was = association the The investigate The warningsissued 1983). variables. to Greene or decision-making order evacuation and warnings in and (Perry order independence credible of whereofficial more test as chi-square viewed literature, a are theforms empirical authority vested in au- with the institution see trends an they prevailing from Once reflect decision. evacuation to their other seems with In this respectively. uncertain Hurricane, were 5 or leave and to 4, want thorities 3, not 2, did 1, either Category who a those in 86% authorities and the 76%, words, 51%, 23%, 11%, leave: to decision 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 11: Figure 4 Category in 72% Hurricane, 3 Category the a follow in not own, would Hurricane. their respectively, they 5 on Hurricane, Category responded evacuate 5 a them in to and of 77% 4, decision 58% and 3, of the Hurricane, events, 2, 48% made follow major Similarly, Category order. would they the a leave the but In in follow to orders, 17% orders. would not and evacuation uncertain decision 20%, the were the 35%, follow who leave, made would them to who not need of 20% decided 18% the event, who as, without same individuals well own, the as their In orders, on evacuation 11). leave responded the (Figure to who leave decision to 52% the were decision make there their would Whereas, who order. 26% an Hurricane, for 1 Category authorities a the follow ticular, would who individuals the Among Decision-Making Evacuation and Order Evacuation Following 3.3 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 10: Figure was notstatistically 4and be- (Figure 10). association Category ina Theassociation the categories investigate hurricane variables. to leave hypothetical decision-making order would five and evacuation all in 90%, in independence area and significant of flooded 84% test a chi-square in areas, living a tween a flood-prone performs in aCategory5Hurricane. study in lived The of who case living Hurricane. in residents individuals 5 of the 9% hurricane, of behavior 5 decision-making majority showsimilar Category 4% The a and of case stay In would respectively. area Hurricanes, flood-prone 3 and 2, 1, Category 10 11). (Figure respectively Hurricane, 5 and 4, 3, 2, 1, Category nadto,idvdaswowr o eti oflo h vcainodrhv led aeu their up made already have order evacuation the follow to certain not were who individuals addition, In h td ute netgtst htetn authorities extent what to investigates further study The yee al. et Kyne ’ eomnain hycudrcnie hi eiint ev hi oe,wihaea ik Again, risk. at are which homes, their leave to decision their reconsider could they recommendation, Authorities Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Area Flooded a in Living X 2 ’ 6 48,p<0.001, < p 54.84, = (6) vcainOdrv.Eauto eiinMkn nCs faHurricane. a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Order Evacuation ’ vcainodrcudhl niiul aea vcaindcso,epcal for especially decision, evacuation an make individuals help could order evacuation X 2 6 80,p<001 and 0.001, < p 58.03, = (6) “ ’ no vcainodr uigahriaeeet npar- in event, hurricane a during orders evacuation ’ ” eomnain ih nlec h evacuation the influence might recommendations Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican olaig n 2 h eeucranabout uncertain were who 22% and leaving, to X 2 6 02,p<001i hypothetical a in 0.001 < p 50.24, = (6) Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM X 2 6 80,p<0.001, < p 28.06, = (6) Authenticated ’ evacuation EGRUYTER DE X 2 (6) Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd rmdclcniin %o h oa niiul h aept n i o att rvlmd eiinas decision made travel to want not did and disability pets a have to who due wanting travel (6) individuals not to zone, total unable (4) evacuation is the leave, the which to of family of money 6% having outside no (7) condition. having places and travel, medical (3) in not or go, living could relatives to or cannot would and/or place who that friends no elders pet(s) having no having having (2) having case (1) alone, (5) in leave: leave leave belongings, to to leave to wanting want wanting to not not for not do reasons for seven I reasons collected or the survey travel identify The event. to hurricane respondents a the of from information collected study The Decision-Making Evacuation and Leave to Wanting Not Reason 3.5 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 13: Figure 13). association (Figure