Credit: Keira Burton from Pexels

Many have spent much of their career studying disasters—how people perceive risk, how institutions communicate, and why preparedness so often falls short of good intentions. But this study forced me to confront something I had not fully reckoned with before: hurricane preparedness is not only a matter of awareness or motivation. It is deeply shaped by the built environment—by where people live, where they work, and how campuses are physically designed.

Universities like to think of preparedness as a behavioral issue. If we send enough emails, post enough guidelines, and remind people often enough, surely they will prepare. Yet as I examined hurricane preparedness among university employees in Florida, a different story emerged.

Preparedness is constrained—and sometimes enabled—by buildings, housing types, infrastructure, and space. In other words, preparedness is not just something people decide to do. It is something their environments allow them to do.

The built environment as a silent barrier to preparedness

One of the most striking patterns in our findings was how strongly preparedness intentions were tied to people’s sense of personal competence. But that sense of competence did not exist in a vacuum. It was shaped by tangible, physical conditions.

The findings are published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Assembling a disaster preparedness kit, for example, sounds simple on paper. But for someone living in a small apartment or a manufactured home, storage space becomes a real constraint. Where do you keep gallons of water, emergency supplies, or backup equipment? The built environment quietly answers that question for you—often with a firm "you can’t."

Similarly, evacuation planning is not just a cognitive exercise. It depends on access to transportation, familiarity with routes, and confidence that one’s dwelling can be safely secured or left behind. Employees living in single-family homes often perceived themselves as more capable of preparing than those in denser or more vulnerable housing types. This difference is not about knowledge. It is about physical reality.

Campuses themselves play a role here. Universities are complex built environments with layered systems—parking structures, residential zones, academic cores, and service areas. Yet most preparedness messaging treats employees as if they interact with campus in the same way. Facilities staff, faculty members, and administrative employees inhabit very different spatial realities, but receive identical instructions. That mismatch matters.

Why fear doesn’t work when buildings feel familiar

Another lesson from this study challenged one of disaster research’s most common assumptions: that risk perception drives preparedness. In Florida, most employees already know hurricanes are dangerous. Many have lived through several. The hazard is familiar, and familiarity dulls urgency.

What surprised some readers of our findings was that perceived risk—how likely or severe people thought a hurricane might be—did not significantly influence preparedness intentions. From a built environment perspective, this makes sense. When buildings remain standing after repeated storms, they communicate resilience, even when that resilience is partial or misleading.

People trust structures they have survived in before. Apartments that endured previous hurricanes, offices that reopened quickly, and campuses that resumed operations all reinforce a sense that the environment will "hold." That trust can reduce the perceived need to act.

This is not irrational behavior. It is experiential learning shaped by physical outcomes. If we want to encourage preparedness, we cannot rely on fear-based messaging alone. We must address how people interpret safety through the performance of buildings and infrastructure.

Campuses are not neutral spaces

Universities often present themselves as neutral, standardized environments—but they are anything but. Our findings showed significant variation in preparedness confidence based on where employees worked and lived. These differences reflect unequal exposure, unequal housing conditions, and unequal access to resources embedded in the built environment.

From a planning and design perspective, this raises uncomfortable questions. Are evacuation routes clearly communicated and accessible to all employees? Do emergency plans account for people who cannot store supplies or evacuate easily? Are campuses designed with employee safety in mind, or primarily student circulation?

Preparedness systems often assume a level of spatial flexibility that many employees simply do not have. Asking people to prepare without addressing these constraints shifts responsibility onto individuals while ignoring structural limitations. That is not resilience—it is displacement of accountability.

Universities are powerful spatial actors. They design buildings, manage land, and control infrastructure. If preparedness is important—and it should be—then the built environment must be part of the strategy, not an afterthought.

From messaging to design: Rethinking preparedness

What does all of this mean in practice? It means that effective preparedness cannot stop at communication. It must extend into design, planning, and institutional support.

Instead of generic reminders, universities could provide physical resources—shared emergency supplies, accessible storage options, or clear evacuation infrastructure tailored to different employee groups. Templates for evacuation and communication plans help, but they work best when paired with spatial solutions that make action feasible.

Preparedness should feel achievable, not aspirational. Our findings show that when employees believe they can prepare—and that preparation will actually help—they are far more likely to intend to act. That belief is built through clarity, support, and environments that do not quietly work against them.

Hurricanes will continue to test our campuses. Whether universities pass that test depends not only on how well they communicate, but on how honestly they confront the role of the built environment in shaping behavior. Preparedness is not just about what people know or fear. It is about where they live, where they work, and whether those spaces give them a fair chance to be ready.

If we want more resilient campuses, we need to stop asking only how people behave—and start asking how our buildings, infrastructure, and planning decisions make that behavior possible.

This story is part of Science X Dialog, where researchers can report findings from their published research articles. Visit this page for information about Science X Dialog and how to participate.

More information

Amer Hamad Issa Abukhalaf et al, Studying the impact of multiple behavioral variables on hurricane preparedness behaviors among employees at institution of higher education in Florida, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105752

Amer Hamad Issa Abukhalaf, Assistant Professor, Nieri Department of Construction, Development and Planning, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, U.S.—Ratna Dougherty, Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, U.S.—Abdallah Naser, Associate Professor, Department of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences and Clinical Pharmacy, Isra University, Amman, Jordan—Kawthar Alrayyan, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, U.S.

Citation: The hidden role of the built environment in campus disaster preparedness (2026, February 2) retrieved 2 February 2026 from https://phys.org/news/2026-02-hidden-role-built-environment-campus.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.