Natural hazards such as floods and fires have become recurrent occurrences in recent years, causing significant impacts on society, the economy, and security worldwide. These severe traumatic events have become almost daily, affecting people’s behavior, psychology, emotions, spirits, attitudes, and values throughout the disaster management cycle from prevention to recovery. This study aims to review the literature on the human and psychosocial factors associated with natural hazard impacts, with a focus on floods and fires’ impacts on adult survivors. The paper also examines the crisis response management while considering the availability of successful evacuation plans and transport-related decisions, as well as emphasizing the importance of conceptualizing new technologies in disaster management. One of the significant findings from the literature review is that natural hazards can have long-lasting effects on survivors’ psychosocial well-being. Survivors may experience post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and other emotional and mental health issues, which can affect their daily lives, relationships, and overall quality of life. In addition, the study highlights the importance of successful evacuation plans and transport-related decisions in crisis response management. Effective and efficient transportation systems can facilitate timely evacuations, reduce congestion, and increase the chances of survivors reaching safety. However, there is an urgent need for additional cohort or longitudinal studies to focus on psychosocial interventions following floods and fires to better understand how to support survivors. Such studies can provide insights into effective strategies and interventions for improving survivors’ psychosocial well-being and enhancing their overall recovery process

• Human factors
• Psychosocial impact
• Evacuation decision-making process
• Technological advancements

Kioskli K, Tsirimpa A, Polydoropoulou A (2025) Human and Psychosocial Factors Associated With Natural Hazard Impacts and Crisis Re- sponse, Management, and Transportation: A Narrative Literature Review. J Behav 8(1): 1025.

In recent years, the recurrent destructive natural disasters (or natural hazard impacts) occurring worldwide have had a significant impact on society, the economy, and security. Natural disasters are natural processes within ecosystems that can lead to instability in socio- economic systems and disparities in the supply and demand of societal resources. The literature classifies natural disasters into six categories: biological, geological, environmental pollution disasters, fire, meteorological disasters, and marine disasters [1].

The European Commission (EC) regularly monitors natural and manmade disasters and their impact on the EU. It supports Member States in implementing appropriate measures through various policies and recommendations,such as the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. According to European formal statistics, floods accounted for 41% of all weather-related disasters recorded in Europe between 2001 and 2020, followed by storms at 27%, and extreme temperatures at 23%, which have intensified wildfires in the Mediterranean in recent years. While climate change plays a role in exacerbating these natural hazards and wildfires, manmade factors—such as land cover changes, land misuse, continuous urbanization and development in hazardous areas, lack of planning, and limited awareness— are the most significant contributors.

The impact of these disasters is substantial, affecting local economies, environments, cultural heritage, and, most importantly, people’s lives and well-being. Between 1980 and 2020, natural disasters impacted more than 50 million EU citizens and cost EU countries over €12 billion annually. Today, research on natural hazard impacts is gaining attention, particularly regarding the short- and long-term psychological effects on individuals. Current research efforts focus on collecting and analyzing data to better identify and classify human factors and impacts during and after disasters, with the goal of optimizing actions and harmonizing risk management practices. Policies such as the EU Flood Directive and the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015– 2030 aim to minimize the impact of such disasters.

In emergencies like natural disasters, emergency evacuation involves rapidly moving people to safe zones. This process must be conducted effectively [2]. Even if the initial impact of an event seems minor, its escalation can lead to casualties and broader consequences. Thus, promptly evacuating citizens from affected areas is critical [3]. Emergency evacuation is a complex, systematic issue involving organization, behavioral factors, First Responders (FRs), logistics, and transportation preferences, among other elements [1]. Effective emergency evacuation is crucial to mitigating disasters and safeguarding people’s lives and property.

Natural hazard impacts are severe traumatic events experienced almost daily. Whether natural or manmade, their effects on individuals and society are multidimensional [4]. Among the most significant impacts are psychosocial symptoms such as anxiety, depression, grief, and stress [5]. These effects are often prolonged and exacerbated by disrupted daily activities and social support networks, property loss, and forced relocation [6]. Following a natural hazard impact, acute reactions often give way to chronic psychological and psychiatric conditions that require ongoing management and behavioral interventions [7].

Long-term psychosocial impacts of natural hazards include clinical depression, post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance abuse. Previous studies have also documented decreased quality of life among affected populations [8,9]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines quality of life as “individuals’ perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns” (WHO, 1995). After natural disasters, the quality of life largely depends on the level of psychosocial and psychiatric impairment experienced by individuals [10]. As psychosocial and psychiatric issues become more evident, quality of life declines [11].

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the human and psychosocial factors associated with natural hazard impacts, with a specific focus on human factors related to floods and fires among adult survivors. It also examines crisis response management, evacuation processes, and transportation-related decisions. Previous literature, such as the work by [12], has empirically explored survivor groups, including adults, children, and recovery workers. Other studies [13,14], have concentrated on specific mental health impacts, such as PTSD.

The most recent integrative review on this topic was conducted by Warsini et al [4], exploring the psychosocial impacts of natural hazards. Given the developments in this field, it is timely to undertake an updated and enriched review. A narrative review has been selected over a systematic one for this study due to its flexibility. Narrative reviews allow for a broader exploration of sources and data, incorporating diverse perspectives and methodologies, leading to richer insights and a more nuanced understanding of the research topic. This approach is particularly suitable for addressing the complex and interdisciplinary research questions investigated in this paper.

This paper proceeds as follows: it begins with an explanation of the methodology used and explores the psychosocial factors and psychological impacts of natural hazards. It provides an overview of psychosocial assessments for natural hazards and complex environmental emergencies and discusses the importance of Emergency Decision Making (EDM) in natural hazard impacts. It analyzes evacuation plans, transportation logistics, and the role of First Responders (FRs) in the contexts of floods and fires. It reviews behavioral models related to floods and fires in the literature and proposes ways to leverage new technologies in disaster management. Finally, it presents the conclusions.

This paper has been designed as a narrative review to provide a comprehensive summary and synthesis of the published literature on this topic. Unlike systematic reviews or meta-analyses, which follow a predefined and structured protocol for searching and selecting articles, the methodology for conducting a narrative review is more flexible. This allows for a broader exploration of the subject matter and the inclusion of diverse sources and perspectives.

To ensure the integrative nature of our narrative review, we followed several key steps: First, we defined the research question or topic of interest to focus on identifying the human and psychosocial factors associated with natural hazard impacts, as well as crisis response, management, and transportation. Next, we conducted a comprehensive search of the literature by utilizing databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We employed relevant keywords and subject terms (e.g., psychological factors, social factors, human factors, AND natural hazard impacts, natural disasters) to locate articles pertinent to the research question Following the search, we screened and selected articles based on their relevance to the topic. This process involved reviewing the titles, abstracts, and full texts of potential articles to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the review. Once the articles were selected, we summarized and synthesized the findings by analyzing them in detail to identify key themes, concepts, and insights. This involved extracting the main findings from each article and synthesizing the information to create a cohesive understanding of the topic. Finally, we organized the findings into a coherent narrative that presents the key concepts, themes, and findings of the literature review in a structured and logical manner.

It is important to note that this narrative review is not intended to serve as a systematic or exhaustive analysis of the literature. Instead, it offers a broad overview of the existing research on this topic, highlighting the main concepts, themes, and findings while allowing for the inclusion of a wider range of sources and data. This approach provides valuable insights into the field and facilitates a nuanced understanding of the topic at hand.

Psychosocial Factors and Psychological Impact of Natural Hazard Impacts

Research in the growing field of natural hazard impacts on behavioral health has increasingly focused on psychological and social factors, as well as their influence on preparation, response, and recovery from traumatic events. It is evident that certain psychosocial factors serve as risk predictors for negative psychological outcomes during the pre-event period. These risk factors include demographic characteristics such as gender (higher risk for females), socioeconomic status (higher risk for individuals with lower status), and ethnicity (higher risk for marginalized minorities) [15]. Psychiatric history and pre-disaster functioning are also strong predictors of post-disaster symptoms. A history of psychiatric diagnosis before the disaster is positively associated with post-disaster PTSD, while a history of substance abuse or trauma further increases the risk of negative psychological outcomes. Additionally, disabilities and long-term health conditions elevate the likelihood of psychological distress [16].

Complex emergencies and natural hazard impacts exacerbate vulnerabilities by disrupting communities, disorganizing families, causing injury and death, and forcing people to leave their homes [17]. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 2005 that 20–40% of individuals affected by tsunamis would suffer from short- and long-term psychological distress. Furthermore, the WHO projected that 30– 50% of those affected might experience moderate to severe short-term distress, while mild psychological distress could become chronic. Nearly half of the affected population reported psychological problems, with 5–10% requiring professional psychological interventions.

A WHO-funded study revealed that 20–25% of children affected by the tsunami in Aceh required professional psychological treatment for psychosocial problems [18]. Additionally, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that school attendance in Thailand dropped by a quarter due to distress and fear. Countries affected by natural hazard impacts observed a significant increase in psychological treatment and counseling requests [19]. A corresponding rise in prescriptions for psychological distress was also noted. Previous studies, such as those in Bosnia [20], showed that the psychosocial impact extended beyond individuals directly affected by the disaster.

Research in the United Kingdom has documented that populations affected by natural hazards report physical symptoms such as respiratory issues, flu-like symptoms, digestive problems, infections, skin allergies, insomnia, toothaches, high blood pressure, headaches, and hair loss [21,22]. A qualitative study by Whittle et al. (2010) also highlighted that physical symptoms were often accompanied by stress-related symptoms, including fatigue, mental exhaustion, low energy, forgetfulness, and heightened emotions. Studies have noted that medically unexplained physical symptoms, such as fatigue, stomach disorders, headaches, and muscular pain, often manifest after disasters [23]. The 2017 WHO Fact Sheet identified severe mental disorders, depression, alcohol and drug abuse, non-pathological distress, anxiety, and PTSD as the primary psychological consequences of disasters [24], found that PTSD and anxiety rates were three to five times higher in disaster-affected areas compared to non-affected areas. The prevalence was notably higher among women, unemployed individuals, and those with long-term conditions. Other studies have shown that the development of psychological disorders after a disaster is strongly associated with prior disaster experience, preparedness levels, and exposure. Risk factors that exacerbate  mental  health  deterioration  include  low income, limited education, advanced age, female gender, and inadequate social support [25,26]. Notably, the most significant psychosocial effects tend to be long-term due to their gradual onset and persistence in resource-scarce environments [27]. For instance, a study by [28], on Hurricane Katrina found a substantial increase in serious mental illnesses, with nearly 50% of the population displaying PTSD symptoms. The National Comorbidity Survey conducted in affected areas reported that the prevalence of serious mental illness among adults had doubled compared to earlier surveys.

Recent studies have further established the psychological impact of natural hazards [15], conducted a survey of 601 participants regarding the 2014 forest fire in Sweden. The findings revealed that evacuated individuals were more likely to relive the event mentally and exhibit emotional responses such as anger, anxiety, and feelings of strength. These participants also reported significant changes in their worldview and life perspectives due to the fire [29], reviewed anxiety and resilience in the context of natural hazards and found anxiety to be more common than other pathological outcomes. Similarly [30], conducted a qualitative study on 40 participants experiencing persistent flood risk in Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom. The study reported that persistent flood risk served as a significant stressor, with participants experiencing anxiety, low self-efficacy, and helplessness. Those with lower acceptance of flood risk displayed lower resilience and higher anxiety levels.

Despite increasing research, precise data on the affected population, the exact psychological impacts, and overall mental health status remain unclear due to challenges in data collection and cross-cultural variations in defining psychosocial problems and risk factors. The psychosocial damage caused by natural hazards is multifaceted, ranging from behavioral and psychological effects to physical, cognitive, and spiritual impacts. Some effects are transitory and immediately evident, while others may go unnoticed and persist long-term [17]. Treatment options range from psychological and behavioral interventions to pharmaceutical medications, with cultural and societal responses significantly influencing treatment uptake. In some cultures, seeking psychological treatment is stigmatized, further discouraging individuals from accessing care.

Table 1 presents the detailed behavioral,

Table 1: Multifaceted effects of natural hazard impacts

psychological, social, physical, cognitive, and spiritual impacts of natural hazards as identified in the literature. The multifaceted and culturally influenced nature of these impacts highlights the complexity of addressing the psychosocial consequences of natural hazards effectively.

Expanding further on the psychological impacts of natural hazards, a frequent phenomenon observed among survivors is survivor guilt, characterized by thoughts such as: Why did I survive and not my family or loved ones? Was there something I could have done to save them? [31]. These thoughts and worries have been documented to affect both adults and children. Children who have lost their parents are particularly vulnerable, especially in communities where social disruption is so severe that there are no potential caretakers available for orphans. Even when caretakers are available, their own household and economic limitations may hinder their ability to provide adequate care.

While much of the existing literature focuses on children and adults, the physical and psychosocial needs of the elderly have been systematically overlooked. The needs of the elderly are often significantly greater and more complex. For instance, older individuals may require prosthetic aids to hear, see, or walk and may have chronic conditions that necessitate ongoing management and treatment. These factors make them particularly vulnerable during catastrophic natural events, as they may lack the mobility needed to evacuate and are at a higher risk of death. In cases where they do survive, the economic and social support previously provided by family members or the local community may no longer be available to them [17].

This oversight highlights a significant gap in disaster response and recovery efforts, particularly in addressing the needs of elderly populations. Developing an international framework to identify and address the unique challenges faced by older individuals in the aftermath of natural hazards is an area that warrants urgent attention.

