See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317501428

Companion animals and natural disasters: A systematic review of literature

Article  in  International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.015

CITATIONS READS

10 542

1 author:

Ashleigh M. Day
University of Texas at Tyler
12 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

World Health Organization grant research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashleigh M. Day on 16 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Companion animals and natural disasters: A systematic review of literature MARK

Ashleigh M. Day
Department of Communication, Wayne State University, 508 Manoogian Hall, Detroit, MI 48201, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In 2014, 317 natural disasters were reported, impacting 94 countries, resulting in an estimated 7963 global
Companion animal deaths and costing nearly US$100 billion [28,29]. This issue becomes even more problematic when animal
Disaster preparedness guardianship is considered during disasters. Therefore, this narrative systematic review of literature investigates
Disaster response the impact of companion animal guardianship before, during, and/or after a natural disaster. Nineteen peer-
Natural disasters
reviewed, empirical articles were included in this review. Articles were located using search terms and inclusion
criteria via EBSCOhost, JSTOR, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. The included articles covered a range of natural
disasters in various countries. Findings from the included articles are discussed within methodological streams
(mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative descriptive) as well as synthesized across methodological streams.
Findings suggest that companion animal guardianship can impact disaster-relevant decisions, behaviors, psy-
chological symptoms, and willingness to work during a time of disaster. These findings are discussed in terms of
their relevance to disaster planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Particularly, implications
are discussed for public health and safety, disaster professionals and officials, resiliency, and contextual factors.
The review concludes with a discussion of limitations and areas for future research.

1. Introduction
It is estimated that nearly 80 million American households include
companion animals and over half of the global population has at least
one companion animal. Other estimates approximate this figure to
surpass 75% of American households, which exceeds the number of
households with children ([20]; Humane Society, 2016 [30];). As
people continue to share their homes and lives with companion ani-
mals, many develop strong emotional relationships with these beings
(e.g. [12,32,34],). Some even consider companion animals as family
members [14,48,8]. For example, over 80% of companion animal
guardians in the United States (U.S.) say they would risk their lives to
rescue their companion animal(s) [1].
Whether it be in the form of companionship, livelihood, or guar-
dianship, human-animal relationships can have a large impact on how
people make decisions, formulate feelings and attitudes, and behave.
Heath et al. [22] claims that “companion animal guardianship can be a
significant threat to public and animal safety during disasters,” calling
for greater attention to disaster preparedness regarding companion
animals (p. 664). As such, animal guardianship is important to consider
within the context of natural disasters.
The [28,29] reported 317 natural disasters in 2014, impacting 94
countries, and resulting in an estimated 7963 global deaths. Also in this
report, it was estimated that these disasters costed nearly US$100 bil-
lion ([29], p. 222). Disaster planning, preparedness, response, recovery,
and mitigation can become quite labyrinthine when natural disasters
occur at such a high rate. This can become even more complex due to
varying contextual factors among affected populations. Thus, the pur-
pose of this narrative systematic review is to investigate the implica-
tions of companion animal guardianship and its impact on guardians
across the phases of natural disasters. In what follows, a detailed pro-
cess of methods is provided, followed by results. These are organized
within methodological streams and across methodological streams. Im-
plications are discussed for public health and safety, disaster profes-
sionals and officials, resiliency, and contextual factors. Limitations and
areas for future research are also discussed in light of the results. As
such, the following research question (RQ) guides this review:
RQ: What are the impacts of companion animal guardianship be-
fore, during, and/or after a natural disaster according to existing em-
pirical research?
2. Material and method
This systematic review aims to narratively synthesize what is known
and what is not known about the impact(s) of companion animal
guardianship across the stages of a natural disaster. Articles for this
review were searched for using four databases: EBSCOhost, JSTOR,
MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. These databases were searched using
subscriptions accessed via the author's employing university. English
language articles were searched from 2006 to August of 2016. A list of

E-mail address: Ashleigh.Day@wayne.edu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.015
Received 22 January 2017; Received in revised form 11 May 2017; Accepted 29 May 2017
2212-4209/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Day
Table 1
Search Terms and Number of Total Yielded Articles.
Search terms EBSCOhost JSTOR
Disaster and pet 66 467
Crisis and pet 52 1392
Natural hazard and pet 7 5318
Natural disaster and pet 39 5364
Natural disaster and nonhuman animal 3 54,405
Disaster and nonhuman animal 7 2805
Crisis and nonhuman animal 9 7788
Disaster and companion animal 20 3995
Crisis and companion animal 7 11,972
Natural disaster and companion animal 8 64,042
Total 218 157,548
search terms and number of yielded articles is listed in Table 1.
2.1. Data collection and analysis
Articles were screened using inclusion criteria. The inclusion cri-
teria established that articles had to be: an empirical study that sampled
from natural disaster affected-populations or populations likely to be
affected by natural disasters (e.g., flood plain residents), published
between 2006 to 2016, and companion animal(s) were a part of the
article's findings. These criteria were established to ensure that articles
were relevant to the research question. Of the 370,190 total yielded
articles, 2139 were screened using inclusion criteria and the remainder
of this section provides details on the process.
Within the four databases, each of their unique search engines or-
ganized the yielded articles by relevancy, pertaining to the used search
terms (see Table 1). Screening consisted of reading the title and abstract
of the provided search results in each database. Once repeated and/or
irrelevant articles populated the list of yielded results, screening ended
and the next search terms were input. The total number of screened
articles in each database was: all 218 in EBSCOhost, 847 in JSTOR, all
24 in MEDLINE, and 1050 in Google Scholar. Of the 2139 screened
articles, 49 were deemed relevant based on the inclusion criteria. These
were downloaded to read in full. A total of 19 articles passed full
screening based on inclusion criteria (see Appendix A for a list of ex-
cluded articles).
The 19 articles that passed full screening were coded regarding
their: relevancy to the research question (i.e., “direct” if companion
animals were a primary topic or “indirect” if they were a secondary
topic), type of natural disaster, phase of natural disaster (i.e., pre-
paration, onset, containment, and recovery), location, population
characteristics, driving question(s) of interest, methodology, and
guiding theory/framework (if any). Next, articles were categorized by
methodology and assessed for methodological quality (see Appendix B).
Since there were no randomized group comparisons or non-randomized
group comparisons in the final 19 articles, the methodological group-
ings were reduced to three categorizations: quantitative descriptive
surveys (and similar designs) (QN), qualitative (QL), and mixed
methods (MM). Quantitative studies were assessed using an adapted
version of Davids and Roman's [17]) quality appraisal criteria for
quantitative descriptive surveys. Qualitative studies were assessed
using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) [16] checklist. Mixed
method studies were assessed using Pluye et al.'s [44] Mixed Methods
Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Some studies were one-time interview or
survey designs that used newly developed questionnaires and thus, had
not been tested for reliability or validity. For reasons such as this and
lack of other details, many of the 19 articles received a moderate to
low/weak rating. This is not to say that the studies that received this
rating had low/weak information, but rather reflected a lack of meth-
odological information based on the standards of the appraisal tools.
Data extraction followed this step.
Data extraction of the 19 articles’ findings aimed to identify
82
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90
MEDLINE Google Scholar Total
19 25,500 26,052
2 38,600 40,046
1 19,500 24,826
0 18,300 23,703
1 16,500 70,909
0 16,500 19,312
1 17,100 24,898
0 18,800 22,815
0 24,900 36,879
0 16,700 80,750
24 212,400 370,190
evidence that related to the research question. This was done by
reading the articles’ findings/results, discussion, and conclusion sec-
tions. Narrative and/or supportive numerical findings were extracted
for all methodologies. Article findings were condensed to statement(s)
that encapsulated the primary findings in relation to the review's ob-
jective, which were supported by direct quotes and/or paraphrases
from the primary articles. For quantitative and applicable mixed
methods articles, numerical information was also used as support for
the condensed finding statements. Page numbers were recorded for this
supportive information, which were catalogued and segmented by
methodology.
2.2. Data synthesis
A meta-analysis was not appropriate to the data as multiple meth-
odologies were included. Additionally, studies using the same metho-
dology used a variety of scales, measures, operationalizations, etc.,
which made a meta-analysis inappropriate. Thus, results of the studies
are reported in a narrative format, following principles of the Cochrane
Handbook (Section 11.7.2) [25]. Significant and non-significant results
that were deemed relevant to this review's objective were recorded and
reported. Two stages of synthesis occurred. First, the finding statements
for each primary study were synthesized within methodological streams.
Quantitative studies were synthesized following principles of the Co-
chrane Handbook (Section 11.7.2). Qualitative studies were broadly
guided by the framework synthesis model [45,7] and mixed method
studies were guided by a combination of the previously mentioned
processes. This was followed by certainty evaluations using tools/
checklists relevant to the corresponding methodologies.
Synthesized finding statements within each methodological stream
were assessed for certainty. The quantitative descriptive surveys were
assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment,
Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [49]. Qualitative
studies were assessed using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence
from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach [36]. Mixed
method studies were assessed using both GRADE and GRADE-CERQual.
Second, findings were synthesized across methodological streams.
To do this, the synthesized finding statements from within methodo-
logical streams and corresponding certainty evaluations were compiled,
along with relevant information pertaining to: context/country, disaster
phase, sample, and type of disaster. Next, finding statements that am-
plified and supported one another from across methodological streams
were compiled to create higher-level finding statements. Any within
method finding statements that were extraneous and could not be
amplified across methodological streams were kept as separate finding
statements, which were incorporated into an existing across method
finding.
3. Results
Of the 19 articles that passed full screening and were included for
A.M. Day
Table 2
Characteristics of the 19 Included Primary Studies.
Relevancy Method Country (this category is not mutually
exclusive and will not sum to 19)
Companion animals as Quantitative (QN): 12 Chile: 1
Primary Topic: 9 Qualitative (QL): 4 Ecuador: 1
Mixed Methods India: 1
(MM): 3 Indonesia: 1
Japan: 2
Companion animals as Latin America
Secondary Topic: 10 (Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico): 1
New Zealand: 1
United States: 12
this review, nine focused on companion animals as a primary topic and
10 focused on companion animals as a secondary topic (see Table 2).
Over half of the included studies employed quantitative methods (12),
four employed qualitative, and three employed mixed methods.More
than half of the primary studies focused on natural disasters in the
United States (12). However, natural disasters were also examined in
Japan (2), Chile (1), Ecuador (1), India (1), Indonesia (1), a group of
Latin American countries (Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico) (1), and
New Zealand (1). There were no studies from Africa or Australia. The
types of natural disasters also had varying foci. Hurricanes were the
most studied natural disaster (8), followed by general/preparedness (3),
volcanos (3), earthquakes (2), tsunami (1), tsunami, earthquake, and
hurricane (1), and wildfire (1).
Only one primary study focused on all phases of disaster (prepara-
tion, onset, containment, and recovery). Other primary studies focused
on preparation (3), recovery (2), onset, containment, and recovery (7),
preparation and onset (3), onset and containment (2), and preparation
and recovery (1). Samples for all the studies were disaster-affected or
potentially disaster-affected individuals; however, inclusion of vulner-
able populations was minimal. Two studies sampled from children and
adolescents ([31]; Navarro et al., 2014), one study had a majority of
elderly participants [35], and one study primarily sampled from low-
income African American single mothers [37].
3.1. Findings and certainty evaluations within methodological streams
Within each of the three methodological streams (quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods) there were several studies that had
similar findings, which amplified one another (see Table 3). While over
half of the primary studies used quantitative methods, none were ex-
periments or comparison group studies. However, more than half (13)
of the primary studies were individually appraised to be of moderate
quality. While there were primary studies that amplified one another's
findings within methodological streams—focusing on various countries
and a range of disasters—a large majority of the studies focused on the
United States (12) and hurricanes (8). Below is a description of findings
from within each of the three methods.
3.1.1. Mixed methods
Multiple mixed method studies supported the notion that during a
time of natural disaster companion animal guardianship can impact
guardian decision-making [19,38]. Failure to evacuate when advised
and/or returning to an unsafe disaster site due to concern for animal(s)
left behind was reported [19,38]. Furthermore, the death of a compa-
nion animal exacerbates the experience of natural disasters for guar-
dians. Death of a companion animal due to a natural disaster can be
especially traumatic for children [31,39].
83
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90
Natural Disaster Type Disaster Phase
Earthquake: 2 All Phases: 1
General: 3
Hurricane: 8 Preparation: 3
Tsunami: 1 Onset: 0
Tsunami, Earthquake, & Containment: 0
Hurricane: 1 Recovery: 2
Wildfire: 1
Volcano: 3 Preparation & Recovery: 1
Preparation & Onset: 3
Onset, Containment & Recovery: 7
Onset & Containment: 2
3.1.2. Qualitative methods
Evacuation during natural disasters can be a problematic and
stressful time for companion animal guardians. Being a guardian to
multiple companion animals during a time of disaster is a reason that
some guardians do not evacuate when advised [35]. Post-disaster,
people who evacuated without their companion animals or had com-
panion animals displaced during a natural disaster may use social
media to relocate them. However, this can be problematic as members
of animal relocation social media pages often have very little experi-
ence with animal welfare in the context of natural disasters [54]. This
phenomenon can be better understood by considering that many animal
guardians view their companion animals as members of the family
[15,18]. This makes it is possible to see how hospital staffs’ willingness
to report to work during a disaster is complicated by their role as a
companion animal guardian [18].
3.1.3. Quantitative descriptive
Companion animal guardianship can influence evacuation decisions
during natural disasters [10,11,13,27]. Although vulnerable popula-
tions were minimally included in this review, there were noteworthy
findings. Vulnerable populations such as low-income, African American
single mothers with low pre-disaster support are more impacted by
animal loss because they tend to rely on companion animals for stress-
relief and companionship during times of disaster [37]. Additionally,
individuals living in medium-high or high mortality rate index (MRI)
countries plan to take their animals with them in a disaster, even if it
affects their own safety [24]. This can be further complicated in vul-
nerable populations with low socioeconomic status (SES) because their
companion animals often do not have medical records or identification
tags [24]. As vulnerable populations are often more affected by dis-
asters, adding the stress of caring for, losing, abandoning, or worrying
about companion animals can worsen the impact of a disaster. Further
exacerbating disaster experiences is the death of a companion animal,
which produces high levels of psychological symptoms and trauma for
guardians [21,26,37,59]. Animal guardianship can also impact hospital
staffs’ decisions to go to work during a disaster. More specifically,
hospital staff's willingness to report to work during a time of disaster
can be influenced by their concern of caring for their companion ani-
mals [42]. A common form of disaster preparedness taken by guardians
for their companion animals includes stocking extra animal food,
stocking other typical animal supplies, and having an emergency plan
that includes their animals [24,57].
3.2. Findings across methodological streams
There were similar findings that amplified one another across the
three methodological streams (see Table 4). First, numerous studies
reported that companion animal guardians initially plan to evacuate
with their companion animals during a time of disaster [11,13,24,35].
 Table 3
Synthesis of Findings Within Methodological Stream and Evaluation of Certainty.
Method Synthesized Finding Statement (with country, type and phase of disaster,
and vulnerable population contexts—if any)
MM A primary reason animal guardians return to disaster sites or fail to
evacuate during a disaster is due to concerns for their animals during
the preparation, onset, containment, and recovery phases in cases of
volcanic eruptions in the Ecuadorian Andes and Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
MM Loss of a companion animal is a traumatic experience for children and
adolescents during the recovery phase in the case of a tsunami in India.
QL Guardianship of multiple companion animals is a reason guardians do
not plan to evacuate during the preparation phase in the case of a
hurricane in the United States.
QL As companion animals are seen as members of the family, guardians
develop emotionally-laden bonds with them, which are important
during a time of disaster. This pertains to the onset, containment, and
recovery phases in the case of earthquakes and wildfires in New
Zealand and the United States.
QL Members of Facebook pages that deal with companion animal
relocation after a disaster have very little experience with animal
welfare in disasters. This was relevant during the onset, containment,
and recovery phases in the case of a hurricane in the United States.
QL Hospital staff will assess their companion animals’ well-being and
safety in times of disaster, which can cause personal and professional
tensions about reporting to work during disasters. This was relevant
during the onset and containment phases during a wildfire in the
84
United States.
QN Companion animal-related factors influence evacuation decisions for
guardians during disasters regarding the preparation, onset,
containment, and recovery phases during multiple hurricanes and
general preparedness surveys in the United States
QN Companion animal loss during a disaster can result in high levels of
psychological symptoms and other disaster-related trauma for
guardians and children/adolescents during the onset, containment,
and recovery phases in the case of multiple hurricanes in the United
States, an earthquake and tsunami in Chile, and a volcanic eruption
Japan.
QN Caring for companion animals is a barrier for hospital staff's
willingness to respond during a disaster in the preparation and onset
phases regarding hypothetical/potential disaster circumstances in the
United States.
QN Vulnerable populations like low-income African American single
mothers and low-income individuals in medium-high or high MRI
areas in Latin America that are companion animal guardians can be
greatly impacted by companion animal-related decisions during a
disaster. This was relevant during the preparation, onset, containment,
and recovery phases in the case of hurricanes in the United States and
potential disaster situations in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico.
QN Commonly reported types of preparedness that guardians take for their
companion animals include stocking extra food, other companion
animal supplies, and having a general emergency plan in the cases of
an earthquake in Japan and general preparedness efforts in medium-
high or high MRI areas Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico.
Citations Supporting Synthesized Finding
Within Method Stream (referred to by first
author's last name)
Mei et al. [38]; Faas et al. [19]
John et al. [31]
Kusenbach et al. [35]
Coombs et al. [15]; Davidson et al. [18]
White et al. [54]
Davidson et al. [18]
Blendon et al. [10].; Brackenridge et al. [11];
Brown et al., [13]; Hunt et al. [27]
Goto et al. [21]; Hunt et al. [26]; Lowe et al.
[37]; Navarro et al. [39]; Zottarelli [59]
Ogedegbe et al., [42]
Hesterberg et al. [24]; Lowe et al. [37]
Hesterberg et al. [24]; Yamazaki [57]
A.M. Day
Evaluation of Certainty of Explanation of Evaluation
Synthesized Finding Within
Method Streams
Moderate confidence Both studies had similar results relating to the synthesized finding
statement. One (1) was individually appraised to be moderate and (1)
low. Both studies collected data from individuals affected by volcanic
eruptions.
Moderate confidence This study was individually appraised to be moderate and sampled
from disaster-affected children/adolescents.
Low confidence Individually appraised to be low. Sampled from potentially disaster-
affected individuals. No details on data analysis or interview protocol.
Moderate confidence Similar findings in the two studies. One (1) individually appraised
moderate and (1) low. One (1) sampled from disaster-affected
individuals and (1) from potentially disaster-affected individuals.
Low confidence Individually appraised to be low. Small sample from disaster-affected
individuals. Limited information on data collection and analysis.
Moderate confidence Individually appraised to be moderate. Sampled from potentially
disaster-affected individuals. No information on interview protocol or
data analysis.
Moderate confidence One (1) study was individually appraised to be strong, (2) moderate,
and (1) weak. Three (3) studies collected data from disaster-affected
individuals.
Moderate confidence Overlapping findings in these five studies. All (5) were individually
appraised to be moderate. All five studies collected data from affected-
populations.
Low confidence Individually appraised to be moderate. Data collected from health
professionals about potential disaster situations.
Moderate confidence Similar findings in each study regarding the impact of companion
animal-related decisions. One (1) sampled from potentially disaster-
affected individuals and (1) from disaster-affected individuals.
Low confidence One (1) study was individually appraised to be moderate and (1)
weak. One (1) study sampled from disaster-affected individuals and
(1) from potential disaster-affected individuals.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90
A.M. Day
Table 4
Synthesis of Findings Across Methodological Streams.
Synthesized Finding Across Method Streams (with country, type and phase of disaster, and
vulnerable population contexts—if any)
Although companion animal guardians initially plan to evacuate with and/or make
arrangements for their companion animals during disasters, they are not always executed
in the event of a disaster. This is relevant during the preparation, onset, and recovery
phases in the case of hurricanes in the United States and general preparedness in the
United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Colombia.
Guardianship of companion animals is a reason individuals do not plan to evacuate and a
primary reason that many return to disaster areas. Hence, companion animal
guardianship can influence disaster-relevant decisions—especially within vulnerable
populations—during the preparation, onset, containment, and recovery phases in the case
of hurricanes in the United States, volcanic eruptions in the Ecuadorian Andes and
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and potential disaster situations in Colombia, Costa Rica, and
Mexico.
Loss of a companion animal can be a traumatic experience that results in high levels of
psychological symptoms for adults, children, and adolescents due to emotionally-laden
bonds with their companion animals and companion animals being viewed as family
members. This is relevant during the onset, containment, and recovery phase in the case
of a tsunami in India, earthquakes in New Zealand, a volcanic eruption Japan, and
wildfire and hurricanes in the United States.
Hospital staff want to assess their companion animals’ well-being and safety in times of
disaster, which can cause personal and professional tensions about reporting to work
during disasters. This was relevant during the onset and containment phases, in the
context of a wildfire and potential disaster events in the United States.
This was found for disaster-affected as well as potentially disaster-af-
fected companion animal guardians. However, the execution of animal
guardians’ initial evacuation plan may not occur—at all, as originally
planned, or in a safe manner—during the onset of a disaster [11,24].
Companion animal guardianship can influence evacuation decisions
during a natural disaster [10,11,13,35,38]. This is especially con-
cerning for vulnerable populations, such as low-income African Amer-
ican single mothers [37] and individuals with low SES in medium-high/
high MRI areas [24]. In addition, companion animal guardianship can
be reasons that people return to disaster sites, even when they are
deemed unsafe [19,38]. Although companion animal guardianship can
serve as a risk factor during disaster onset and containment, it can
positively impact disaster preparedness. Some guardians take pre-
emptive preparedness actions for their animals, which include stocking
extra food and other commonly used animal supplies. Specifically, this
was reported by earthquake-affected guardians in Japan [57].
Due to the prevalence and sometimes unpredictable nature of nat-
ural disasters, it is an unfortunate possibility that lives can be lost. Loss
of a companion animal as a result of a natural disaster can be a trau-
matic experience for guardians. Such an experience can result in high
levels of negative psychological symptoms [21,26,31,37,59]. This can
be explained by the strong emotional bonds that guardians often de-
velop with their companion animal(s) and their elevated status as fa-
mily members [15,18]. This finding was relevant for New Zealand,
Japan, and the United States, all of which are high-income economies
according to the World Bank [56] country classifications. Therefore,
this finding must be explored further to better understand companion
animal guardianship in lower/middle-income countries.
Health providers and professionals are essential during natural
disasters. However, companion animal guardianship can influence
health professionals’ willingness to report to work during disasters
[18,42]. Hospital staff express a desire to assess their companion ani-
mals’ well-being and safety during times of disaster. As one could de-
duce, this could lead to potential personal and professional strain, with
the ability to impact the health, well-being, safety, and access to suf-
ficient medial services for disaster-affected populations. This was pre-
sent for two primary studies that took place in the United States, a high-
income economy [56]. It is unclear if this tension exists in other
countries or cultures.
Two studies included in this review had nuanced findings that were
not amplified by other findings (i.e., across methodological streams).
Thus, these findings were not included in the across methodology
85
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90
Citations Supporting Synthesized Finding Across Method Stream (referred to by
first author's last name)
Brackenridge et al. [11]; Brown et al., [13]; Hesterberg et al. [24]; Kusenbach
et al. [35]
Blendon et al., [10]; Brackenridge et al. [11]; Brown et al., [13]; Faas et al. [19];
Hesterberg et al. [24]; Hunt et al. [26]; Kusenbach et al. [35]; Lowe et al. [37];
Mei et al. [38]
Coombs et al. [15]; Davidson et al. [18]; Goto et al. [21]; Hunt et al. [26]; John
et al. [31]; Lowe et al. [37]; Navarro et al. [39]; Zottarelli [59]
Davidson et al. [18]; Ogedegbe et al. [42]
finding statements. It is important to note that this does not imply that
the findings are insignificant. Rather, perhaps it implies that more re-
search is needed pertaining to emergent social media pages during
times of disaster, such as those created for companion animal relocation
[54]. Lastly, the most common forms of companion animal prepared-
ness during an earthquake in Japan included stocking extra companion
animal food and other common companion animal supplies [57]. It is
unclear if other countries or cultures take these preparedness actions.
4. Discussion
The findings from this review are crucial to consider for disaster
planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Findings
highlight how companion animal guardianship can influence individual
preparedness, response, evacuation, and willingness to work during
disasters. Guardians and their companion animals must be included in
disaster planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. As
such, these findings illuminate the need for further attention, research,
and development regarding animal guardians and their needs within
the context of natural disasters. The remainder of this section will
discuss implications of the findings for public health and safety, disaster
professionals and officials, resiliency, and contextual factors. Lastly,
this section will close with a discussion of limitations and areas for
future research.
It is a matter of public health and safety to consider the needs of
animal guardians before, during, and after disasters. Therefore, the
findings of this review have implications for an array of disaster pro-
fessionals and officials, such as emergency managers, medical providers
and responders, community planners, crisis communicators, and pol-
icymakers. A top reason that this population must be seriously con-
sidered by disaster professionals and officials is that guardians often
return to disaster sites—even when they are not deemed safe for re-
entry—to search for their companion animals [19,38]. For example,
this was exemplified when Hurricane Katrina devastated the south-
eastern United States in 2005 [30]. Further complicating Katrina's de-
vastation was the large number of residents that did not evacuate. Many
had no means of transportation and animals were not permitted in
evacuation shelters or on government evacuation boats, helicopters, or
vehicles [2,30,37]. Such restrictive policies and lack of consideration
for companion animals and their guardians are reasons that some re-
sidents fail to evacuate [30].
Even at risk to health and safety, animal guardianship can strongly
A.M. Day
influence disaster decisions. This can threaten the health and safety of
responders who must rescue guardians who fail to evacuate due to re-
fusal to leave their companion animals or due to animal-restrictive
policies. This can also lengthen the wait for rescue for other disaster-
affected individuals. Additionally, companion animals that are aban-
doned in disasters not only affect the health and well-being of their
guardians, but can threaten public health and safety of others via un-
necessary rescue missions, zoonotic diseases, or aggressive behavior
due to anxiety and fright. As emergency managers and other disaster
officials are obligated to protect and uphold public health and safety,
they must consider how animal guardianship can serve as a risk factor
during disasters. However, these risks can be mitigated [3]. This starts
with disaster professionals’ understanding that animal guardians have
their own set of needs. When these needs are left unmet, threats to
public health, safety, and well-being are likely to arise.
In terms of the health and well-being for animal guardians, there are
severe implications based on findings in this review. Loss of a compa-
nion animal during a time of disaster can exacerbate trauma [31,39],
psychological distress [37,59], acute stress, peri-traumatic dissociation,
symptoms of depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [26],
and as this review has suggested, impact decision making (e.g.
[11,22],). Such effects often outlast the disaster onset phase and de-
mand longitudinal care, which can impact various elements of recovery
and mitigation. These effects can impact lay individuals as well as
medical providers and programs, finances, and larger structural sys-
tems. Due to the possibility of such effects, pre-disaster mitigation is a
preferable option and must be accounted for by disaster professionals
and officials. One way this can be mitigated is via crisis and risk
communication.
Communication can serve as a strategy to help mitigate the risks
surrounding animal guardianship during disasters. The public must be
assisted in self-protection and recovery as these are matters of public
health and safety. This is a duty of emergency managers and other of-
ficials, which can be achieved using crisis and risk communication
strategies. Proactive crisis communication aims to save lives and im-
prove the quality of life “by sharing the right information, in the right
way, at the right time” ([51], p. 259). Even more so, communication
can serve as an attractor in helping individuals connect with other
animal guardians, facilitate interpersonal networks (that are important
informational sources during disasters), and fulfill vital preparedness
and post-disaster needs (Sellnow & Seeger). For this to occur, tailored
messages that meet the needs of this population are required across
disaster phases.
Message tailoring can heighten message persuasiveness and serve as
a positive informational source during the phases of disaster [43].
However, to effectively tailor messages for animal guardians, pre-dis-
aster assessments must take place and be characterized by proactiveness
[41]. These messages are pertinent for the health and safety of guar-
dians and their companion animals, as well as disaster responders. Such
messaging must occur across different communication channels and at
the local level, as all disasters are local [46]. Communicative strategies
such as these enable significant choice [40,55].
Disaster-relevant decisions can be described as a significant choice.
Disasters evoke the “ethical obligation to provide all the relevant in-
formation” to the public ([52], p. 155). As such, disaster professionals
and officials must become more knowledgeable about the animal
guardians in their community and their unique set of needs. A better
understanding of animal guardians by disaster professionals and offi-
cials would benefit message design and communication, outreach and
engagement, general preparedness efforts, and most importantly, public
health and safety [3]. As crisis and risk remediation are most effective
when shared and collaborative, local agencies could partner with gov-
ernmental and organizational agencies to address the concerns of an-
imal guardianship during disasters [50,51]. The very attachment to
one's companion animal(s) could also serve as a strategy to strengthen
guardians’ disaster resiliency.
86
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90
Attachment and relational bonds with companion animals have
been demonstrated in many studies (e.g. [4,9],). It is possible, then, that
an individual's attachment and relational bond with their companion
animal could entice them to strengthen their disaster resiliency. This
may be especially salient for vulnerable populations that are animal
guardians [53]. As vulnerable populations were not prominent in this
review, they warrant discussion. Vulnerable populations can often be
socially isolated, vary in their reading and writing skills, and possibly
suffer from various health issues. This is further complicated by dis-
asters. One way this population could be engaged in disaster planning
and resiliency efforts is through their desire to keep their companion
animals safe [53]. Such an approach could also be applied to the larger
population, including emergency and medical personnel.
Findings of this review suggest that animal guardianship can impact
hospital staff's willingness to work during times of disaster. This further
threatens public health and safety during disasters. Research suggests
that the type of emergency or disaster also impacts healthcare workers’
ability and willingness to report to work. This can vary, however, with
workers most able and willing to report during incidents like a mass
casualty incident (MCI) or environmental disaster, and least able and
willing to report to work during incidents like a radiological event or
sudden acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARS) [47,6]. In addition,
transportation and child and elder care have also been reported as
barriers [47]. Such information is cause for more investigation and
research as medical and emergency service personnel are vital team
members for disaster response and recovery. These barriers must be
mitigated because as Thompson et al. [53] note, “there is clear evidence
that the safety of humans and animals is intertwined during disasters”
(p. 217). This may also be relevant in less affluent and less developed
countries.
Over half of the included studies in this review focused on devel-
oped, affluent countries while only a small number focused on less
developed, less affluent countries. These countries are not immune to
natural disasters and may be even more impacted due to factors such as
low SES and limited availability of communication technologies [35,5].
As developed, affluent countries are not the only societies in which
individuals develop human-animal bonds, it is essential that this topic is
better understood for the purposes of effective disaster planning, pre-
paredness, response, recovery, and mitigation in developing countries.
This would help ensure that disaster and emergency management fra-
meworks meet and respond to the exigencies of the communities they
serve [58]. Thus, disaster professionals, officials, and governmental
agencies must heed this call and account for animal guardians and their
companion animals. This is part of their obligation to public health and
safety.
4.1. Limitations
As with any research, this review has limitations. The review only
sought to examine one type of crisis: natural disasters. Therefore, future
research should examine the impact of companion animal guardianship
in other types of crises and emergencies. Additionally, only nine articles
focused on companion animal guardianship as a primary topic, which
could impact the quality and/or type of findings derived. The quality
and type of findings presented in this review may also be impacted by
the large number of studies that focused on the United States (12) and
hurricanes (8). The employed search terms could have also impacted
results.
The four databases used in this review were searched using sub-
scriptions accessed through the author's employing university. It is
likely that some relevant articles were not yielded and therefore, not
included. In other words, journal subscriptions are dependent upon
where the university obtains access from, which means that journal
subscriptions can vary at different locations (i.e., different universities)
depending on how vendors/databases allow the user to purchase and/
or access those journals. Database and article indexing within these
A.M. Day International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90

