Natural Hazards

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 2267–2286 | Cite as

Evacuees’ reentry concerns and experiences in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike

  • Laura K. Siebeneck
  • Michael K. Lindell
  • Carla S. Prater
  • Hao-Che Wu
  • Shih-Kai Huang
Original Paper


Managing evacuees’ reentry into their communities after an evacuation can be a major challenge for emergency managers, especially in instances when evacuees return before the official all-clear message. Despite the frequency of post-evacuation reentry into evacuated areas, there have been few studies of this process and the issues returnees expect and experience during the return phase. A survey of evacuees after Hurricane Ike indicates that household compliance with reentry plans was low, with only a minority of returnees (38 %) complying with official reentry plans. An examination of reentry concerns shows that minority ethnicity, lower education, and lower income were associated with higher levels of reentry concerns and, to a lesser extent, with problems experienced after returning. Results also indicate that none of the demographic variables correlated significantly with compliance with official reentry plans and only higher income predicted later entry. However, concerns about reentry traffic predicted earlier reentry and concern about physical risk was related to reentry plan compliance. This study provides insight into the concerns that motivate households’ reentry decisions and can inform the creation of return strategies that account for people’s concerns about their hurricane-impacted communities.


Reentry Hurricane Ike Risk Evacuation 



This study was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant SES-0527699. The opinions, finding, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Baker EJ (1991) Hurricane evacuation behavior. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 9:287–310Google Scholar
  2. Berg R (2009) Tropical Cyclone Report, Hurricane Ike (AL09008), 1–14 September 2008. Miami FL: National Hurricane Center. Accessed 4 Oct 2012
  3. Chakraborty J, Tobin GA, Montz BE (2005) Population evacuation: assessing spatial variability in geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Nat Hazard Rev 6:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. City of Galveston (2008) City Galveston Hurricane Ike reentry flyer for 9/24/08. Accessed 3 Mar 2009
  5. Cutter SL (1996) Societal vulnerability to environmental hazards. Int Soc Sci J 47:525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutter SL, Emrich CT (2006) Moral hazard, social catastrophe: the changing face of vulnerability along the hurricane coasts. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 604:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Nat Hazard Rev 8:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dash N, Morrow BH (2000) Return delays and evacuation order compliance: the case of Hurricane Georges and the Florida Keys. Environ Hazard 2:119–128Google Scholar
  9. Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliott JR, Pais J (2006) Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: social differences in human responses to disaster. Soc Sci Res 35:295–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang SK, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu HC, Siebeneck LK (2012) Household evacuation decision making in response to Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards Rev 13:283–296Google Scholar
  12. Hughes AL, Palen L (2009) Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. In: Proceedings of the 6th international ISCRAM conference Accessed 5 Oct 2011
  13. Kang JE, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2007) Hurricane evacuation expectations and actual behavior in Hurricane Lili. J Appl Soc Psychol 37:881–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krauss C, McKinley Jr JC (2008) Storm damage is extensive and millions lose power. New York Times. (September 13). Accessed 15 Nov 2011
  15. Landry CE, Bin O, Hindsley P, Whitehead J, Wilson K (2007) Going home: evacuation-migration decisions of Hurricane Katrina survivors. South Econ J 74:326–343Google Scholar
  16. Lane LR (2001) Hazard vulnerability in socioeconomic context: an example from Ecuador. M.A. Thesis, University of Southern Florida, TampaGoogle Scholar
  17. Lane LR, Tobin G, Whiteford LM (2003) Volcanic hazard or economic destitution: hard choices in Baños, Ecuador. Glob Environ Chang Part B Environ Hazard 5:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li W, Airriess CA, Chen A, Leong KJ, Keith V (2010) Katrina and migration: evacuation and return by African Americans and Vietnamese Americans in an Eastern New Orleans suburb. Prof Geogr 61:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindell MK (2013) North American cities at risk: household responses to environmental hazards. In: Rossetto T, Joffe H, Adams J (eds) Cities at risk: living with perils in the 21st century. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review of research. Environ Behav 32:461–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32:616–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindell MK, Prater CS (2008) Behavioral analysis: Texas hurricane evacuation study. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, College Station TXGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindell MK, Lu J, Prater CS (2005) Household decision making and evacuation in response to Hurricane Lilli. Nat Hazard Rev 6:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindell MK, Prater CS, Peacock WG (2007) Organizational communication and decision making in hurricane emergencies. Nat Hazard Rev 8:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindell MK, Huang SK, Prater CS (2011a) Residents’ responses to the May 1–4 2010 Boston water contamination incident. Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindell MK, Kang JE, Prater CS (2011b) The logistics of household hurricane evacuation. Nat Hazard 58:1093–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McEntire DA, Cope J (2004) Damage assessment after the Paso Robles (San Simeon, California) earthquake: lessons for emergency management. Quick response report 166. Boulder CO: University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center. Available at www.colorado,.edu/hazards/qr/qr166/qr166.html
  29. Perry RW, Lindell MK, Greene MR (1981) Evacuation planning in emergency management. Heath Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Quarantelli EL (1984) Evacuation behavior and problems: findings and implications for the research literature. Final Report to FEMA 1980. Disaster Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  31. Siebeneck LK, Cova TJ (2008) An assessment of the return entry process for Hurricane Rita 2005. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 26:91–111Google Scholar
  32. Siebeneck LK, Cova TJ (2012) Spatial and temporal variation in evacuee risk perception throughout the evacuation and reentry process. Risk Anal 32:1468–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sorensen JH, Vogt BM, Mileti DS (1987) Evacuation: an assessment of planning and research. FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Stallings RA (1991) Ending evacuations. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 9:183–200Google Scholar
  35. Starbird K, Palen L, Hughes A, Vieweg S (2010) Chatter on the red: what hazards threat reveals about the social life of microblogged information. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2010 conference Comput Support Coop Work. Accessed 5 October 2011
  36. Sutton J, Palen L, Shlovski I (2008) Back-channels on the front lines: Emerging use of social media in the 2007 Southern California wildfires. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ISCRAM conference. Accessed 5 Oct 2011
  37. Tierney KJ, Lindell MK, Perry RW (2001) Facing the unexpected: disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press/National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Tierney K, Bevc C, Kuligowski E (2006) Metaphors matter: disaster myths, media frames, and their consequences in Hurricane Katrina. Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 604:57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vieweg S, Hughes A, Starbird K, Palen L (2010) Supporting situational awareness during emergencies using microblogged information. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2010 conference on Comp Human Interact. Accessed 5 Oct 2011
  40. Vultee F, Vultee DM (2011) What we tweet about when we tweet about disasters: the nature and sources of microblog comments during emergencies. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster 29:221–242Google Scholar
  41. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolshon B, Hamilton EU, Levitan M, Wilmot C (2005) Review of policies and practices for hurricane evacuation. II: traffic operations, management, and control. Nat Hazard Rev 6:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2012) Logistics of hurricane evacuation in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psych Behav 15:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zelinsky W, Kosinski LA (1991) The emergency evacuation of cities: a cross-national historical and geographical study. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., SavageGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura K. Siebeneck
    • 1
  • Michael K. Lindell
    • 2
  • Carla S. Prater
    • 2
  • Hao-Che Wu
    • 2
  • Shih-Kai Huang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Hazard Reduction and Recovery CenterTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations