The preparedness and evacuation behaviour of pet owners in emergencies and natural disasters

Abstract

This research describes the preparedness and the actual, or anticipated, evacuation behaviours of a sample of 352 pet owners in Australian who experienced a range of natural disasters or emergencies. Three quarters
experienced a bushfire or flood (42 per cent and 33 per cent respectively) and around a third (34 per cent) evacuated their homes.
Of those who evacuated, 29 per cent did so in less than one hour and 58 per cent returned within two days. Over two-thirds (69 per cent) stayed with family or friends when they evacuated. Many people evacuated with
multiple combinations of pets. The majority of those who evacuated kept some of their pets with them (81 per cent) and 15 per cent left some pets behind; either enclosed in the home, released to escape, or unable to
find/catch. Around the time of evacuation 42 per cent sought some form of immediate assistance, help or advice, with evacuation of their pets. Most turned to neighbours and friends (30 per cent), social media (9 per cent), or emergency services (8 per cent).
In general, around a third of the sample felt they were ‘not really prepared’ or were ‘unprepared’ for the emergency event. Of those who reported they were prepared, around 70 per cent had planned to keep all
their pets with them if they evacuated.
The results of this study highlight the complexity of pet composition and the requirement for detailed household evacuation planning and early enactment of plans. In addition, the need for responsible
pet ownership and pet-friendly destinations on evacuation was a clear requirement, with decisions to evacuate being influenced by this.
It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a useful reference for emergency management agencies and aid planning and engagement with pet owners.

Full text

18
I Disaster Resilient Australia: Get Ready
ABSTRACT
This research describes the preparedness
and the actual, or anticipated, evacuation
behaviours of a sample of 352 pet owners in
Australian who experienced a range of natural
disasters or emergencies. Three quarters
experienced a bushfire or flood (42per cent
and 33percent respectively) and around a
third (34percent) evacuated their homes.
Of those who evacuated, 29percent did so in
less than one hour and 58percent returned
within two days. Over two-thirds (69percent)
stayed with family or friends when they
evacuated. Many people evacuated with
multiple combinations of pets. The majority
of those who evacuated kept some of their
pets with them (81percent) and 15per cent
left some pets behind; either enclosed in
the home, released to escape, or unable to
find/catch. Around the time of evacuation
42percent sought some form of immediate
assistance, help or advice, with evacuation
of their pets. Most turned to neighbours and
friends (30percent), social media (9percent),
or emergency services (8percent).
In general, around a third of the sample
felt they were ‘not really prepared’ or were
‘unprepared’ for the emergency event. Of
those who reported they were prepared,
around 70percent had planned to keep all
their pets with them if they evacuated.
The results of this study highlight the
complexity of pet composition and the
requirement for detailed household
evacuation planning and early enactment of
plans. In addition, the need for responsible
pet ownership and pet-friendly destinations
on evacuation was a clear requirement, with
decisions to evacuate being influenced by this.
It is hoped that the results of this study will
provide a useful reference for emergency
management agencies and aid planning and
engagement with pet owners.
The preparedness and evacuation
behaviour of pet owners in
emergencies and natural disasters
Dr Melanie Taylor, Erin Lynch, Dr Penelope Burns (University of Western
Sydney), and Greg Eustace (RSPCA Queensland). •
Introduction
Much of what is known about pet owner behaviour in
emergencies in an Australian context is informed by
limited or anecdotal evidence, or media reporting of the
actions, or inactions, of individuals. In the international
disaster literature pet ownership is regarded as a risk
factor most consistently associated with evacuation
failure (Brackenridge etal. 2012, Heath, Voeks &
Glickman 2001) and linked to unsafe acts motivated by
a desire to rescue animals that have been left behind
(Heath, Voek & Glickman 2000, 2001; Zottarelli 2010).
Generally, attachment to pets is high, with many
people considering pets as members of the family
(White 2012). The strength of this attachment is
never more apparent than in the event of pet loss in
disaster, with reports of prolonged and often unnoticed
or unsupported grief (Blazina, Boyra & Shen-Miller
2011) and poor psychological outcomes, especially
in the event of forced abandonment of pets during
evacuation (Hunt, Al-Awadi & Johnson 2008). The roles
pets and other animals may play in supporting post-
emergency functioning and resilience-building are also
vital. For these reasons, as well as the implications
for public and responder safety during emergency,
it is critical that they are considered in emergency
managementplanning.
The primary emergency event, internationally, that
led to increased attention to animal emergency
management was Hurricane Katrina in 2005, in
which more than 50 000 companion animals were
abandoned and 15 000 were rescued. Irvine (2009)
provides a compelling overview of the scale of the
animal emergency management challenge and the film
‘Dark Water Rising’ (Shiley 2006) provides sobering
documentary evidence. Post Hurricane Katrina research
indicated that 44percent of non-evacuees who chose
not to evacuate did so because they didn’t want to
leave their pets. Soon after Hurricane Katrina the
United States Senate passed the Pets Evacuation and
Transportation Standards Act 2006, which requires states
seeking Federal Emergency Management Agency
assistance to make provisions for pets and service
animals in their plans.
In Australia there is no equivalent requirement. Pet
ownership levels in Australia are among the highest
in the world, with around 63percent of households