subscriptions and databases can also vary. Such information was dis-
cussed and revealed in consultation with the university's liaison li-
brarian. For example, no empirical studies from Africa or Australia were
included in this review. A possible reason for this is that the university
databases do not catalogue relevant journals, or their indexed keywords
did not “hit” with the search terms used in this review.
4.2. Future research
These findings have implications for disaster research, particularly
regarding research gaps. As noted, there were no quantitative com-
parison group studies, randomized control trials, or interventions in-
cluded in this review. As other methodological approaches yield im-
portant data, future research should apply the above methodologies in
effort to gain additional insights. Moreover, future research regarding
companion animal guardianship and disasters must examine long-
itudinal impacts of disaster planning and preparedness, risk perception,
and risk paradoxes in this population to help determine effective ap-
proaches, frameworks, and models for use.
Future research must also examine how animal guardians in less
affluent, less developed countries view their companion animals and
how animal guardianship impacts disaster-relevant decisions. Threats
to public health and safety resulting from animal guardianship must
also be investigated in these countries. Additional research is also
needed regarding guardianship's impact on healthcare staff's will-
ingness to work during disasters. This is crucial as healthcare workers
are essential team members during disaster response and recovery.
Lastly, this review only focused on companion animal guardianship.
Future research should investigate the impacts of other types of animal
guardianship during disasters, such as livestock, zoos, laboratory
animals, and even wildlife.
5. Conclusion
This review sought to survey and assess empirical literature on the
impacts of companion animal guardianship before, during, and/or after
a natural disaster. The studies included in this review indicate that
companion animal guardianship can impact individual levels of pre-
paredness, response, evacuation, and willingness to work during a
disaster. Yet, only nine studies focused on companion animal guar-
dianship as a primary topic. Although animal guardianship can impact
disaster-relevant decisions, disaster professionals and officials can likely
mitigate these risks and threats [23]. However, further discussion and
research is still needed surrounding this topic. Such research should
center on companion animal guardianship as a primary phenomenon of
interest, within the context of natural disaster planning, preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation. This is essential to ensure public
health and safety.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Julie Novak for her guidance and
support throughout the development of this review. The author would
also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and
helpful suggestions.