Psychosocial assessments for natural hazard impacts and complex environmental emergencies

Researchers have made numerous attempts to develop disaster mental health models to assess resilience and risk factors, recognizing the operational usefulness of psychosocial assessments. However, previous studies have shown that modified or original psychosocial assessments from other fields have not been fully adapted to disaster literature [11,12]. Even shortened versions of psychosocial assessments require additional psychometric validation due to the inclusion of new components. This section reviews the psychosocial assessments used in disaster studies.

Resource Loss and Coping Self-Efficacy

Investigating the combination of psychosocial factors involved in a natural hazard impact is crucial. Appropriate assessments are necessary to determine the individual effects of each factor on mental health in the context of disasters. A study by Rhodes et al [32], found a positive association between resource loss and post-disaster psychological distress, as well as a negative association between coping behaviors and self-efficacy. Although the psychometric properties of this study were satisfactory for scales measuring resource loss, some assessments included items irrelevant to psychological distress, coping self-efficacy, and stressful life events [33], suggested that perceived social support might be a better measure of coping efforts than coping self-efficacy. More recently [29], demonstrated that a social services case management approach—linking individuals to mental health services and restoring housing for those who experienced income loss after a natural hazard—resulted in reduced cases of PTSD.

Social Support

Social support is a well-studied resilience factor in disaster literature, encompassing perspectives such as social embeddedness, received social support, and perceived social support [11,34]. However, the use of multiple assessments to test this factor in disaster studies has raised concerns about external validity. Studies building on the social support deterioration model have found that the more severe the disaster’s impact, the less likely individuals are to report perceived social support [26,35,36].

Earlier research assessed perceived social support using the 13-item Louisville Social Support Scale, which demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) and reliability (r = 0.71) [32]. Another study combined the 15-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List [31], with the Social Provision Scale [33], to assess perceived social support. Similarly, the 22-item Provision of Social Relations scale was used to study survivors of the 1999 Mexico flood, who reported lower levels of perceived social support compared to normative samples [26]. However, these findings require further internal and external validation, as the assessments have not been psychometrically refined for other natural hazard impact scenarios.

Chronic Stress

Psychological assessments of chronic stress risk factors in various disaster contexts are essential [37], categorized chronic stress into subtypes—physical, ecological, occupational, financial, filial, parental, and marital—to examine the separate effects rather than their holistic impact. Studying Hurricane Hugo, they found that chronic stress served as a mediator between psychological distress (e.g., depression and anxiety) and acute disaster stress (e.g., threats to life and personal/financial loss). This research demonstrated good internal consistency for the Chronic Stress Scale, with α values of 0.77 (filial), 0.79 (marital), 0.80 (parental), and 0.83 (total stress).

Following this study [38], examined Hurricane Andrew’s effects using a 7-item measure of ongoing stress and an 11-item ecological stress scale. Results indicated that residents affected by the hurricane experienced more severe chronic problems than unaffected individuals. However, the psychometric refinement of these assessments remains incomplete for natural hazard impact studies.

Many psychological assessment tools are used in disaster studies differently than originally intended. For example, the Perceived Stress Scale [39], was designed to measure subjective interpretations of stress processes, mediating between health outcomes and external stressful events [40]. However, later studies [41], partially utilized the PSS-10 to develop dependent variables, such as psychological distress, rather than examining individual differences in stress perception [33].

Decision-making is the process of selecting the most optimal alternative from a range of options to achieve desired objectives. Emergency Decision Making (EDM) specifically involves the stages of problem definition, goal setting, project design and selection, implementation, and feedback modification [42]. In the context of natural hazard impacts, EDM refers to proactive measures aimed at effectively controlling imminent hazards. These measures include emergency planning, early warning systems, forecasting, monitoring, and information collection for emergency transfers, rescue operations, dispatching, and disaster recovery [43]. More precisely, EDM entails the collection of relevant information, clear and concise emergency objectives, development and implementation of interventions, coordination and control, and adaptive adjustments to the emergency situation [44,45].

In situations involving high time pressure, unexpected incidents, limited information, and challenging conditions, EDM is influenced by different perspectives and characteristics. From a decision-subject perspective, multi-sectoral participation is crucial for effective disaster prevention and mitigation. Coordination among decision- makers is essential, fostering centralized decision-making to ensure a unified response. From a decision-making environment perspective, EDM is driven by the urgency to minimize loss of life, environmental damage, property loss, and broader public impacts. This urgency arises from the complexity of the disaster environment, characterized by instability, information asymmetry, limited reaction time, and inadequate resources [1]. Recent research on Disaster Operations Management (DOM) has further expanded our understanding of disaster response. DOM focuses on the sequence of operational events arising from a disaster and the strategies to facilitate recovery [46]. While DOM and EDM share similarities in their goals to minimize disaster impacts, EDM emphasizes the urgency of disaster response and the restoration of critical communication systems to mitigate severity. Conversely, DOM applies Operations Research (OR) techniques to optimize the decision-making process and manage the broader detrimental impacts of natural disasters.

An effective and timely response to natural hazard impacts requires a thorough understanding of the causes of these events and the mechanisms driving emergency decisions. This understanding aids in minimizing disaster losses [42]. The development, occurrence, and evolution of natural hazard impacts typically follow a cyclical process: latent, formation, stalemate, and extinction periods. These stages correspond to the disaster management phases of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery [47]. EDM strategies must adapt to the evolving nature of disasters, tailoring decision-making content to each phase.

During the mitigation phase, EDM focuses on disaster prevention. Key measures include preparing emergency plans, real-time monitoring, hazard identification, and conducting emergency rehearsals. In the preparedness phase, EDM emphasizes disaster identification, dissemination of warning information, emergency support, and risk prediction. During the response phase, EDM involves identifying emergency priorities, analyzing environmental conditions, designing response schemes, preparing resources, making feedback adjustments, and implementing action plans. In the recovery phase, EDM prioritizes developing recovery plans, post-disaster reconstruction and restoration, assessing the effectiveness of emergency actions, and drawing conclusions to inform future strategies.

In summary, EDM aims to enhance the capacity for prevention and prediction before natural hazard impacts and optimize the response and recovery efforts after such events. This is achieved through the efficient allocation of resources and the implementation of effective, timely, and appropriate responses to minimize disaster impacts.

In large-scale disasters, there is a higher intensity and frequency of rainfall, heatwaves, and wildfires [48,49,50], alongside increasing land development and population growth in high-risk areas [51,52]. In such scenarios, large- scale evacuations are among the primary methods to safeguard human life. For instance, millions were ordered to evacuate during Hurricanes Ian, Irma, Florence, and Dorian; over 88,000 people were evacuated during the Fort McMurray Fire (2016); and thousands were evacuated during the Oroville Dam crisis and the Port Neches, Texas explosion. These events underscore evacuation challenges, including: (1) persistent non- compliance with mandatory evacuation orders, (2) poor transportation responses resulting in heavy congestion, slow evacuation clearance times, and increased evacuee risk, and (3) minimal attention to ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to transportation and shelter [53].

