Why Some People Fail to Heed Evacuation Orders - Case Study Example

Evacuation Name Course Lecturer Introduction When Hurricane Karina hit New Orleans on the morning of Monday, August 29, over 70,000 people had not evacuated (Knabb, Rhome and Brown 2005). It would have been possible to evacuate these people but most failed to heed evacuation orders. The consequences were that the people faced the immediate threat of drowning in the rising flood waters after the levees broke at several points. Later, the victims faced the danger of starvation and exposure as they lacked shelter. In total 1,836 people lost their lives in the Hurricane Katrina; most had failed to heed evacuation orders (Knabb, Rhome and Brown 2005). Another, 117 people died when Hurricane Sandy hit the northwest some years later. When evacuation orders are issued, many people heed them and evacuate voluntarily to designated shelters and other safer areas. However, a good number of people choose to remain in their homes despite the knowledge that their lives are at risk. Warnings by the National Weather Service had indicated that Hurricane Katrina would cause devastating damage. The warnings also indicated that most well-constructed houses would be damaged in the raging storm and subsequent flooding. It also forecast that the storm would cause incomparable human suffering. However, despite these warnings thousands of New Orleans’ residents still refused to heed evacuation orders. According to Dewan and Roberts (2005), 10 to 25 percent of the population regularly fails to evacuate despite strong warnings of danger. Failure to heed evacuation orders has seen many individuals lose their lives when natural disasters strike inside evacuation zones. They risk death by drowning, electrocution by submerged electrical cables, starvation and attacks by criminals. So why do so many people decide to remain behind despite the apparent danger? Understanding the reasons for failing to heed evacuation orders is crucial in minimizing loss of life when disaster strike through complete evacuation. In this paper, the reasons for not heeding evacuation orders are discussed. Each of the reasons is introduced and discussed in relation to recent natural disasters. The paper also discusses the civil and criminal liability an individual may attract for failing to heed evacuation orders Reasons for failing to heed Evacuation Orders Downplaying the seriousness of an approaching disaster is one of the most common reasons why people fail to heed evacuation orders. A good example of this phenomenon is when Tornadoes struck the US South on 6th and 5th February 2008 (Live Science 2009). They left 57 people dead, and 350 others injured. Most of the victims of the Tornadoes had failed to heed evacuation orders. Some of the victims who failed to evacuate say they thought the threat of the Tornadoes was minimal as they occurred in February and not in springtime when they are accustomed to Tornadoes. Indeed, Tornadoes are most frequent in springtime when cool air collides with warm most air moving inland from the Gulf of Mexico (Live Science 2009). However, the risk of Tornadoes in the southwest region remains high throughout the year. When natural disasters related to weather occur in the season when they are not expected people are more opposed to an evacuation. People want to confirm if indeed a Tornado is threatening them offseason. Optimistic individual sometimes think that their homes are safe and decide to stay despite orders to evacuate. However, Thousands of New Orleans residents who failed to evacuate were in Low-lying areas (United States Congress Committee on Hurricane Katrina 2006). It is baffling how people in such risky areas failed to heed evacuation orders when flooding of over two feet was forecast. In St Bernard Parish, New Orleans flood waters were almost engulfing the roofs of single store buildings. Some of those who failed to evacuate hoped they could shelter in the Attic when the water level rose. Unfortunately, the water sometimes rose above the roofs of buildings and the victims drowned in their homes (Dewan and Roberts 2005). The St Bernard Parish case points out that minimizing of a threat of natural disaster is a risky strategy that leads to the deaths of many who fail to heed evacuation warnings. Another group of people ignore evacuation orders in the hope an approaching storm; tornado or hurricane will hit another location. These people hope their luck will save them from adverse weather events (Live Science 2009). The case is apparent in Mississippi, according to Select Committee, who were responsible for the evacuation of Hurricane Katrina. The Mississippi Governor argued that residents had “hurricane fatigue” as they had repeatedly bore the cost of evacuating for storms that would end up hitting somewhere else (United States Congress Committee on Hurricane Katrina 2006). In 2004, some parts of Mississippi had been placed under emergency evacuation orders as Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Ivan