# Modeling Evacuees' Intended Responses to a Phased Hurricane Evacuation Order
## 6 Hypothesis Discussion  
Hypothesis H1 and Hypothesis H3 are not rejected by the latent class model to an extent. First, the two hypotheses are not fully supported by the estimated model because the two perception factors were used as latent variables in the class-membership model rather than the choice model. That is, whether individuals of the two identified classes will comply with a phased evacuation order are found to be probabilistic instead of deterministic, which is similar to past studies on evacuation order compliance (without phasing) [28]. Second, the two hypotheses are considered as supported to an extent because \"evacuation keen\" individuals tend to be more likely to comply with a phased evacuation order. Figure 1 plots the estimated class membership probability for being \"evacuation keen\" (on the x-axis) against their estimated compliance probability (on the y-axis). Each dot in Figure 1 represents an evacuee. As shown, most of the dots aggregated at either the upper right corner (i.e., more likely to be \"evacuation keen\" and more likely to comply with the phased evacuation order) or the bottom left corner (i.e., less likely to be \"evacuation keen\" and less likely to comply with the phased evacuation order). Hypothesis H2 is rejected since the variable is not significant in either model. Risk perception might have already played its role when evacuees were making the decision of whether to evacuate or stay in the described hypothetical scenario. That is, risk perceptions significantly distinguish evacuees from non-evacuees [12]. However, risk perceptions do not significantly distinguish among evacuees when evacuees were given the new information of a phased evacuation order (which asks evacuees to wait for a later time slot and then evacuate). Hypothesis H4 is rejected; these individuals are less likely to indicate phased evacuation compliance. The unexpected result can be explained by the relatively longer evacuation distance (average = 122 miles) made by those who choose the home of a friend/relative as the accommodation. The average evacuation distance is about 89 miles for hotel/motel users and shelter users. Individuals who evacuate longer distances are more likely to depart early [63] to ensure safe arrival before the storm landfall. Hypothesis H5 is not rejected. One type of noncompliance induced by the car choice could be departing early (perhaps with the first group receiving the evacuation order) to purchase more resources (such as gas). Another type of noncompliance induced by the car choice could be evacuating on their own timeframe without considering the order because bringing more vehicles indicates that a respondent may have more household members and need to bring more personal belongings [51; 55]. The mobilization time could vary because of the larger number of participants and time spent on packing/loading. Hypothesis H6 is rejected since the factor reflecting previous noncompliance is not significant in the final model. [PERSON] et al. [77] state that individuals who did not comply with an order in a previous evacuation are more likely to evacuate only when an order is issued for a storm of a higher category in the future. Their explanation is that individuals gain more confidence from their past decisions when ignoring the order and adjust their risk perceptions. That is, individuals who did not experience significant losses from choosing to stay in the storm they experienced will change their evacuate/stay decision only when they are exposed to a greater risk [77]. In our study, there is no comparison regarding the storm category between the described scenario and the respondent's past experience, which may have led to this nonsignificant result. Hypothesis H7 is not supported since the factor was not significant in the final model. The nonsignificant result might be explained by a similar reason as above--how the past experienced scenarios compare with the current scenario.