Improving Public Messaging

for Evacuation and Shelter‐in‐Place

Findings and Recommendations for Emergency Managers

from Peer-Reviewed Research 

April 2021 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

This page intentionally left blank 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Contributors 

 Carol Freeman, Argonne National Laboratory, National Preparedness Analytics Center1 

 Nicole Nunnari, Argonne National Laboratory, National Preparedness Analytics Center1 

 Lesley Edgemon, Argonne National Laboratory, National Preparedness Analytics Center1 

 Karen Marsh, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Integration Center 

1 This document contains links and references to nonfederal products and entities. Inclusion of such references is not an 

endorsement by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, or any federal 

employee of the content they may contain. 

2 Argonne National Laboratory’s work was supported by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency via interagency agreement through Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. 

i 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Table of Contents 

Overview....................................................................................................................................... 1 

Literature Review Design and Methodology ...............................................................................2 

Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 5 

Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................................6 

1. RQ1. How do environmental and social cues affect individuals’ attention to evacuation and 

SIP guidance? ............................................................................................................................ 6 

1.1. Environmental Cues ........................................................................................................6 

1.2. Social Cues ...................................................................................................................... 7 

1.3. Recommendations ..........................................................................................................8 

2. RQ2. How do warning messages and their information sources and channels affect 

message receiver beliefs and behaviors? ................................................................................8 

2.1. Warning Messages..........................................................................................................8 

2.2. Information Sources ..................................................................................................... 10 

2.3. Channel Access and Preference ................................................................................. 10 

2.4. Information Seeking..................................................................................................... 11 

2.5. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 12 

3. RQ3. What individual and family characteristics affect beliefs and behaviors relative to 

evacuation and SIP guidance? ............................................................................................... 14 

3.1. Receiver Characteristic: Multiple Vehicles ................................................................. 14 

3.2. Receiver Characteristic: Age ........................................................................................ 14 

3.3. Receiver Characteristic: Attitude ................................................................................. 15 

3.4. Receiver Characteristic: Education ............................................................................. 15 

3.5. Receiver Characteristic: Gender .................................................................................. 15 

3.6. Receiver Characteristic: Households with Children ................................................... 15 

3.7. Receiver Characteristic: Households with Pets .......................................................... 16 

3.8. Receiver Characteristic: Housing ................................................................................ 16 

3.9. Receiver Characteristic: Income .................................................................................. 17 

3.10. Receiver Characteristic: Need for Assistance ............................................................ 17 

ii 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

3.11. Receiver Characteristic: Preparedness ....................................................................... 17 

3.12. Receiver Characteristic: Race ..................................................................................... 18 

3.13. Receiver Characteristic: Social Network .................................................................... 18 

3.14. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 19 

4. RQ4. How do awareness and perception of different threats and hazards affect decision 

making? ................................................................................................................................... 21 

4.1. Threat Perceptions ....................................................................................................... 21 

4.2. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 21 

5. RQ5. What are the impediments to positive behavioral response? What situational factors 

tend to support public response to evacuation and SIP guidance? ..................................... 22 

5.1. Situational Impediments .............................................................................................. 22 

5.2. Situational Facilitators ................................................................................................. 23 

5.3. Evacuation Zones......................................................................................................... 23 

5.4. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 23 

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 25 

Appendix A: NVivo Coding Nodes ............................................................................................. 27 

Appendix B: References............................................................................................................ 28 

Appendix C: Recommendations ............................................................................................... 39 

iii 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Overview 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted this study to provide emergency 

managers with: 

 peer-reviewed research findings on public understanding and decision-making for evacuation 

and shelter-in-place protective actions, and 

 data-driven recommendations for improving public messaging to inform the public about risk and 

to increase compliance with instructions to evacuate or to shelter-in-place. 

FEMA tasked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) with conducting a literature review of published 

peer-reviewed research, summarizing the research findings, and developing related 

recommendations. This analysis can inform outreach strategies, communication strategies, 

evacuation planning, and emergency operations plans. Some recommendations are best 

implemented before an event and some suggest ways to improve response operations. 

1 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Literature Review Design 

and Methodology 

FEMA and Argonne used the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) (Figure 1) as the framework to 

develop the literature review research questions and the coding scheme for subsequent analysis.2 

This model offers a robust exploration of the many factors that can influence decision making in 

response to urgent disasters, and its framework is used by other peer-reviewed research on 

evacuation and shelter-in-place (SIP).The PADM framework proposes that environmental and social 

cues, information sources, information channel access and preferences, warning messages and 

receiver characteristics all influence a complex set of psychological processes that form the basis for 

protective-action decision making.3 

Figure 1: Protective Action Decision Model 

Using the PADM as a framework, the research team identified the following literature review 

research questions (RQs) to support the Evacuation and SIP TA content: 

1. RQ1. How do environmental and social cues affect individuals’ attention and response to 

evacuation and SIP guidance? 

2 Lindell, M. and R. Perry. “The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence.” 

Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, No.4. 2012. 

3 Huang, S., M. Lindell, et.al. “Household Evacuation Decision Making in Response to Hurricane Ike.” Natural Hazards 

Review, Vol. 13, Issue 4, American Society of Civil Engineers. 2012. 

2 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

2. RQ2. How do warning messages and their information sources and channels affect message 

receiver beliefs and behaviors? 

3. RQ3. What individual and family characteristics affect beliefs and behaviors relative to 

evacuation and SIP guidance? 

4. RQ4. How do awareness and perceptions of different threats and hazards affect decision 

making? 

5. RQ5. What are the impediments to positive behavioral response? What situational factors tend 

to support public response to evacuation and SIP guidance? 

Next, the team created primary and secondary search terms to locate as much published research 

as possible (see Table 1). The search function used Boolean logic to find the exact phrase and 

combinations of words from the primary and secondary terms using “and” or “or,” as well as using 

the wildcard single asterisk (*) to look for all words that begin with those letters.4 

Table 1: Primary and Secondary Search Terms 

Primary Search Terms Secondary Search Terms 

Evacuation 

Shelter-in-place 

Communicat* 

Alert 

Warning 

Awareness 

Preparedness 

Perception 

Decision making 

Children 

Pets 

Protective Action* 

Milling 

Messag* 

Behavior 

Risk management 

Zone* 

Phase 

Hub/Spoke 

Reunification 

Return/Re-entry 

Hazards: hurricane, flood, 

chemical, wildfire, earthquake, 

winter, ice storm, tsunami, 

tornado, radiologic*, nuclear 

To capture a comprehensive body of research that incorporated recent advances in technology and 

social media use, the team examined research published in the past 10 years, using the Social 

Science Citation Index (Web of Science) to identify published peer-reviewed literature with the search 

terms noted in Table 1. This process identified 771 articles. 

4 U.S. National Library of Medicine. “Basic Boolean Search Hints.” Accessed on 12/21/2020. 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/ja97/ja97_pubmed.html. 

3 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

The research team reviewed the abstracts of all 771 articles and selected those that met all the 

following criteria: 

 Focused on decision making by an individual rather than an organization, or focused on tools or 

technology, simulations, transportation impacts and emergency planning; 

 Conducted on populations within the United States; 

 Published within the past 10 years (2009–2019); 

 Included quantitative and qualitative research on whether individuals expected they would make 

the decision to evacuate given a specific hazard scenario, as well as research on those who had 

experienced an evacuation; and 

 Focused on evacuations of communities versus evacuation of a building or other structure. 

This review reduced the set of abstracts to 187. 

The next step was to read the full published content of the identified abstracts. The research team 

was unable to locate the full article for 11 abstracts and determined that 49 articles did not meet 

the inclusion criteria. This resulted in 127 articles as the universe of peer-reviewed published 

research on evacuation and SIP for further analysis. 

4 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Analysis 

The team read and coded the 127 articles to identify themes and patterns related to the research 

questions. Given the number of articles involved, researchers used NVivo qualitative data analysis 

software to support the analysis. NVivo analyzes large volumes of data using coding nodes created 

by the research team (i.e., potential areas of interest to help answer the research questions). 

Appendix A outlines the coding nodes for this analysis. 

To consistently code the text, the research analysts conducted inter-coder reliability tests. Each 

analyst coded several of the same articles and then compared and discussed the resulting codes 

and coding strategies to achieve consistent coding methods across the team. Analysts also coded 

each finding into all applicable nodes so that the analysis included findings that related to multiple 

areas of inquiry. 

After the literature was coded, one analyst conducted a thematic analysis to identify patterns relative 

to each research question.5 Fourteen articles had findings that were singular in nature, (focused on 

a narrow audience or topic area (for example communities at risk for storm surge near 

petrochemical infrastructure) and therefore did not fit within one of the identified themes. These 14 

articles did not contribute to the Findings and Recommendations Section and are denoted with an 

asterisk in the list of referenced articles in Appendix B. 

To document insights that can best serve the emergency management community, findings focus on 

key differences between demographic groups and insights into individuals’ perceptions, beliefs and 

attitudes regarding evacuation and SIP protective actions. In addition to the findings for each 

research question, this report provides recommendations for how the findings can inform evacuation 

plans, public education and outreach strategies, and improve risk and crisis communication 

messages.6 7 

5 Lindlof, T.R. “Qualitative Communication Research Methods.” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1995. 

6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication: 2018 Update. 

https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf. 2018. 

7 Sheppard, B., M. Janoske and B. Liu. “Understanding Risk Communication Theory: A Guide for Emergency Managers and 

Communicators, Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, Department 

of Homeland Security.”, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, College Park, MD. 

2012. 

5 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Findings and Recommendations 

The body of research in this literature review provides findings for all five research questions. 

Although some of the research is specific to one hazard, the collective set of articles provides 

important findings across a range of hazards. Reference numbers after each finding indicate specific 

source reference articles as listed in Appendix B. 

This review also found that certain aspects of the PADM model have been more fully explored than 

others. For example, a robust body of research has investigated how receiver characteristics (e.g., 

sociodemographic attributes; economic and social resources) relate to behavioral response, but 

fewer studies focused on other areas of the framework (e.g., the effect of information-seeking 

behaviors or emotion-focused coping). In addition, materially more research on evacuation for 

hurricanes is available than for other hazards, as well as more on evacuation than SIP behaviors. 

The findings for each research question are followed by a set of recommendations specific to that 

topic area. These are research-based recommendations that public safety officials can use to 

motivate individuals in their communities to implement preparedness measures and to take 

appropriate, timely evacuation or SIP protective actions. The recommendations are grouped in the 

following categories: 

 Prepare – Those that should take place prior to the incident; or 

 Response – Those that should be an element of the incident response. 

Appendix C provides a summary list of all recommendations. To support implementation of these 

recommendations they are grouped by communication and outreach strategy. 

1. RQ1. How do environmental and social cues affect 

individuals’ attention to evacuation and SIP 

guidance? 

1.1. Environmental Cues 

 Individuals find environmental cues such as sights, sounds or smells that indicate an impending 

threat important for confirming that a risk is real. Research studies across hazards showed that 

people seek environmental cues for the decision to take a protective action. These could be 

visual or other sensory cues, such as visible rising water related to flooding or hurricane storm 

surge and the sight of smoke or flames or the smell of smoke related to wildfires. The 

appearance or lack of these cues might influence whether individuals adhere to evacuation 

orders. [References 39, 46, 64, 112, 100, 117,121,] 

6 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

 Studies focused on wildfires noted that environmental cues play a significant role in the 

evacuation decision, finding that if environmental cues are not present, individuals may take a 

wait-and-see approach. One study noted that six in 10 survey respondents would wait and see 

how bad the wildfire got before deciding that it would be too dangerous to stay. Another noted 

that individuals could be categorized into three groups based on their probable response to 

evacuation as a protective action in the event of a wildfire: 

o Wait and see (the largest group); 

o Stay and defend; and 

o Likely to evacuate. 