approached, but the storm did not hit the areas. Therefore, the residents expected Hurricane Katrina to hit other places even though they were being evacuated. Similarly, the older residents of New Orleans had experiences of “riding out” storms. Some had survived Hurricane Betsy (1965) and Hurricane Camille (1969) without being evacuated. Thus, some of these people failed to heed the danger Hurricane Katrina posed to those who ignored evacuation orders (Dewan and Roberts 2005). Secondly, the Hurricane Katrina had been expected to make landfall at the Florida Panhandle, and its sudden turn towards New Orleans was unexpected. According to Hunt and Varner (2012), many people fail to heed evacuation orders as they will not be punished for not doing so. People who stay at home and “ride out” storms have been criticized as “stupid” and selfish as they put rescuers in danger. While failure to evacuate attracts criminal and civil liability, offenders rarely punished. Unfortunately, even if the offenders were to be punished the sentences are too small to act as an effective deterrence (Bohannon 2011). In New York City, N.Y. Exec. Law § 24(1)(b) gives the Mayor or the Chief Executive the powers to make mandatory evacuation order in response to expected disaster or catastrophe. Failure to heed these order means one is guilty of a Misdemeanour (Hunt and Varner 2012). The penalty of only three months imprisonment is however not enough to deter people who fail to heed evacuation orders. Unfortunately, the criminal sanction relating to ignorance of evacuation orders is rarely enforced. In a situation where people know they be arrested and prosecuted for failing to heed evacuation orders, more people would be motivated to evacuate voluntarily (Hunt and Varner 2012). However, few states have prosecuted people for failing to heed evacuation orders. Other states lack the criminal statutes to deal with those failing to heed evacuation orders. In addition, failure to evacuate may attract civil penalties for people who need be rescued. In North Carolina, a person who ignores evacuation orders and ends up needing rescue is civilly liable (Hunt and Varner 2012). He can be fined and asked to pay for the cost of rescue under the Modernize NC Emergency Management Act. Also, liability extends to any injuries that may be sustained by the rescuer. Rescuers are not civilly liable for failing to rescue people who ignore evacuation warnings (Bohannon 2011). For this reason, a person who has ignored evacuation orders cannot take legal action against state agencies or rescuers for failing to rescue him. People ignoring evacuation orders are in a precarious legal position. Many emergency responders have maintained that they cannot be held liable for failing to rescue people who failed to evacuate despite being ordered to do so. Unfortunately, poor sanctioning of the associated criminal and civil liability means that liability is rarely viewed as an incentive for evacuation. According to the (United States Congress Committee on Hurricane Katrina (2006), poor wording of evacuation orders means some people do not appreciate the seriousness of threats. Many poorly worded messages fail to communicate the danger of events and the urgency of evacuation. The US National Weather Service has committed to improving the wording on their weather forecasts and evacuation advice in the future. The ways the City of New Orleans worded the evacuation orders for Hurricane Katrina have led to criticism of the City and Louisiana State officials (Dewan and Roberts 2005). According to Dewan and Roberts (2005), the evacuation order lacked clarity and ended up confusing the residents about the seriousness of the Hurricane’s threat. Many of the New Orleans districts adopted different terminologies to describe the level of evacuation they were imposing. Instead of imposing and communicating a mandatory evacuation, the parishes described the evacuation in these terms a “precautionary” evacuation, a “highly recommended” evacuation, a “recommended” evacuation, a “voluntary” evacuation, and a “highly suggested” evacuation. The apparent avoidance of the word “mandatory evacuation meant some residents did not take the hurricane threat seriously (United States Congress Committee on Hurricane Katrina 2006). Also, the Select Committee Staff also lacked a clear description of what mandatory evacuation meant. However, they agreed that they would not forcibly remove people from their homes in the name of evacuation. The Mayor and the Governor of Louisiana agreed that even under Mandatory evacuation orders it was unnecessary to remove people forcibly from their home. However, the Elder et al (2007) argues that it is necessary to use whatever means to ensure successful evacuation of all people are removed from evacuation zones. He goes on to point that more people would have volunteered to evacuate if they were threatened with removal from their homes. Unfortunately, concerns about civil liberties have seen many