Reducing risk-taking in disasters: Practical solutions for safer choices
When extreme weather events strike, why do some people disregard official warnings and take apparently unnecessary risks? From selling goods during a hurricane to fetching a football from a storm drain or attempting to secure a home in dangerous conditions, such actions seem irrational at first. Closer examination reveals deeper social, economic, and psychological factors at play.
In June 2024, Hurricane Beryl hit the Caribbean region hard. Forming in June, it then made landfall over multiple nations, including Grenada, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Jamaica. With peak winds reaching 165 mph (266 kmph), Beryl became the earliest recorded Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic Basin. Governments issued warnings, enforced curfews, and urged evacuations, but tragedies still occurred. Some of these could have been avoided. .
In Jamaica, several cases stand out.
- A market vendor did not want to leave her market stall, determined to sell her goods despite the approaching storm.
- A young man was washed away while trying to retrieve a football from a gully.
- A mother of two died when a tree fell on her. She had gone outside to check internet cables after disruptions to the service.
- A woman was filmed on top of her house during the hurricane, trying to hold down her roof.
Such stories spark public outrage and criticism, but they also raise an important question: Why do people take such risks?
First, understand the who and the why
Disaster response often focuses on the what, when, and where of a storm. However, to improve safety, we must also understand the who and the why - the human behaviours and motivations behind such high-risk behaviours. Several key factors might contribute:
- Skewed risk perception;
- Community bonds and social capital;
- Cognitive biases and short-term thinking;
- Survival instincts;
- Emotional coping mechanisms;
- Lack of trust in authorities.
Many people are unable to grasp the full severity of an incoming storm especially if past experiences haven't prepared them for its magnitude. Vulnerable communities may lack access to accurate forecasts or struggle to interpret complex warnings.
Evacuation shelters can feel unsafe or unwelcoming, especially in comparison to one's own home. Some people prefer to stay in familiar but risky environments.
For some, disaster response is not just about survival but also about maintaining a sense of normalcy and belonging. Recovering a football, continuing a business, or staying with neighbours provides emotional stability and support in a time of great uncertainty. Community bonds can be stronger than fear, leading people to take risks together rather than respond alone.
Humans often prioritise immediate gains over future risks, a phenomenon known as temporal discounting. The urgency of saving a roof or selling perishable goods feels more pressing than a vague, uncertain future consequence. In crisis situations, stress further clouds judgement, leading to impulsive decisions that may seem reckless to outsiders.
For the poor and marginalised, abandoning homes or livelihoods may not be an option. The need to protect one's property may be a priority, even if that means taking risks, for example. A market vendor might have invested all her savings in goods that would spoil if left unsold. A person securing a roof may see it as protecting the only shelter their family has. For some people, the greater danger is losing everything they own, so they gamble with their lives to guard it.
In moments of extreme stress, taking action - any action - can feel empowering. Holding down a roof, checking cables, or staying in a market stall provides a sense of control in an uncontrollable situation. People are often driven by the need to feel proactive rather than helpless. .
Repeated experiences of inequality, injustice, or neglect may lead to lower trust in authorities. If authorities have historically failed to protect or fairly treat vulnerable populations, then people may rely more on their own judgement than official directives. Building trust is essential for effective disaster response.
Four recommendations for improvement
Understanding why people take risks in disasters highlights the need for more inclusive, community-driven approaches. Here are three tangible recommendations:
1. Engage trusted community messengers
Instead of relying solely on top-down warnings, disaster communication should include voices from within at-risk communities. For example, enable market vendors or community leaders to act as peer messengers, sharing safety information in ways that resonate with their networks. This builds credibility and encourages compliance with the warnings. By co-opting peer messengers, authorities can bridge information gaps and reshape risk perceptions in hard-to-reach groups, improving community buy-in for evacuations and other safety measures.
2. Implement buy-back programmes for vendors' perishable goods
Many vendors risk their lives to sell goods because losing inventory means financial devastation. Local authorities could establish a buy-back programme for perishable goods before a hurricane hits. This would help vendors to recover losses while also supplying food banks for post-disaster relief efforts. By providing an economic safety net, the buy-back scheme enables vendors to choose safety without sacrificing their livelihoods. In turn, that improves overall compliance with evacuation orders.
3. Encourage the registration of vulnerable persons
A voluntary registry of vulnerable individuals (elderly people living alone, persons with disabilities, single parents in unsafe housing) enables, these individuals to be known and easily contacted, evacuated, or assisted through local networks if necessary. Such a registry ensures that those most at risk are not "invisible" - it directly improves response capacity by allowing targeted outreach when it's most needed.
4. Strengthen local community response teams
Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) in Jamaica, for example, act as first responders in the aftermath of a natural hazard event. CERTs need not be limited to traditional neighbourhoods. They could also be organised around community hubs like markets, fishing villages, or other at-risk social groups. This approach also strengthens social infrastructure and social capital at the local level, aligning with the emphasis on community and organisational support systems. It is an embodiment of the inclusive, all-of-society ethos championed in international disaster frameworks.
Reducing the levels of unnecessary risk
When extreme weather events take place, risk-taking reflects not just personal choices, but also social, economic, and psychological realities. Instead of blaming individuals for their decisions, authorities and policymakers must address the underlying factors that make risk-taking a necessity for some.
By integrating community voices, reducing financial pressures, and building trust, disaster preparedness can become more effective and inclusive.
Nicole West-Hayles is a social and behaviour change communications specialist.