Australian Journal of Emergency Management I Volume 30, No. 2, April 2015
19
Disaster Resilient Australia: Get Ready I
owning a pet (Animal Health Alliance 2013). The need
to consider animals and their owners in emergencies
has been increasingly accepted in Australia, prompted
by large-scale disasters and reports from the 2003
ACT Bushfires Inquiry, 2011 Queensland Flood
Commission of Enquiry, the 2009 Victorian Bushfires
Royal Commission, and the 2013 Tasmania Bushfires
Enquiry. These reports all included references to the
management of animals. Many emergency services
organisations and other stakeholders involved with
emergency management and animal welfare now
have strategies and resources available to assist
animalowners.
Although the requirement to address a range of
issues associated with the management of animals
and their owners in emergencies and disasters is now
acknowledged in Australia there is a lack of systematic
data or evidence available to inform these activities.
NewZealand has a small body of research, with one
study (Glassey 2010a) reporting that a substantial
proportion of pet owners (56percent) would not
evacuate without their pets and a larger proportion
still (81percent) would be more likely to comply with
evacuation if there were evacuation shelters that could
cater for pets. This led to recommendations being
made to improve animal emergency management
(Glassey 2010b). In Australia research in this area is
currently non-existent, although there is increasing
discussion with Thompson (2013) positing that the
strong bond people have with animals could be used to
promote disaster preparedness. This current study was
undertaken to assist in addressing the gap in Australian
research. The study explores a range of issues around
Australian pet owner emergency preparedness for their
households and their pets, their actual or anticipated
evacuation behaviours in the context of an experienced
disaster or emergency, the sources of information used
to gain assistance around the time of evacuation, and
lessons identified from the experience.
Method
A questionnaire was developed to assess pet owner
characteristics, emergency and evacuation contexts,
evacuation experiences and preparedness. To meet
study inclusion criteria respondents needed to have
experienced ‘a disaster or local emergency in which they
evacuated, or considered evacuating their home’, to have
been a pet owner at the time of the disaster, and to be
aged over 18 at the time of completing the survey.
The survey was administered using the online survey-
hosting platform SurveyMonkey™. A link to the survey
with a short invitation to participate was distributed
using a combination of social media (Facebook and
Twitter), online and print media, and a University of
Western Sydney media release. The link on social
media was reposted by a number of animal rescue and
similar special interest pages. Data were collected over
an eight-week period (22 Jan – 22 Mar 2013).
The study was approved by the University of Western
Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval
No. H9993).
Data were analysed using IBM SPSS software (V.21).
Simple descriptive statistics, frequencies and cross-
tabulations, have been reported here to produce a
concise overview of the survey findings.
Results
Sample characteristics
In total, 352 pet owners met the study inclusion criteria
and are represented in the analysis. The majority of the
sample was female (89percent) and 86percent were
aged between 25 and 64 years.
Respondents came from all states and territories with
the largest groups from Queensland (51percent) New
South Wales (25percent), and Victoria (12percent).
Two-thirds of the sample lived in suburban and rural
areas (35percent and 32percent respectively).
Pet ownership
Respondents were asked about the composition of their
pet ownership and their attitudes to their pets. At the
time of the emergency, 79percent of respondents
owned one or more dogs and 49percent owned one or
more cats. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the
numbers of pets owned by respondents.
Figure 1 shows the complexity of household pet
ownership. In total, only 18percent of respondents
owned one pet; the majority of those (72percent)
owning a dog. Just over a quarter (26percent)
owned only one animal type, but multiples of them,
and the remainder (57percent) owned multiple
types of animal. A small proportion of respondents
(4percent) were running animal-related home-based
businesses or enterprises that involved large numbers
of animals. These were mostly breeding or rescue and
rehoming enterprises, and a few respondents were
wildlifecarers.
Overwhelmingly, pet owners felt a high degree of
responsibility for their pets and a strong attachment to
them (with mean ratings of 9.84 and 9.76, respectively
on 10-point scales for each). Most respondents strongly
agreed that they considered pets to be part of the
family (86percent), that their pets made them happy
(86percent), and that they were great companions
(88percent).
Disaster and evacuation contexts
As data in this study do not relate to a single specific
disaster or emergency event, evacuation behaviours are
reported in relation to a range of hazard types. Figure2
summarises the disaster and emergency situations
encountered by respondents and their pets, i.e. the
single event about which they provided information in
the survey. This figure also includes data on the
proportions that did/didn’t evacuate in that event.
With regard to the timing of these events, more than
half (56percent) occurred since 2011, and more than
70percent since 2009. Most respondents provided
0 20 40 60 80 100
Four or more
Three
Two
One
Reptiles
Small mammals
Fish
Birds
Horses
Dogs
Cats
Proportion of respondents (%)
Figure 1: Pet ownership composition at the time of the disaster.
Figure 2: Disaster and emergency situations reported by respondents and the proportions that did/didn’t evacuate.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Did not evacuate
Evacuated
Other
Local emergency
Cyclone
Flood
Bushfire
Proportion of respondents (%)