authorities fail to use force as an option for evacuating those who are refusing to do so. Many researchers who are interested in the reasons for ignorance of evacuation orders argue that the definition of “mandatory” evacuation needs to be practical. Mandatory evacuation has to mean that a person has to evacuate or be forcibly removed or arrested (Bohannon 2011). Instead, the authorities concentrate on calling every home and informing people they need to evacuate. A more effective way would be to ask the people to evacuate and inform them the consequences of failing to do so include prosecution and forcible removal. Despite this apparent weakness of the terminology “mandatory evacuation” still provides a strong suggestion that people have no choice but to evacuate (Bohannon 2011). By making an evacuation mandatory, the residents are aware that authorities will be unable to protect or care for them if they choose to remain in the evacuation zones. The failure by the New Orleans authorities to use the term early meant some people felt they had the choice of “riding out” Hurricane Katrina at home. When the evacuation orders suddenly changed to “mandatory” some residents became confused. The fear of looting is also a leading reason people fail to heed evacuation orders. Some residents of areas that have been put under evacuation order confess they were left behind as they were concerned that their homes or businesses would be looted (Elder 2007). In the run-up to the Hurricane Sandy, many businessmen remained behind as they were concerned about looting. According to, criminals find evacuated businesses and homes an easy target for looting. Knowing the stores are unprotected they walk in and take whatever they want. Jantz (2012) argues that the looting in New Orleans days after Katrina struck was not related to starvation as some pointed. He argues that hungry people would not have bothered to steal electronics and high-end clothes. Instead, hungry people would have been concerned with food. He argues that looting is a result of the breakdown in social order where people want to grab what is not theirs. Jantz (2012) points out that looting incident are quite common even without the cover of natural disasters. Flash mob robberies have been used to overwhelm security. Thus, people who are being evacuated may remain behind concerned that their homes of businesses may be targeted by looters in their absence. Inability to evacuate is one of the most frequently cited reasons for failing to heed evacuation orders. In particular, people with special needs including the elderly, the sick, and the disabled and low-income groups may receive evacuation orders but are unable to comply with them. The city of New Orleans in the run-up to Katrina was criticized for failing to facilitate the evacuation of these vulnerable groups. According to United States Congress Committee on Katrina (2006), the people who were left trapped in evacuation areas in New Orleans included the elderly, the disabled and the sick. The low incomes were no better off as the Hurricane came at the time of the month when most people were broke. They could not be able to fuel their vehicles to drive to the shelters. The City of New Orleans also failed to provide enough public transport to move people to the shelter they had prepared (Dyson 2006). The Mayor draws particular criticism for failing to use school buses in the effort to evacuate the city most disadvantaged. He argued that the school buses lacked Insurance and there were no drivers available to operate the buses. Unfortunately, New Orleans is ranked as the poorest urban area in the United States, and an estimated 27% percent of New Orleans households do not have private cars (Dyson 2006). This means that over 120,000 people could only get to the shelters by walking or by public means (Elder 2007). The lack of buses to transport these unfortunate people among other factors contributed to their inability to heed evacuation orders. Recently, in 2011 many of the 900,000 disabled New York City residents were unable to evacuate during Hurricane Sandy and Tropical Storm Irene (Santora and Weiser 2013). Days after the storms supplies were hoisted into houses occupied by the disabled. The City of New York was sued for failing to provide emergency evacuation plans for the city’s disabled populace. Flaws in New York City’s emergency system were discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. After the streets and lower level house were flooded, the city lost it electricity supply. Many disabled individuals were trapped in high-rise building with no access to supplies. The emergency evacuation system of the City was criticized for not being disability friendly. According to Santora and Weiser (2013), New York City does not provide for a means for the disabled to leave high-rise building unassisted. Furthermore, once they are outside transportation is not available to take them to evacuation shelters. Unfortunately, power loss means that the