Search results

Changing climate dynamics have resulted in a confluence of disaster events to which Louisiana government leaders and emergency managers have never before had to respond simultaneously: a global pandemic and an “epidemic” of landfalling hurricanes during the 2020 season (eight cones over Louisiana) with challenging, unusual characteristics: (1) two hurricanes passing over the same location within 36 hours, a fujiwhara – Hurricanes Marco and Laura, (2) 150 mile-per-hour winds inadequately forecasted and of an almost unprecedented speed, (3) a difficult to forecast surge magnitude that led to incorrect immediate response, (4) delayed long-term recovery efforts from responders outside of the area because of initial reporting errors regarding surge heights and wind speed, and (5) a storm, Zeta, that passed directly over a densely populated area that would have been hard hit by rain if the storm had slowed. In addition, the number and closeness in dates of storm occurrences led to lengthy coastal high-water levels. To these co-occurring threats forecasters, state and local officials and residents responded with expertise and commitment, adhering to close collaboration, modifying evacuations and undertaking protective measures, all contributing to a low death rate from storms and a modest death rate from COVID. More just outcomes were supported by the general capacity of the responders, commitment to keep the residents informed about both risks and appropriate responses to them and the provision of special services, calculated for the new situation of the pandemic and the storm epidemic, for those without the means to respond adequately to both.

Purpose – This study explores the relationship between federal, state, and local governments in regard to evacuation policies. The issue of evacuation enforcement by force is explored from a practical as well as moral perspective, and the overarching question of whether mandatory evacuation policy is merely symbolic is examined. Last, implications of policy making for vulnerable and marginalized populations is explored, and the question of whether criminalization of failure to comply with evacuation orders carries ill effects for certain segments of the population is examined.

Design/methodology/approach – This chapter first evaluates the legal logistics and policy foundation of evacuation orders at the national and state level. The chapter then explores the implications for local governments, notably first responders in implementing evacuation policy. Finally, policy recommendations related to improvements to existing evacuation policy for all levels of government are offered.

Findings – There is a gap in public policy between the expectations of the federal government and the implementation of evacuation policy at the local and state level. Policy and law changes that improve the ability of local governments to more effectively warn communities about the risks of noncompliance should occur in a way that minimizes the social disparities inherent in existing policy schemes.

Originality/value of paper – Evacuation policy is often considered as an afterthought to disaster planning and does not rise to the top of any government agenda until after a catastrophic event. This chapter encourages policy makers to be more proactive in developing evacuation policy that capitalizes on the effects of federalism to minimize the risks associated with natural and human-caused hazards.

Agricultural and fishery disasters are rather obscure emergency management research topics. However, the Food and Agriculture Sector is one of only 16 critical infrastructure sectors included in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and the sector is a vital component of the United States economy. As climate change continues to increase the frequency and severity of agricultural and fishery disasters, the Food and Agricultural Sector must adapt to and cope with unprecedented levels of risk. This chapter provides an overview of federal agricultural and fishery disaster policy and explores whether such policies are consistent with Jerroleman’s (2019)principles of just recovery.