Nothing steals the self-satisfaction from disaster preparedness efforts quite like a disaster dodged—at least that was the opinion of some New Yorkers this week after Hurricane Irene blew through and left the ready-and-waiting city largely unscathed.

“With all the preparations and all the hoopla on TV, it was all for naught,” New York resident Mike Fenton told the New York Times. “I feel embarrassed that we made such a to-do.”

Fenton might be chagrined, but the hoopla-instigating officials and disaster experts are far from sheepish. Instead, they see evacuation efforts along the East Coast as an incredibly heartening example of governments' timely calling of the right shots and the public paying heed.

“Politics, it seemed, was put aside in the better interest of public safety,” wrote Elizabeth A. Davis about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s unprecedented mandatory evacuation of low-lying areas. “Similarly, governors from states in Irene’s pathway … made bold and correct calls early on.”

The problem is that Irene’s softened blow now makes those bold calls seem less correct to many, who have grumbled about the inconvenience and expense of anticlimactic storm preparations. Far from being appreciative that they’ll live to complain another day, some disgruntled New Yorkers point to last winter’s mangled blizzard response as an ulterior motive for Bloomberg’s now-precautionary preaching.

“He overreacted,” resident Coco McPherson told the Times. “I think it was a reaction to Snowmageddon, and his perceived failures then.”

Others, it seems, would have rather hunkered down in a storm than face the thought of having extra supplies on hand for the next emergency.

“Bloomberg, he did O.K., but he made people crazy and spend a lot of money,” Franklin Rodriguez told the Times. “Water, batteries, tuna fish, other food in a can. For what? Believe me, people spent a lot of money on this. The tuna fish and the other food, O.K., we’re going to eat it. I don’t need all this water and batteries, though.”

While skepticism about Bloomberg’s motives might not be helpful, it’s attitudes like Franklin’s that can be truly dangerous, according to Southern Illinois University Carbondale professor Randy Burnside, who specializes in disaster behavior and policy.

“Now, a number of people are saying: ‘See, the storm wasn’t that bad. It was all media hype,’” Burnside wrote in an opinion piece for the Times. “This is dangerous rhetoric. Those of us who work in the emergency management area know that the “crying wolf” syndrome is very real and can blind people to real threats.… Therefore, it is incumbent for everyone in emergency preparedness to counter the complacency that will surely arise in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene.”

While countering complacency falls under the daily purview of emergency preparedness personnel, hopefully the pre-Irene evacuations won’t make matters any worse. There have been instances where multiple unnecessary evacuations haven’t dampened participation, according to an Associated Press article.

“In past storms—such as in 1985, when western Florida evacuated three times and didn't get hit—the 'cry wolf' syndrome did not materialize,” the article, which cites Florida State University professor Jay Baker, stated. “The same number of people evacuated for each of those storms. And post-storm surveys show only around 5 percent of people would change their decision.”

While that’s encouraging, New York is not Florida, with its frequent hurricane threats and history of landfalls. Without the constant reminder of danger, people can forget how real the risk is, according to Harvard Extension School instructor David Ropeik.

In a Times opinion, Ropeik points out that “the way we perceive and respond to risk is affective—not merely objectively analytical, but the sum of the facts and how scary those facts feel.” So while it might not be human nature to prepare for the implausible, it’s still a good idea.

“It might have been annoying to wait in line for hours for those extra D batteries or food supplies, but it was prudent to do so, and it’s a good idea to keep them on hand,” Ropeik wrote. “Just because a risk might not be staring us in the face or feel all that scary, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense to be ready. Just in case.”