Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

If you love it, let it go: the role of home attachment in wildfire evacuation decisions

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evacuation is the preferred method in the U.S. for preserving public safety in wildfire. However, alternatives such as staying and defending are used both in North America and Australia. Dangerous delays in the decision to evacuate are also common. One contributor to the evacuation decision is attachment to the home, however, little research has examined its role in evacuation decisions. We explored the role of home attachment in the evacuation decision and the effectiveness of communication and other cues in motivating safer, more decisive response actions. Using an online sample (n = 268), we conducted a 3 (information) × 2 (physical cue) experimental design. We hypothesized that higher home attachment would increase intentions to stay and defend the home, or to wait and see before making the decision to evacuate. We also hypothesized that the effect of information and cues on behavioral intentions would be conditional on residents’ attachment to their home. Surprisingly, with high attachment, defense benefit information and the presence of physical cues decreased waiting intentions. With low attachment, defense benefit information increased waiting intentions and cues had no effect. Our findings suggest that caution should be used when communicating about the benefits of home defense in isolation, as this may motivate decision delays.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adam C, Gaudou B (2017) Modelling human behaviours in disasters from interviews: application to Melbourne bushfires. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 20(3):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adam C, Bailly C, Dugdale J (2018) Communication during bushfires, towards a serious game for a serious matter: communication during bushfires. Int J Inf Syst Crisis Response Manag IJISCRAM 10(2):79–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agee JK (1996) Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton CE, Lawrence C (2016) Does place attachment predict wildfire mitigation and preparedness? A comparison of wildland–urban interface and rural communities. Environ Manag 57(1):148–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascher T, Wilson RS, Toman E (2013) The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland-urban interface residents. Int J Wildland Fire 22(3):267–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbero R, Abatzoglou JT, Larkin NK, Kolden CA, Stocks B (2015) Climate change presents increased potential for very large forest fires in the contiguous United States. Int J Wildland Fire 24(7):892–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claims Journal (2015) Top 10 states as risk for wildfires in 2015. Claims Journal. http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2015/04/29/263100.htm. Retrieved 29 May 2015

  • Cohn PJ, Carroll MS, Kumagai Y (2006) Evacuation behavior during wildfires: results of three case studies. West J Appl For 21(1):39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cova TJ, Drews FA, Siebeneck LK, Musters A (2009) Protective actions in wildfires: evacuate or shelter-in-place? Nat Hazards Rev 10(4):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Radeloff VC (2009) Demographic trends, the wildland-urban interface, and wildfire management. Soc Nat Resour 22(8):777–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes K, Handmer J, McAneney J, Tibbits A, Coates L (2010) Australian bushfire fatalities 1900-2008: exploring trends in relation to the ‘Prepare, stay and defend or leave early’ policy. Environ Sci Policy 13(3):185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S, Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu H, Siebeneck LK (2012) Household evacuation decision making in response to Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards Rev 13(4):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakes P, Kruger L, Monroe M, Nelson K, Sturtevant V (2007) Improving wildfire preparedness: lessons from communities across the US. Hum Ecol Rev 14(2):188–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson PO, Neyman J (1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Stat Res Mem 1:57–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BS, Stedman RC (2001) Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. J Environ Psychol 21(3):233–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1982) The psychology of preferences. Sci Am 246(1):160–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey MJ, Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinateder M (2019) Cognitive biases within decision making during fire evacuations. Fire Technol 55(2):465–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyle GT, Theodori GL, Absher JD, Jun J (2010) The influence of home and community attachment on firewise behavior. Soc Nat Resour 23(11):1075–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Lu J, Prater CS (2005) Household decision making and evacuation in response to Hurricane Lili. Nat Hazards Rev 6(4):171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SM (2004) Thinking of wildfire as a natural hazard. Soc Nat Resour 17(6):509–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SM (2015) Community wildfire preparedness: a global state-of-the-knowledge summary of social science research. Curr For Rep 1(2):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SM, Rhodes A (2009) Public response to wildfire: is the Australian “Stay and Defend or Leave Early” approach an option for wildfire management in the United States? J For 107(1):9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SM, Rhodes A, Stidham M (2015) Wildfire evacuation and its alternatives: perspectives from four United States’ communities. Int J Wildland Fire 24(2):170–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SM, Winter G (2011) Understanding homeowner preparation and intended actions when threatened by a wildfire. In: Proceedings of the second conference on the human dimensions of wildland fire, pp 88–95

  • McCaffrey S, Wilson R, Konar A (2018) Should I stay or should I go now? Or should I wait and see? Influences on wildfire evacuation decisions. Risk Anal 38(7):1390–1404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee TK, Nation MO, Christianson AC (2019) Residents’ wildfire evacuation actions in Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation, Ontario, Canada. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 33:266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLennan J, Elliott G, Omodei M (2012) Householder decision-making under imminent wildfire threat: stay and defend or leave? Int J Wildland Fire 21(7):915–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mclennan J, Cowlishaw S, Paton D, Beatson R, Elliott G (2014) Predictors of south-eastern Australian householders’ strengths of intentions to self-evacuate if a wildfire threatens: two theoretical models. Int J Wildland Fire 23(8):1176–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLennan J, Paton D, Beatson R (2015a) Psychological differences between south-eastern Australian householders’ who intend to leave if threatened by a wildfire and those who intend to stay and defend. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 11:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLennan J, Paton D, Wright L (2015b) At-risk householders’ responses to potential and actual bushfire threat: an analysis of findings from seven Australian post-bushfire interview studies 2009–2014. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:319–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLennan J, Ryan B, Bearman C, Toh K (2019) Should we leave now? Behavioral factors in evacuation under wildfire threat. Fire Technol 55(2):487–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin IM, Bender HW, Raish C (2008) Making the decision to mitigate risk. In: Martin WE, Raish C, Kent B (eds) Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management implications. Earthscan, London, pp 117–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinuzzi S, Stewart SI, Helmers DP, Mockrin MH, Hammer RB, Radeloff VC (2015) The 2010 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States. In: Research Map NRS-8. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 124 p.[includes pull-out map]., 8, pp. 1–124.

  • Teague B. McLeod R, Pascoe S (2010) 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Final Report.

  • McNeill IM, Dunlop PD, Skinner TC, Morrison DL (2015) Predicting delay in residents’ decisions on defending v. evacuating through antecedents of decision avoidance. Int J Wildland Fire 24(2):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paveglio TB, Carroll MS, Jakes PJ (2010) Alternatives to evacuation during wildland fire: exploring adaptive capacity in one Idaho community. Environ Hazards 9(4):379–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes A (2005) Stay or go: what do people think of the choice. In: Australasian fire authorities and bushfire CRC conference

  • Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1(1):7–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tibbits A, Whittaker J (2007) Stay and defend or leave early: policy problems and experiences during the 2003 Victorian bushfires. Environ Hazards 7(4):283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker J, Handmer J (2010) Community bushfire safety: a review of post-Black Saturday research. Aust J Emerg Manag 25(4):7–13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Hugh D. Walpole & Robyn S. Wilson

  2. Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 240 West Prospect, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, USA

    Sarah M. McCaffrey

Authors
  1. Hugh D. Walpole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robyn S. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah M. McCaffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugh D. Walpole.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walpole, H.D., Wilson, R.S. & McCaffrey, S.M. If you love it, let it go: the role of home attachment in wildfire evacuation decisions. Environ Syst Decis 40, 29–40 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09741-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09741-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation