An Analysis of the Socioeconomic Impact of Hurricane Floyd and Related Flooding on Students at East Carolina University
Department of Sociology
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 29208
E-mail: edwardsr@mail.ecu.edu
Return to Quick Response Paper Index
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-9632458. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
The sample accurately represents the broader student university population, though women and African Americans were slightly over-represented, comprising 64% and 15% in the sample compared to 59% and 12% respectively. Table 1 presents characteristics of the sample. Because the survey was administered through classes during the period immediately following the flood, the sample does not include students who were so severely affected by the storm they did not return to school when the university reopened.
Variables | Mean or % Yes | S.D. | Valid N. |
---|---|---|---|
Age |
23.5%
|
6.1
|
523
|
Female |
64%
|
-
|
823
|
Male |
35%
|
-
|
823
|
White |
78%
|
-
|
792
|
Black |
15%
|
-
|
792
|
Other |
7%
|
-
|
792
|
Graduate Student |
13%
|
-
|
825
|
Undergraduate Student |
87%
|
-
|
825
|
Years at ECU |
2.6%
|
1.6
|
817
|
Evacuating students most frequently stayed with their parents (78%) or friends (29%), with notable but markedly smaller proportions staying with other relatives (8%), in shelters (1%), or in motels (2%). These total to more than 100% because many students evacuated to multiple destinations. The situation of an undergraduate student with a physical disability illustrates this situation. When the university closed, students who could not leave were consolidated into a single dormitory, yet that dormitory was not wheelchair accessible, leaving this student sitting in his car in the parking lot with nowhere to go. He then contacted a faculty member with whom he could stay until his parents could get through from out of town to take him home. After returning to Greenville, he then stayed with friends for several days until the dormitories reopened. Table 2 summarizes these results.
Variables | Mean or % Yes | S.D. | Valid N. |
---|---|---|---|
Did you evacuate for Floyd? |
59%
|
-
|
724
|
Of those who evacuated: | |||
received no help evacuating |
38%
|
-
|
411
|
received help from family |
15%
|
-
|
407
|
received help from friends |
47%
|
-
|
407
|
Number of days out of home or dorm |
10.2%
|
4.6
|
449
|
Where did you evacuate to? | |||
Parents |
71%
|
-
|
425
|
Other family member of relative |
8%
|
-
|
425
|
Shelter |
1%
|
-
|
425
|
Motel/hotel |
2%
|
-
|
425
|
Friends |
29%
|
-
|
425
|
Did someone stay with you because of the storm? |
30%
|
-
|
716
|
If yes, how many days did they stay? |
5.8%
|
5.6
|
213
|
About 1,260 students (7%) reported that they had to move as a result of Floyd. The vast majority of students who had to move (91%) reported experiencing difficulty in finding a new place to live. Of those who moved, nearly half (43%) found a residence that was more expensive than their preflood home. Average additional costs were $93 per month. By contrast 23% of students forced to relocate found cheaper living arrangements; yet in most of these cases, the costs were cheaper because these students had more postflood roommates to share costs with than they did before the flood. In many cases these cost savings were the result of overcrowding in rental houses or apartments. About one-third (35%) of students forced to move saw their rents change by less than $20 per month one way or the other.
Variables | Mean or % Yes | Valid N. |
---|---|---|
No damage |
66%
|
688
|
Of those with damage, repairs... | ||
were done while still living there |
25%
|
688
|
done before they could move back |
5%
|
688
|
could not be done, property condemned |
4%
|
688
|
Did you have to move? |
21%
|
537
|
If you had to move: | ||
new residence was cheaper |
23%
|
-
|
new residence was more expensive |
42%
|
-
|
Average rent increase per month |
$93
|
-
|
Obviously, the number of students relocating to new residences because of the flood has transportation and parking implications for the university community. Prior to the flooding most ECU students (57%) who lived off campus reported that they drove cars to school, with walkers (28%) making up the next largest category. As mentioned above, about 1,260 students were forced to move because of the flooding, and 61% of those students had to change their means of commuting to school as a result. Consequently 37% percent of preflood walkers and bikers now drive, and another 8% of them now ride the ECU bus service. Similarly, 55% of relocated students who used the ECU bus service before the flood now drive. In contrast 10% of preflood drivers now walk or ride bicycles to school. In general, the relocation of students from the flood has increased the number of students who drive to school, thereby putting greater stress on current parking facilities. More students are relying on the ECU bus service, but many who relocated moved to areas not traditionally considered student areas and not serviced by the ECU bus service. Expanding bus routes to include such areas may eliminate much of the increased frequency of individuals driving to school that resulted from the flooding.
Transportation | Mean or % Yes | Valid N. |
---|---|---|
How did you get to school before Floyd?* |
684
|
|
Walk |
28%
|
|
Bicycle |
4%
|
|
ECU bus |
9%
|
|
Drive car |
57%
|
|
Get ride |
2%
|
|
Drive time |
23 min.
|
469
|
Of those who had to move because of the flood:** |
97
|
|
Percent of preflood walkers/bikers who now drive |
19%
|
|
Percent of preflood EDU Bus riders who now drive |
12%
|
|
Percent of preflood drivers who now walk/bike |
8%
|
|
Average postflood drive time |
20 min.
|
41
|
We undertook a preliminary bivariate analysis of group differences regarding property damage and other flood impacts. Overall we found very few significant differences. Students who lived off-campus were more affected than those who lived on-campus. Students who were homeowners were more negatively affected than renters. Compared to on-campus students those who lived off-campus were more likely to report that their lives were still "very disrupted" (p<.01) by the flood. Similarly North Carolina residents and African-American students were more likely to report that their lives were still "very disrupted" than were either students from out of state or white students respectively. Students were also asked whether or not their experiences of the hurricane and flooding had caused them to reconsider their life priorities, and 15% indicated that it had caused them to reconsider their priorities "a great deal" and 48% said it had "somewhat." We found that female students were more likely than males to indicate this influence. Similarly, students living off-campus and those who had suffered damage from the storm were more likely to indicate a change in priorities as a result of their experiences.
Variables | Mean or % Yes | N = 270 |
---|---|---|
No need for help cleaning/repair |
33%
|
|
Family helped |
31%
|
|
Friends helped |
29%
|
|
Neighbors helped |
16%
|
|
No help received |
6%
|
|
Coworkers helped |
2%
|
|
Landlord helped |
22%
|
|
Church members helped |
4%
|
|
Others helped |
6%
|
|
Of those needing help finding a new place to live: |
N=61
|
|
No help finding new place to live |
21%
|
|
Family helped |
35%
|
|
Friends helped |
52%
|
|
Neighbors helped |
5%
|
|
Coworkers helped |
0%
|
|
Landlord helped |
7%
|
|
Church members helped |
2%
|
|
ECU relief center helped |
3%
|
|
Others helped |
7%
|
As noted above, about one in four ECU students, or about 4,500 individuals, reported incurring costs due to damage to their residence or loss of personal property. These students faced two types of needs. First, they needed to find out where they might be able to obtain financial or material assistance to help recover their losses. Second, they needed to actually obtain financial and material aid. We asked them about the sources of assistance, other than insurance, that they accessed to help them meet both of these needs. Tables 6 and 7 present these results. Results in Tables 6 and 7 do not total 100% because students could indicate multiple sources from which they received assistance.
It is important to note that 45% of students who needed information and referrals to potential sources of financial or material assistance reported that they received no such help. The same is true regarding actually obtaining needed financial and material assistance, with 49% of affected students indicating they received no such assistance. Those that did receive information and referral assistance obtained it from family (30%), friends (27%), and the ECU relief center (26%). Family was the most frequently cited source of financial or material assistance (30%) followed by FEMA and the ECU relief center (19%), and friends (15%).
Source of Information | Percent Yes (N = 173) |
---|---|
Of those needing information and referral assistance: |
|
Received no assistance |
45%
|
Family helped locate |
30%
|
Friends helped locate |
27%
|
Boss helped locate |
5%
|
Coworkers helped locate |
5%
|
Neighbors helped locate |
8%
|
Church members helped locate |
5%
|
Faculty helped locate |
8%
|
ECU relief center helped locate |
26%
|
Source of assistance | Percent Yes (N=165) |
---|---|
Of those needing financial or material assistance: |
|
Received no assistance |
49%
|
Family |
30%
|
FEMA |
19%
|
ECU relief center |
19%
|
Friends |
15%
|
Red Cross |
8%
|
Church members |
6%
|
Employer or coworkers |
6%
|
Faculty |
2%
|
Neighbors |
2%
|
A preliminary analysis of group differences regarding this type of informal helping behavior revealed several statistically significant results. Men and off-campus residents were more likely than women and on-campus residents to provide assistance through informal channels. Similarly, students who had volunteered with service organizations before the flood were more likely to provide informal assistance than those who had not previously volunteered.
Type of Assistance | Evacuation Percent Yes (N = 801) |
Financial Percent Yes (N=789 |
Clean-up/Repair Percent Yes (N=764) |
---|---|---|---|
Provided assistance to: | |||
Family |
7%
|
7%
|
18%
|
Friends |
38%
|
36%
|
33%
|
Neighbors |
8%
|
7%
|
8%
|
Church members |
2%
|
4%
|
2%
|
Coworkers |
6%
|
6%
|
2%
|
Provided no assistance |
53%
|
54%
|
53%
|
A significant number of students also volunteered through various community organizations to help with local relief efforts. Overall, 37% of those surveyed, representing over 7,000 students, reported that they did volunteer work through organized relief efforts. The Pitt County Red Cross was the most frequent organization with which students volunteered (15%), followed by local churches (12%). Nine per cent of students volunteered with the Salvation Army, 8% in emergency shelters, 5% with the Emergency Animal Rescue Service, and about 2% with city clean-up programs.
A preliminary analysis of student volunteering with local organizations revealed the following differences. While men were more likely to provide informal assistance than women, women were more likely than men to work in organized volunteer efforts through community organizations. North Carolina residents and graduate students were more likely to work through organized volunteer efforts than were students from out of state or undergraduates respectively. Students living off-campus were more likely to volunteer than those living on-campus, as were students who had already volunteered prior to the flooding. Lastly, those who suffered property damage themselves were significantly more likely to volunteer in organized local relief efforts than were students who did not suffer any damage.
Return to Hazards Center Home Page