high-rise buildings are also without heating. The ordeal of Judith Rodriguez during Hurricane Sandy clearly illustrates the shortcoming of the New York evacuation system in providing for the disabled. Judith remained trapped on the 10th floor of her building and could not move around as she was on a wheelchair and also blind (Santora and Weiser 2013). For the entire, period she relied on a teenager to get her supplies 140 steps below. Both New Orleans and New York have failed to provide adequately for the evacuation of needy groups. Both cities have failed to ensure the disabled can evacuate easily on their own and can access evacuation shelter easily. In addition, the information provided on location of shelter and process of evacuation is also insufficient. Many cities have not planned adequately to evacuate disabled people. They do not assign people to help them exit buildings and assess transport to the evacuation shelter (Santora and Weiser 2013). Instead, current plans emphasize on people ability to exit building unassisted and use public transport to get to the shelters. However, the disabled cannot be able to do any of these things on their own. In addition, most disaster causes a loss of power which means elevators become inoperable (Santora and Weiser 2013). This in effect traps disabled individuals in multi-storey buildings. In addition, cities have to provide adequate transport to take the disabled to the shelters. However, both New York City during hurricane Sandy and New Orleans failed to provide sufficient transport to the disabled. By failing to provide a means of transport for the disabled the city prevented the disabled from heeding the evacuation orders. Vorst (2010) explains the psychological reasons why people fail to heed evacuation. He argues that Low trait anxiety and Lower openness to experience are among the key reasons most people have failed to heed evacuation orders. The findings came from analysis of interview responses involving people who had ignored evacuation orders in one or more occasions. Low trait anxiety is concerned with carefree reaction to threats. According to Vorst (2010), people always react to threats to their personal safety differently. One group of people feel a strong sense of threat and take urgent action to protect their safety. For example, people in this group will immediately get immunized if new strain of Flu is spreading. On the other hand, people with low trait anxiety perceive threats weakly. People of low trait anxiety perceive serious threats as moderately threatening and they do not respond intensely to many threats. Many of the people who perceived the Hurricane Katrina and Sandy as moderately threatening belong to the low trait anxiety. Many optimistically hoped that the storms would hit other areas or would be less severe than forecasts. Also, they failed to react with the intensity and urgency needed to be safe. Instead of evacuating, they may have barred their doors and window. Some may have cleared their attics in the hope they would shelter there when the flood waters started rising. Openness to experience is a dimension of personality that is known to influence many individual decisions. What is familiar and predictable is the mainstay of people grouped in the low in openness dimension (McCrae and Sutin 2009). In contrast, people with high openness to experience like to try new things. They are the first to try new product because they like the experience. They travel a lot to gain new experiences. On the other hand, people who are low in openness are comfortable with old products that they are familiar with. The decision to evacuate was influenced by the dimensions of individual personality. Those with low in openness would hate packing and moving to shelters away from the familiarity of home (McCrae and Sutin 2009). At the shelter, they would meet new people and become more flexible to the dynamics of the group. For example, a group of elderly residents refused to evacuate from New Orleans homes despite the best efforts of their children. They said they were most comfortable at home and exhibited great discomfort in attempt to deviate from their normal routines at home. Conclusion When natural disasters happen being prepared and being in the right place in many instances makes the difference between surviving and dying. In recent time, the United States West Coast has been hit by a number of devastating storms, Hurricanes, and Tornadoes. Cases of incomplete evacuation during these disasters are common. More than 70,000 people were still in evacuation areas when the devastating Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Katrina killed over 1,800 people; most had failed to heed evacuation orders. Both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy further focus attention on the reasons why people fail to heed evacuation orders. Many people know how serious some natural weather threats are, but still they fail to evacuate as others hurriedly pack and move to shelters. Downplaying