The life-saving capabilities of successful evacuation plans can significantly reduce the human impact of natural hazards such as floods and fires [54]. Globally, natural disasters affect more than 225 million people annually, with forecasts predicting a significant increase in such events in the coming years. However, when sufficient warning is provided, many disasters are predictable, making effective evacuation plans critical for reducing disaster-related casualties. Despite this, the decision- making processes individuals follow during disasters remain poorly understood [55].

Evacuation transportation modeling plays a vital role in disaster management, particularly for natural disasters requiring the efficient evacuation of people. These models enable decision-makers to evaluate evacuation plans, identify bottlenecks, and optimize evacuation routes and strategies. Various types of models exist, each with strengths and limitations. Macroscopic models represent the flow of vehicles and people at a high level, while mesoscopic models focus on individual vehicles and their interactions. Microscopic models simulate the behavior of individual people and vehicles, and agent-based models capture the decision-making processes of individuals during evacuation. The choice of model depends on the specific situation, available data, and objectives [56].

To work effectively, evacuation transportation models require accurate data, including population distribution, road network information, and traffic flow data. Calibration and validation against real-world data are crucial to ensure model accuracy. For instance, models like those developed by [57-59], simulate household evacuation behavior during wildfires, considering factors such as household size, proximity to the wildfire, and transportation availability. These models, validated with data from wildfire scenarios, have proven effective in predicting evacuation behavior.

Self-evacuation can significantly impact traffic flow during emergencies such as floods. Individuals evacuating independently, without adhering to organized plans, often overwhelm road networks in flood-prone areas. This can result in severe traffic congestion, delaying emergency responders and hindering the evacuation of individuals requiring assistance. The timing of self-evacuation also affects traffic flow; early evacuations tend to reduce congestion levels [60].

To mitigate the adverse effects of self-evacuation, evacuation plans must include clear instructions on when and how to evacuate, along with adequate transportation and shelter options. Communication strategies are essential for informing the public about the risks of self- evacuation and encouraging adherence to established evacuation plans. Furthermore, emergency management must address the needs of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals, who may face mobility challenges or lack access to transportation [61]. Provisions for these groups, including transportation assistance and accessible evacuation centers, are critical.

Evacuation transportation models have diverse applications, including emergency management, transportation planning, and policy-making. They assist emergency officials in developing effective evacuation strategies, transportation planners in identifying and mitigating traffic bottlenecks, and policymakers in evaluating the impact of evacuation policies [54]. Despite these benefits, limitations persist. Models require significant data inputs, including real-time data, which may not always be available. Uncertainty in model parameters, such as individual behavior during emergencies, can affect accuracy. Moreover, successful modeling demands interdisciplinary collaboration across fields such as transportation, engineering, and emergency management. Integrating new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and big data analytics, could enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of evacuation models, ultimately improving disaster management outcomes.

People’s protective decisions during natural hazards are influenced by several factors, including risk perceptions, vulnerabilities, warning messages, and available resources. The prevalence of social media and the internet has enabled individuals to access vast amounts of information, leading many to act as their own emergency managers. Understanding public decision-making can help governments and local authorities deliver targeted explanations of their disaster management and recovery plans [51].

Fully understanding the predictors of evacuation behavior is essential for replicating successful plans at national and international levels. However, research on natural disasters is accompanied by methodological and logistical challenges. The unpredictable nature of these events makes it difficult to collect pre-disaster data on experiences, plans, risk assessments, and evacuation intentions, which would be invaluable predictors of evacuation behavior. As a result, most studies are conducted post-disaster. Acute measurements of decision- making processes during or immediately after a disaster are also challenging to obtain due to ethical approval processes, funding constraints, and accessibility to affected populations [62]. Table 2 presents early empirical studies examining evacuation behavior during floods and fires.

Table 2: Early research studies exploring evacuation behaviour

In addition to the impact on the general population, there is a critical focus on the group of First Responders (FRs)—medics, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and civil protection personnel—who serve as society’s primary line of defense in fostering disaster resilience [63]. Natural or man-made disasters can result in significant human casualties, endanger public safety and health, cause substantial economic losses, and lead to environmental degradation, among other harmful consequences. These events affect the fundamental rights and interests of individuals, groups, and society at large [64]. However, efforts to protect the lives and well-being of disaster victims may also have profound implications for:

• the other fundamental rights of the victims;
• the fundamental rights and vital interests of people not directly affected by the disaster but involved in the scene;
• the fundamental rights, health, and safety of First Responders themselves. Enhancing the efficacy of FRs directly improves their ability to save lives, prevent panic, and contain and minimize the effects of the increasing number of disasters Europe and other regions are experiencing [65]. At the same time, FRs face extreme occupational health and safety risks, including injuries, fatal accidents, musculoskeletal strain, psychological trauma, and other serious challenges. Addressing these risks is critical to safeguarding not only the public but also the FRs who bear the responsibility for disaster response.
  
  Society must equip public safety practitioners with tools that ensure their safety while enhancing their operational efficacy. The rapid advancement of consumer technologies provides an opportunity to integrate modern, technologically advanced solutions into disaster resilience frameworks. These tools should aim to enable FRs to respond to disasters in a way that is timely, effective, and minimizes the health and safety risks they face.
  
  While previous approaches [66], have focused on tactical planning and improving communication, they often overlook the empowerment of FRs as individual operators in adverse conditions. These conditions can include harsh weather, low visibility, and a lack of infrastructure, all of which challenge individual resilience in addition to the need for effective team-based operations. Moving forward, the goal should be to provide FRs with a comprehensive, adaptable toolkit that supports both their physical and psychological well-being while enhancing their ability to respond efficiently in any disaster scenario.
  
  As shown in Figure 1,
• 
  Figure 1: FR capability gaps
  which illustrates the First Responder (FR) Capability Gaps identified by the International Forum to Advance First Responder Innovation [67], the top three layers correspond to edge-based capabilities and are recognized as the highest- priority gaps shared across all FR types. IFAFRI further emphasized the critical need for technologically advanced, affordable, and innovative tools and equipment to enhance the safety and effectiveness of disaster responses, whether for routine emergencies or catastrophic incidents.

A substantial body of literature examines data on dwelling fires, presenting a complex picture of the human factors involved. Since 1999, the fatality rate caused by fires has peaked at 0.63–0.72 deaths per 100 fires (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015; 2016). Similarly, the risk of fire-related injuries has remained consistent, with an injury rate of 17.6–20.6 (median 19.3) non-fatal injuries per 100 fires since the early 2000s (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015; 2016). Accidental fires in residential properties continue to be the leading cause of fire- related injuries and fatalities, necessitating a deeper understanding of the human factors involved. Fires also have notable socio-economic impacts. For instance, the most recent available data from 2008 estimates that deliberate and accidental fires in England cost £8.3 billion. This figure includes business losses, fatalities and injuries, property damage, economic output loss, and treatment costs, alongside significant emotional trauma and stress for those affected (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011). Specifically, the economic impact of fire-related fatalities and injuries in England is estimated at £1.4 billion (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011).