Both the stay-and-defend and the evacuate groups were affected by visual cues. Given a lack of 

visual cues, those in the evacuate group might move into the wait-and-see group. Similarly, upon 

seeing the visual cues, those in the stay-and-defend group might move into the wait-and-see 

group. [References 35, 71] 

1.2. Social Cues 

 Social cues that are based on seeing the behaviors of others are an important factor in deciding 

whether to evacuate or not. The research noted the following types of social cues as particularly 

important: 

o Seeing neighbors evacuate or others leave was a predictor of increased evacuation. This 

held true across hazard types. [References 39, 104, 105] 

‒ Social cues have some negative effects, however. If individuals in non-evacuation zones 

saw neighbors leave, it increased the likelihood that they would also leave, and if 

individuals in areas that should evacuate did not see neighbors leave, that may have 

caused them to conform to the neighborhood norm and also not evacuate.[References 

89, 104] 

o Receiving messages from family and friends in addition to local authorities was a major 

positive influence on evacuation decision making. [References 1, 4, 8, 30, 46, 47, 58, 64, 

75, 100] 

‒ One study noted that those who shared information with others about evacuation 

warnings or visual cues of storm risk were more likely to themselves evacuate. 

[Reference 107] 

o The actions of local governments and businesses also provided important social cues that 

can heighten risk perception. These included closing and boarding up businesses and 

closing public areas, public transportation or specific roads. [References 8, 30, 89] 

7 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

1.3. Recommendations 

1.3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL CUES 

1. Response: Use websites and social media platforms and work with local media to provide 

authoritative, time-stamped, geo-tagged photos and videos of hazards such as rising waters and 

wildfires. Encourage individuals to share those visuals with friends and family, including via 

social media. 

1.3.2. SOCIAL CUES 

1. Response: Encourage media to cover the different ways jurisdictions, businesses and individuals 

prepare for the threat, including preparing to evacuate (e.g., closing public transportation or 

other public areas) via their multiple channels. 

2. Response: Encourage businesses to share their actions on their websites and social media 

accounts (e.g., closing their businesses, encouraging employees to evacuate and stay safe). 

3. Response: Encourage individuals to share with their friends the alerts and warning messages 

they receive and the responsive protective actions they take. Also, encourage individuals to post 

photos and videos of visual cues of the hazard as they evacuate. 

4. Response: Encourage those with neighborhood-focused social media platforms like Nextdoor, 

homeowner associations (HOAs) and other neighborhood groups to support evacuation guidance 

and checks on neighbors. 

2. RQ2. How do warning messages and their 

information sources and channels affect message 

receiver beliefs and behaviors? 

2.1. Warning Messages 

 Mandatory evacuation orders significantly increased evacuation rates. [References 9, 27, 35, 

39, 47, 56, 58, 61, 68, 71, 75, 80, 87, 95, 100, 105, 109, 127] 

o There is strong agreement across research studies that although both voluntary and 

mandatory evacuation orders increased the likelihood of evacuation, mandatory evacuation 

orders had a significantly greater effect than voluntary evacuation orders. This finding was 

consistent across different hazards. 

o Mandatory evacuation orders tended to increase media coverage of the risk, which then 

increased individual perceptions that the threat was credible. 

o While some individuals may have evacuated in direct response to an evacuation order, for 

others a combination of the order and other risk-confirming factors, such as forecast 

8 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

information and social and environmental cues, led to evacuation. This held true for 

evacuation across all types of hazards, including wildfire, flood and hurricane. 

 Changing the geographic area of the evacuation order or the type of order based on changing 

storm conditions caused confusion as individuals worked to understand their location within the 

evacuation area. [References 75, 117] 

o Residents could become confused when jurisdictions have mixed types of evacuation orders 

(some areas under mandatory orders and others under voluntary orders). This confusion is 

especially true when the geographic area specified in those orders changes or when orders 

switch between voluntary and mandatory orders. 

 Messages that clearly described the probable personal impact of the hazards (e.g., loss of 

utilities, upcoming travel bans) helped individuals realize they would be personally impacted, 

which in turn motivated protective action. [References 19, 20, 46, 89, 94] 

 Messages that compared the current hazard to similar hazards from the past helped individuals 

understand the risk. [Reference 89] 

o This seemed especially helpful for lower-rated hurricanes that were expected to result in 

significant storm surge or flooding. 

 Adding visuals, such as maps or photos, improved message comprehension and supported 

decision making. [References 51, 52, 65, 77, 92, 98, 108, 122, 125] 

 Research on using attention-getting language, such as “emergency” or “dangerous” and 

describing storm impacts, indicated that these practices increased attention to the seriousness 

of the situation. However, this research also indicated that language designed to scare people, 

such as “certain death,” did not seem to further increase the motivation to act. [References 20, 

75, 76, 120] 

o A study on tornadoes found that statements such as “This is a dangerous situation” or 

“tornado emergency” were as effective as, or more effective than, the use of the term 

“catastrophic damage” to influence individuals’ intention to take shelter. [Reference 20] 

o Similarly, a research study on hurricane warning messaging using “certain death” phrasing 

did not increase evacuation behavior for Hurricane Rita in counties on the Texas Gulf Coast. 

Instead, the study indicated that messaging describing the impact of the storm in creating 

storm surge as well as wind risk was more effective in increasing evacuation intention. 

[Reference 120] 

 For those living in areas at risk of tornadoes, the research indicates that “over-warning” may be a 

problem, because the warning areas are typically much larger than the area at risk from the 

tornado. If individuals receive a warning and then the event does not affect them, this can 

desensitize individuals to future warnings by making them feel that they are probably not 

9 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

personally at risk. [References 28, 98] Future improvements in forecasting may minimize this 

issue. 

 The higher the hurricane storm category, the more individuals are likely to evacuate. However, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NWS) 

hurricane scale continued to cause confusion, as individuals do not understand that it only 

categorizes potential damage from wind (what the cone is meant to represent), nor that, as the 

hurricane category moves up the scale, it represents an exponential multiplication of the risk of 

damage. [References 9, 39, 47, 58, 61, 106] 

2.2. Information Sources 

 Receiving several warning messages from multiple, credible, trusted sources, such as NWS, local 

authorities and local media, increased rates of evacuation. NWS was specifically seen as a 

trusted source of information. [References 9, 39, 46, 47, 53, 61, 109, 124] 

 The issuance of evacuation orders by local authorities helped those who were uncertain about 

whether to evacuate decide to evacuate. [References 39, 58] 

 Research indicates that both authorities and family/friends influenced the decision to evacuate. 

Studies show mixed results in trying to gauge their relative influence. [References 58, 61, 75, 

109] 

 Authority figures, such as local fire and police, acting as role models by evacuating their families 

or going door-to-door to urge others to leave could increase the effectiveness of their evacuation 

message. [Reference 89] 

 Trust in government and guidance from local first responders influenced preparedness and the 

decision to evacuate. For wildfires, an element of this trust was due to the visibility of firefighters 

in the community. For hurricanes, individuals were more likely to take action when emergency 

responders went door-to-door in the community. [References 4, 85, 124] 

 Lack of trust in authorities caused individuals to spend more time thinking about and trying to 

confirm their evacuation decision with others. On the other hand, high trust in authorities caused 

some individuals to believe that the actions of community officials would keep them safe, and 

therefore they did not need to take personal responsibility for their own safety. [Reference 44] 

 Tourists who sought information from tourist offices rather than hotel staff were more likely to 

evacuate. [Reference 15] 

2.3. Channel Access and Preference 

 Although television remained the chief communication channel, receiving warnings from multiple 

channels increased the likelihood of individuals taking protective action. [References 16, 21, 31, 

39, 54, 75, 107, 109] 

10 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

o Television maintains its predominance as the channel most used to gather information on 

weather status and watches and warnings. 

o For radio and television, individuals often indicated a specific station name rather than the 

simply citing the medium. 

o Many individuals use more than one communication channel to receive information, 

including mobile phones, radio and computers with internet access. 

 People tended to use social media as a complementary rather than their primary source of 

information. [References 49, 95] 

o People turned to social media if they lacked direct access to other sources of information. 

o Social media was also often used to amplify or share information with others. 

 As cell phone ownership is now more prevalent than home landlines, public alert and warning 

calls to landline phone numbers are less effective. The increased reliance on cell phones may 

also result in cellular bandwidth congestion during an incident. [Reference 109] 

o In transit, individuals relied on cell phones and commercial radio but also on highway 

advisory radio for gathering weather and traffic information. 

 Evacuated individuals tended to rely on the same information sources for the return-entry phase 

that they used in deciding whether to evacuate. [Reference 101] 

o Evacuees who relied on local authorities and local and national news media were more likely 

to be aware of the return plan than those who relied on the internet or peers for information. 

2.4. Information Seeking 

 While substantial research exists on information sources and the results of information gained 

from those sources, relatively little research has examined how individuals seek or do not seek 

information after receiving an alert and warning. A few studies looked at responses to tornado or 

tsunami warnings. These found that individuals seek corroborating information, although that 

may be reduced by receiving warnings with geographically specific information. Those who 

accessed weather apps and/or radar imagery were more likely to seek shelter in the event of a 

tornado warning. [References 21, 63, 64, 81, 98] 

 Tourists not familiar with hurricanes or the area they were visiting tended to be more concerned 

with the potential impact of a hurricane than those more familiar with the area, and so they 

looked for information from multiple sources when a hurricane was approaching. Tourists who 

were more local to the area at risk generally relied on their existing knowledge and did not seek 

as much information. [References 15, 16, 70] 

11 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

 One study found that past experience with hurricanes, especially hurricane impacts, was a strong 

predictor of active information-seeking activities regarding hurricane evacuation. [Reference 16] 

2.5. Recommendations 

2.5.1. WARNING MESSAGES 

1. Prepare: In creating pre-scripted warning messages: 

a. Consider warning language that will capture attention (dangerous situation, emergency) but 

that is not overly dramatic, which may cause individuals to feel the threat is overblown. 

b. When communicating about hurricane risk, include flood and storm surge risk, as well as the 

hurricane category (which only denotes wind risk). 

c. When use of cell phones may saturate bandwidth, be prepared to use the Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) capability for messages, 

as WEAs are not constrained by the same bandwidth limitations. 

2. Prepare and Response: Provide public outreach campaigns with links to user-friendly interactive 

maps to help individuals locate their home and work addresses and know their zone. During the 

response phase, these maps should help individuals quickly know whether they are in a zone 

that is or is not under an evacuation order. 

3. Response: Do not use the term “voluntary” with evacuation notifications. Research shows that 

the term “voluntary” is confusing to the public. If people in specific zones should evacuate, issue 

mandatory evacuation notifications. Include time stamps and easy-to-identify zones or 

geographic boundary identifiers in notifications to help people comply. 

4. Response: Help individuals validate the threat by continuing to share and update authoritative 

forecasts from NWS and local trusted meteorologists. Compare the potential impact of an 

upcoming hazard to others that have posed similar threats and post visual cues. This strategy 

also supports wildfire response, where wind and humidity forecasts have a significant effect on 

wildfire risk. 

5. Response: Given increased forecasting accuracy for tornadoes, use the smallest map polygon 

possible, associated with local landmarks, to increase people’s understanding when the warning 

forecast is specific to their area. Also consider use of WEAs, which can direct warning messages 

to a smaller geographic area. 

6. Response: Highlight probable impacts to individuals who stay, including lack of water and 

electricity and the potential duration of those impacts. Address the urgency for immediate action 

by noting when it will no longer be safe to evacuate or for emergency personnel to attempt 

rescues as the storm gets close. 

12 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

2.5.2. INFORMATION SOURCES 

1. Prepare: Build relationships in advance with television and radio reporters, weather forecasters 

and other journalists likely to cover hazards facing the community. 

a. Familiarize the media with community plans, including evacuation zones, transportation for 

those who need it and support for those in nursing homes or other similar facilities. 

b. Provide information about how plans consider public health issues, such as the spread of 

illness in crowded public shelters. 

2. Prepare: Encourage individuals and organizations with large numbers of followers (e.g., media 

stations, weather forecasters, American Red Cross, houses of worship, universities) to follow the 

jurisdiction’s social media accounts so they can receive updates during the disaster and share 

authoritative messages with their networks. 