the Hurricane investigate 3 to significant, Category was hypothetical order a association in the in The independence short, 0.01 their household,all variables. < In of of respectively. decision-making p process test Hurricane, evacuation 20.34, chi-square 5 and a inthedecision-making and maker performs 4, decision study between 3, oftheindividual The Category role role leave. maker a to the decision in leave opted their nomatter about to uncertain decision that of are a reveal case evacuation who findings make In their individuals and roles. show of and family ahead makers 89% 4, these go Category and non-decision heading would a currently 86%, the for are 71%, words, 86% who events, other them 3, those hurricane In Category of to major a 13). trends 20% for similar (Figure makers, their 64% follow Hurricane decision 2, from trends 5 head Category decision-making evacuate not a Category to for are a decision 40% who for Hurricane, their individuals 91% 1 show these Category families For a in categories. their leave hurricane would for the makers all decision in head homes not are who Individuals Decision-Making Evacuation and Role Maker Decision 3.4 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 12: Figure 12). (Figure respectively Hurricane, 5 evacuation and 4, and 3, on 2, based be to judgment between X performsachi-square significant, association study was The association the in- investigate The categories. more variables. to lower is decision-making remaining order recommendation than the in authority independence note observedin and5Hurricane of to also is 4 interestingly test is It aCategory 4). in friendrecommendation and of (3 fluential trend categories hurricane the major Asimilar holding other familyrec- as observed the decision-making. is ownjudgment, ofmypartner on evacuation recommendation your friend The influence recommendation, important. acombination least authority equally show almost are ofall, findings other Hurricane, and 5 acombination ommendation, Category a three, of first case the In of combination a as GRUYTER DE 2 1)=6.8 0.001, < p 63.78, = (12) eiinMkrv.Eauto eiinMkn nCs faHriaeEvent. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Maker Decision Event. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs Judgment on Based X 2 1)=3.9 .0,and 0.001, < p 38.89, = (12) X 2 1)=3.9 .0 nahpteia aeoy1, Category hypothetical a in 0.001 < p 38.49, = (12) X 2 Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican 1)=9.2 0.001, < p 93.52, = (12) Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM X ’ 2 n ie n oon. so and mine, and s 1)=9.6 0.001, < p 98.66, = (12) Authenticated yee al. et Kyne X 2 6 = (6) 11 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ewe xetdhl rmNO n h oenetaece negtknso sitne(iue1) Re- 16). (Figure assistance t-test of (M a greater kinds performs are eight agencies study government in The and the agencies area. from food government transportation the expect the public for expecting and 64%) spondents bag NGOs and food sand from (67% expect are help individuals who items expected drink- individuals of needed between and least of percent shelter The 75% highest respectively. temporary by shelter, the followed expect Similarly, temporary is government. 81%) needs, which and the respectively, other (81% from agency all individuals government supplies clothing of across a for percent observed from need highest water their is while meeting The ing trend NGOs, in event. similar NGOs from hurricane from A services expectations a agency. higher transportation in government have public Respondents a needs. expect from clothing 25% in service except example, case same in For the NGOs 16). expect than (Figure agencies 45% government event from hurricane help a of expectation of higher show respondents indicate Findings NGOs and Agencies Government from Help Expected 3.7 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 15: Figure be would residents the places tonote the important on It isalso depending 15). evacuees transporting of (Figure to. cost moved the categories was estimate hurricane a association five hypothetical could of all The 5) authorities event variables. in to and an decision-making order 4, in evacuation in significant independence (3, and mile statistically of test place Hurricane not coastal chi-square safe per Category a between performs USD major study association million The a the 2014). one investigate Helsloot of exceed and event (Kolen could US the costs the in in evacuation hurricane estimated places higher was safe A It ideal evacuate. 