Appendix A. List of excluded articles

Bankoff, G. (2007). Bodies on the beach: Domesticates and disasters in the Spanish Philippines 1750–1898. Environment and History, 13(3),
285–306. doi:10.3197/096734007×228282.
Beaver, B. V., Gros, R., Bailey, E. M., & Lovern, C. S. (2006). Report of the 2006 National Animal Disaster Summit. JAVMA, 229(6), 943-948.
Bergholt, D., & Lujala, P. (2012). Climate-related natural disasters, economic growth, and armed civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1),
147-162. doi:10.1177/0022343311426167.
Bhandari, R. B., Okada, N., & Knottnerus, J. D. (2011). Urban ritual events and coping with disaster risk: A case study of Lalitpur, Nepal. Journal
of Applied Social Science, 5(2), 13-32. doi:10.1177/193672441100500202.
Bogucka, R. (2016). Uncle Sam wants you!... To evacuate with your companion animals. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 17, 79-83. doi:
10.1080/10496505.2016.1120116.
Bokszczanin, A. (2008). Parental support, family conflict, and overprotectiveness: Predicting PTSD symptom levels of adolescents 28 months after
a natural disaster. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21, 325-335. doi: 10.1080/10615800801950584.
Dean, J., Psy, D., Stain, H. J. (2007). The impact of drought on the emotional well-being of children and adolescents in rural and remote New
South Wales. The Journal of Rural Health, 23, 356–364. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0361.2007.00113.x.
Edmonds, A. S., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). Planning for companion animal evacuations during disasters. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 5. doi: 10.2202/1547–7355.1445.
Ewing, B., Buchholtz, S., & Rotanz, R. (2009). Assisting pregnant women to prepare for disaster. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs, 33(2), 98-103.
doi:10.1097/01. NMC.0000313417.66742.ce.
Hamilton, J. P., & Halvorson, S. J. (2007). The 2005 Kashmir earthquake: A perspective on women’s experiences. Mountain Research and
Development, 27(4), 296-301. doi:10.1659/mrd.0945.
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). (2016). Companion animals by the numbers: U.S. companion animal guardianship, community cat
and shelter population estimates. Retrieved October 25, 2016 from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/companion animal_overpopulation/
facts/companion animal_guardianship_statistics.html.
Irvine, L. (2007). Ready or not: Evacuating an animal shelter during a mock emergency. Anthrozoös, 20(4), 355-364. doi:10.2752/
089279307×245482.
Jacob, B., Mawson, A. R., Payton, M., & Guignard, J. C. (2008). Disaster mythology and fact: Hurricane Katrina and social attachment. Public
Health Reports, 123(5), 555-566. doi:10.1177/003335490812300505.
Kelman, I., Spence, R., Palmer, J., Petal, M., & Saito, K. (2008). Tourists and disasters: Lessons from the 26 December 2004 Tsunamis. Journal of
Coastal Conservation, 12(3), 105-113. doi:10.1007/s11852-008-0029-4.
Kesavan, P. C., & Swaminathan, M. S. (2006). Managing extreme natural disasters in coastal areas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364(1845), 2191–2216. doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1822.
Leonard, H. A., & Scammon, D. L. (2007). No companion animal left behind: Accommodating companion animals in emergency planning. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 26, 49-53.
Liu, B. F. (2008). Online disaster preparation: Evaluation of state emergency management web site. Nat. Hazards Rev., 9(1), 43-48. doi:10.1061/