3. Prepare: Have plans use all communication channels that can provide information, especially if 

cell bandwidth becomes constrained. This includes highway advisory radio, highway signs, 

amateur radio and NWS weather radio. 

4. Prepare and Response: Encourage individuals to sign up for the jurisdiction’s opt-in alert and 

warning channels so they directly receive updated information. Continue to encourage sign-ups 

during the event when individuals are paying attention to information on the situation. 

5. Response: Confirm that the jurisdiction’s social media channels are active and provide up-todate information during the event. Include messaging and live interviews that address 

individuals’ barriers to evacuation. 

6. Response: Follow and monitor the social media of authoritative sources within the jurisdiction 

and across neighboring jurisdictions to keep information consistent and address inconsistencies 

and inaccuracies if they occur. 

7. Response: Share and promote NWS’s warnings and forecasts to reinforce those of the local 

jurisdiction. Recommend that individuals follow the local NWS Forecast Office social media 

accounts. 

8. Response: Provide easy and quick ways for individuals to corroborate information through 

hyperlinks to other authoritative sources. Always encourage individuals to share information with 

family and friends. 

2.5.3. CHANNEL ACCESS AND PREFERENCE 

1. Response: Work closely with local media during the event to: 

a. Show first responders encouraging evacuations; 

b. Provide press with information about the early stages of evacuation so viewers see the 

actions of first responders, businesses and individuals taking action before the storm; 

13 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

c. Update media with regular, updated information (including information to override issues 

that individuals might see as barriers to evacuation), including alternative routes to avoid 

congestion, availability of services along evacuation routes and shelter information. 

d. Work with local television and radio to highlight how local authorities are heeding the 

warnings: closing roads, boarding up schools or other government buildings at risk and so 

on. While some jurisdiction employees will stay in the emergency operations center, others 

will evacuate, and these should be highlighted; for example: “I’m staying here because it’s 

my job, but my family has evacuated to safety.” 

2. Response: Use social media monitoring tools to identify the channels that reach the most people 

with effective messaging. Use these channels to disseminate information about plans for 

re-entry. Plan to surge staff to monitor social media for rumors, misinformation and 

disinformation that must be quickly corrected. 

2.5.4. INFORMATION SEEKING 

1. Prepare: Work with local hotels and motels to help equip management to provide tourists 

guidance from local authorities regarding evacuation or SIP decisions. 

3. RQ3. What individual and family characteristics 

affect beliefs and behaviors relative to evacuation 

and SIP guidance? 

3.1. Characteristic: Multiple Vehicles 

 Households with multiple vehicles not only evacuated in multiple vehicles but tended to split 

their evacuation times. One study found that the odds that a household would evacuate in two or 

more groups is 2.7 times higher for households with multiple vehicles. Studies noted that 

multiple-vehicle evacuation increases highway congestion. Households see the ability to 

evacuate with multiple vehicles as a benefit, as one person can delay leaving to safeguard 

property. [References 69, 97, 109] 

 Those living in an evacuation zone tended to evacuate with all their vehicles to minimize 

potential damage. [Reference 68] 

3.2. Characteristic: Age 

 Across the literature, findings regarding the relationship between age and evacuation varied. This 

may indicate that other factors have greater influence on the evacuation decision. These 

variations were similar across hazard types. [References 13, 29, 39, 57, 58, 61, 77, 80, 91, 95, 

124, 126] 

14 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

3.3. Characteristic: Attitude 

 The research found that individuals’ attitudes mattered in their evacuation decision making. 

Those with stronger confidence in their ability to defend their home, as well as attitudes 

associated with self-reliance and being an individualist, were associated with lower levels of 

evacuation. Those who see themselves as individualists may also have felt that warnings were 

overblown. [References 39, 61, 77, 86] 

 Those who indicated they were less likely to evacuate tended to have higher self-reported risk 

tolerance. In wildfire areas, those with higher risk tolerance also tended to have a stay-anddefend attitude, as well as the belief that individuals who choose to live near wildland–urban 

interface areas should accept the risk. They also had a strong emotional connection to their 

property. [References 26, 39, 56, 71, 77] 

3.4. Characteristic: Education 

 Studies varied widely on whether those with less or more education were more likely to evacuate. 

There tended to be agreement that individuals who had not completed high school were less 

likely to evacuate, possibly because they did not have the financial means to evacuate. But there 

was not agreement regarding those with higher levels of education, with some studies indicating 

those populations were more likely to evacuate and others that they were less likely. Some 

research indicated that those with higher levels of education had higher rates of home 

ownership, and that characteristic may make it less likely for those individuals to evacuate. 

[References 57, 58, 62, 74, 91, 111, 126] 

3.5. Characteristic: Gender 

 There is strong agreement across studies and hazards that women are more likely to take 

appropriate protective action (SIP or evacuate) than men. In fact, one study of response 

behaviors during Hurricane Sandy found that women were almost twice as likely to evacuate. 

Female tourists were also more likely to evacuate. This held true for wildfires as well as 

hurricanes. [References 13, 15, 17, 39, 46, 55, 80, 88, 91, 98, 99, 103, 126] 

 Men were more likely not to evacuate because they wanted to protect their property. [References 

39, 61, 71, 121] 

3.6. Characteristic: Households with Children 

 Parents with children in the household tended to have more difficulties with making the decision 

to stay or to leave for hurricanes and flooding. While some of their concerns may be similar to 

those of other households (e.g., traffic congestion, fuel availability, uncertainty regarding 

destination, cost), children in the household, especially younger children and larger numbers of 

children, raised the anxiety level and increased logistical challenges, which caused delays in 

decision making. [References 59, 61] 

15 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

 The desire to “keep my family safe” served as a motivation to evacuate. [References 59, 61, 66] 

 Study findings varied on whether the presence of children in the home and the number of 

children in the home increased or decreased the likelihood of evacuation. In some studies, larger 

numbers of children in the home negatively affected the likelihood of evacuation. For wildfires, 

however, parents tended to make decisions to evacuate faster, even if the evacuation order was 

voluntary. [References 47, 58, 61, 97, 103] 

 Households with children tended to go to friends’ homes or motels rather than to public shelters. 

[Reference 126] 

 Single parents with medical conditions were less likely to evacuate than others. [Reference 82] 

3.7. Characteristic: Households with Pets 

 Having a pet, especially where there is a strong attachment to the pet, decreased the likelihood 

of evacuation. Many studies highlighted concerns about shelters accepting pets, the added cost 

of evacuating with pets and the logistics of having a pet at a shelter as impediments to 

evacuation. A greater number of pets exacerbated the difficulties associated with evacuation, 

leading more individuals to decide not to evacuate. [References 10, 13, 32, 33, 37, 39, 58, 59, 

61, 66, 75, 80, 121] 

 One research study on wildfires noted that having livestock contributed to the sense of a need to 

“stay and defend.” [Reference 39] 

3.8. Characteristic: Housing 

 Homeowners: Across several studies and hazards, homeowners were less likely to evacuate than 

those who rent. Homeowners tended to underestimate storm severity and believe their home 

was safe. For hurricanes, homeowners who did evacuate did so only after protecting their homes 

(e.g., boarding up windows). [References 39, 47, 61, 74, 77, 96, 103, 110] 

 Renters: Those who rent were more likely to believe that their home was not safe from a 

hurricane. [Reference 74] 

 Mobile Homes: In response to hurricanes, those who live in mobile homes were more likely to 

evacuate than those who live in other types of housing. Mobile homes do not provide adequate 

safety from a tornado, yet mobile home residents living in areas susceptible to tornadoes were 

less likely to have a preparedness plan that included where to go for shelter in the event of a 

tornado. [References 21, 95, 127] 

16 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

3.9. Characteristic: Income 

 If households with higher incomes evacuated, they did so in multiple groups, at different times, 

using multiple vehicles. They stayed at hotels or friends’ houses rather than shelters. [Reference 

69] 

 Findings were mixed for those with low income levels, with some studies indicating higher risk 

perception and intention to evacuate early and others indicating that they had higher 

non-evacuation rates. Some studies also found that those with lower incomes or lacking bank 

accounts were less likely to understand evacuation orders. If they did evacuate, they went to 

shelters. [References 58, 72, 96, 110, 115] 

3.10. Characteristic: Need for Assistance 

 Homebound adults indicated a lack of ability to evacuate due to issues of physical mobility. Many 

would need emergency responder assistance to leave their house, as well as assistance with 

transportation out of the area. [Reference 33] 

 Adults who have dementia or other cognitive disabilities and a caregiver(s) who would evacuate 

with them have evacuation rates that are the same as, or lower than, others. Caregivers were 

concerned with the potential for those in their care to be exposed to stigma and lack of privacy in 

a shelter. They were also concerned that unfamiliar settings would exacerbate their symptoms. 

Family and friends (the social network) tended to play an important role in determining whether 

to evacuate or not. [References 6, 13, 23, 41, 54, 82, 117] 

 Adults with dementia and their caregivers who did go to shelters experienced a range of 

difficulties, including increased agitation, emotional distress and disorientation. It was 

challenging for caregivers to provide normal levels of care and comfort in this environment. 

[Reference 41] 

 Care facilities and their caregivers were challenged in making the decision whether to evacuate 

or not, given their sense of responsibility to their residents. This research also indicated the 

importance of care facility residents and their families deciding (and documenting) who would 

care for them in a disaster (e.g., whether or not they would evacuate to a family’s residence) and 

then not changing that decision as the threat neared. [References 12, 40] 

3.11. Characteristic: Preparedness 

 Having a household plan increased the likelihood of taking the appropriate SIP protective action 

for a tornado. [References 39, 61, 80, 81, 88, 94] 

 Individuals who had prepared for an emergency by strengthening their home or purchasing 

generators were less likely to evacuate. [References 13, 39, 82, 84, 127] 

17 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

 Individuals who lacked knowledge of their community plan, or who didn't know whether their 

community had an emergency management plan, tended to be less willing to comply with 

evacuation directives. [Reference 109] 

3.12. Characteristic: Race 

 Research studies looking at individuals’ forecasted intention to evacuate found that Black and 

Hispanic people had relatively high intentions to evacuate when asked about different hazard 

scenarios. [References 27, 29, 44, 77, 87, 88, 91, 126] 

 Studies that looked at actual evacuation behavior found that Black and Hispanic people were 

less likely to evacuate than white respondents. [References 103, 111, 115] 

 No differences in race/ethnicity were documented related to trust in media sources. 

[Reference 31] 

3.13. Characteristic: Social Network8 

 Findings differed among studies that looked at the role of social networks. For hurricane areas, 

some studies found that a strong social network supported the decision to evacuate, while 

others indicated increased non-evacuation decisions if people felt they had a strong network of 

support within the community. For the medically fragile, a strong sense of social support tended 

to result in non-evacuation. In wildfire-prone areas, strong social networks tended to support the 

decision to evacuate. [References 18, 24, 25, 39, 73, 82, 95, 111] 

 Some studies noted a difference between community cohesion (how strongly individuals feel 

attached to their larger community) compared to an individual’s specific social network. Those 

who lived in communities with higher community cohesion tended to make similar evacuation 

decisions (whether or not to evacuate), while those who felt their specific social network would 

provide support tended to stay. [References 13, 18, 49, 119] 

 Those who are married were less likely to evacuate. [References 47, 95] 

 Being employed and having family/friends significantly increased the likelihood of receiving 

information about evacuation orders. [References 110, 111] 

8 “Social networks are representations of ties between nodes such as people, organizations and meetings. Ties represent 

connections between nodes, such as frequency of interaction, or degree of friendship.” Casagrande, David G., Heather 

McIlvaine-Newsad and Eric C. Jones. “Social Networks of Help-Seeking in Different Types of Disaster Responses to the 

2008 Mississippi River Floods,” 352. Society for Applied Anthropology. 2015. 

18 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

3.14. Recommendations 

3.14.1. ACCESS TO A VEHICLE 

1. Prepare: For jurisdictions where many households have multiple vehicles, evacuation model 

assumptions should include the added volume from multiple cars and multiple departure times. 