15). not other the (Figure would when with and members counterparts place USA, family safe their the a their hurricane than is of the with with home off outside discussed individuals their are place believed be of that person a would percentage places One Texas, location the place. of as safe takes place outside a event safe place hurricane mentioned their a provided them RGV, includea respondents of the choices 16 Some go. The of the pathway. of outside Many would place places. a other respondents RGV, and where the places within safe place identified safe for responses collected survey The Decision-Making Evacuation and Place Safe Perceived 3.6 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 14: Figure “ 12 eiinmkn aibe.Teascainwsntsaitclysgiiati l iehpteia hurricane five hypothetical all in significant statistically not 14). (Figure and was leave categories to association wanting The not reason variables. between association decision-making the investigate to order in independence don ’ know, t yee al. et Kyne aePaev.Eauto eiinMkn nCs faHriaeEvent. Hurricane a of Case in Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Place Safe with Decision-Making Evacuation vs. Leave to Wanting not Reason ” n %o hmslce eiinof decision a selected them of 4% and “ other ” lcs sasf lc,showed place, safe a as places, “ no ” Fgr 4.Tesuyprom h-qaets of test chi-square a performs study The 14). (Figure Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican “ No “ yes ” nCs faHriaeEvent. Hurricane a of Case in ” Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM o vcaindecision-making evacuation for

.5 SD 0.45, “ No Authenticated ”

= evacuating EGRUYTER DE

.9 than 0.49) Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd rtcino hi oss otiuigt o ecie ik edn oa to leading risks perceived 2009) low to Gutteling contributing Thisstudy and houses; their Lindell, Hurricane. Terpstra, of protection 1and2 2008; Gutteling and concerned Terpstra as respondents 1974; not Parker reflecting were flood-prone Category ofa and they in (Harding whereas studies living 5), some individuals and of the event of 4, Third, amixture (3, 5. events during Category hurricane showed flooding major they a floor the with stated event stay 3rd during surprisingly hurricane to concerns floor the deadliest 3rd confident their on the show the seem areas living in on they However, living remain individuals Hurricane. individuals to contrast, total 5 would want In the and they might of 2 Hurricane. 4, selected 40% 1 floor, 3, and particular, 3rd In 2, Category 1 decisions. the Category a evacuation Category a than of of a of higher event percent terms living of the ahigher in those event as in homes Second, the leave. their confidence In to in their want stay categories. houses demonstrated not not hurricane in bricks did all living of they individuals across selected made of leave houses them percent to in higher living decision a individuals a homes), Hurricane, show (amixture mobile a other wood and of and of aluminum, wood, event materials, made the brick, three block, in namely other materials, remain the ofhouse to of tend types showtheirwillingness different them members four of among more First, many 8or behavior. However, of 5. size and 4, Hurricane. 3, 2 events: inahousehold and wasnotsupported hurricane 1 major Category logical assumption the theindividuals this all in leave place; oftheir to In fact, out degrees move findings. graduate to the them with by for counterparts ed- difficult more their of the whereas levels household, place, low of in with strong shelter individuals a to masters Third, disclose likely (either to categories. more tend hurricane tend older appear they potential or attainment show years all ucation results 76 across Hurricane, are evacuation 2 who evacuation the or adults make for 1 older to preference Category Second, tend a orientation. genders risk-averse to both their comes 5, exhibit it Category to when However, a evacuation results. event, similar hurricane the worst with decision with the decisions the in relation First, make possible examined. would was their respondents ior and the elements of selected 66% the only into event, looks 3 further Hurricane. decision-making. Category 1 study Category major The a of a leave. case of in to