British statistics highlight that one of the primary sources of fire ignition is smoker’s materials, such as matches, cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, which account for 37% of fire- related fatalities. Cooking appliances account for 14% of fatalities and 53% of fire-related injuries, while heating and other appliances contribute to 9% of fatalities and 10% of injuries (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015). Additionally, scientific evidence reveals that approximately 90% of wildfires are indirectly or directly linked to human behaviors, such as broadcast burning for pasture maintenance, arson, and outdoor fire accidents [68]. These data underscore that human factors are the primary causes of fires.

However, Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) typically do not collect or record detailed data on human actions during fires. Their records often consist of brief notes rather than comprehensive narratives of individual behaviors and involvement. While some comparisons and analyses have been conducted, they frequently fail to align with actual survivor behaviors observed during fires [69].

A holistic understanding of the cognitions, motivations, and behaviors of individuals experiencing fires is essential. Such understanding could enable FRSs worldwide to improve incident planning, operational management, and response; personalize training courses for firefighting and incident command; enhance handling procedures; and promote community initiatives and fire prevention strategies [50].

Similarly, the human factors associated with floods remain understudied, despite their significant role. The concept of ‘attribution’ in climate science—the ability to assign climate changes to human factors—has advanced in recent years. Floods are often linked to an interplay of anthropogenic, natural, and hydrometeorological factors. While climate change is frequently cited as a cause, land use changes such as crop cultivation and deforestation also significantly influence flood frequency and the hydrological regime [70]. Human activities in water basins and floodplains, such as altering river channels, releasing water from reservoirs, changing land cover, and settling in flood-prone areas, have exacerbated flood risks [71,72].

The societal impact of climate and weather extremes is a function of both societal and climatic factors. Comprehensive assessments have shown that losses associated with extreme weather events and climate changes are steadily rising, driven by a mix of human, societal, and geographical factors [73].

Psychological profiles of disaster victims also play a critical role in shaping the impact of disasters on individuals. Behavioral science and psychology have provided accurate profiling models, such as the Five- Factor Theory (FFT) model [74] and Fogg’s Behavioral Model [75]. Fogg’s Behavioral Model (B=MAT) posits that a behavior (B) is a product of Motivation (M), Ability (A), and an appropriate Trigger (T). Figure 2 illustrates this model, which is frequently used to understand and manage human behavior during emergencies.

Figure 2: Five-Factor Theory (FFT) model (Fogg, 2009)

Fogg’s Behavioral Model can be used to analyze human behavior during disasters and to provide targeted disaster education, thereby better preparing individuals to build resilience [76]. Applying Fogg’s model to analyze adult survivors’ behavioral patterns can help develop strategies to mitigate the psychological and emotional impacts of disasters. Additionally, the model offers a unique lens through which to examine the behavior of arsonists, exploring their various motives such as vandalism, excitement, attention-seeking, recognition, boredom, revenge, societal retaliation, crime concealment, profit from fire-setting, and social disturbance. Understanding these motives can support the development of prevention strategies and targeted interventions. During natural disasters, people’s transportation preferences are often influenced by behavioral models like regret minimization [77], and utility maximization [78]. Regret minimization may dominate during crises, as individuals prioritize avoiding negative outcomes, such as being stranded or injured [49]. For example, during a hurricane, individuals might opt to evacuate by car rather than public transit, perceiving it as a more reliable and faster means to escape potential danger.

Utility maximization also plays a critical role in transportation choices during disasters [79]. People may prioritize modes of transport that provide comfort, safety, and convenience, even if they are not the quickest options. For instance, during a flood, some individuals might choose ride-sharing services over driving their own vehicles to avoid the risks of navigating dangerous flooded areas. In such cases, the decision maximizes safety and convenience, even at the expense of efficiency or speed. Social and psychological factors also significantly influence transportation preferences during disasters. People often prefer to evacuate with family and friends for mutual safety and emotional support. Additionally, they might opt for transportation modes perceived as socially responsible or environmentally friendly, such as public transit or shared rides, to minimize environmental impact during the crisis. These diverse considerations demonstrate the complexity of decision-making during disasters.

By understanding the factors influencing transportation preferences—such as regret minimization, utility maximization, social and psychological influences, and personal considerations—transportation planners and emergency responders can better design and manage systems to accommodate the needs of affected populations during natural disasters.

Effective evacuation practices during disasters like fires or floods require advanced evacuation models that account for evacuees’ behavioral characteristics across different phases. Evacuation behavior is influenced by individual factors (e.g., experience, knowledge, and physical capabilities), environmental factors (e.g., area or building structure, information gathered), and interventional factors (e.g., actions by authorities) [80]. Incorporating these diverse influences into evacuation planning is crucial for ensuring effective and adaptive responses.

Finally, resilient transportation systems can be achieved by embedding decision- making frameworks into resilience planning, redefining units of analysis, integrating insights from related fields, and studying the effects of compounding events. These approaches can help create systems that are not only robust but also adaptive to the dynamic challenges posed by natural disasters.

The feasibility of utilizing the sharing economy and emerging mobility platforms during evacuations is grounded in expanding technological infrastructure, such as increased internet access and widespread smartphone adoption, as well as platforms like Airbnb,Uber, and Lyft. Despite limited exploration into the role of the sharing economy in disaster scenarios [81-84], resources from private companies and residents have the potential to effectively supplement public resources. This integration could provide scalable and adaptive solutions during emergencies, ensuring greater flexibility in disaster response.

The long-lasting effects of natural hazards on individuals’ well-being are well- documented [85]. As technological advancements and digitalization continue to evolve, innovative tools hold immense potential for improving disaster risk management across various phases. One of the most significant challenges in managing hazardous events is the difficulty of collecting and analyzing data during or after a disaster. Advances in data science, including the development of IT tools such as data analytics and machine learning algorithms, combined with smart data sources like surveillance systems, cameras, and traffic lights, can enhance data collection efforts. These technologies enable real-time analysis and the seamless sharing of information, fostering improved collaboration and more effective response actions during and after disasters.

Technological advancements can also transform the way individuals, communities, and governments behave and respond during crises. These tools can increase disaster risk awareness, enhance understanding of hazards, and build a culture of risk preparedness within society. By empowering communities, technologies enable affected populations to respond more effectively and improve the functional organization of even the most vulnerable and fragile environments. This behavioral shift plays a crucial role in fostering resilience and preparedness.

