Perceptions of personal and governmental actions to improve responses to disasters such as Superstorm Sandy

Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on 29 October 2012, leaving tens of thousands homeless, businesses destroyed, and 90% of New Jersey residents without electricity. Widespread infrastructure and property damage, health-related issues, and social dislocations still remain among the challenges. We interviewed 756 people in central and coastal New Jersey to ascertain damage levels, what they would do differently next time, and what governments should do differently. To deal with future events, people thought that they should prepare, buy generators and other supplies, and evacuate sooner. Their actions dealt with preparedness, rather than recovery or resiliency. However, the subjects felt that governmental agencies also had a responsibility for emergency actions, recovery, and resiliency. Preparedness included better warnings and helping to prepare homes for the impending storm. During the storm, people thought government should have faster evacuations, communications, and provide shelter, security, and supplies. Recovery included providing gas and generators, restoring electricity, providing money, and quicker response by FEMA and insurance companies. People thought the government should ensure resiliency of their communities by allowing no beach-front homes, having better building standards, and restoring dunes. Coastal people suffered greater damage for longer, and voiced a higher sense of wanting government actions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)200-210
Number of pages11
JournalEnvironmental Hazards
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 3 2014

Fingerprint

disaster
damages
damage
electricity
dislocation
shelter
insurance company
dune
beach
infrastructure
communication
communications
money
resident
responsibility
gas
event
health
community

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Development
  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Sociology and Political Science

Keywords

  • Superstorm Sandy
  • evacuation
  • governmental responsibilities
  • perceptions
  • personal responsibilities

Cite this

@article{25885c3028aa484dbecb27ff4fe5adde,
title = "Perceptions of personal and governmental actions to improve responses to disasters such as Superstorm Sandy",
abstract = "Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on 29 October 2012, leaving tens of thousands homeless, businesses destroyed, and 90{\%} of New Jersey residents without electricity. Widespread infrastructure and property damage, health-related issues, and social dislocations still remain among the challenges. We interviewed 756 people in central and coastal New Jersey to ascertain damage levels, what they would do differently next time, and what governments should do differently. To deal with future events, people thought that they should prepare, buy generators and other supplies, and evacuate sooner. Their actions dealt with preparedness, rather than recovery or resiliency. However, the subjects felt that governmental agencies also had a responsibility for emergency actions, recovery, and resiliency. Preparedness included better warnings and helping to prepare homes for the impending storm. During the storm, people thought government should have faster evacuations, communications, and provide shelter, security, and supplies. Recovery included providing gas and generators, restoring electricity, providing money, and quicker response by FEMA and insurance companies. People thought the government should ensure resiliency of their communities by allowing no beach-front homes, having better building standards, and restoring dunes. Coastal people suffered greater damage for longer, and voiced a higher sense of wanting government actions.",
keywords = "Superstorm Sandy, evacuation, governmental responsibilities, perceptions, personal responsibilities",
author = "Joanna Burger and Michael Gochfeld",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.902801",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "200--210",
journal = "Environmental Hazards",
issn = "1747-7891",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

Perceptions of personal and governmental actions to improve responses to disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. / Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael.

In: Environmental Hazards, Vol. 13, No. 3, 03.07.2014, p. 200-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perceptions of personal and governmental actions to improve responses to disasters such as Superstorm Sandy

AU - Burger, Joanna

AU - Gochfeld, Michael

PY - 2014/7/3

Y1 - 2014/7/3

N2 - Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on 29 October 2012, leaving tens of thousands homeless, businesses destroyed, and 90% of New Jersey residents without electricity. Widespread infrastructure and property damage, health-related issues, and social dislocations still remain among the challenges. We interviewed 756 people in central and coastal New Jersey to ascertain damage levels, what they would do differently next time, and what governments should do differently. To deal with future events, people thought that they should prepare, buy generators and other supplies, and evacuate sooner. Their actions dealt with preparedness, rather than recovery or resiliency. However, the subjects felt that governmental agencies also had a responsibility for emergency actions, recovery, and resiliency. Preparedness included better warnings and helping to prepare homes for the impending storm. During the storm, people thought government should have faster evacuations, communications, and provide shelter, security, and supplies. Recovery included providing gas and generators, restoring electricity, providing money, and quicker response by FEMA and insurance companies. People thought the government should ensure resiliency of their communities by allowing no beach-front homes, having better building standards, and restoring dunes. Coastal people suffered greater damage for longer, and voiced a higher sense of wanting government actions.

AB - Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on 29 October 2012, leaving tens of thousands homeless, businesses destroyed, and 90% of New Jersey residents without electricity. Widespread infrastructure and property damage, health-related issues, and social dislocations still remain among the challenges. We interviewed 756 people in central and coastal New Jersey to ascertain damage levels, what they would do differently next time, and what governments should do differently. To deal with future events, people thought that they should prepare, buy generators and other supplies, and evacuate sooner. Their actions dealt with preparedness, rather than recovery or resiliency. However, the subjects felt that governmental agencies also had a responsibility for emergency actions, recovery, and resiliency. Preparedness included better warnings and helping to prepare homes for the impending storm. During the storm, people thought government should have faster evacuations, communications, and provide shelter, security, and supplies. Recovery included providing gas and generators, restoring electricity, providing money, and quicker response by FEMA and insurance companies. People thought the government should ensure resiliency of their communities by allowing no beach-front homes, having better building standards, and restoring dunes. Coastal people suffered greater damage for longer, and voiced a higher sense of wanting government actions.

KW - Superstorm Sandy

KW - evacuation

KW - governmental responsibilities

KW - perceptions

KW - personal responsibilities

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901064138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901064138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.902801

DO - https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.902801

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 200

EP - 210

JO - Environmental Hazards

JF - Environmental Hazards

SN - 1747-7891

IS - 3

ER -