themselves event evacuate would (20%) the unexpectedly, respondents not in the perhaps However, and of Overall, few hurricane. very a that of of found event behavior the is in decision-making it Valley Grande evacuation Rio influence the in might live that who individuals elements selected several investigates study The Conclusion and Discussion 4 0.001. < ***p 0.01, < **p 0.05, < *p Note: 16: Figure governments federal and state, community, withtheresponsiblities family, by tasked followed foremost, responsibili- events first and 2011). serious disaster (PHEgov take and are, must emergency invidiuals for Theindivdiuals including prepare stakeholders the disasters. to key Schmidt2012). different and that manage effectively with note (Helsloot to survey to byrespondents ties imperative a government selected is providing ofanswers the it noted regard addition, set be respondents different In should a total in it the However, result of could assistance. choices 73% for wording which findings responsible The in primarily bags. (2008) sand being Gutteling and as clothes and namely, Terpstra materials: of main two those only support in NGOs from more (M expected NGOs spondents the from transportation public expecting those GRUYTER DE h td loivsiae n iigcniin htmgthv nipc neauto decision-making evacuation on impact an have might that conditions living any investigates also study The behav- decision-making evacuation and characteristics demographic the between relationship possible Any xetdHl rmNO n oenetAgencies. Government and NGOs from Help Expected ’ rP.. pert ao vcain orh oia supinwsta h rae h size the greater the that was assumption logical a Fourth, evacuation. favor to appear Ph.D.) or ’ eifo euesrcua rtcincue noeetmto fefcieeso the of effectiveness of overestimation an causes protection structural secure of belief

.5 SD 0.25, Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican

.3,t 0.43), “ no

= ” Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM ’

vcaindcso.Ti means This decision. evacuation .51 p 9.6561, s findings support the findings support findings s

.0 Fgr 6.Re- 16). (Figure 0.000 Authenticated yee al. et Kyne 13 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd determined, a location off the hurricane track is identified, and within the family means. Seventh, residents in Seventh, means. been NGOs. family has and the hurricane agencies within the government and of both, track formanyofthe from is identified, the help wanting toleave. after expect places not track RGV until safe hurricane for the come the could off reasons predefined place location pressing There are safe a most a determined, are the identifying evac- place differently. others, to safe for individuals but a offriends for respondents, lack reasons perceive a and to individuals and limitations not different certain either Sixth, resources are decisions financial there made of Fifth, who Lack decision. those uate. their even with recommendation, uncertain the or follow relationship leave to a willingness demonstrate a authorities size show government household respondents the and demo- Fourth, level, Third, decision-making. the residents. educational some evacuation of age, be with gender, decision-making would complex, res- as the is there all influence such decision-making and potentially that characteristics evacuation could hurricane, anticipated graphic the that of be Second, elements event many could event. are the it hurricane there First, in the as hurricane. themselves during a evacuate remain of not will event would who the RGV individuals in the RGV in the living in idents live who individuals those of government the believe respondents of protection. majority for the responsible which primarily in but (2009) is specify for each, Gutteling respondents and the survey, expectations study Lindell, Terpstra, The different From and NGOs. held the (2008) than respondents for government investigation. evident available the on another was from be It so would NGOs. more reflect event resources and the would which government in both, Furthermore, after mile from 2014). time coastal needs Helsloot the per designated and USD and the (Kolen million to area US one areas refuge the exceed living in could their costs hurricane from evacuation a residents study that of transporting estimated the for was utilize costs It could estimate places. authorities to safe outside The as place USA. RGV, a well the