Australian Journal of Emergency Management I Volume 30, No. 2, April 2015
20
I Disaster Resilient Australia: Get Ready
Figure 1: Pet ownership composition at the time of the disaster.
details of the events they experienced, with the 2011
southeast Queensland floods, 2011 Tropical Cyclone
Yasi, 2013 Bundaberg floods, and 2009 Black Saturday
bushfires mentioned most frequently.
In response to these events, 31percent of respondents
evacuated with their entire household, 6percent
partially evacuated, 36percent prepared to evacuate
but didn’t actually go, and 27percent didn’t evacuate
or prepare to evacuate. Of those who reported that they
were advised by authorities to evacuate (31percent)
70percent did so.
Just over a quarter of respondents (27percent)
had less than three hours to evacuate. As would be
expected, the hazard type influenced the amount of
time available to evacuate; 60percent of those who
experienced a local emergency and 23percent of
those who experienced a bushfire had less than one
hour to evacuate, whereas of those who experienced
flood, 18percent had between three hours to a day to
evacuate, and 24percent of those who experienced a
cyclone had more than a day.
Over a half of respondents who evacuated (58percent)
were away from home for less than two days, and a fifth
were unable to return for two-five days (21percent),
or more than five days (21percent). Again, the
hazard type influenced how long participants were
away from home. Approximately two-thirds of those
who evacuated due to bushfire or cyclone were able
to return in less than two days (67percent and
64percent, respectively) compared to only 37percent
who experienced flood. Flood-impacted pet owners
Figure 2: Disaster and emergency situations reported by respondents and the proportions that did/didn’t evacuate.

Australian Journal of Emergency Management I Volume 30, No. 2, April 2015
21
Disaster Resilient Australia: Get Ready I
were the most likely to be away from home for more
than five days (34percent) compared to those who
experienced bushfire and cyclone (14percent and
sevenpercent respectively).
Evacuation experiences
A total of 122 respondents evacuated (fully or partially)
and data in this section relate to this subsample.
When people evacuated their homes many things
happened to their pets. Figure 3 summarises what
happened to the animals.
Respondents were asked why some pets weren’t
evacuated with them. Comments included respondents
not being able to catch or contain them, being told
by emergency services personnel that they could not
take their pets with them at the time of evacuation, or
that they wouldn’t be able to take them to evacuation
centres, that it was too hard to take them, that they had
died, and that there were too many to take.
Over two-thirds of respondents who evacuated
stayed with family or friends (69percent), and
smaller proportions stayed at an evacuation shelter
(fivepercent), hotel/guest house (fourpercent) or
showground/campsite (threepercent). Those who
stayed elsewhere (18percent) mentioned staying
in cars/utes, with neighbours, and at schools or
workplaces; some reporting they stayed in cars
because evacuation shelters wouldn’t accept pets.
When asked about how owning pets influenced
evacuation, significant proportions of the sample
strongly agreed or agreed that having pets influenced
where they went after evacuation (81percent), their
decision about whether to evacuate (72percent),
increased the stress of evacuation (68percent), and
the mode of transport they used (66percent). In
addition, having pets influenced the number of trips
made to and from home during evacuation (54percent)
and slowed down the speed of evacuation (43percent).
Preparedness
Those who evacuated were also asked if they contacted
anyone for immediate assistance (help or information)
with evacuation of their pets. More than half
(58percent) contacted no one, 30percent contacted
neighbours or friends, ninepercent asked for help
via social media, eightpercent contacted emergency
services, and the same proportion contacted local
council, local veterinary clinics and online sources for
help, (sixpercent for each).
Respondents were asked to reflect and report on how
prepared they felt they were prior to the disaster/
emergency event. Figure 4 summarises these data.
When asked about consideration of pets in evacuation
planning, high proportions of those who reported
being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ prepared had considered all
their pets (96percent and 87percent respectively).
Similarly, most owners planned to keep ‘all’ their pets
with them when they evacuated (74percent), a further
21percent planned to keep some with them and take
others to a different location, and only onepercent did
not plan to take their pets.
Discussion
This study provided details of pet owner experiences
during Australian emergency events; their
preparedness, and their actions. It is clear that
household pet composition is often complex, with the
majority owning multiple animals of multiple types.
In a disaster or emergency situation this translates
to complex evacuation scenarios, with different
Figure 3: What happened to pets when households evacuated.
Note: due to the complex composition of pet ownership respondents could select multiple categories.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Unprepared
(had not considered it)
Not really prepared
(thought about it, but nothing
definite or discussed)
Somewhat prepared
(thought about it and had
discussed with household)
Very prepared
(written plan, most things considered
and discussed with household)
Proportion of respondents (%)
Figure 4: Reported level of preparedness prior to the disaster/emergency.

