飓风疏散的信念和内陆与沿海人口的行为

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions Pub Date : 2020-10-08 DOI:10.1080/17477891.2020.1829531
Emily Mongold, R. Davidson, Jennifer Trivedi, S. DeYoung, Tricia Wachtendorf, Prosper K. Anyidoho
{"title":"飓风疏散的信念和内陆与沿海人口的行为","authors":"Emily Mongold, R. Davidson, Jennifer Trivedi, S. DeYoung, Tricia Wachtendorf, Prosper K. Anyidoho","doi":"10.1080/17477891.2020.1829531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although hurricanes can cause severe hazard effects well inland, little is known about the evacuation behaviour of inland populations compared to coastal populations. Using survey data collected in the United States after Hurricanes Florence (2018), Michael (2018), Barry (2019), and Dorian (2019), we investigate differences between coastal and inland populations in evacuation decisions and timing, and their causes. The data indicate that coastal populations evacuated at a higher rate than their inland counterparts (those not in coastal counties) in every hurricane studied. Chi-square tests identified differences in characteristics of coastal and inland populations, and a multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with evacuation. Together they suggest multiple factors that help explain the difference in evacuation rates. The most significant findings were related to geographic differences in the issuance of evacuation orders and reported receiving of orders (whether or not orders were actually issued). Most interestingly, the analysis indicates that variance between inland and coastal evacuation is not fully explained by the factors suggested in existing literature. We suggest here that differences between inland and coastal evacuation may also result from risk perception, in particular, a view that hurricanes are a coastal phenomenon and therefore do not apply to inland populations.","PeriodicalId":47335,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hurricane evacuation beliefs and behaviour of inland vs. coastal populations\",\"authors\":\"Emily Mongold, R. Davidson, Jennifer Trivedi, S. DeYoung, Tricia Wachtendorf, Prosper K. Anyidoho\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17477891.2020.1829531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Although hurricanes can cause severe hazard effects well inland, little is known about the evacuation behaviour of inland populations compared to coastal populations. Using survey data collected in the United States after Hurricanes Florence (2018), Michael (2018), Barry (2019), and Dorian (2019), we investigate differences between coastal and inland populations in evacuation decisions and timing, and their causes. The data indicate that coastal populations evacuated at a higher rate than their inland counterparts (those not in coastal counties) in every hurricane studied. Chi-square tests identified differences in characteristics of coastal and inland populations, and a multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with evacuation. Together they suggest multiple factors that help explain the difference in evacuation rates. The most significant findings were related to geographic differences in the issuance of evacuation orders and reported receiving of orders (whether or not orders were actually issued). Most interestingly, the analysis indicates that variance between inland and coastal evacuation is not fully explained by the factors suggested in existing literature. We suggest here that differences between inland and coastal evacuation may also result from risk perception, in particular, a view that hurricanes are a coastal phenomenon and therefore do not apply to inland populations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1829531\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1829531","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

虽然飓风会对内陆地区造成严重的危害,但与沿海地区相比,人们对内陆人口的疏散行为知之甚少。利用佛罗伦萨飓风(2018年)、迈克尔飓风(2018年)、巴里飓风(2019年)和多里安飓风(2019年)之后在美国收集的调查数据,我们调查了沿海和内陆人口在疏散决策和时间上的差异及其原因。数据表明,在研究的每一次飓风中,沿海人口的撤离率高于内陆人口(那些不在沿海县的人)。卡方检验确定了沿海和内陆人口特征的差异,多元逻辑回归确定了与疏散相关的变量。他们共同提出了多种因素,有助于解释疏散率的差异。最重要的调查结果与发出疏散命令和报告收到命令(是否实际发出命令)的地理差异有关。最有趣的是,分析表明,内陆和沿海疏散之间的差异并不能完全用现有文献中提出的因素来解释。我们认为,内陆和沿海疏散之间的差异也可能源于风险认知,特别是认为飓风是沿海现象,因此不适用于内陆人口的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hurricane evacuation beliefs and behaviour of inland vs. coastal populations
ABSTRACT Although hurricanes can cause severe hazard effects well inland, little is known about the evacuation behaviour of inland populations compared to coastal populations. Using survey data collected in the United States after Hurricanes Florence (2018), Michael (2018), Barry (2019), and Dorian (2019), we investigate differences between coastal and inland populations in evacuation decisions and timing, and their causes. The data indicate that coastal populations evacuated at a higher rate than their inland counterparts (those not in coastal counties) in every hurricane studied. Chi-square tests identified differences in characteristics of coastal and inland populations, and a multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with evacuation. Together they suggest multiple factors that help explain the difference in evacuation rates. The most significant findings were related to geographic differences in the issuance of evacuation orders and reported receiving of orders (whether or not orders were actually issued). Most interestingly, the analysis indicates that variance between inland and coastal evacuation is not fully explained by the factors suggested in existing literature. We suggest here that differences between inland and coastal evacuation may also result from risk perception, in particular, a view that hurricanes are a coastal phenomenon and therefore do not apply to inland populations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is an innovative, interdisciplinary and international research journal addressing the human and policy dimensions of hazards. The journal addresses the full range of hazardous events from extreme geological, hydrological, atmospheric and biological events, such as earthquakes, floods, storms and epidemics, to technological failures and malfunctions, such as industrial explosions, fires and toxic material releases. Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is the source of the new ideas in hazards and risk research.
期刊最新文献
The impact of sinkholes on crop choices in water-scarce regions Trends and future research in climate migration: a bibliometric analysis of forty years Multi-directional communication between decision makers and environmental health researchers: a qualitative inquiry Method for prioritising buildings for seismic reinforcement based on prediction of earthquake-induced building collapse and evacuation routes Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1