Moreover, when integrated across all phases of disaster management, new technologies can significantly reduce the psychosocial impacts of disasters while enhancing resilience. For prevention, e-learning platforms and online videos can educate communities about risks and preventative measures. During preparedness and emergency management phases, tools such as SMS alerts, e-alerts, and social media platforms can deliver real-time guidance, helping populations react effectively. In the response and recovery phases, technologies such as IoT devices and drones empower citizens to act efficiently by facilitating communication, collaboration, and the delivery of aid to affected areas.

Satellite services, such as the Copernicus Emergency Management Service, and emerging satellite technologies play a critical role in monitoring natural and man-made disasters. The further use of these technologies will not only improve disaster preparedness but also enhance public confidence and trust. By reducing uncertainty, these tools mitigate negative socio-psychological impacts, ensuring more robust and resilient disaster management systems.

The existing literature on psychosocial factors and natural hazard impacts can be broadly categorized into three key areas: (1) the impact of natural hazards on psychosocial factors, (2) the influence of psychosocial factors on the outcomes of natural hazard impacts, and (3) the role of psychosocial interventions in mitigating the negative effects of natural hazards.

Regarding the impact of natural hazards on psychosocial factors, events such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes can significantly affect mental health, social support systems, and community cohesion. Numerous studies have demonstrated that exposure to natural hazards increases the risk of mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Natural hazards can also disrupt social networks and support systems, resulting in feelings of isolation and disconnection. Furthermore, these events can erode community cohesion, often leading to social fragmentation and conflict.

The influence of psychosocial factors on natural hazard impacts is another critical area of study. Factors such as social support, resilience, and coping strategies significantly shape individuals’ ability to cope with and recover from natural hazards. Research has shown that individuals with robust social support networks and higher resilience levels are better equipped to handle the aftermath of disasters and recover more quickly. Effective coping strategies, such as problem-focused coping and positive reappraisal, have also been identified as instrumental in reducing the adverse impacts of natural hazards.

The role of psychosocial interventions in reducing the negative effects of natural hazards has been explored extensively. Studies have examined the efficacy of interventions at both the individual and community levels. Individual-level interventions, such as cognitive- behavioral therapy (CBT) and trauma-focused therapy, have shown promise, as have community-level approaches, including psychoeducation and social support programs. While many interventions show potential, further research is required to rigorously evaluate their long- term effectiveness through methods such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extended follow-ups.

Despite the contributions of existing research, several areas warrant further investigation. First, there is a need to explore the long-term impacts of natural hazards. While much research focuses on immediate effects, studies should also examine the chronic consequences of exposure, such as prolonged mental health challenges, disruption of social support, and lasting damage to community cohesion. Second, the intersectionality of social identities—such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status— requires greater attention. Understanding how these intersecting identities influence the differential impacts of natural hazards can provide valuable insights into equitable disaster response and recovery efforts. Third, more rigorous evaluations of psychosocial interventions are necessary, employing methodologies such as RCTs and long-term follow-ups to validate their efficacy. Lastly, the integration of psychosocial factors into disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies must be strengthened. This involves developing evidence-based interventions that incorporate psychosocial elements and embedding these considerations into DRR policy and practice.

This paper builds upon existing literature by offering an updated overview of psychosocial and human factors, as well as behavioral models related to floods and fires. It also examines the availability of successful evacuation plans, transport-related decisions, and the critical role of emerging technologies in disaster management—areas that are underrepresented in prior studies.

Floods and fires are among the most devastating natural disasters in recent years in Europe, causing severe environmental damage to ecosystems, along with significant socioeconomic, psychological, behavioral, and political repercussions. These disasters impact every phase of the disaster management cycle, from prevention and preparedness to emergency response and recovery. This cycle, in turn, influences people’s behavior, psychology, health, emotions, attitudes, and values, as outlined in this study. The paper highlights the urgent need to collect better and more comprehensive data to improve existing models, analyze data across diverse hazards, prioritize equity in analysis, and implement findings in disaster planning.Recent research has increasingly focused on the complexities of psychological, social, physical health, and economic consequences of floods, as well as the factors that contribute to community resilience and preparedness. In the Eastern Mediterranean region, the frequency and severity of flood events are rising, leading to increased damages and fatalities. Climate change exacerbates this trend, making risk perception a critical variable for human protection. Disaster planning must be enhanced to ensure accessible information on the mental and physical effects of disasters, alongside interventions designed to address these challenges effectively.

This research is funded under the Greek national project«Development of the “Coastal Environmental Observatory and Crisis Management in Island Areas” Infrastructure (AEGIS+)” which is conducted at the University of the Aegean. The first author (KK) would like to acknowledge the financial support provided for the following projects: The ‘Collaborative, Multi-modal, and Agile Professional Cybersecurity Training Program for a Skilled Workforce in the European Digital Single Market and Industries’ (CyberSecPro) project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Digital Europe Programme (DEP) under grant agreement No. 101083594; the ‘Advanced Cybersecurity Awareness Ecosystem for SMEs’ (NERO) project, which has received funding from the European Union’s DEP programme under grant agreement No. 101127411; “the ‘Harmonizing People, Processes, and Technology for Robust Cybersecurity’ (CYberSynchrony) project, whichhasreceived funding bythe European Union’s Digital Europe programme under Grant Agreement no. 101158555 and supported by the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre (ECCC); and the ‘Fostering Artificial Intelligence Trust for Humans towards the Optimization of Trustworthiness through Large- scale Pilots in Critical Domains’ (FAITH) project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Programme under grant agreement No. 101135932. The views expressed in this paper represent only the views of the authors and not those of the European Commission or the partners in the above-mentioned projects. Finally, the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest, including any financial or personal relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts.