the andsoon. as of of outside evacuation, home, place outside for RGV, a place the current within their a place track, a or hurricane as Texas the such as of location off place of was safe terms that a in place of it view perception a may a upon, have Others agree could respondents members Some family categories. that hurricane place the a of one each for place to safe a need questions These evacuate? to be- some likely there this Starr less Are Is simply and area? evacuate. Hidalgo them the addressed. striking in make to be Hurricanes those which inland few than faces, so those Hurricanes population of about than the light why informed circumstances likely in explore less widespread less or should become more or investigation complacency no Has Further more are County? no concern. coast for appear the on coast cause individuals is the cause evacuate, to to closer not living choice individuals a and show family hurricane (including tial peers from communication risk critical. in and feedback important event, is disaster friends) a during low-incomefamilies determine The study is population study which ofthe this resources. addition, their majority In financial the resources. need area; basic of ofthe lack respondents that lack the demographics a (2016) events, from Bureau hurricane Census stemmed the the reflect uncertainty their during decision, home evacuation their their from out ajudgment move make to friends to contrast, influential least In the are move. was recommendations mention friend to earlier, of discussed percent as highest note, the to interesting with is reason It The themselves. leave. to present wanting they not aware for as become reasons categories seven and hurricane differently information the situation of communicating the each of of throughout severity means available the assistance alternative assess varying there level or the where education additional lower of areas a vein, to with same resources those the additional assist devote all may In to is, levels. groupsmayre- education need education lower may lower onwhich since authorities instance, are poverty, For with guidance evacuation. correlated to offer respect equal, individuals with else findings Moreover, assistance Finally, a majorhurricane. or categories. of persuasion hurricane additional asrespondents five quire the all event as influential in across judgment identified decision own not evacuation were final recommendations a make friend individual to an of order(s) changing majority the in The on factor impact. deciding and the strength be projected selected also its could as order well evacuation as an hurricane, a given make any who of respo 14 rmti xlrtr td,sm ocuin ol emd ntecneto vcaindecision-making evacuation of context the in made be could conclusions some study, exploratory this From as constitutes what perceive individuals how on vary might refuge to place safe a event, hurricane a During stage ofapoten- ofthe strongest path direct in the be to likely are most who individuals that finding, The the of one least at exhibit remain, to or evacuate to either decision, evacuation an make who Individuals provide infor- authorities make landfall, hurricanes Days before forpolicymakers. useful are findings The yee al. et Kyne ’ comdto.Aohrfco salc ffnnilrsucs mn hs h r neti about areuncertain who those Among resources. financial of lack a is factor Another accommodation. “ no ” oa to “ yes ” vcain eod uhrt eomnain r eyhlflfrmn h rely who many for helpful very are recommendations authority Second, evacuation. “ yes ” vcaindcso,soe hywudflo vcainodr.Similarly, orders. evacuation follow would they showed decision, evacuation ’ s findings support Verroen, Gutteling, and Vries (2013) findings, Vries and Gutteling, Verroen, support findings s ’ idnsspottefnig fTrsr andGutteling of Terpstra the findings support findings s Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican ’ eomnaini epu n many and helpful is recommendation ’ aiyrcmedtoso their or recommendations family Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM ’ idnst eeoigaplan developing to findings s ’ eiinfo previously a from decision s “ aign friends. no having Authenticated EGRUYTER DE ’ findings s ” ’ Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd al 4: Table inconducting period. assists study research the Erika Zuloaga of Interest: during data Conflicts collecting themanuscripts. in authors manuscript. the complies the