87
A.M. Day International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90

(ASCE)1527–6988(2008)9:1(43).
McNabb, M. (2007). Companion animals in the eye of the storm: Hurricane Katrina floods the courts with companion animal custody disputes.
Animal Law, 14, 71-108.
Millman, S. T. (2008). Caring during crisis: Animal welfare during pandemics and natural disasters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 11,
85-89. doi: 10.1080/10888700801925513.
Rimoldi, M. (2011). The sociology of animals in disasters: Exploring the human-animal relationship in emergency management and disaster planning
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved July 11, 2016 from http://www.brackenengineering.com/Portals/0/MediaCoverage/The%20Sociology%20of
%20Animals%20in%20Disasters.pdf.
Robinson, O. J., Burkhalter, J. C., & Dindo, J. J. (2012). Conservation and management implications regarding local avian diversity following the
Deepwater Horizon disaster. Southeastern Naturalist, 11, G29-G35.
Schütte, S., & Kreutzmann, H. (2011). Linking relief and development in Pakistan-administered Kashmir restoring local livelihoods and economic
security in earthquake-affected areas. Mountain Research and Development, 31(1), 5-15. doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00093.1.
Shore, E. R., Riley, M. L., & Douglas, D. K. (2006). Companion animal guardian behaviors and attachment to yard versus house dogs. Anthrozoös,
19, 325-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415466.
Terranova, A. M., Boxer, P., Morris, A. S. (2009). Factors influencing the course of posttraumatic stress following a natural disaster: Children’s
reactions to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 344-355. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.017.
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), 123-136.
Thompson, K., Every, D., Rainbird, S., Cornell, V., Smith, B., Trigg, J. (2014). No companion animal or their person left behind: Increasing the
disaster resilience of vulnerable groups through animal attachment activities and networks. Animals, 4, 214-240. doi:10.3390/ani4020214.
Thompson, K. (2015). For companion animals’ sake, save yourself! Motivating emergency and disaster preparedness through relations of animal
guardianship. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 30, 43-46.
Trigg, J., Thompson, K., Smith, B., & Bennett, P. (2015). Engaging companion animal guardians in disaster risk and preparedness communica-
tions: Simplifying complex human-animal reactions with archetypes. Environmental Hazards, 14, 236-251. doi: 10.1080/17477891.2015.1047731.
Viña, A., Chen, X., McConnell, W. J., Liu, W., Xu, W., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, H., & Liu, J. (2011). Effects of natural disasters on conservation policies:
The case of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Ambio, 40(3), 274-284. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0098-0.
Weems, C. F., Taylor, L. K., Cannon, M. F., Marino, R. C., Romano, D. M., Scott, B. G., Perry, A. M., & Triplett, V. (2010). Post traumatic stress,
context, and the lingering effect of the Hurricane Katrina disaster among ethnic minority youth. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 38, 49-56. doi: 10.1007/
s10802-009-9352-y.
Weissbecker, I., Sephton, S. E., Martin, M. B., Simpson, D. M. (2008). Psychological and physiological correlates of stress in children exposed to
disaster: Current research and recommendations for intervention. Children, Youth and Environments, 18(1), 30–70.

Appendix B. Quality appraisal of finding statements from individual primary studies

Citation Method Quality Findings

Appraisal
Rating

John et al. MM Moderate 1. Loss of a pet resulted in traumatic experiences for children and adolescents.
[31] 2. PTSD is more severe among adolescents (12–18 years) exposed to loss of life/property—pets
included here.
Faas et al. [19] MM Low 1. Due to the cultural practices of animal husbandry that demand communal labor and provide
economic viability, many resettlers impacted by volcanic eruption(s) returned daily to high-risk
zones to tend to their crops and animals (Manzano site named specifically).
Mei et al. [38] MM Moderate 1. During a disaster, concern for animal care or not wanting to abandon animals are reasons why
individuals return to their homes in dangers zones.
Coombs et al. QL Low 1. People with a closer emotional bond to their dogs rely more on them during a time of disaster.
[15] 2. Strong emotional bonds and perceived support from a canine companion during a disaster can
lead to: re-prioritization of the dog's status within the family, additional concern for the dog's
physical and psychological safety, and stressful re-homing decisions during/after a disaster.
3. Companion dogs appear to reduce stress in adults during and after a disaster, especially when the
emotional bond is strong previous to the disaster.
Davidson et al. QL Moderate 1. Hospital staff that are also pet owners (sic) will assess their pets' well-being and safety in times of
[18] disaster, which can cause personal and professional tensions.
2. Pets (sic) are seen as members of the family for hospital staff that are pet guardians.
3. Pet guardians (sic) have more emotionally laden responses corresponding to a time of disaster
than others who described safety of children, elderly, or spouses due to pets' perceived
vulnerability.
Kusenbach QL Low 1. People cite owning multiple pets as a reason for not planning to evacuate during a hurricane.
et al. [35] 2. Two in three pet owners made arrangements for their pets during a hurricane.
White et al. QL Low 1. Most Facebook page members and administrators had little experience with matters of pet
[54] welfare in disasters.
2. Crossposting (posting from one page to another) was important to relocating lost and found pets.
Blendon et al. QN Weak 1. In the four affected regions (in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), 10–22% did not
[10] evacuation because they did not want to leave their pet(s).