1. Liu, H, Chen, H, Hong, R, Liu, H, You, W. Mapping knowledge structure and research trends of Emergency Evacuation Studies. Safety Science. 2020; 121: 348-361.
2. Jaekoo Joo, Namhun Kim, Richard A. Wysk, Ling Rothrock, Young-Jun Son, Yeong-gwang Oh, et al. Agent-based simu- lation of affordance- based human behaviors in emergency evacuation. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2013; 32: 99-115.
3. Dulebenets MA, Abioye OF, Ozguven EE, Moses R, Boot WR, Sando T. Development of statistical models for improving efficiency of emergency evacuation in areas with vulnerable population. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018; 9: 233-249.
4. Warsini S, West C, Ed G, Res Meth G, Mills J, Usher K. The Psychosocial Impact of Natural Disasters among Adult Survivors: An Integrative Review. Issues In Mental Health Nursing. 2014; 35: 420-436.
5. Reyes G, Elhai JD. Psychosocial interventions in the early phases of disasters. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training. 2004; 41: 399-411.
6. Mitchell MJ, Witman M, Taffaro C. Reestablishing mental health services in St. Bernard Parish, Lousiana, following Hurricane Katrina. Psychol Res Pract. 2008; 39: 66-76.
7. Madrid PA, Grant R. Meeting mental health needs following a natural disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Professional Psychol Res Pract. 2008; 39: 86-92.
8. Lin MR, Huang W, Huang C, Hwang HF, Tsai LW, Chiu YN. The impact of the Chi-Chi earthquake on quality of life among elderly survivors in Taiwan: A before and after study. Qual Life Res. 2002; 11: 379-388.
9. Yzermans CJ, Donker GA, Kerssens JJ, Dirkzwager AJE, Soeteman RJH, Ten Veen PMH. Health problems of victims before and after disaster: A longitudinal study in general practice. Int J Epid. 2005; 34: 820- 826.
10. Papanikolaou V, Adamis D, Kyriopoulos, J. Long term quality of life after a wildfire disaster in a rural part of Greece. Open J Psych. 2012; 2: 164-170.
11. Benight CC, McFarlane AC, Norris FH. Formulating questions about postdisaster mental health. In F. H. Norris S, Galea MJ, Friedman PJ. Watson (Eds.), Methods for disaster mental health research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 2006; 62-77.
12. Norris F, Friedman M, Watson P, Byrne C, Diaz E, Kaniasty K. 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-2001. Psychiatry. 2002; 65: 207-239.
13. Galea S, Nandi A, Vlahov D. The epidemiology of post-traumatic stress disorder after disasters. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2005; 27: 78-91.
14. Neria Y, Nandi A, Galea S. Post-traumatic stress disorder following disasters: A systematic review. Psychol Med J. 2008; 38: 467-480.
15. Knez I, Willander J, Butler A, Sang Å, Sarlöv-Herlin I, Åkerskog AI can still see, hear and smell the fire: Cognitive, emotional and personal consequences of a natural disaster, and the impact of evacuation. J Environm Psychol. 2021; 74: 101554.
16. Norris FH, Byrne CM, Diaz E, Kaniasty K. Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes in Natural and Human-Caused Disasters: A Review of the Empirical Literature. A National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet. 2007; 1-10.
17. Carballo M. Psychosocial aspects of the Tsunami. J Royal Soci Med. 2005; 98: 396-399.
18. ADRA. Tsunami Response Rep. 2005; 34: 1-15
19. Isarabhakdi P. Interim Report of a Meeting on Public Health Impact of the Tsunami. Geneva: Int Centre for Migrat Health. 2005; 30-50.
20. Carballo M, Smajkic A, Zeric D, Dzidowska M, Gebre-Medhin J, Van Halem J. Mental health and coping in a war situation: the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. J Biosoci Scien. 2004; 36: 463-477.
21. Carroll B, Balogh R, Morbey H, Araoz G. Health and social impacts of a flood disaster: responding to needs and implications for practice, Disasters. 2010; 34: 1045-1063.
22. Whittle R, Medd W, Deeming H, Kashefi E, Mort M, Twigger Ross C, et al. After the Rain-Learning the Lessons from Flood Recovery in Hull. Final Project Report for ‘Flood, Vulnerability and Urban Resilience: a Real-Time Study of Local Recovery Following the Floods . 2010; 1-176.
23. Van den Berg B, Grievink L, Yzermans J, Lebret E. Medically unexplained physical symptoms in the aftermath of disasters, Epidemiol. Rev. 2005; 27: 92-106.
24. Maghrabi K. Impact of flood disaster on the mental health of residents in the Eastern region of Jeddah Governorate, 2010: a study in medical geography, Life Sci J. 2012; 9: 95-110.
25. Collins TW, Jimenez AM, Grineski SE. Hispanic health disparities after a flood disaster: results of a population-based survey of individuals experiencing home site damage in El Paso (Texas, USA), J Immigrat Mino Health. 2013; 15: 415-426.
26. Lowe D, Ebi KL, Forsberg B. Factors increasing vulnerability to health effects before, during and after floods, Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health. 2013; 10: 7015-7067.
27. Rhodes J, Chan C, Paxson C, Rouse CE, Waters M, Fussell E. The impact of Hurricane Katrina on the mental and physical health of low-income parents in New Orleans, Am. J Orthopsychiatry. 2010; 80: 237-247.
28. Norris FH, Baker CK, Murphy AD, Kaniasty K. Social support mobilization and deterioration after Mexico’s 1999 flood: Ef- fects of context, gender, and time. American J Community Psych. 2005; 36: 15-28.
29. Chen S, Bagrodia R, Pfeffer C, Meli L, Bonanno, G. Anxiety and resilience in the face of natural disasters associated with climate change: A review and methodological critique. J Anxiety Disorders. 2020; 76: 102297.
30. Fothergill L, Disney A, Wilson E. A qualitative exploration of the psychological impacts of living with the uncertainty of persistent flood risk. Public Health. 2021; 198: 141- 145.
31. Cohen G, Tamrakar S, Lowe S, Sampson L, Ettman C, Kilpatrick D, et al. Improved social services and the burden of post-traumatic stress disorder among economically vulnerable people after a natural disaster: a modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2019; 3: 93-101.
32. Benight CC, Ironson G, Klebe K, Carver CS, Wynings C, Burnett K, Schneiderman N. Conservation of resources and coping self-efficacy predicting distress following a natural disaster: A casual model analysis where the environment meets the mind. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 1999; 12: 107-126.
33. Lakey B, Cohen S. Social support theory and measurement. In S. Cohen LG. Underwood, BH. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2000; 29-52.
34. Norris FH, Phifer JF, Kaniasty K. Individual and community reactions to the Kentucky floods: Findings from a longitudinal study of older adults. In: Ursano RJ, Mccaughey BG. and Fullerton C.S, Eds, Individual and Community Responses to Trauma and Disaster the Structure of Human Chaos, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2006; 378- 402.
35. Kaniasty K, Norris F. A test of the support deterioration model in the context of natural disaster. J Personal Social Psychol. 1993; 64: 395-408.
36. Norris FH, Kaniasty K. Received and perceived social support in times of stress: A test of the social support deterioration deterrence model. J Personality and Social Psych. 1996; 71: 498-511.
37. Norris FH, Uhl GA. Chronic stress as a mediator of acute stress: The case of Hurricane Hugo. J Applied Social Psycho. 1993; 23: 1263- 1284.
38. Norris FH, Perilla JL, Riad JK, Kaniasty K, Lavizzo EA. Stability and change in stress, resources, and psychological distress following natural disaster: Findings from Hurricane Andrew. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 1999; 12: 363-396.
39. Cohen S, Williamson G. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1998; 7: 31-67.