helps and edits and and findings search data, literature the collects Spanish, interprets into Donner themanuscript. questionnaire survey William compiles the and findings translates the Lomeli interprets Sophia visualizations, Arlett creates analyses, GIS and analyzes data out Mr. Authors to go thanks family Special extended survey. their the and in students Manager. participated including Emergency who survey County employees Hildago the Saldaña, County in Ricardo Hidalgo participants friends, all thank and to members like would authors The Acknowledgments key toimproving the is Education 2016). education. al. et proper McNeill provide (e.g. should preparedness prepared- officials individual disaster government in participate the actively to whereas responsibilities ness, their Helsloot to and understand (Kolen preferable must process more individuals decision-making all, is evacuation Above style the 2014). planning with evacuation associated uncertainties probabilistic the infrastruc- A RGV. account critical the into of take in capacity facets process and many decision-making responses, has the resident evacuation in However, forecasts, ture plan. as, evacuation such deterministic uncertainties for a have accounting including to NGOs as, well as governments; GRUYTER DE osbeascainbteneuainatimn n iaca eore oeaut,adterimplication their and any investigate evacuate, should to studies resources future financial planning. suggests and evacuation study for attainment This education 5. between Category association a possible event, hurricane an deadliest and prepare the 3 also authorities keeping the during foods, must on both shelter; government transportation, authorities live Fourth, who as seek evacuation. those such for an to Third, assistance, plan during evacuation of residents places. need/expect types might for safe various residents places language, that ideal lay etc., safe their in clothing, of announce, identified and list already prepare a must have NGOs identify may to some Second, used Services. mind, Weather be in National could the information with weather together closely the recommendations authorities evacuation First, prepare plan. must ahurricane and to findings incorporate could authorities state Appendix Age Gender

76+ 56 46 36 26 18 18 Under Total Others Female Male study the all, Above localand The the study. of findings the from made be could preparedness hurricane for implications Four – – – – – 75 55 45 35 25 umr ecitv Statistics. Descriptive Summary ’ Contribution: The authors declare no conflict of interest. conflict no declare authors The ’ idnspoieueu nomto o tkhlesicuiglcl tt,and federal state, local, including for stakeholders information useful provide findings s enKn eeossre usinar,cnut niesre,clet aa carries data, collects survey, online conducts questionnaire, survey develops Kyne Dean rd lo n teswo xiie o-vcaindecision-making non-evacuation exhibited whom others and floor Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican Frequency 165.00 642.00 959.00 583.00 373.00 27.00 43.00 72.00 4.00 9.00 3.00 Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM ’ eomnain r helpful are recommendations ecn Cumulative Percent 100.00 17.15 66.74 60.79 38.89 0.42 0.94 0.31 2.81 4.47 7.48 Authenticated yee al. et Kyne 100.00 100.00 99.58 96.78 92.31 84.82 67.67 99.69 38.89 0.94 15 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd adn,Dnl . n ensJ akr 1974. Parker. J. Dennis and M., Donald Harding, 1994. Mertz. K. C. and Slovic, Paul James, Flynn, 2017. FEMA. 1997. Morrow. Hearn Betty and and Burton, Elaine, G. Enarson, Christopher Schmidtlein, C. Mathew Gall, Melanie Boruff, J. Bryan Mitchell, T. Jerry Emrich, T. Christopher L., Susan Cutter, 2016. Wire. CNN 2016. Bureau. Census 2010. Bureau. Census 2012. Britt. Foreman Amber and Bethel, W. Jeffrey Sloane, Burke, 2002. Edwards. Bob and M., Julie Bateman, 2000. Malilay. Josephine and Kiezak, Stephanie Holmes, Talmage Schieve, Laura Lina, Balluz, 2009. Malina. Catherine and M., John Balbus, 2015. Cormier. A. Loretta and R., Lisa Baker, References 16 Murray-Tuite. 2011. Pamela and Gladwin, Hugh Ukkusuri, Satish Samiul, Hasan, type House level Education materials House