88
A.M. Day International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90

Brackenridge QN Strong 1. Pet owners considered pets in their decisions regarding evacuation; pets both promoted and
et al. [11] inhibited evacuation.
2. People who reported higher commitment to their pets had marginally lower odds of evacuating
compared with people with lower levels of commitment to their pets.
Brown et al., QN Moderate 1. The majority of pet owners anticipated to evacuate with their pets during a disaster.
[13]
Goto et al. QN Moderate 1. Loss of pet(s) was significantly related to higher levels of PTSD following a disaster.
[21] 2. People who lost a pet reported significantly higher depression symptoms than those who did not.
3. People who were uncertain whether they had lost a pet, showed significantly higher PTSD
symptom scores than those who knew they had not lost a pet and reported approximately the
same levels of depression symptoms as those who did lose pets.
Hesterberg QN Weak 1. People with lower socioeconomic status were less likely to take animals to the vet, to vaccinate
et al. [24] or identify them, and more likely to leave their animal behind during evacuation.
2. Dog owners with lower socioeconomic status were less likely to have dogs that can be traced/
documented.
3. People who reported taking their pets to the vet regularly were significantly more likely to have
an emergency plan than people who do not.
4. A large majority of pet owners planned to take their animals with them in a disaster, even if this
affected their own safety or if they only had a few minutes warning for evacuation.
Hunt et al. QN Moderate 1. Pet loss during a disaster was associated with significantly higher levels of psychopathology,
[26] including acute stress and peri-traumatic dissociation, as well as symptoms of depression and
PTSD.
2. Individuals who loss pets due to a disaster had higher levels of depressive symptoms.
Hunt et al. QN Moderate 1. Owning a pet was not a statistically significant risk factor for failing to evacuate prior to
[27] Hurricane Irene; however, pet-related factors influenced some evacuation decisions.
2. Of the 23% of pet owners who chose not to evacuate despite mandatory evacuation notices cited
pet-related reasons for their evacuation failure.
3. Pet owners evacuated at the same rate as non-pet-owners, but pet-owners with two or more cats
cited significant difficulty in evacuation.
Lowe et al. QN Moderate 1. Pet loss significantly predicted post-disaster psychological distress.
[37] 2. Pet loss is not a significant predictor of post-disaster perceived social support, but was
significantly greater for participants with low levels of pre-disaster support.
Navarro et al. QN Moderate 1. No statistically significant differences were revealed on separation from pet(s) among the two
[39] groups concerning psychological symptoms.
Ogedegbe QN Moderate 1. Pet care is a commonly reported barrier for hospital staff regarding their willingness to respond
et al., [42] in a disaster.
2. Clinical hospital staff are more likely than non-clinical staff to report pet care as a barrier to
willingness to respond in a disaster.
Yamazaki [57] QN Moderate 1. The most common form of pet preparedness was stocking extra pet food and other pet supplies.
2. Regardless of pet evacuation status, the need for support was highest in the initial phase of
disaster (immediately after disaster).
Zottarelli [59] QN Moderate 1. People who experienced pet loss had greater exposure to other traumatic events during a
disaster.
2. People who evacuated, stayed in an emergency shelter, were separated from family, and were
hurt /injured had greater odds of experiencing pet loss compared to people who do not have
these experiences.

References
[1] 60 min/Vanity Fair Poll, September 11-15). Companion animals. Retrieved
December 12, 2016 from 〈http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Sep13b60VF-1.
pdf〉, 2013.
[2] A. Akhtar, Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better is Critical to
Human Welfare, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, 2012.
[3] A. Akhtar, The need to include animal protection in public health policies, J. Public
Health Policy 34 (4) (2013) 549–559, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2013.29.
[4] J. Archer, J.L. Ireland, The development and factor structure of a questionnaire
measure of the strength of attachment to pet dogs, Anthrozoös 24 (3) (2011)
249–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303711×13045914865060.
[5] K.F. Austin, L.A. McKinney, Disaster devastation in poor nations: the direct and
indirect effects of gender equality, ecological losses, and development, Social.
Forces 95 (1) (2016) 355–380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow056.
[6] R.D. Balicer, C.L. Catlett, D.J. Barnett, C.B. Thompson, E.B. Hsu, M.J. Morton,
J.M. Links, Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological
event: E25327, PLoS One 6 (10) (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0025327.
[7] E. Barnett-Page, J. Thomas, Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a
critical review, BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9 (2009) 59–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1186/1471-2288-9-59.
[8] A. Beck, A. Katcher, Between Companion Animals and People: The Importance of
Animal Companionship, Purdue University Press, Lafayette, IN, 1996.
[9] L. Beck, E.A. Madresh, Romantic partners and four-legged friends: an extension of
attachment theory to relationships with pets, Anthrozoös 21 (1) (2008) 43–56,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279308×274056.
[10] R.J. Blendon, J.M. Benson, C.M. DesRoches, K. Lyon-Daniel, E.W. Mitchell,
W.E. Pollard, The public's preparedness for hurricanes in four affected regions,
Public Health Rep. 122 (2007) 167–176 (Retrieved from), 〈http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20057112〉.
[11] S. Brackenridge, L.K. Zottarelli, E. Rider, B. Carlsen-Landy, Dimensions of the
human-animal bond and evacuation decisions among companion animal guardians
during Hurricane Ike, Anthrozoös 25 (2) (2012) 229–238, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2752/175303712×13316289505503.
[12] H. Brooks, K. Rushton, S. Walker, K. Lovell, A. Rogers, Ontological security and
connectivity provided by companion animals: a study in the self-management of the
everyday lives of people diagnosed with a long-term mental health condition, BMC
Psychiatry 16 (1) (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1111-3.
[13] K.C. Brown, N. Horner, M. Fankhauser, J. Roth, T. Victoroff, Assessment of
household preparedness through training exercises: two metropolitan counties,
Tennessee, 2011, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Report. 61 (36) (2012) 720–722.
[14] A. Cain, A study of companion animals in the family system, in: A. Katcher, A. Beck