3.14.2. ATTITUDE: THOSE WHO DECIDE TO ‘STAY AND DEFEND’ 

1. Response: In messaging to those who want to stay and defend their property (more likely to be 

men), clearly define the risks and communicate the likely inability of first responders to help 

them once the threat has reached a certain severity threshold. 

3.14.3. GENDER 

1. Prepare and Response: Communications strategies should be tailored to gender differences. For 

example, given that women are more likely than men to take protective actions, messaging on 

preparedness should use outreach channels geared toward women. 

3.14.4. HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN AND/OR PETS 

1. Prepare: Consider using daycare centers, schools, pet stores and breeders and rescue centers 

as delivery channels for information to help parents and pet owners reduce the stress of an 

evacuation by pre-planning, including preparing go bags. For children, go bag items can include 

games, special foods, clothes/diapers, health information and medications. For pets, consider 

pet carriers and pet food, pet identification and health and vaccination information, as well as 

information on shelters or hotels and motels that take pets. 

2. Prepare and Response: Include the message “evacuating will keep your family and/or your pets 

safe” to motivate households with children and pets to evacuate early. 

3. Prepare and Response: Encourage shelters and hotels to publish relevant policies regarding pets 

to their website and social media channels. 

3.14.5. HOUSING: HOMEOWNERS, RENTERS AND THOSE LIVING IN MOBILE HOMES 

1. Prepare: To increase the likelihood that homeowners will evacuate, promote methods to mitigate 

damage to homes prior to evacuation. Note the likely impacts of the hazard, including loss of 

electricity and running water, which will make staying risky and uncomfortable. 

2. Prepare: Address concerns up front about how re-entry will be handled. Messaging should 

acknowledge that homeowners will be anxious to return to their homes as soon as possible to 

mitigate damage to the property but that should not stop them from evacuating. If relevant, note 

steps that government is taking to keep property secure until individuals can return to their 

community, such as increased patrols, curfews, etc. 

19 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

3. Prepare and Response: Provide messaging specifically for residents of manufactured or mobile 

homes in areas at risk because this type of housing is structurally less safe. Encourage those 

individuals to be ready to evacuate and plan to provide services to those who may need 

assistance. 

4. Response: Those who have purchased generators may feel more secure in staying, so if there is 

loss of power, messaging should address how to use generators safely to avoid carbon dioxide 

poisoning. 

3.14.6. INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED ASSISTANCE 

1. Prepare: Include individuals with disabilities, access and functional needs, and associated 

advocacy organizations in developing and reviewing community plans for evacuation. 

2. Prepare: Work with shelters in advance to prepare for individuals with disabilities, access and 

functional needs. Bring together community advocates for those with disabilities, access and 

functional needs to discuss and address how to improve shelter operations. 

3. Prepare: Work with first responders and other agencies to plan for evacuation transportation 

assistance for those who cannot evacuate on their own. 

4. Prepare and Response: Ask neighbors to check in on individuals with disabilities, access and 

functional needs to help them plan how to evacuate. When evacuation orders are issued, 

encourage neighbors to ask if they need help to evacuate, and if so, alert authorities that these 

individuals need evacuation assistance. 

5. Response: Coordinate with advocacy organizations for those with disabilities, access and 

functional needs. Ask them to support their constituents’ evacuation decisions and describe how 

shelters are prepared to provide appropriate care and services. 

6. Response: Ensure messaging includes information about how individuals with disabilities, access 

and functional needs can find support for transportation evacuation planning, transportation 

assistance and assistance at shelters. 

3.14.7. SOCIAL NETWORKS 

1. Prepare: Ask community and HOA leaders to encourage their constituents to plan for evacuations 

and commit to modeling that evacuation behavior. 

2. Prepare: Encourage advocacy organizations for at-risk individuals, their caregivers and their 

social support networks to help them prepare and think through the evacuation decision-making 

process in case they need to evacuate. Integrate advocacy organizations into the community 

planning process for evacuation and SIP. 

3. Response: Encourage people to share official warnings and safety information with their 

personal social networks. 

20 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

4. RQ4. How do awareness and perception of different 

threats and hazards affect decision making? 

4.1. Threat Perceptions 

 Many studies noted that the greater the perceived risk, the greater the likelihood of evacuation. 

[References 34, 39, 45, 46, 48, 61, 105, 113, 116, 117] 

 Several studies found that prior experience with a disaster had a positive impact on the decision 

to take protective action. However, those who experienced near miss events (event where a 

forecasted disaster did not happen) found that experience reduced the likelihood of evacuation. 

Similarly the passage of time after a disaster reduced individuals’ perception of the threat and 

their intention to evacuate. [References 39, 40, 107, 109, 112, 114) 

 The personalization of a risk or impact (I/my family/my house is at risk) increased the probability 

of evacuation. [References 46, 47] 

 Individuals’ perception of a hurricane’s risk tended to focus on its Saffir-Simpson hurricane 

category (higher categories reflect higher risk), which conveys only wind speeds, and whether its 

forecasted path was directly over their location. However, some studies also found that 

perception of hurricane risk included the potential for flooding and storm surge. [References 3, 

9, 30, 34, 61, 62, 75, 80, 88, 103, 116, 117, 121] 

4.2. Recommendations 

 Prepare: Remind individuals of prior disasters. Compare the potential impact of an upcoming 

hazard to prior events and their consequences. 

 Response: To motivate people to leave when evacuations are issued, messages should include 

information about the risk of the hazard and its probable effect on individual safety, property 

damage and community functions. Include descriptions of prolonged impact on quality of life 

considerations (e.g., water, electricity, food). 

 Response: For hurricane risk, include all the risks associated with a hurricane in messages 

including wind, flooding and storm surge. 

21 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

5. RQ5. What are the impediments to positive 

behavioral response? What situational factors tend 

to support public response to evacuation and SIP 

guidance? 

5.1. Situational Impediments 

 Studies found that individuals grapple with many concerns when deciding to evacuate. According 

to these studies, the following concerns delayed or negatively influenced the decision: 

o Traffic congestion and availability of gasoline. Individuals facing hurricanes and wildfires 

want reliable information about alternative routes to help overcome worries about traffic 

congestion. Residents at risk of wildfire were especially concerned with the capacity of the 

road system to handle the traffic. [References 2, 3, 39, 59, 60, 71, 86, 109, 121] 

o The ability and cost of evacuating with pets. The greater the number of pets in the 

household, the greater the barrier to departure. [References 32, 37, 39, 56, 59, 61, 66, 75] 

o The physical security of the home. Many studies noted concerns about the ability to re-enter 

the evacuation zone after the disaster to quickly take care of any damage as a reason not to 

evacuate. These concerns were especially prominent in hurricane research, as delays in 

repairs to water damage can lead to mold. Some studies also noted fear of looting in 

evacuated neighborhoods. [References 3, 32, 39, 58, 59, 60, 62, 77, 82, 83, 102, 121] 

o Costs of evacuation, including travel costs. [References 39, 58, 77, 122] 

o Potential issues around the legal status of undocumented immigrants. [Reference 122] 

 Studies noted the high level of stress and anxiety surrounding evacuation decision making. 

Sources of stress included the many unknowns related to the evacuation (e.g., potential 

destination, space at shelters, shelter safety, travel issues) as well as separation from family, 

pets and the home. [References 38, 56, 60] 

 Lack of agreement among family members about the decision to stay or leave could delay or 

inhibit evacuation decision making. [Reference 59] 

 Individuals faced with a public shelter as their primary destination had more reluctance to 

evacuate. Their concerns include crowding with strangers and being located farther away from 

social networks. [References 58, 115] 

 Some individuals could not leave because of ongoing job responsibilities. [Reference 75] 

22 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

5.2. Situational Facilitators 

 The desire to be safe and to protect children from physical or psychological harm from 

experiencing a disaster were positive motivations to evacuate. [References 59, 61] 

 Ensuring comfort and convenience (power and air conditioning) supported evacuation decisions. 

[References 59, 121] 

 According to the research, several factors facilitated evacuation in hazard situations that provide 

advance notice. [References 59, 61,67] These include: 

o Evacuation notifications issued early in the day or at other trigger points, such as school 

dismissal making it easier to pick up children. 

o Evacuation orders scheduled to provide sufficient time for individuals to complete 

preparation and still leave before traffic became congested. 

o The ability to leave at a time that allowed travel to be completed during daylight hours. 

o Early notification that supported a household’s choice of preferred destination (e.g., family, 

friends, hotel) rather than a public shelter. 

 Lack of traffic congestion in the early stages of an evacuation was a facilitator, and the 

increasing traffic congestion as the storm came closer became an impediment. [References 59, 

72, 109, 121] 

5.3. Evacuation Zones 

 Evacuation likelihood was higher for those who believed they lived in evacuation zones. Those in 

designated evacuation zones were significantly more likely to take preparation measures on 

receipt of advanced watches or warnings. [References 27, 58, 76, 77, 104, 105, 124, 127] 

 For individuals living outside of hurricane evacuation zones, the media focus on severe weather 

forecasts noting elevated risks from wind damage caused them to evacuate unnecessarily. 

[References 27, 58, 76, 77, 104, 105, 124, 127] 

 Studies indicated that many individuals did not know whether they were in an evacuation zone or 

an area with flood risk. [References 45, 61, 78, 115, 117] 

5.4. Recommendations 

1. Prepare: Begin or continue public education “know your zones” campaigns since those who know 

they live in an evacuation zone or area of flood risk have higher intention to evacuate. Link alert 

and warning communication channels to interactive maps that can pinpoint specific addresses 

as in or not in evacuation zones. 

23 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

2. Prepare and Response: Acknowledge and express empathy for the stress and anxiety associated 

with evacuations. 

a. To reduce these elevated levels of stress, encourage individuals, especially households with 

children and pets, to discuss and agree on evacuation plans early. 

b. To reduce the number of evacuation unknowns, which can delay decision making, provide as 

much detailed information as possible on evacuation routes, traffic, shelters and re-entry 

plans. 

c. Have and promote behavioral health services available at shelter locations to support those 

who are feeling anxious and stressed. 

3. Response: When issuing evacuation orders, explain the risks that led to the decision to evacuate 

some zones and why other zones are not evacuating. 

4. Response: When there is advance notice of the hazard, encourage individuals to evacuate early. 

Stress benefits to include: avoiding traffic congestion, driving during daylight hours, and having 

more assurance regarding availability of gasoline along routes. Provide up-to-date information on 

evacuation routes, alternatives, and services available, including availability of gasoline. 

5. Response: Provide information about public shelters, including items associated with comfort 

(e.g., availability of power, air conditioning, rest rooms, and space for families and pets) as well 

as services for individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs. 

24 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Summary 

This literature review provides an overview of research into the behaviors and beliefs related to 

evacuation and SIP from the past ten years. The findings from this research inform key 

recommendations for emergency managers and local leaders to implement before and during 

responses to disasters to increase the number of individuals who take the appropriate protective 

action to evacuate or to SIP. Many of these research findings are likely to be familiar to emergency 

managers with experience in evacuation operations. 

Key recommendations include: 

1. Understand the potential impediments to action and take steps to address these barriers in 

advance. 

2. Make evacuation decisions easier by only issuing mandatory evacuation orders. 

3. Provide residents and tourists with multiple ways to know if they are in a zone under an 

evacuation order. 

4. Use multiple, authoritative messaging channels that include photos or links to other visual 

information about the hazard and encourage individuals to share this information with friends 

and families. 

5. Provide frequent updates with information that can reduce the stress of the unknown related to 

evacuation. 

Although this literature review identified similarities and differences in attitudes and behaviors 

related to multiple types of hazards, the largest set of research is associated with hurricanes. More 

research should be conducted on little- or no-notice incidents, such as wildfires, earthquakes and 

tornadoes, as well as manmade emergencies such as chemical spills. 