Australian Journal of Emergency Management I Volume 30, No. 2, April 2015
22
I Disaster Resilient Australia: Get Ready
pets with different needs; practical considerations,
transportation, and destinations. With a third of the
sample reporting they were unprepared before the
disaster, this emphasises the need for higher levels of
preparedness, planning, and discussion.
The experiences reported in this study suggest that
certain hazards are more likely to result in different
challenges for pet owners. Time to evacuate is likely
to be shorter for bushfires and local emergencies,
requiring unimpeded execution of evacuation plans,
whereas time away from home is likely to be longer
in the context of flood, meaning that the probability of
leaving pets at home with food for a few days is less
likely to be an acceptable strategy.
Clearly all disasters are different and official advice
should still remain as ‘be prepared, act early, be
considerate and act safe’ (Australian Government 2014).
However, the reality is that animals do get left behind.
In this study approximately 15percent of the sample
left some animals at home either because they were
deliberately left in the home or they were released to
escape, or they could not be caught. Perhaps more
concerning is that comments indicate some households
only partially evacuated so that they could leave
someone behind to take care of the animals whilst the
rest of the household evacuated.
The influence of pets on decision-making and the
process of evacuation cannot be underestimated.
Datafrom this study indicates that for the vast majority
of pet owners their pets influence where they go
and their decision to evacuate. In addition, pets may
determine the mode of transport they use, the time
it takes to leave, the number of trips that are needed,
and increases the overall stress of evacuation. Even
with these encumbrances pet owners will still take
risks to take, or go back and get, their animals.
The consequences of not taking such action are too
unbearable to contemplate for many.
Finally, the importance of family and friends to help
support evacuees with pets is highlighted in this study.
No doubt this is an important resource for all those
who need to leave their homes in an emergency.
However, pet-friendly destinations are a necessity for
pet owners. Most people plan to take their pets if they
evacuate and do take their pets with them. If options
are not available to accommodate pets then owners will
either sleep in cars or other makeshift places, or will
simply decide not to evacuate.
Strengths and limitations
This study provides useful Australian data to inform
those involved in the management of animals and their
owners in disasters and emergencies. The sample
size is sufficiently large to provide confidence in the
Image: The Newcastle Herald. Permission granted.
A Newcastle firefighter reunites owner and his pet.
Understandably, emotional attachments influence the
decision-making and evacuation actions of people.
Figure 4: Reported level of preparedness prior to the disaster/emergency.
Image: The Newcastle Herald. Permission granted.
A Newcastle firefighter reunites owner and his pet.
Understandably, emotional attachments influence the
decision-making and evacuation actions of people.