dtdb ibr ht,43 White, Gilbert by edited Disaster of Sociology the 2006. Melton. Ginni gov-warns-ahead-of-hurricane-matthew/. rcountytexas,hidalgocountytexas/POP060210. Carolina. North Eastern in Farmworkers 1997. March, 1 Arkansas, Warning, Company. Publishing Springer home family Single explain) (please Other home wood Prefabricated home Mobile Duplex complex apartment higher or Two-story apartment One-story Total school high Some Total aeEauto eiinMaking. Decision Evacuation cane canes. States. Total Others Wood Brick Block Total explain) (please Other courses Vocational (Master degree Graduate Bachelor diploma school High yee al. et Kyne ” ” aua aad Review Hazards Natural “ ora fOcptoa n niomna Medicine Environmental and Occupational of Journal o oPeaefraHurricane. a for Prepare to How ’ degree s hsSomWl ilYou, Kill Will Storm This “ “ QuickFacts. QuickFacts. “ h ogRa oe ae ls,adRcvr rmHriaeKatrina. Hurricane from Recovery and Class, Race, Home: Road Long The dtdb atrGli ecc,Hg ldi,adBtyHanMro,116 Morrow, Hearn Betty and Gladwin, Hugh Peacock, Gillis Walter by edited , – 2 e ok xodUiest Press. University Oxford York: New 52. ’ n/rPhD) and/or s ” ” :107 3: cesdhttps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cameroncountytexas,willacycountytexas,starAccessed https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217. ” ” ’ Disasters ora fTasotto Engineering-Asce Transportation of Journal LGv an ha fHriaeMatthew Hurricane of ahead Warns Gov. FL – 117. iatr n unrbePpltos vdneBsdPatc o h epn Professions Helping the for Practice Evidence-Based Populations: Vulnerable and Disasters “ ” edradEauto:ACoe oka h oe r oeLkl oEaut o Hurri- for Evacuate to Likely More are Women Why at Look Closer A Evacuation: and Gender ” nentoa ora fEvrnetlRsac n ulcHealth Public and Research Environmental of Journal International “ dniyn unrbeSbouain o lmt hneHat fet nteUnited the in Effects Health Change Climate for Subpopulations Vulnerable Identifying https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/98105. “ “ “ edr ae n ecpino niomna elhRisks. Health Environmental of Perception and Race, Gender, lo aada hesuyi h UK. the in Shrewsbury at Hazard Flood 4 71 24: edrdPrpcie h ocso Women. of Voices The Perspective: Gendered A – 77. 1 33 51: “ sesn iatrPeaens mn aioMgatadSeasonal and Migrant Latino among Preparedness Disaster Assessing – 37. Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican “ 3 5:341 (5): 137 http://wnep.com/2016/10/06/this-storm-will-kill-you-fl-. eairlMdlt nesadHueodLvlHurri- Household-Level Understand to Model Behavioral ” In 632.00 116.00 958.00 962.00 959.00 230.00 538.00 158.00 961.00 146.00 622.00 – 27.00 29.00 42.00 22.00 93.00 45.00 26.00 33.00 90.00 29.00 aua aad:Lcl ainl n Global and National, Local, Hazards: Natural 348. “ rdcosfrPeople for Predictors ” In ” Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM Environment urcn nrw tnct,Gne and Gender Ethnicity, Andrew: Hurricane – 4.NwYr:Routledge. York: New 140. 9:3115 (9): 9 ” 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ikAnalysis Risk 65.76 12.07 23.98 56.10 16.48 15.24 64.93 8 8 48: 2.81 3.02 4.37 2.29 9.68 4.70 2.71 3.44 9.39 3.03 ’ epnet Tornado a to Response s – – 3133. 20. Authenticated 4() 1101 (6): 14 e York: New . EGRUYTER DE 100.00 100.00 100.00 34.24 31.43 28.41 24.04 21.75 12.07 87.58 96.56 72.58 16.48 90.61 84.86 69.62 , – 4.70 1108.

Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ucio ai.2008. David. Zucchino, 2013. Vries. De Peter and Gutteling, M. Jan Stephan, Verroen, 2013. Brown. L. David and C., Brian Thiede, 2009. Gutteling. M. Jan and Lindell, K. Michael Teun, Terpstra, 2008. Gutteling. M. Jan and Teun, Terpstra, 2010. Letson. David and Thomas, Michael Daniel, Solis, 2008. Estupiñan. Jeral and Goldsmith, Barry Hayden, Mary League, Cedar Isabelle, Ruin, 2011. PHEgov. 1983. Greene. R. Majorie and W., Ronald Perry, 2006. A. Anthony Peguero, 2005. Highfield. Wes and Brody, David Samuel Gillis, Walter Peacock, 2017b. Service. Weather National 2017a. Service. Weather National 2006. Tadahiro. Motoyoshi, 2007. Settanni. Michele and Sotgiu, Igor Renato, Miceli, 2016. MacClements. Jonathan and Fountain, Rebecca Mastel-Smith, Beth Alfred, Danita C., Charleen 2006. McNeill, Perry. W. Ronald and Parter, S. Carla K., Michael Lindell, 2010. Thacher. A. Jennifer and Morrow, H. Betty Waldman, M. Donald K., Jeffrey Lazo, 2016. Bas. Kolen, 2014. Helsloot. Ira and Bas, Kolen, 2016. Prater. S. Carla and Lindell, K. Michael Shih-Kai, Huang, 2012. Schmidt. Arjen and Ira, Helsloot, GRUYTER DE http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/11/nation/na-ike11. Communication. Study. Quasi-Experimental a Development