Suggestions for additional research: 

More research and analysis are also needed to continue to provide improved strategies that move 

individuals to take appropriate life-saving actions. Additional research could focus on: 

 Hazards other than hurricanes, especially the no-notice hazards such as wildfires. The limited 

research that has been done indicates important differences in attitudes and behaviors for 

people at risk for wildfire versus other hazards. 

 Best practices in language and the use of visuals (photographs or graphics) in warning messages 

to capture attention and motivate action. 

 The effect of misinformation or disinformation in complicating the decision to evacuate and ways 

to convey accurate information from authoritative sources so that it is received and trusted. 

25 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

 Organizational decision-making behaviors that offer important insights into the actions of 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, houses of worship, schools, nursing homes and other 

organizations that are key to a whole community perspective. 

 Social networks, to better understand how different types of social networks affect decision 

making and how those decisions may differ by hazard. 

 Individuals whose risk tolerance, sense of individualism or desire to stay and defend negatively 

affects evacuation decision making. 

Every disaster requires emergency managers to communicate to the public the best place for safety, 

either leaving the area or sheltering-in-place. As hazards continue to increase in frequency, size and 

reach, the emergency management community must understand how individuals, households and 

organizations decide whether to leave in order to implement more effective risk and crisis 

communications. The research findings from this literature review provide helpful insights to support 

emergency managers as they update and practice their evacuation and SIP planning. 

26 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Appendix A: NVivo Coding Nodes 

 Name 

 Behavioral response, emotion-focused coping 

 Behavioral response, information search 

 Behavioral response, protective response 

 Channel access and preference 

 Environmental cues 

 Information sources 

 Pre-decision process 

 Protective action perceptions 

 Receiver characteristics 

 Situational facilitators 

 Situational impediments 

 Social cues 

 Stakeholder perceptions 

 Threat perceptions 

 Warning messages 

27 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Appendix B: References 

1. Adeola, F. O. “Katrina Cataclysm: Does Duration of Residency and Prior Experience Affect 

Impacts, Evacuation, and Adaptation Behavior among Survivors?” Environment and Behavior 

41(4): 459–489. 2009. doi:10.1177/0013916508316651. 

2. Akbarzadeh, M. and C.G. Wilmot. “Time-Dependent Route Choice in Hurricane Evacuation.” 

Natural Hazards Review 16(2). 2015. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000159. 

3. Baer, R. D., S. C. Weller and C. Roberts. “The Role of Regional Cultural Values in Decisions 

about Hurricane Evacuation.” Human Organization 78(2): 133–146. 2019. 

4. Basolo, V., L. J. Steinberg, R. J. Burby, R. J., Levine, A. M. Cruz and C. Huang. “The Effects of 

Confidence in Government and Information on Perceived and Actual Preparedness for 

Disasters.” Environment and Behavior 41(3): 338–364. 2009. 

doi:10.1177/0013916508317222. 

5. *Bass, S. B., J. R. Greener, D. Ruggieri, C. Parvanta, G. Mora, C. Wolak, R. Normile and T. F. 

Gordon. “Attitudes and Perceptions of Urban African Americans of a ‘Dirty Bomb’ Radiological 

Terror Event: Results of a Qualitative Study and Implications for Effective Risk Communication.” 

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 9(1): 9–18. 2015. 

doi:10.1017/dmp.2014.158. 

6. Behr, J. G. and R. Diaz. “Disparate Health Implications Stemming From the Propensity of Elderly 

and Medically Fragile Populations to Shelter in Place During Severe Storm Events.” Journal of 

Public Health Management and Practice 19: S55–S62. 2013. 

doi:10.1097/PHH.0b013e318297226a. 

7. *Bernier, C., S. Kameshwar, J. R. Elliott, J. E. Padgett and P. B. Bedient. “Mitigation Strategies 

to Protect Petrochemical Infrastructure and Nearby Communities During Storm Surge.” Natural 

Hazards Review 19(4). 2018. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000309. 

8. Bethel, J. W., A. N. Foreman and S. C. Burke. “Disaster Preparedness Among Medically 

Vulnerable Populations.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40(2): 139–143. 2011. 

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.020. 

9. Bostrom, A., R. Morss, J. K. Lazo, J. Demuth and H. Lazrus. “Eyeing the storm: How residents of 

coastal Florida see hurricane forecasts and warnings.” International Journal of Disaster Risk 

Reduction 30: 105–119. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.027. 

10. Brackenridge, S., L. K. Zottarelli, E. Rider and B. Carlsen-Landy. “Dimensions of the HumanAnimal Bond and Evacuation Decisions among Pet Owners during Hurricane Ike.” Anthrozoos 

25(2): 229–238. 2012. doi:10.2752/175303712x13316289505503. 

11. Brenkert-Smith, H., P. A. Champ and N. Flores. “Trying Not to Get Burned: Understanding 

Homeowners' Wildfire Risk-Mitigation Behaviors.” Environmental Management 50(6): 1139– 

1151. 2012. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9949-8. 

28 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

12. Brown, L. M., J. J. Christensen, A. Ialynytchev, K. S. Thomas, K. A. Frahm and K. Hyer. 

“Experiences of Assisted Living Facility Staff in Evacuating and Sheltering Residents During 

Hurricanes.” Current Psychology 34(3): 506–514. 2015. doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9361-7. 

13. Brown, S., L. M. Gargano, H. Parton, K. Caramanica, M. R. Farfel, S. D. Stellman and R. M. 

Brackbill. “Hurricane Sandy Evacuation Among World Trade Center Health Registry Enrollees in 

New York City.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 10(3): 411–419. 2016. 

doi:10.1017/dmp.2016.57. 

14. *Burke, S., J. W. Bethel and A. F. Britt. “Assessing Disaster Preparedness among Latino Migrant 

and Seasonal Farmworkers in Eastern North Carolina.” International Journal of Environmental 

Research and Public Health: 9(9): 3115–3133. 2012. doi:10.3390/ijerph9093115. 

15. Cahyanto, I. and L. Pennington-Gray. “Communicating Hurricane Evacuation to Tourists: 

Gender, Past Experience with Hurricanes, and Place of Residence.” Journal of Travel Research 

54(3): 329–343. 2015. doi:10.1177/0047287513517418. 

16. Cahyanto, I., L. Pennington-Gray, B. Thapa, S. Srinivasan, J. Villegas, C. Matyas and S. Kiousis. 

“Predicting information seeking regarding hurricane evacuation in the destination.” Tourism 

Management 52: 264–275. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.014. 

17. Cahyanto, I., L. Pennington-Gray, B. Thapa, S. Srinivasan, J. Villegas, C. Matyas and S. Kiousis. 

“An empirical evaluation of the determinants of tourist's hurricane evacuation decision 

making.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2(4): 253–265. 2014. 

doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.10.003. 

18. Casagrande, D. G., H. McIlvaine-Newsad and E. C. Jones. “Social Networks of Help-Seeking in 

Different Types of Disaster Responses to the 2008 Mississippi River Floods.” Human 

Organization 74(4): 351–361. 2015. doi:10.17730/0018-7259-74.4.351. 

19. Casteel, M. A. “Communicating Increased Risk: An Empirical Investigation of the National 

Weather Service's Impact-Based Warnings.” Weather Climate and Society 8(3): 219–232. 

2016. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-15-0044.1. 

20. Casteel, M. A. “An empirical assessment of impact based tornado warnings on shelter in place 

decisions.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 30: 25–33. 2018. 

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.036. 

21. Chaney, P. L. and G. S. Weaver. “The Vulnerability of Mobile Home Residents in Tornado 

Disasters: The 2008 Super Tuesday Tornado in Macon County, Tennessee.” Weather Climate 

and Society 2(3): 190–199. 2010. doi:10.1175/2010wcas1042.1. 

22. *Chen, X., C. Frazier, R. Manandhar, Z. G. Han and P. Jia. “Inequalities of Nuclear Risk 

Communication Within and Beyond the Evacuation Planning Zone.” Applied Spatial Analysis 

and Policy 12(3): 587–604. 2019. doi:10.1007/s12061-018-9257-7. 

23. Christensen, J. J., E. D. Richey and H. Castaneda. “Seeking Safety: Predictors of Hurricane 

Evacuation of Community-Dwelling Families Affected by Alzheimer's Disease or a Related 

Disorder in South Florida.” American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias 

28(7): 682–692. 2013. doi:10.1177/1533317513500837. 

29 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

24. Collins, J., R. Ersing and A. Polen. “Evacuation Decision-Making during Hurricane Matthew: An 

Assessment of the Effects of Social Connections.” Weather Climate and Society 9(4): 769–776. 

2017. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-17-0047.1. 

25. Collins, J., R. Ersing, A. Polen, M. Saunders and J. Senkbeil. “The Effects of Social Connections 

on Evacuation Decision Making During Hurricane Irma.” Weather Climate and Society 10(3): 

459–469. 2018. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-17-0119.1. 

26. Cova, T. J., F. A. Drews, L. K. Siebeneck and A. Musters. “Protective Actions in Wildfires: 

Evacuate or Shelter-in-Place?” Natural Hazards Review 10(4): 151–162. 2009. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)1527-6988(2009)10:4(151), 

27. Cuite, C. L., R. L. Shwom, W. K. Hallman, R. E. Morss and J. L. Demuth. “Improving Coastal 

Storm Evacuation Messages.” Weather Climate and Society 9(2): 155–170. 2017. 

doi:10.1175/wcas-d-16-0076.1 

28. Demuth, J. L. “Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience 

for Tornadoes.” Risk Analysis 38(9): 1921–1943. 2018. doi:10.1111/risa.12983. 

29. Demuth, J. L., R. E. Morss, J. K. Lazo and C. Trumbo. “The Effects of Past Hurricane Experiences 

on Evacuation Intentions through Risk Perception and Efficacy Beliefs: A Mediation Analysis.” 

Weather Climate and Society 8(4): 327–344. 2016. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-15-0074.1. 

30. Demuth, J. L., R. E. Morss, L. Palen, K. M. Anderson, J. Anderson, M. Kogan, K. Stowe, M. Bica, 

H. Lazrus, O. Wilhelmi and J. Henderson. “’Sometimes da #beachlife ain't always da wave’: 

Understanding People's Evolving Hurricane Risk Communication, Risk Assessments, and 

Responses Using Twitter Narratives.” Weather Climate and Society 10(3): 537–560. 2018. 

doi:10.1175/wcas-d-17-0126.1. 

31. DeYoung, S. E., T. Wachtendorf, A. K. Farmer and S. C. Penta. “NOAA Radios and 

Neighbourhood Networks: Demographic Factors for Channel Preference for Hurricane 

Evacuation Information.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 24(4): 275–285. 

2016. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12123. 

32. Dixon, D. S., P. Mozumder, W. F. Vasquez and H. Gladwin. “Heterogeneity Within and Across 

Households in Hurricane Evacuation Response.” Networks & Spatial Economics 17(2): 645– 

680. 2017. doi:10.1007/s11067-017-9339-0. 

33. Dostal, P. J. “Vulnerability of Urban Homebound Older Adults in Disasters: A Survey of 

Evacuation Preparedness.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 9(3): 301–306. 

2015. doi:10.1017/dmp.2015.50. 

34. Duenas-Osorio, L., B. Buzcu-Guven, R. Stein and D. Subramanian. “Engineering-Based 

Hurricane Risk Estimates and Comparison to Perceived Risks in Storm-Prone Areas.” Natural 

Hazards Review 13(1): 45–56. 2012. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000053. 

35. Edgeley, C. M. and T. B. Paveglio. “Exploring influences on intended evacuation behaviors 

during wildfire: What roles for pre-fire actions and event-based cues?” International Journal of 

Disaster Risk Reduction 37. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101182. 

30 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

36. *Esteban, M., J. Bricker, R. San Carlos Arce, H. Takagi, N. Y. Yun, W. Chaiyapa, A. Sjoegren and 

T. Shibayama. “Tsunami awareness: a comparative assessment between Japan and the USA.” 

Natural Hazards 93(3): 1507–1528. 2018. doi:10.1007/s11069-018-3365-1. 