40. Cohen S, Kessler RC, Gordon LU. Strategies for measuring stress in studies of psychiatric and physical disorders. In S. Cohen RC. Kessler LU. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring stress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1997; 2:3-26.
41. Thompson, MP, Norris, FH, Hanacek B. Age differences in the psychological consequences of Hurricane Hugo. Psychology and Aging. 1993; 8: 606-616.
42. Yu L, Lai, KK. A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support, Decis. Support Syst. 2011; 51: 307-315.
43. Li ML. Wang HW. Qi C, Liu D. Research on unconventional event emergency decision-making methodologies. China Safety Sci J. 2012; 22: 158-161.
44. Duan R. Emergency decision-making based on the Bayesian method. Nanjing Univ. Posts Telecommunications. 2015; 1-20.
45. Rawls CG. Turnquist MA. Pre-positioning and dynamic delivery planning for short-term response following a natural disaster. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2012; 46: 46-54.
46. Fu PP, Wu C. Research on mechanism of decision-making based on unconventional emergency, J Shanghai Adm Inst. 2014; 4: 112-117.
47. Su MM. Study on the Method of Selecting and Dynamic Adjusting Alternatives in Multi Stage Emergency Decision, Northeastern University. 2011; 1-12.
48. USGCRP. Climate Science Special Report. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017.
49. Stevens-Rumann CS, Kemp KB, Higuera PE, Harvey BJ, Rother MT, Donato DC, et al. Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under climate change. Ecol Lett. 2018 Feb; 21: 243-252.
50. Wotton B M, Flannigan M D, Marshall GA. Potential climate change impacts on fire intensity and key wildfire suppression thresholds in Canada. Envir Research Letters.2017; 12: 095003.
51. Reidmiller D R, Avery C W, Easterling D R, Kunkel K E, Lewis KLM, Maycock T K. et al. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: The Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017.
52. Mowery M. Punchard D. Land Use Planning Approaches in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Community Wildfire Planning Center. 2021.
53. WongS D,Chorus CG, ShaheenSA,WalkerJL. A revealed preference methodology to evaluate regret minimization with challenging choice sets: A wildfire evacuation case study.Travel Behaviour and Society.
54. 2020; 20: 331-347.
55. Thompson O, Galea E, Hulse L. A review of the literature on human behaviour in dwelling fires. Safety Science. 2018; 109: 303-312.
56. Pan A.Study on the decision-making behavior of evacuation for coastal residents under Typhoon Storm Surge Disaster. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020; 45: 101522.
57. Murray-TuiteP,WolshonB.Evacuation transportation modeling: an overview of research, development, and practice. Transport. Res. C: Emerg. Technol. 2013; 27: 25-45.
58. AlsnihR, RoseJ, StopherP. Understanding household evacuation decisions using a stated choice survey: case study of bush fires. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 84th, 2005, Washington, DC, USA. 2005.
59. KatzilierisK,Vlahogianni EI,Wang H.Evacuation behavior of affected individuals and households in response to the 2018 Attica wildfires: From empirical data to models. Safety Science. 2022; 153: 105799
60. RohaertA, Al-Kilani M, ChengW, WuX. et al. Traffic dynamics during the 2019 Kincade Wildfire evacuation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2023; 116: 103610.
61. Borowska-Stefa?skaM,Ró?a?skiM,GajewskiM,StrzeleckiP.The  impact of self-evacuation from flood hazard areas on the equilibrium of the road transport. Safety Science. 2023; 157: 105934
62. Stepanov A,Smith JMG. Multi-objective evacuation routing in transportation networks. European Journal of Operational Research. 2009; 198: 435-446.
63. CahyantoI, Pennington-GrayL, ThapaB,SrinivasanS, VillegasJ, MatyasC, KiousisS. An empirical evaluation ofthe determinants of tourist’s hurricane evacuation decisionmaking. J Destination Market Manag . 2014; 2: 253-265.
64. LiuS, FanX, ZhuX. The role of first responders in disaster management: A review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2022; 68: 1-23.
65. TaylorJ A, Buckle P. The role of first responders in disaster management: A literature review. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. 2021; 36: 48-55.
66. Shrestha N, Shrestha BK. First responders in disaster management: A critical review of their roles and responsibilities. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021; 62: 1-24.
67. Mendieta CM, Tate MD. The role of first responders in emergency management: A systematic review. J Emerg Manag. 2020; 18: 121- 136.
68. Forum to Advance First Responder Innovation (IFAFRI).
69. Robinne FN, Burns J, Kant P, Flannigan MD, Kleine M de Groot B. et al. Global Fire Challenges in a Warming World. IUFRO: Vienna, Austria. 2018; 1-10.
70. Lawson G, Sharples S, Clarke D, CobbS. The use of experts for predicting human behaviour in fires. In: 4th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Conference Proceedings. Interscience Communications, London. 2009; 493-500.
71. Ouellet C, Saint-Laurent D, Normand F. Flood events and flood risk assessment in relation to climate and land-use changes: Saint- François River, southern Québec, Canada. Hydrological Sciences J. 2012; 57: 313-325.
72. Di Baldassarre G, Montanari A, LinsH, Koutsoyiannis D, Brandimarte L, et al. Flood fatalities in Africa: from diagnosis to mitigation. Geophysical Research Letters. 2010; 37: 37-50.
73. Abass K, Dumedah G, Frempong F. Understanding the physical and human contexts of fluvial floods in rural Ghana. International Journal Of River Basin Management. 2019; 20: 141-152.
74. Changnon S, Pielke R, Changnon D, Sylves R,Pulwarty R. Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes. Bulletin Of The American Meteorological Society. 2000; 81: 437-442.
75. Matulessy A, Humaira NH. Hacker Personality Profiles Reviewed in Terms of the Big Five Personality Traits. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. . 2016; 5: 137-142.
76. Fogg BJ. A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology ACM. 2009; 20-30.
77. Tsai M, Chang Y, Kao C, Kang S. The effectiveness of a flood protection computer game for disaster education. Visualization In Engineering. 2015; 3: 1-15.
78. Chorus CG. A generalized random regret minimization model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2014; 68: 224-238.
79. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press. 1944; 776.
80. Safitri ND, Chikaraishi M. Impact of transport network disruption on travel demand: A case study of the July 2018 heavy rain disaster in Japan. Asian Transp. 2022; 8: 1-37.
81. Wang Y, Kyriakidis M, Dang V. Incorporating human factors in emergency evacuation - An overview of behavioral factors and models. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021; 60: 102254.
82. Wong S, Walker J, Shaheen S. Bridging Troubled Water: Evacuations and the Sharing Economy. Transportation Research Board 97th Annual Meeting. 2018; 8: 02187.
83. Li M, Xu J, Liu X, Sun C, Duan Z. Use of Shared-Mobility Services to Accomplish Emergency Evacuation in Urban Areas via Reduction in Intermediate Trips-Case Study in Xi’an, China. Sustainability. 2018; 10: 4862.
84. Wong S, Shaheen S. Current State of the Sharing Economy and Evacuations: Lessons from California. 2019.
85. BorowskiE, StathopoulosA. On-demand ridesourcing for urban emergency evacuation events: An exploration of message content, emotionality, and intersectionality. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020; 44 : 101-117.
86. Li L, Li W. Chronic vulnerability to natural disasters and subjective well- being. Current Research In Ecological And Social Psychology. 2022; 3: 100041.