Australian Journal of Emergency Management I Volume 30, No. 2, April 2015
23
Disaster Resilient Australia: Get Ready I
data across a range of different hazards and provide
insights into pet owner levels of preparedness for
their pets, the rationale for their decision-making, and
their priorities and considerations for evacuation and
relocation. However, the study also has limitations. The
sampling strategy for the study was uncontrolled and
self-selected, which can result in biases and cannot
be considered representative of all pet owners. Clearly
many respondents were extremely attached to, and
passionate about, their pets; ‘animal lovers’ more than
simply ‘animal owners’. However, from an emergency
management perspective such people are important,
as these are the people most motivated to protect
their pets and potentially the most likely to take risks
to evacuate with them and return for them. It is also
clear that most pet owners consider their pets as part
of the family (Glassey 2010a) and data in this study does
not differ significantly to suggest this sample is more
biased in this regard. Pet ownership is, in most part, an
optional undertaking. Therefore it should be expected
that the majority of pet owners will feel committed and
attached to their animals.
Conclusion
This study has provided a snapshot of Australian pet
owners and their behaviours in, and preparedness for,
emergencies. The findings of the study should inform
planning by emergency management agencies and
other stakeholders, on the behaviours and expectations
of pet owners, on animal management needs in
evacuation centre planning, and on future community
engagement campaigns.
References
Animal Health Alliance 2013, Pet ownership in Australia
2013 Summary. Canberra. At: http://petsinaustralia.com.au/
wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2013-
Summary-ONLINE-VER.pdf.
Australian Government 2014, Attorney-General’s Department,
Australian Emergency Management Institute. Pets in
Emergencies Action Guide. At: www.em.gov.au/Documents/
Action_Guide_Pets.pdf.
Brackenridge S, Zottarelli LK, Rider E & Carlsen-Landy B
2012, Dimensions of the human-animal bond and evacuation
decisions among pet owners during Hurricane Ike. Anthrozoos,
vol 25(2), pp.229-38.
Blazina C, Boyraz G & Shen-Miller D 2011, The Psychology
of the Human-Animal Bond: A Resource for Clinicians and
Researchers. Springer, New York, NY.
Fritz Institute 2006, Hurricane Katrina: perceptions of the
affected. San Francisco, CA. At: www.fritzinstitute.org/PDFs/
findings/HurricaneKatrina_Perceptions.pdf.
Glassey S 2010a, Pet owner emergency preparedness and
perceptions survey report: Taranaki and Wellington Regions.
Wellington: Mercalli Disaster Management Consulting.
Glassey S 2010b, Recommendations to enhance companion
animal emergency management in NewZealand. Wellington:
Mercalli Disaster Management Consulting. At: http://
training.fema.gov/hiedu/docs/glassey%20-%20report-
recommendations%20to%20enhance%20companion%20
animal%20em%20in%20nz.pdf.
Heath SE, Voeks SK & Glickman LT 2000, A study of pet rescue
in two disasters. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, vol. 18(3), pp.361-81.
Heath SE, Voeks SK & Glickman LT 2001, Epidemiologic
features of pet evacuation failure in a rapid-onset disaster.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218,
pp.1898–1904.
Hunt M, Al-Awadi H & Johnson M 2008, Psychological sequelae
of pet loss following Hurricane Katrina. Anthrozoos, 21(2),
pp.109–121.
Irvine L 2009, Filling the ark: animal welfare in disasters.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Shiley M 2006, Dark Water Rising: Survival stories of Hurricane
Katrina Animal Rescues. Shidog Films, US.
Thompson K 2013, Save me, save my dog: Increasing natural
disaster preparedness and survival by addressing human-animal
relationships. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(1),
pp.123–136.
White S 2012, Companion Animals, Natural Disasters and the
Law: An Australian Perspective. Animals, vol. 2(3), p. 380.
Zottarelli LK 2010, Broken Bond: An Exploration of Human
Factors Associated with Companion Animal Loss During
Hurricane Katrina. Sociology Forum, vol. 25(1), pp.110-22.
About the authors
Dr Melanie Taylor is an occupational psychologist
working in risk perception and risk-related behaviour,
with a focus on disasters and mass events of
significance to national security, such as terrorism,
pandemic, and emergency animal diseases.
Dr Penelope Burns is a general practitioner and
a researcher working in disaster medicine with a
particular interest in physical and mental health in the
recovery.
Greg Eustace is an expert in emergency management
and the psychosocial impacts of disasters with
experience in animal management in emergencies.
Erin Lynch was a final year science student employed
on a UWS scholarship to work on this project. Erin has
experience of animal evacuation in cyclone shelters in
the Cayman Islands and she is a WIRES volunteer.
Melanie, Penelope and Greg are currently involved in
a Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research
Centre project ‘Managing Animals in Disasters:
Improving preparedness, response, and resilience
through individual and organisational collaboration’.