Resources Water of Journal national Choice. ouvertes.fr/halshs-00382708. Border. US-Mexico the Across Doly Hurricane to sponse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dky4vc5Q50. owners. owners. https://www.weather.gov/bro/2008event_dollyreport. https://www.weather.gov/bro/hurrprep_history. Mega-Cities in 121 Risks Sato, Disaster Emerging to society Resilient Toward Risks: Disaster of ment Materials. Management Campaign Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Security to Homeland Exposure After Population Rural a Among Levels Preparedness Household Assessment. for Framework a Developing Forecasting: Hurricane Improved of efits https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/ Sciences. EDP A: Cedex 610 (3): Studies. Evacuation cane Programme. Responsibility and Risk Dutch the in Out Pointed Reflex tion Italy. ” ora fEvrnetlPsychology Environmental of Journal – ” ” ” – 635. ora fDvlpetadArclua Economics Agricultural and Development of Journal ipncJunlo eairScience Behavior of Journal Hispanic Planning Urban and Landscape 3.TRAU n ID http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/nied/. NIED. and TERRAPUB 134. “ h ainlDsse eia ytm(NDMS). System Medical Disaster National The “ ikBsdDcso aigfrEauto na neti World. Uncertain an in Evacuation for Making Decision Based Risk ” ikAnalysis Risk “ vcain r ree sIesrntesi Gulf. in IkeSstrengthens as Ordered are Evacuations “ “ aioDsse unrblt:TeDseiaino urcn iiainIfrainaogFlorida among Information Mitigation Hurricane of Dissemination The Vulnerability: Disaster Latino ulcPreto fFodRs n omnt-ae iatrPreparedness. Disaster Community-Based and Risk Flood of Perception Public ” niomn n Behavior and Environment ” “ “ “ ikAnalysis Risk urcn rprdes i rneVle:HriaeHistory. Hurricane Valley: Grande Rio Preparedness, Hurricane tr eoto urcn ol nteRoGad alyadDe ot ea:Udt #2. Update Texas: South Deep and Valley Grande Rio the in Dolly Hurricane on Report Storm eiinMkn n vcainPann o lo ikMngmn nteNetherlands. the in Management Risk Flood for Planning Evacuation and Decision-Making 3() 1252 (7): 33 “ h nrcal iie n h igeMne ikExpert Risk Single-Minded the and Citizen Intractable The “ :120 3: “ urcn arn:WoSae n Why? and Stayed Who Katrina: Hurricane Households 8 164 28: – iie epnet ocncEutos h aeo t t Helens. St. Mt. of Case The Eruptions: Volcanic to Response Citizen 9() 1141 (8): 29 1264. 8 5 28: – 3() 113 (1): 13 135. 4() 555 (4): 24 – – 173. 22. “ “ 8() 991 (8): 48 nEprclEauto fteDtriat fHueodHriaeEvacuation Hurricane Household of Determinants the of Evaluation Empirical An ’ iatrPeaens n ecpino lo ik td na lieVle in Valley Alpine an in Study A Risk: Flood of Perception and Preparedness Disaster – ecie epniiiisi lo ikMngmn nteNetherlands. the in Management Risk Flood in Responsibilities Perceived – 1155. ” 135. – “ uc epnerpr,NtrlHzrsCne.https://halshs.archives- Center. Hazards Natural report, response Quick :188 2: “ 565. udmnaso mrec Management Emergency of Fundamentals nacn efPoetv eair fcc eif n erFebc nRisk in Feedback Peer and Beliefs Efficacy Behavior: Self-Protective Enhancing “ h evsadWoSas eiwadSaitclMt-nlsso Hurri- of Meta-analysis Statistical and Review A Stays? Who and Leaves Who ” osCmuiaig(lo)Rs fet(lo)Rs ecpin?Rslsof Results Perceptions? Risk (Flood) Affect Risk (Flood) Communicating Does ulse eebr1,21.Vdo 1:29. Video, 2011. 15, December Published – – 1029. 196. “ urcn ikPretosAogFlorida Among Perceptions Risk Hurricane ” ” … o nee Times Angeles Los Brought toyouby |UniversityofTexas-PanAmerican uoenJunlo ikRegulation Risk of Journal European /e3sconf_flood2016_19001.html. ” “ ” dtdb auoIea euiFkzn,adTeruko and Fukuzono, Teruki Ikeda, Saburo by edited , In ” oshl vcainDcso aigadteBen- the and Making Decision Evacuation Household ouainRsac n oiyReview Policy and Research Population “ ete n Forecasting and Weather r uoenCneec nFodRs aaeet7 Management Risk Flood on Conference European 3rd ifrnilSca unrblt n Re- and Vulnerability Social Differential et 1 2008. 11, Sept. , ” – Download Date |11/25/19 9:39 PM ehnssCuigteRs Regula- Risk the Causing Mechanisms evr A onWly&Sn Inc. Sons & Wiley John MA: Denver, . e ok rigo Publishers. Irvington York: New ” In “ hne nSelf-Reported in Changes etrItgae Manage- Integrated Better A 5() 207 (1): 25 3:305 (3): 3 ’ igeFml Home- Family Single s Authenticated – – yee al. et Kyne 312. 219. 2() 803 (6): 32 ” ” Disasters ” ’ Home- s ora of Journal ” Inter- – 824. 38 17 ,