89
A.M. Day
(Eds.), New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1983, pp. 71–81.
[15] S. Coombs, A. Eberlein, K. Mantafa, A. Turnhout, C.M. Smith, Did dog guardianship
influence perceptions of adult health and wellbeing during and following the
Canterbury earthquakes? A qualitative study, Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 19
(2015) 67–76.
[16] Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), CASP qualitative checklist. Retrieved
August 18, 2016 from 〈http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_
29c5b002d99342f788c6ac670e49f274.pdf〉, 2013.
[17] E.L. Davids, N.V. Roman, A systematic review of the relationship between parenting
styles and children's physical activity, Afr. J. Phys., Health Educ., Recreat. Dance 2
(1) (2014) 228–246.
[18] J.E. Davidson, A. Sekayan, D. Agan, L. Good, D. Shaw, R. Smilde, Disaster dilemma:
factors affecting decision to come to work during a natural disaster, Adv. Emerg.
Nurs. J. 31 (3) (2009) 248–257, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TME.
0b013e3181af686d.
[19] A.J. Faas, E. Jones, L. Whiteford, G. Tobin, A. Murphy, Gendered access to formal
and informal resources in postdisaster development in the Ecuadorian Andes, Mt.
Res. Dev. 34 (3) (2014) 223–234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-
13-00100.
[20] GfK, May 24). Press release: Companion animal-guardians dominate Latin America,
Russia, and USA. Retrieved October 25, 2016 〈http://www.gfk.com/fileadmin/
user_upload/website_content/Global_Study/Documents/20160524_PM_
Companion.animal_guardianship_efin.pdf〉, 2016.
[21] T. Goto, J.P. Wilson, B. Kahana, S. Slane, The Miyake Island volcano disaster in
japan: loss, uncertainty, and relocation as predictors of PTSD and depression, J.
Appl. Social. Psychol. 36 (8) (2006) 2001–2026, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-
9029.2006.00091.x.
[22] S.E. Heath, P.H. Kass, A.M. Beck, L.T. Glickman, Human and companion animal-
related risk factors for household evacuation failure during a natural disaster, Am.
J. Epidemiol. 153 (2001) 659–665.
[23] S.E. Heath, R.D. Linnabary, Challenges of managing animals in disasters in the U.S,
Anim.: Open Access J. MDPI 5 (2) (2015) 173–192, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
ani5020173.
[24] U.W. Hesterberg, G. Huertas, M.C. Appleby, Perceptions of companion animal
guardians in urban Latin America on protection of their animals during disasters,
Disaster Prev. Manag.: Int. J. 21 (1) (2012) 37–50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
09653561211202692.
[25] J. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration,
2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
[26] M. Hunt, H. Al-Awadi, M. Johnson, Psychological sequelae of companion animal
loss following Hurricane Katrina, Anthrozoös 21 (2) (2008) 109–121, http://dx.doi.
org/10.2752/75303708×305765.
[27] M.G. Hunt, K. Bogue, N. Rohrbaugh, Companion animal guardianship and eva-
cuation prior to Hurricane Irene, Animals 2 (4) (2012) 529–539, http://dx.doi.org/
10.3390/ani2040529.
[28] International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IRFC), World
disasters report 2015. Retrieved November 15, 2016 from 〈http://ifrc-media.org/
interactive/world-disasters-report-2015/〉, 2015a.
[29] International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IRFC), World
disasters report: Focus on local actors, the key to humanitarian effectiveness.
Retrieved November 15, 2016 from 〈http://ifrc-media.org/interactive/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/1293600-World-Disasters-Report-2015_en.pdf〉, 2015b.
[30] L. Irvine, Filling the ark: Animal Welfare in Disasters, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, PA, 2009.
[31] P.B. John, P.S.S. Russell, S. Russell, The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder
among children and adolescents affected by tsunami disaster in Tamil Nadu,
Disaster Manag. Response 5 (1) (2007) 3–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dmr.2006.
11.001.
[32] Y. Kanat-Maymon, A. Antebi, S. Zilcha-Mano, Basic psychological need fulfillment
in human–companion animal relationships and well-being, Personal. Individ. Differ.
92 (2016) 69–73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.025.
[33] A. Karim, I. Noy, Poverty and natural disasters — a qualitative survey of the em-
pirical literature, Singap. Econ. Rev. 61 (1) (2016) 1–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1142/S0217590816400014.
[34] Y. Kimura, H. Kawabata, M. Maezawa, Frequency of neurotic symptoms shortly
after the death of a companion animal, J. Vet. Med. Sci. 76 (4) (2014) 499–502,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1292/jvms.13-0231.
[35] M. Kusenbach, J.L. Simms, G.A. Tobin, Disaster vulnerability and evacuation
readiness: coastal mobile home residents in Florida, Nat. Hazards 52 (1) (2010)
79–95, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9358-3.
[36] S. Lewin, C. Glenton, H. Munthe-Kaas, B. Carlsen, C.J. Colvin, M. Gülmezoglu,
J. Noyes, A. Booth, R. Garside, A. Rashidian, Using qualitative evidence in decision
making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in
findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual), PLoS Med 12
(2015) e1001895, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895.
90
View publication stats
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017) 81–90
[37] S.R. Lowe, J.E. Rhodes, L. Zwiebach, C.S. Chan, The impact of companion animal
loss on the perceived social support and psychological distress of hurricane survi-
vors, J. Trauma. Stress 22 (3) (2009) 244–247, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.
20403.
[38] E.T.W. Mei, F. Lavigne, A. Picquout, E. de Bélizal, D. Brunstein, D. Grancher,
J. Sartohadi, N. Cholik, C. Vidal, Lessons learned from the 2010 evacuations at
Merapi volcano, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 261 (2013) 348–365, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013.03.010.
[39] J. Navarro, R. Pulido, C. Berger, M. Arteaga, H. Osofsky, M. Martinez, J.D. Osofsky,
T. Hansel, Children's disaster experiences and psychological symptoms: an inter-
national comparison between the Chilean earthquake and tsunami and Hurricane
Katrina, Int. Social. Work 59 (4) (2016) 545–558, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0020872814537850.
[40] T.R. Nilsen, Ethics of Speech Communication, 2nd ed, Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc,
New York, NY, 1974.
[41] S.M. Noar, N.G. Harrington, R.S. Aldrich, The role of message tailoring in the de-
velopment of persuasive health communication messages, Communication
Yearbook 33 (2009), pp. 72–133.
[42] C. Ogedegbe, T. Nyirenda, G. DelMoro, E. Yamin, J. Feldman, Health care workers
and disaster preparedness: barriers to and facilitators of willingness to respond, Int.
J. Emerg. Med. 5 (1) (2012) 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-5-29.
[43] L.G. Pelletier, E. Sharp, Persuasive communication and proenvironmental beha-
viours: how message tailoring and message framing can improve integration of
behaviours through self-determined motivation, Can. Psychol. 49 (3) (2008)
210–217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012755.
[44] P. Pluye, E. Robert, M. Cargo, G. Bartlett, A. O′Cathain, F. Griffiths, F. Boardman, M.
P. Gagnon, M.C. Rousseau, Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic
mixed studies reviews. Retrieved August 18, 2016 from 〈http://
mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com〉. Archived by WebCite® at
〈http://www.webcitation.org/5tTRTc9yJ〉, 2011.
[45] C. Pope, S. Ziebland, N. Mays, Qualitative research in health care: analysing qua-
litative data, BMJ: Br. Med. J. 320 (7227) (2000) 114–116, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1136/bmj.320.7227.114.
[46] E.L. Quarantelli, What is a disaster? in: B. Jones, M. Tomazevic (Eds.), Social and
Economic Aspects of Earthquake, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1982.
[47] K. Qureshi, R.R.M. Gershon, M.F. Sherman, T. Straub, E. Gebbie, M. McCollum,
S.S. Morse, Health care workers' ability and willingness to report to duty during
catastrophic disasters, J. Urban Health 82 (3) (2005) 378–388, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/jurban/jti086.
[48] C.R. Sanders, Actions speak louder than words: close relationships between humans
and nonhuman animals, Symb. Interact. 26 (3) (2003) 405–426.
[49] H. Schünemann, J. Brożek, G. Guyatt, & A. Oxman, (Eds.). (2013). GRADE hand-
book. Retrieved August 1, 2016 from 〈http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/
handbook/handbook.html〉.
[50] M.W. Seeger, Best practices in crisis communication: an expert panel process, J.
Appl. Commun. Res. 34 (3) (2006) 232–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00909880600769944.
[51] T.L. Sellnow, M.W. Seeger, Theorizing Crisis Communication, Wiley-Blackwell,
West Sussex, UK, 2013.
[52] T.L. Sellnow, R.R. Ulmer, M.W. Seeger, R.S. Littlefield, Effective Risk
Communication: A Message-Centered Approach, Springer, New York, NY, 2009.
[53] K. Thompson, D. Every, S. Rainbird, V. Cornell, B. Smith, J. Trigg, No pet or their
person left behind: increasing the disaster resilience of vulnerable groups through
animal attachment, activities and networks, Anim.: Open Access J. MDPI 4 (2)
(2014) 214–240, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani4020214.
[54] J.I. White, J. Palen, K.M. Anderson, Digital mobilization in disaster response: The
work & self-organization of on-line companion animal advocates in response to
Hurricane Sandy. CSCW’14. Baltimore, MD. Higgins, J., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011).
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated
March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-
handbook.org 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531633〉, 2014.
[55] M. Wickline, T.L. Sellnow, Expanding the concept of significant choice through
consideration of health literacy during crises, Health Promot. Pract. 14 (6) (2013)
809–815, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839913498752.
[56] World Bank, World Bank country and lending groups. Retrieved September 1, 2016
from 〈https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-
world-bank-country-and-lending-groups〉, 2016.
[57] S. Yamazaki, A survey of companion-animal guardians affected by the east japan
great earthquake in Iwate and Fukushima prefectures, Japan, Anthrozoös 28 (2)
(2015) 291–304, http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279315×14219211661895.
[58] D.O. Yawson, M.O. Adu, F.A. Armah, J. Kusi, I.G. Ansah, C. Chiroro, A needs-based
approach for exploring vulnerability and response to disaster risk in rural com-
munities in low income countries, Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 19 (2015) 27.
[59] L.K. Zottarelli, Broken bond: an exploration of human factors associated with
companion animal loss during Hurricane Katrina, Sociol. Forum 25 (1) (2010)
110–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01159.x.