the seriousness of a storm, Hurricane or Tornado is one of the key reason people remain in evacuation areas despite orders to move. Some people think the events will not have serious consequences. In the case of storms and hurricanes, some believe that they will avoid them as many deviate to other areas. For many people who have “rode” similar storms and survived, evacuation orders are not taken seriously. Sometimes, storms and tornadoes occur in seasons when they are least expected. Whatever the reason for downplaying the event bringing about the evacuation, it is important for individual to know that playing a guessing game with disaster is very risky. Secondly, criminal and civil sanctions do not sufficiently motivate individuals to evacuate. People are rarely imprisoned for not heeding evacuation order. Cases of prosecution of people who refused to move to evacuation shelters are very rare. For this reason, the legal deterrent against ignorance of evacuation orders is very weak. Poor wording of evacuation warnings and notices have also been criticized as a leading cause of confusion during evacuation events. The City of New Orleans failed to word its evacuation notice strongly and thus the people did not appreciate the seriousness of the threat posed by Hurricane Katrina. By failing to make evacuation mandatory, the city official led many people to believe that Katrina’s effect would not be as devastating as they proved. In contrast, the National Weather Service had painted a clear picture of the devastation likely to be caused by Hurricane Katrina. In addition, some residents also fear that their homes and businesses will be looted. The massive looting that took place in New Orleans is a good example of looting incidents that occur in evacuated cities. Some residents feel that by remaining behind in their homes or businesses they may be able to protect their property against the threat of looters. On the other hand, the needy people are unable to heed evacuation orders because they are simply unable to. The elderly, the poor, the disabled and the sick are sometimes unable to move to shelters during evacuation events. Finally, some psychological traits help explain individual motivation for ignoring evacuation orders. Those with Low trait anxiety show a carefree attitude towards threats in their life and may not react seriously to threats. Those with Lower openness to experience traits simple do not like the experience of moving to shelter away from the familiarity of home. Reference Bohannon, D 2011, "Fight or Flight:" On Enforcing Mandatory Evacuations. Law Practice Today, April Edition, Accessed 31 January 2015, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/law_practice_today_home/law_practice_today_archive/april11/fight_or_flight_on_enforcing_mandatory_evacuations.html. Dewan, S & Roberts, J 2005, Louisiana's Deadly Storm Took Strong as Well as the Helpless, New York Times, December 18, Accessed 31 January, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/nationalspecial/18victims.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0. Dyson, M 2006, Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster, Perseus Books Group, New York. Elder, K., Xirasagar, S., Miller, N., Bowen, S. A., Glover, S., & Piper, C 2007, African Americans' decisions not to evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina: A qualitative study, American Journal of Public Health, 97(Supplement_1), S124-S129. Hunt, H & Varner, C 2012, Hurricane Sandy and Refusing to Evacuate: Criminal Law and Civil Liability, Accessed 31 January, http://www.fromthesidebar.com/2012/11/12/hurricane-sandy-and-refusing-to-evacuate-criminal-law-and-civil-liability-2/ Jantz, G 2012, Looting After a Hurricane: It's Not About the Bread. Huffington Post, October 31, Accessed 31 January 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gregory-jantz-phd/looting-national-disaster_b_2042776.html. Live Science 2009, Why People Don't Heed Tornado Warnings, Live Science, March 10, Accessed 31 January, http://www.livescience.com/3370-people-heed-tornado-warnings.html McCrae, RR, & Sutin, AR 2009, Openness to experience. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, 257-273. Knabb, RD; Rhome, JR; Brown, P, 2005. Hurricane Katrina: August 23 – 30, 2005 (Tropical Cyclone Report). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service, New York. Santora, M & Weiser, B 2013, Court says New York Neglected Disabled in Emergencies. The New York Times, November 17, Accessed 31 January, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/nyregion/new-yorks-emergency-plans-violate-disabilities-act-judge-says.html?pagewanted=all. United States Congress. House, Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina 2006. A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee To Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. Government Printing Office, Washington. Vorst, HC 2010, Evacuation models and disaster psychology, Procedia Engineering, 3, 15-21. Read More