37. Farmer, A. K., S. E. DeYoung and T. Wachtendorf. “Pets and Evacuation: An Ongoing Challenge 

in Disasters.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 13(4). 2016. 

doi:10.1515/jhsem-2016-0051. 

38. Farmer, A. K., L. Zelewicz, T. Wachtendorf and S. E. DeYoung. “Scared of the Shelter from the 

Storm: Fear of Crime and Hurricane Shelter Decision Making.” Sociological Inquiry 88(2): 193– 

215. 2018. doi:10.1111/soin.12187. 

39. Folk, L. H., E. D. Kuligowski, S. M. V. Gwynne and J. A. Gales. “A Provisional Conceptual Model of 

Human Behavior in Response to Wildland-Urban Interface Fires.” Fire Technology, 55(5): 

1619–1647. 2019. doi:10.1007/s10694-019-00821-z. 

40. Gershon, R. R., E. Portacolone, E. M. Nwankwo, Q. Zhi, K. A. Qureshi and V. H. Raveis. 

“Psychosocial Influences on Disaster Preparedness in San Francisco Recipients of Home Care.” 

Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 94(5): 606–618. 2017. 

doi:10.1007/s11524-016-0104-3. 

41. Gibson, A., J. Walsh and L. M. Brown. “A perfect storm: Challenges encountered by family 

caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease during natural disasters.” Journal of 

Gerontological Social Work 61(7): 775–789. 2018. doi:10.1080/01634372.2018.1474158. 

42. *Giordano, A., S. Anderson and X. Q. He. “How near is near? The distance perceptions of 

residents of a nuclear emergency planning zone.” Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy 

Dimensions 9(2): 167–182. 2010. doi:10.3763/ehaz.2010.0031. 

43. *Heath, R. L., J. Lee and L. L. Lemon. “Narratives of risk communication: Nudging community 

residents to shelter-in-place.” Public Relations Review 45(1): 128–137. 2019. 

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.12.004. 

44. Heath, R. L., Lee, J., Palenchar, M. J., and Lemon, L. L. 2018. Risk Communication Emergency 

Response Preparedness: Contextual Assessment of the Protective Action Decision Model. Risk 

Analysis 38(2): 333-344. doi:10.1111/risa.12845 

45. Horney, J. A., P. D. M. MacDonald, M. Van Willigen, P. R. Berke and J. S. Kaufman. “Individual 

Actual or Perceived Property Flood Risk: Did It Predict Evacuation from Hurricane Isabel in 

North Carolina, 2003?” Risk Analysis 30(3): 501–511. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1539-

6924.2009.01341.x. 

46. Huang, S. K., M. K. Lindell and C. S. Prater. “Multistage Model of Hurricane Evacuation 

Decision: Empirical Study of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.” Natural Hazards Review 18(3). 

2017. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000237. 

47. Huang, S. K., M. K. Lindell, C. S. Prater, H. C. Wu and L. K. Siebeneck. “Household Evacuation 

Decision Making in Response to Hurricane Ike.” Natural Hazards Review 13(4): 283–296. 

2012. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000074. 

31 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

48. Huang, S. K., H. C. Wu, M. K. Lindell, H. L. Wei and C. D. Samuelson. “Perceptions, behavioral 

expectations, and implementation timing for response actions in a hurricane emergency.” 

Natural Hazards 88(1): 533–558. 2017. doi:10.1007/s11069-017-2877-4. 

49. Jiang, Y. Q., Z. L. Li and S. L. Cutter. “Social Network, Activity Space, Sentiment, and Evacuation: 

What Can Social Media Tell Us?” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109(6): 

1795–1810. 2019. doi:10.1080/24694452.2019.1592660. 

50. *Johnson, V. A., D. M. Johnston, K. R. Ronan and R. Peace. “Evaluating Children’s Learning of 

Adaptive Response Capacities from ShakeOut, an Earthquake and Tsunami Drill in Two 

Washington State School Districts.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 

11(3): 347–373. 2014. doi:10.1515/jhsem-2014-0012. 

51. Jon, I., S. K. Huang and M. K. Lindell. “Perceptions and reactions to tornado warning polygons: 

Would a gradient polygon be useful?” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 30, 

132–144. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.035. 

52. Jon, I., S. K. Huang and M. K. Lindell. “Perceptions and Expected Immediate Reactions to 

Severe Storm Displays.” Risk Analysis 39(1): 274–290. 2019. doi:10.1111/risa.12896. 

53. Kim, J. and S. S. Oh. “Confidence, knowledge, and compliance with emergency evacuation.” 

Journal of Risk Research 18(1): 111–126. 2015. doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.880728. 

54. Kleier, J. A., D. Krause and T. Ogilby. “Hurricane preparedness among elderly residents in South 

Florida.” Public Health Nursing 35(1): 3–9. 2018. doi:10.1111/phn.12344. 

55. Kulkarni, P. A., H. Gu, S. Tsai, M. Passannante, S. Kim, P. A. Thomas, C. Tan and A. L. Davidow. 

“Evacuations as a Result of Hurricane Sandy: Analysis of the 2014 New Jersey Behavioral Risk 

Factor Survey.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 11(6): 720–728. 2017. 

doi:10.1017/dmp.2017.21. 

56. Kusenbach, M., J. L. Simms and G. A. Tobin. “Disaster vulnerability and evacuation readiness: 

coastal mobile home residents in Florida.” Natural Hazards 52(1): 79–95. 2010. 

doi:10.1007/s11069-009-9358-3. 

57. Kyne, D. and W. Donner. “Kyne-Donner Model of Authority’s Recommendation and Hurricane 

Evacuation Decisions: A Study of Hypothetical Hurricane Event in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.” 

Population Research and Policy Review 37(6): 897–922. 2018. doi:10.1007/s11113-018-

9492-2. 

58. Kyne, D., A. S. Lomeli, W. Donner and E. Zuloaga. “Who Will Stay, Who Will Leave: DecisionMaking 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). 2018.doi:10.1515/jhsem-2017-0010. 

59. La Greca, A. M., K. E. Brodar, B. A. Danzi, N. Tarlow, K. Silva and J. S. Comer. “Before the Storm: 

Stressors Associated with the Hurricane Irma Evacuation Process for Families.” Disaster 

Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 13(1): 63–73. 2019. doi:10.1017/dmp.2019.9. 

32 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

60. Langan, J. C. and J. L. Palmer. “Listening to and Learning from Older Adult Hurricane Katrina 

Survivors.” Public Health Nursing 29(2): 126–135. 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1525-

1446.2011.00996.x. 

61. Lazo, J. K., A. Bostrom, R. E. Morss, J. L. Demuth and H. Lazrus. “Factors Affecting Hurricane 

Evacuation Intentions.” Risk Analysis 35(10): 1837–1857. 2015. doi:10.1111/risa.12407. 

62. Lazo, J. K., D. M. Waldman, B. H. Morrow and J. A. Thacher. “Household Evacuation Decision 

Making and the Benefits of Improved Hurricane Forecasting: Developing a Framework for 

Assessment.” Weather and Forecasting 25(1): 207–219. 2010. 

doi:10.1175/2009waf2222310.1. 

63. Lindell, M. K., S. K. Huang, H. L. Wei and C. D. Samuelson. “Perceptions and expected 

immediate reactions to tornado warning polygons.” Natural Hazards 80(1): 683–707. 2016. 

doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1990-5. 

64. Lindell, M. K., C. S. Prater, C. E. Gregg, E. J. I. Apatu, S. K. Huang and H. C. Wu. “Households’ 

Immediate Responses to the 2009 American Samoa Earthquake and Tsunami.” International 

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 12: 328–340. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.03.003. 

65. Liu, B. F., M. M. Wood, M. Egnoto, H. Bean, J. Sutton, D. Mileti and S. Madden. “Is a picture 

worth a thousand words? The effects of maps and warning messages on how publics respond 

to disaster information.” Public Relations Review 43(3): 493–506. 2017. 

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.004. 

66. Liu, S. R., P. Murray-Tuite and L. Schweitzer. “Uniting multi-adult households during emergency 

evacuation planning.” Disasters 38(3): 587–609. 2014. doi:10.1111/disa.12063. 

67. Liu, S. R., P. Murray-Tuite and L. Schweitzer. “Analysis of child pick-up during daily routines and 

for daytime no-notice evacuations.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46(1): 

48–67. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.003. 

68. Maghelal, P., X. Y. Li and W. G. Peacock. “Highway congestion during evacuation: Examining the 

household’s choice of number of vehicles to evacuate.” Natural Hazards 87(3): 1399–1411. 

2017. doi:10.1007/s11069-017-2823-5. 

69. Maghelal, P., W. G. Peacock and X. Y. Li. “Evacuating Together or Separately: Factors 

Influencing Split Evacuations Prior to Hurricane Rita.” Natural Hazards Review 18(2). 2017. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000226. 

70. Matyas, C., S. Srinivasan, I. Cahyanto, B. Thapa, L. Pennington-Gray and J. Villegas. “Risk 

perception and evacuation decisions of Florida tourists under hurricane threats: a stated 

preference analysis.” Natural Hazards 59(2): 871–890. 2011. doi:10.1007/s11069-

011-9801-0. 

71. McCaffrey, S., R. Wilson and A. Konar. “Should I Stay or Should I Go Now? Or Should I Wait and 

See? Influences on Wildfire Evacuation Decisions.” Risk Analysis 38(7): 1390–1404. 2018. 

doi:10.1111/risa.12944. 

33 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

72. Mesa-Arango, R., S. Hasan, S. V. Ukkusuri and P. Murray-Tuite. “Household-Level Model for 

Hurricane Evacuation Destination Type Choice Using Hurricane Ivan Data.” Natural Hazards 

Review 14(1): 11–20. 2013. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000083. 

73. Meyer, M. A. “Elderly Perceptions of Social Capital and Age-Related Disaster Vulnerability.” 

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 11(1): 48–55. 2017. 

doi:10.1017/dmp.2016.139. 

74. Meyer, M. A., B. Mitchell, J. C. Purdum, K. Breen and R. L. Iles. “Previous hurricane evacuation 

decisions and future evacuation intentions among residents of southeast Louisiana.” 

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 31: 1231–1244. 2018. 

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.003. 

75. Morss, R. E. and M. H. Hayden. “Storm Surge and ‘Certain Death’: Interviews with Texas Coastal 

Residents following Hurricane Ike.” Weather Climate and Society 2(3): 174–189. 2010. 

doi:10.1175/2010wcas1041.1. 

76. Morss, R. E., C. L. Cuite, J. L. Demuth, W. K. Hallman and R. L. Shwom. “Is storm surge scary? 

The influence of hazard, impact, and fear-based messages and individual differences on 

responses to hurricane risks in the USA.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 30: 

44–58. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.023. 

77. Morss, R. E., J. L. Demuth, J. K. Lazo, K. Dickinson, H. Lazrus and B. H. Morrow. “Understanding 

Public Hurricane Evacuation Decisions and Responses to Forecast and Warning Messages.” 

Weather and Forecasting 31(2): 395–417. 2016. doi:10.1175/waf-d-15-0066.1. 

78. Morss, R. E., K. J. Mulder, J. K. Lazo and J. L. Demuth. “How do people perceive, understand, 

and anticipate responding to flash flood risks and warnings? Results from a public survey in 

Boulder, Colorado, USA.” Journal of Hydrology 541: 649–664. 2016. 

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.11.047. 

79. *Mozumder, P. and W. F. Vasquez. “An empirical analysis of hurricane evacuation 

expenditures.” Natural Hazards 79(1): 81–92. 2015. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1828-1. 

80. Mozumder, P. and W. F. Vasquez. “Understanding Hurricane Evacuation Decisions Under 

Contingent Scenarios: A Stated Preference Approach.” Environmental & Resource Economics 

71(2): 407–425. 2018. doi:10.1007/s10640-017-0163-2. 

81. Nagele, D. E. and J. E. Trainor. “Geographic Specificity, Tornadoes, and Protective Action.” 

Weather Climate and Society 4(2): 145–155. 2012. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-11-00047.1. 

