Disaster-Prone, But Still a Home: Florida's Community Response to Hurricane Milton and Why People Stay in Climate Danger Zones

During the night of October 9th, Hurricane Milton struck at Siesta Key and passed over the Florida peninsula before dispersing over the Atlantic. The Category 3 hurricane was “qualified as a 1-in-a-1000-year rainfall event”, with one region getting 5.09 inches of rainfall in an hour - an amount the National Weather Service deemed as having approximately a 0.1% chance of happening in any given year. Additionally, the hurricane caused the formation of 46 tornadoes between the 8th and 9th of October, setting a new record regarding modern-era tornado outbreaks. At least 24 deaths were recorded from the hurricane’s damages.

Even though authorities issued mandatory evacuation orders for 15 counties in Florida - with their combined population totalling 7.2 million - only 80,000 of these people spent their nights in shelters, and thousands of others fled. Many residents decided to brave the hurricane by remaining in their homes.

With the high level of threat that scientists predicted Milton posed to the population, the fact that so few fled to evacuation centres and elsewhere begs a question as old as time: why do people remain in disaster-prone regions?

Last month, I volunteered in a city a stone’s throw away from the infamous Mount Vesuvius in Southern Italy, and during my time there, this idea was always at the back of my mind. When I asked the locals about how they felt living near the volcano and whether they ever feared its eruption, one of them told me that he barely notices it and has never thought to visit it up close (there are several hiking trails on the mountain). When families have lived there for generations, owning businesses, building homes, and forming close-knit communities, it is no wonder why any potential threat becomes only a small part of the everyday experience. Additionally, eruptions, earthquakes, and floods are relatively common in the region and have been for centuries. However, there are other factors — such as Vesuvius being one of the most well-monitored volcanoes in the world — which increase the locals’ confidence and contentment in remaining there.

When disaster does strike, monitoring provides crucial advanced warning, but when it comes to safe-guarding local communities, factors such as whether people have the means to flee, whether they have a place to flee to, and how long — if ever — will it take to return home are more relevant. 

I was initially shocked by the sheer amount of people that stayed when scientists were predicting that Milton would pose a once-in-a-century-level threat, and if you are reading this, perhaps you were too. I will be discussing exactly that below, and following it up with what could be done to improve evacuation tactics and ensure community safety in a world that will see increasing levels of natural disasters due to the changing climate.

Many scholars and journalists alike have noted several reasons for remaining in areas of risk, particularly regarding evacuation. The most recurring ones include: 

• The cost of evacuating (that of petrol, food, accommodation, etc., and being able to afford them for an undetermined amount of time)
• Lack of evacuation centres, and inadequate facilities in these centres (oftentimes, they are overcrowded and food requirements may not be accommodated for those with health- or faith-related dietary restrictions)
• Physical ability (particularly those with disabilities, the elderly, or other vulnerable populations having to travel long distances, and the accessibility of centres themselves)
• And pet care (whether pets are allowed in centres or — in the worst case scenario — must be left behind). 

Other notable factors are the fear of permanent displacement, mistrust in the government, challenges regarding packing, and risk perception. 

The latter is a factor that might not immediately come to mind, as when you receive a warning the thing to do is to heed it. The reality is more nuanced, and, as I found from talking to locals of Southern Italy, when someone has previously remained at home during a disaster and did not experience much damage or distress, they are likely to remain the next time a warning is issued. Risk perception also differs depending on gender, with MacPherson-Krutsky citing one study where women were twice as likely as men to evacuate when a mandatory evacuation was given.

Tying all the above barriers to evacuation, MacPherson-Krutsky accurately noted that, ultimately, it all boils down to the “belief that evacuating is better than staying put”, and the current state of evacuation strategies and infrastructures in the majority of the world do not make this so.

Referring back to Hurricane Milton, one of the prevalent barriers felt was the lack of evacuation centres, with Assistant Professor Cara Cuite noting in an article that many shelters, hotels, and rentals were still full from evacuations undertaken during Hurricane Helene two weeks prior. This fact interestingly brings into play not just the intensity of natural disasters — which dictates how many people would need to flee — but also the frequency of them. This in turn brings attention to the need for appropriate support for displaced people, so they may leave centres as soon as possible.

Drawing on research undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Natural Hazards Center, some ways to reduce barriers to evacuation and shelter use are: 

• Building more shelters that are strong and can accommodate those with disabilities or other special needs to protect vulnerable populations
• Providing shelters that may accommodate pets
• Improving public education on the matter so people know their options
• Giving clearer risk communications that relate the threat to past ones so locals can make informed decisions
• And planning responses in advance to account for the needs of diverse communities.

The future does look hopeful as studies exist outlining frameworks of disaster prevention (see here for an example regarding cultural and natural heritage, but its fundamental principles and findings can be widely applicable), and international bodies like the EU are taking steps to share knowledge of risk assessment, resilience, and management between countries on the European continent in hopes of improving disaster prevention and response. 

However, if disaster response strategies are to be effective, they must recognise that evacuation is a “whole community” effort. One action governments could take to accomplish this is to directly engage and support civil society groups, as these already support the government — both in spreading critical information and during evacuation processes — and they are the ones on the ground assisting communities in the most difficult times. Another way to achieve this is recognising diversity within localities, and taking steps to provide appropriate and sufficient facilities. These measures can make it possible for people to feel safer in shelters than at home when disaster comes knocking at their doors.