82. Ng, M., J. Behr and R. Diaz. “Unraveling the evacuation behavior of the medically fragile 

population: Findings from hurricane Irene.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 

64: 122–134. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.015. 

83. Ng, M., R. Diaz and J. Behr. “Departure time choice behavior for hurricane evacuation planning: 

The case of the understudied medically fragile population.” Transportation Research Part E: 

Logistics and Transportation Review 77: 215-226. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.03.002. 

34 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

84. Ng, M., R. Diaz and J. Behr. “Inter- and intra-regional evacuation behavior during Hurricane 

Irene.” Travel Behaviour and Society 3: 21–28. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2015.05.001. 

85. Paveglio, T. B., M. S. Carroll and P. J. Jakes. “Adoption and perceptions of shelter-in-place in 

California's Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 

19(6): 677–688. 2010. doi:10.1071/wf09034. 

86. Paveglio, T. B., M. S. Carroll and P. J. Jakes. “Alternatives to evacuation during wildland fire: 

Exploring adaptive capacity in one Idaho community.” Environmental Hazards-Human and 

Policy Dimensions 9(4): 379–394. 2010. doi:10.3763/ehaz.2010.0060. 

87. Petrolia, D. R. and S. Bhattacharjee. “Why Don't Coastal Residents Choose to Evacuate for 

Hurricanes?” Coastal Management 38(2): 97–112. 2010. 

doi:10.1080/08920751003605365. 

88. Petrolia, D. R., S. Bhattacharjee and T. R. Hanson. “Heterogeneous Evacuation Responses to 

Storm Forecast Attributes.” Natural Hazards Review 12(3): 117–124. 2011. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000038. 

89. Ploran, E. J., M. A. Trasciatti and E. C. Farmer. “Efficacy and authority of the message sender 

during emergency evacuations: A mixed methods study.” Journal of Applied Communication 

Research 46(3): 291–322. 2018. doi:10.1080/00909882.2018.1464659. 

90. *Reinhardt, G. Y. “Imagining worse than reality: Comparing beliefs and intentions between 

disaster evacuees and survey respondents.” Journal of Risk Research 20(2): 169–194. 2017. 

doi:10.1080/13669877.2015.1017827. 

91. Reininger, B. M., S. A. Raja, A. S. Carrasco, Z. X. Chen, B. Adams, J. McCormick and M. H. 

Rahbar. “Intention to Comply With Mandatory Hurricane Evacuation Orders Among Persons 

Living Along a Coastal Area.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 7(1): 46–54. 

2013. doi:10.1001/dmp.2012.57. 

92. Rickard, L. N., J. P. Schuldt, G. M. Eosco, C. W. Scherer and R. A. Daziano. “The Proof is in the 

Picture: The Influence of Imagery and Experience in Perceptions of Hurricane Messaging.” 

Weather Climate and Society 9(3): 471–485. 2017. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-16-0048.1. 

93. *Rickard, L. N., Z. J. Yang, J. P. Schuldt, G. M. Eosco, C. W. Scherer and R. A. Daziano. “Sizing 

Up a Superstorm: Exploring the Role of Recalled Experience and Attribution of Responsibility in 

Judgments of Future Hurricane Risk.” Risk Analysis 37(12): 2334–2349. 2017. 

doi:10.1111/risa.12779. 

94. Ripberger, J. T., C. L. Silva, H. C. Jenkins-Smith and M. James. “The Influence of ConsequenceBased Messages on Public Responses to Tornado Warnings.” Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society 96(4): 577–590. 2015. doi:10.1175/bams-d-13-00213.1. 

95. Sadri, A. M., S. V. Ukkusuri and H. Gladwin. “The Role of Social Networks and Information 

Sources on Hurricane Evacuation Decision Making.” Natural Hazards Review 18(3). 2017. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000244. 

35 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

96. Sadri, A. M., S. V. Ukkusuri and P. Murray-Tuite. “A random parameter ordered probit model to 

understand the mobilization time during hurricane evacuation.” Transportation Research Part 

C: Emerging Technologies 32: 21–30. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.03.009. 

97. Sarwar, M. T., P. C. Anastasopoulos, S. V. Ukkusuri, P. Murray-Tuite and F. Mannering. “A 

statistical analysis of the dynamics of household hurricane-evacuation decisions.” 

Transportation 45(1): 51–70. 2018. doi:10.1007/s11116-016-9722-6. 

98. Schumann, R. L., K. D. Ash and G. C. Bowser. “Tornado Warning Perception and Response: 

Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience.” Risk Analysis 

38(2): 311–332. 2018. doi:10.1111/risa.12837. 

99. Sherman-Morris, K. “Tornado warning dissemination and response at a university campus.” 

Natural Hazards 52(3): 623–638. 2010. doi:10.1007/s11069-009-9405-0. 

100. Siebeneck, L. K. and T. J. Cova. “Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception 

Throughout the Evacuation and Return-Entry Process.” Risk Analysis 32(9): 1468–1480. 2012. 

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01781.x. 

101. Siebeneck, L. K. and T. J. Cova. “Risk Communication after Disaster: Return Entry Following the 

2008 Cedar River Flood.” Natural Hazards Review 15(2): 158–166. 2014. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000126. 

102. Siebeneck, L. K., M. K. Lindell, C. S. Prater, H. C. Wu and S. K. Huang. “Evacuees’ reentry 

concerns and experiences in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike.” Natural Hazards 65(3): 2267– 

2286. 2013. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0474-0. 

103. Smith, S. K. and C. McCarty. Fleeing the storm(s): An examination of evacuation behavior during 

Florida’s 2004 hurricane season.” Demography 46(1): 127–145. 2009. 

doi:10.1353/dem.0.0048. 

104. Stein, R. M., L. Duenas-Osorio and D. Subramanian. “Who Evacuates When Hurricanes 

Approach? The Role of Risk, Information, and Location.” Social Science Quarterly 91(3): 816– 

834. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00721.x. 

105. Stein, R., B. Buzcu-Guven, L. Duenas-Osorio, D. Subramanian and D. Kahle. “How Risk 

Perceptions Influence Evacuations from Hurricanes and Compliance with Government 

Directives.” Policy Studies Journal 41(2): 319–342. 2013. doi:10.1111/psj.12019. 

106. Stewart, A. E. “Gulf Coast Residents Underestimate Hurricane Destructive Potential.” Weather 

Climate and Society 3(2): 116–127. 2011. doi:10.1175/2011wcas1077.1. 

107. Strawderman, L., A. Salehi, K. Babski-Reeves, T. Thornton-Neaves and A. Cosby. “Reverse 911 

as a Complementary Evacuation Warning System.” Natural Hazards Review 13(1): 65–73. 

2012. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000059. 

108. Sutton, J. and C. Woods. “Tsunami Warning Message Interpretation and Sense Making: Focus 

Group Insights.” Weather Climate and Society 8(4): 389–398. 2016. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-15-

0067.1. 

36 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

109. Taaffe, K., S. Garrett, Y. H. Huang and I. Nkwocha. “Communication’s Role and Technology 

Preferences during Hurricane Evacuations.” Natural Hazards Review 14(3): 182–190. 2013. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000104. 

110. Taylor-Clark, K. A., K. Viswanath and R. J. Blendon. “Communication Inequalities During Public 

Health Disasters: Katrina's Wake.” Health Communication 25(3): 221–229. 2010. 

doi:10.1080/10410231003698895. 

111. Thiede, B. C. and D. L. Brown. “Hurricane Katrina: Who Stayed and Why?” Population Research 

and Policy Review 32(6): 803–824. 2013. doi:10.1007/s11113-013-9302-9. 

112. Tinsley, C. H., R. L. Dillon and M. A. Cronin. “How Near-Miss Events Amplify or Attenuate Risky 

Decision Making.” Management Science 58(9): 1596–1613. 2012. 

doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1517. 

113. Trumbo, C. W., L. Peek, M. A. Meyer, H. L. Marlatt, E. Gruntfest, B. D. McNoldy and W. H. 

Schubert. “A Cognitive-Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception.” Risk Analysis 36(12): 

2233–2246. 2016. doi:10.1111/risa.12575. 

114. Trumbo, C., M. A. Meyer, H. Marlatt, L. Peek and B. Morrissey. “An Assessment of Change in 

Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias for Hurricanes Among Gulf Coast Residents.” Risk Analysis 

34(6): 1013–1024. 2014. doi:10.1111/risa.12149. 

115. Vasquez, W. F., T. J. Murray and P. Mozumder. “Understanding Hurricane Evacuation Planning 

in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States.” Natural Hazards Review 17(1). 2016. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000198. 

116. Villegas, J., C. Matyas, S. Srinivasan, I. Cahyanto, B. Thapa and L. Pennington-Gray. “Cognitive 

and affective responses of Florida tourists after exposure to hurricane warning messages.” 

Natural Hazards 66(1): 97–116. 2013. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0119-3. 

117. Wallace, J. W., C. Poole and J. A. Horney. “The association between actual and perceived flood 

risk and evacuation from Hurricane Irene, Beaufort County, North Carolina.” Journal of Flood 

Risk Management 9(2): 125–135. 2016. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12115. 

118. *Watson, P. G., V. J. Loffredo and J. C. McKee. “When a natural disaster occurs: Lessons 

learned in meeting students’ needs.” Journal of Professional Nursing 27(6): 362–369. 2011. 

doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.09.001. 

119. Wei, H. L. and M. K. Lindell. “Washington households’ expected responses to lahar threat from 

Mt. Rainier.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22: 77–94. 2017. 

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.014. 

120. Wei, H. L., M. K. Lindell and C. Prater. “’Certain Death’ from Storm Surge: A Comparative Study 

of Household Responses to Warnings about Hurricanes Rita and Ike.” Weather Climate and 

Society 6(4): 425–433. 2014. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-13-00074.1. 

121. Weller, S. C., R. Baer and J. Prochaska. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Response to the 

Hurricane Ike Evacuation Order on the Texas Gulf Coast.” Natural Hazards Review 17(3). 2016. 

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000217. 

37 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

122. Wilson, S. N. and J. P Tiefenbacher. “The barriers impeding precautionary behaviours by 

undocumented immigrants in emergencies: The Hurricane Ike experience in Houston, Texas, 

USA.” Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions 11(3): 194–212. 2012. 

doi:10.1080/17477891.2011.649711. 

123. *Wolters, E. A., B. S. Steel, D. Weston and M. Brunson. “Determinants of residential Firewise 

behaviors in Central Oregon.” Social Science Journal 54(2): 168–178. 2017. 

doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2016.12.004. 

124. Wong-Parodi, G. and I. Feygina. “Factors Influencing (Mal)adaptive Responses to Natural 

Disasters: The Case of Hurricane Matthew.” Weather Climate and Society 10(4): 747–768. 

2018. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-17-0138.1. 

125. Wood, M. M., D. S. Mileti, H. Bean, B. F. Liu, J. Sutton and S. Madden. “Milling and Public 

Warnings.” Environment and Behavior 50(5): 535–566. 2018. 

doi:10.1177/0013916517709561. 

126. Yang, H., E. F. Morgul, K. Ozbay and K. Xie. “Modeling Evacuation Behavior Under Hurricane 

Conditions.” Transportation Research Record (2599): 63–69. 2016. doi:10.3141/2599-08. 

127. Yin, W. H., P. Murray-Tuite, S. V. Ukkusuri and H. Gladwin. “Modeling Shadow Evacuation for 

Hurricanes with Random-Parameter Logit Model.” Transportation Research Record (2599): 43– 

51. 2016. doi:10.3141/2599-06. 

*These articles did not contribute findings to this literature review. They are included to provide a 

comprehensive list of all articles coded for analysis. 

38 
 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Appendix C: Recommendations 

This Appendix summarizes the recommendations for use by public safety officials based on the 

research findings. The recommendations are organized by communication strategies and by 

implementation timeline – whether the recommendation is best implemented before an event 

occurs or during the response, denoted with checkmarks in the columns to the left. The column on 

the right provides the reference number of the specific finding(s) that supports each 

recommendation. 

Prepare the Public 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

 Provide public outreach “know your zone” campaigns with 

links to user-friendly interactive maps to help individuals 

locate their home and work addresses and know their 

zone. 

2.1 

5.3 

 Encourage individuals to sign up for the jurisdiction’s opt-in 

alert and warning channels so they directly receive 

updated information. 

2.2 

2.3 

 Ask community and HOA leaders to encourage their 

constituents to plan for evacuations and commit to 

modeling that evacuation behavior. 

1.2 

3.13 

 Ask neighbors to check in on individuals with disabilities, 

access and functional needs to help them plan how to 

evacuate. 

3.10 

 Encourage advocacy organizations for at-risk individuals, 

their caregivers and their social support networks to help 

them prepare and think through the evacuation decisionmaking process in case they need to evacuate. Integrate 

advocacy organizations into the community planning 

process for evacuation and SIP. 

3.10 

 Work with local hotels and motels to provide tourists 

information on whether the hotel/motel is in an evacuation 

zone and how to access guidance from local authorities 

regarding evacuation or SIP decisions. 

2.2 

2.4 

39 
 

   

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

  Provide outreach and messaging specifically for residents 

of manufactured or mobile homes in areas at risk because 

3.8 

this type of housing is structurally less safe. Encourage 

those individuals to be ready to evacuate and plan to 

provide services to those who may need assistance. 

Target Messaging Based on Socio-demographic Characteristics 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

 Women: Given that women are more likely than men to 

take protective actions, messaging and communication 

channel selection should focus more on women. 

3.5 

  Households with children and/or pets: 

 Include the message “evacuating will keep your family 

and/or your pets safe” to motivate households with 

children and pets to evacuate early. 

 Acknowledge and express empathy for the stress and 

anxiety associated with evacuations for households with 

children and/or pets. Recommend these households 

discuss and agree on evacuation plans early. 

 Consider using daycare centers, schools, pet stores and 

breeders and rescue centers as delivery channels for 

information to help parents and pet owners reduce the 

stress of an evacuation by pre-planning, including 

preparing go bags. For children, go bag items can 

include games, special foods, clothes/diapers, health 

information and medications. For pets, consider pet 

carriers and pet food, pet identification and health and 

vaccination information, as well as information on 

shelters or hotels and motels that take pets. 

3.7 

40 
   

 

   

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

  Homeowners: 

 Promote methods to mitigate damage to homes prior to 

evacuation. 

 Note the likely impacts of the hazard, including loss of 

electricity and running water, which will make staying 

risky and uncomfortable. 

 Messaging should acknowledge that homeowners will be 

worried about security and anxious to return to their 

homes as soon as possible to mitigate damage to the 

property but that should not stop them from evacuating. 

If relevant, note steps that government is taking to keep 

property secure until individuals can return to their 

community, such as increased patrols, curfews, etc. 

3.8 

  Those living in manufactured or mobile homes: 

 Because this type of housing is structurally less safe, 

encourage those individuals to evacuate early and plan 

to provide services to those who may need assistance. 

3.8 

  Individuals who need assistance: Ensure messaging 

includes information about how individuals with disabilities, 

access and functional needs can find support for 

transportation evacuation planning, transportation 

assistance and assistance at shelters. 

3.10 

Work with Local Media 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

 Build relationships in advance with television and radio 

reporters, weather forecasters and other journalists likely 

to cover hazards facing the community. 

2.3 

41 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

 Familiarize the media with community plans in advance of 

a disaster: 

Ensure the media has access to easy-to-use information 

and graphics related to evacuation zones and routes. The 

graphics should clearly depict what zones are included in 

evacuation orders and which are not. 

Provide information on the jurisdiction’s plans for 

transportation for those who need it and support for those 

in nursing homes or other similar facilities. 

Describe how plans consider public health issues, such as 

minimizing the spread of illness in public transportation or 

shelters. 

5.3 

 Provide press with information about the early stages of 

evacuation so viewers see the jurisdiction, businesses and 

individuals taking action before the storm. Highlight how 

local authorities are heeding the warnings: activating the 

emergency operations center, closing roads and boarding 

up schools or other government buildings at risk. 

2.3 

 Keep media informed with regular, updated information 

(including information to overcome potential barriers to 

evacuation), including suggestions of how to avoid 

congestion, availability of services along evacuation routes 

and shelter information. 

2.3 

 During the event, work closely with local media to show 

first responders encouraging evacuations of community 

members and their own family members. While some 

jurisdiction responders will staff the emergency operations 

center or support response operations, others will 

evacuate, and these should be highlighted; for example: 

“I’m staying here because it’s my job, but my family has 

evacuated to safety.” 

2.3 

 Provide media with authoritative, time-stamped, geotagged photos and videos that they can share during 

broadcasts and their websites of: 

Hazards such as rising waters and wildfires that they can 

share. 

Different ways jurisdictions, businesses and individuals 

prepare for the threat, including preparing to evacuate 

(e.g., closing public transportation or other public areas). 

1.2 

42 
   

   

   

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Maximize Social Media Use 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

  Confirm that the jurisdiction’s social media channels are 

active before and during the event. Provide up-to date 

information during the event. 

2.3 

  Encourage individuals and organizations with large 

numbers of followers (e.g., media stations, weather 

forecasters, American Red Cross, houses of worship, 

universities) to follow the jurisdiction’s social media 

accounts so they can receive updates during the disaster 

and share authoritative messages with their networks. 

2.2 

  Follow and monitor the social media accounts of other 

authoritative sources within the jurisdiction and across 

neighboring jurisdictions to keep information consistent 

and address inconsistencies and inaccuracies if they 

occur. 

2.2 

 Urge businesses to share their preparedness and response 

actions on their websites and social media accounts (e.g., 

closing their businesses, encouraging employees to 

evacuate and stay safe). 

1.2 

 Encourage those with neighborhood-focused social media 

platforms like Nextdoor, homeowner associations (HOAs) 

and other neighborhood groups to support evacuation 

guidance and checks on neighbors. 

1.2 

3.13 

 Provide environmental cues that the hazard is real by 

posting authoritative, time-stamped, geo-tagged photos 

and videos of hazards such as rising waters and wildfires 

on social media and website. Encourage individuals to 

share those visuals with friends and family, including via 

their social media. 

1.1 

 Encourage people to share official warnings and safety 

information with their personal social networks. Encourage 

them to post photos/videos of visual cues of the hazard as 

they evacuate. 

1.1 

2.1 

43 
   

 

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 



Use social media monitoring tools to identify the channels 

that reach the most people with effective messaging. Use 

these channels to disseminate information about plans for 

re-entry. Plan to surge staff to monitor social media for 

rumors, misinformation and disinformation that must be 

quickly corrected. 

2.3 

 Use social media channels during the event to encourage 

individuals to sign-up for community alerting systems to 

make sure they receive the most up-to-date information. 

2.3 

Leverage Trusted Messengers 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

 Help individuals validate the threat by sharing the 

authoritative forecasts from NWS and local trusted 

meteorologists. Recommend that individuals follow the 

local NWS Forecast Office social media accounts. 

2.2 

  Coordinate with advocacy organizations for those with 

disabilities, access and functional needs. Ask them to 

support their constituents’ evacuation decisions and 

describe how shelters are prepared to provide appropriate 

care and services. Note that this requires the involvement 

of these advocacy organizations in the evacuation and 

shelter planning process. 

3.10 

 When evacuation orders are issued, ask neighbors to 

check in on individuals with disabilities, access and 

functional needs to see if they need help to evacuate, and 

if so, alert authorities that these individuals need 

evacuation assistance. 

3.10 

 Encourage individuals to share the alerts and warning 

messages they receive and the responsive protective 

actions they take with their friends and their community. 

1.2 

44 
Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Help People Overcome Barriers To Action 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

 To motivate people to leave when evacuation orders are 

issued, messages should include information about the 

risk of the hazard and its probable effect on individual 

safety, property damage and community functions. Include 

descriptions of prolonged impact on quality of life 

considerations (e.g., water, electricity, food). 

4.1 

 Because many individuals do not want to go to public 

shelters, provide information about the shelters associated 

with comfort (e.g., availability of power, air conditioning, 

rest rooms, and space for families and pets) as well as 

services for individuals with disabilities and access and 

functional needs. 

3.10 

 In messaging to those who want to stay and defend their 

property (more likely to be men), clearly define the risks 

and communicate the likely inability of first responders to 

help them once the threat has reached a certain severity 

threshold. 

3.5 

 Those who have purchased generators may feel more 

secure in staying, so if there is loss of power, messaging 

should address how to use generators safely to avoid 

carbon dioxide poisoning. 

3.11 

 Stress the benefits that will encourage individuals to 

evacuate early, including: avoiding traffic congestion, 

driving during daylight hours, and having more assurance 

regarding availability of gasoline along routes. Provide upto-date information on evacuation routes, alternatives, and 

services available, including availability of gasoline. 

3.9 

 To reduce the number of evacuation unknowns which can 

delay decision making, provide as much detailed 

information as possible on evacuation routes, traffic, 

shelters and re-entry plans. 

5.1 

45 
 

   

   

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 

Improve Effectiveness of Alert and Warning Messages 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 

 Create pre-scripted warning messages using warning 

language that will capture attention (dangerous situation, 

emergency) but that is not overly dramatic as that may 

cause individuals to feel the threat is overblown. 

2.1 

 Compare the potential impact of an upcoming hazard to 

similar prior events and their consequences. 

2.1 

 Address the urgency for immediate action by noting when it 

will no longer be safe to evacuate or for emergency 

personnel to attempt rescues as the storm gets close. 

2.1 

 Provide easy and quick ways for individuals to corroborate 

information through hyperlinks to other authoritative 

sources. 

2.1 

 Do not use the term “voluntary” with evacuation 

notifications. Research shows that the term “voluntary” is 

confusing to the public. If people in specific zones should 

evacuate, issue mandatory evacuation notifications. 

Include time stamps and easy-to-identify zones or 

geographic boundary identifiers in notifications to help 

people comply. 

2.1 

 When issuing evacuation orders, explain the risks that led 

to the decision to evacuate some zones and why other 

zones are not evacuating. 

2.1 

 Always encourage individuals to share information with 

family and friends. 

3.13 

  Provide links to user-friendly interactive maps to help 

individuals locate their home and work addresses and 

know their zone. During the response phase, these maps 

should help individuals quickly know if they are in a zone 

that is or is not under an evacuation order. 

2.1 

  When use of cell phones may saturate bandwidth, be 

prepared to use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning 

System (IPAWS) Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) capability 

for messages, as WEAs are not constrained by the same 

bandwidth limitations. 

2.2 

46 
   

Improving Public Messaging for Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place 



Tornado: Given increased forecasting accuracy for 

tornadoes, use the smallest map polygon possible, 

associated with local landmarks, to increase people’s 

understanding when a warning forecast is specific to their 

area. Also consider use of WEAs, which can direct warning 

messages to a smaller geographic area. 

2.1 

 Hurricane: For hurricane risk, include all the risks 

associated with a hurricane in messages including wind, 

flooding and storm surge. 

2.1 

Review the Jurisdiction Evacuation and SIP Plan 

Prepare Respond Recommendations Findings 

Reference 



Plan to use all communication channels that can provide 

information, especially if cell bandwidth becomes 

constrained. This includes highway advisory radio, highway 

signs, amateur radio and NWS weather radio. 

2.3 



For jurisdictions where many households have multiple 

vehicles, evacuation model assumptions should include 

the added volume from multiple cars and multiple 

departure times. 

3.1 



Work with shelters in advance to prepare for individuals 

with disabilities, and access and functional needs. Involve 

representatives of advocacy organizations for these health 

conditions in these preparations. 

3.10 



Work with first responders and other agencies to plan for 

evacuation transportation assistance for those who cannot 

evacuate on their own. 

3.10 

 

Have and promote behavioral health services available at 

shelter locations to support those who are feeling anxious 

and stressed. 

5.1 

 Encourage shelters and hotels to publish relevant policies 

regarding pets to their website and social media channels. 

3.7 

47