@inbook {bnh-8365, title = {A community engagement approach to natural hazard communication}, booktitle = {The Handbook of Crisis Communication}, year = {2022}, pages = {327-344}, publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons Ltd}, organization = {John Wiley \& Sons Ltd}, edition = {Second Edition}, address = {West Sussex, UK}, isbn = {978-1-119-67892-2}, url = {https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Handbook+of+Crisis+Communication+:+Second+Edition-p-9781119678922}, author = {Maureen Taylor and Kim Johnston and Barbara Ryan} } @article {bnh-8332, title = {Engaging communities to prepare for natural hazards: a conceptual model}, journal = {Natural Hazards}, year = {2022}, month = {03/2022}, abstract = {

Natural hazard preparation by communities reduces disaster-induced physical health problems and adverse experiences, lowers potential for post-traumatic stress disorders, and aids faster recovery. However, approaches to community engagement for preparedness vary widely leaving those responsible confused and often overwhelmed. This study builds on natural hazards behavior, community development, participatory, and codesign research to understand current community engagement approaches in an Australian context. Key principles for engaging communities were operationalized from document analysis and interviews with 30 community engagement practitioners from 25 Australian emergency management agencies. A thematic analysis of the agency documents and interviews led to a visualization of the pathway to community-led preparedness with the iterative community-centered engagement model for preparedness. The model reflects both current practice and aspirations. It contributes theoretically to a collaborative community-led engagement approach for risk personalization and protective action by highlighting the need to develop a deep understanding of the specific features of local communities. The model maps a pathway through different levels of community engagement toward the ultimate aim of a community-led approach to natural hazards preparation. It recognizes the changing circumstances and the situation of communities within their environment, and the barriers and enablers to support community-led preparedness. The model is significant in that it delivers a practical framework for engagement practitioners to build capacity in their communities and support their local communities to prepare for natural hazards and build relational capital for longer-term resilience.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Community-centered, model, Multi-hazard, Preparedness, risk mitigation}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05290-2}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-022-05290-2}, author = {Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor and Barbara Ryan} } @article {bnh-8322, title = {Recognising and measuring competency in natural hazard preparation: A preparedness competency index}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {73}, year = {2022}, month = {03/2022}, abstract = {

With weather-related natural hazards increasing in number and severity, it is more important than ever for communities to prepare for all types of hazards. However, the literature does not reveal what such preparedness looks like {\textendash} how much preparation is enough and, conversely, how low levels of preparation can be easily recognised by emergency agencies. This study maps Australian emergency agency understanding of competencies that are needed by individuals and communities for effective preparation.

Using in-depth semi-structured interviews of 30 emergency agency, local council and not-for-profit organisation staff from all Australian states, participants identified a range of community and individual features that they had seen in un-prepared and well-prepared communities and which they believed were key competencies for protective action. These competencies were then mapped against participants{\textquoteright} perceptions of five different levels of preparation, resulting in a Preparedness Competency Index that allows agencies to benchmark preparation in communities, as well as to recognise when lack of preparation competency leaves groups vulnerable.

}, keywords = {community, Competency, Natural hazards, Preparedness, protective action}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102882}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420922001017?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor} } @article {bnh-6964, title = {Community engagement for disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2020}, month = {05/2020}, abstract = {

Disaster management agencies invest differing levels of resources into guiding communities to get ready for a range of hazards, and are increasingly turning to community engagement as a way of increasing preparedness. This paper presents a systematic literature review that reports on the effect of community communication and engagement techniques that have been used in a hazard preparedness context. The review findings suggest that most community engagement techniques are effective in generating some level of increased preparedness. For techniques that were found not to work, lack of benchmarking research, context and skill levels of those implementing the engagement were thought to be at fault rather than structural or conceptual problems with the technique itself. Face to face techniques were more consistently successful than mass media campaigns. However, all of the intervention types reported had some measure of success, even though there were individual failures. The 41 studies included used a wide variety of research methods that also varied greatly in rigor and replicability. Agency efforts to engage communities in preparedness should include a wide range of techniques that work together to change behaviour, including face-to-face community engagement that triggers and supports community-led preparedness activity.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Community engagement tools, hazard, Preparedness, risk reduction}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101655}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420919317893?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor and Ryan McAndrew} } @article {bnh-7005, title = {Emergency management communication: The paradox of the positive in public communication for preparedness}, journal = {Public Relations Review}, volume = {46}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, abstract = {

Government emergency management agencies use public communication to inform and educate around risks such as floods, fires, storms, and earthquakes with the aim to help communities understand how to prepare for these emergency events. This study of government communication relating to emergency management preparedness examines an Australian context to understand the types of messages preparing community members for natural hazards. Findings suggest that agencies employ a two-track approach combining warranting and engagement messages. Yet a deeper look at the messages suggests a {\textquotedblleft}paradox of the positive{\textquotedblright} that overemphasizes the capacity of local agencies to respond to crises and underemphasizes citizen shared responsibility. Implications for the paradox of the positive in other national contexts and public relations theory building are also discussed.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Emergency, natural hazard, Paradox of the positive, preparation, Public communication}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101903}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036381112030028X}, author = {Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor and Barbara Ryan} } @article {bnh-7004, title = {The missing link in emergency management: evaluating community engagement}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, pages = {45-52}, abstract = {

Community engagement programs in Australia are widely adopted by emergency management organisations as one way to get communities to recognise hazards and risks and prepare for emergency events. However, evaluation of these programs remains a challenge. A study with 30 community engagement practitioners and managers from Australian emergency management organisations, councils and not-for-profit organisations was undertaken to examine how they use measurement and evaluation of community engagement for preparedness. The findings suggest that while community engagement teams understand the importance of measuring the effects of engagement efforts and preparedness activities, most still do not link engagement activities with higher-level engagement outcomes that influence communities.

}, keywords = {community, emergency events, engagement, Natural hazards, preparation}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-january-2020-the-missing-link-in-emergency-management-evaluating-community-engagement/}, author = {Maureen Taylor and Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston} } @article {bnh-6995, title = {A systematic literature review of effectiveness of community engagement for preparedness techniques}, number = {514}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This systematic literature review originally aimed to provide detail of the effect of disaster preparedness activities by individuals on their household{\textquoteright}s safety and coping during a natural hazard. The aim was presented as:

To present an index of what has been found to be the most effective household/personal preparedness activities across a range of hazards.

However, as the review proceeded, two things indicated to the research team that the focus of the project needed to be reviewed.

Firstly, no articles were found that effectively measured the effect of any single preparedness activity on the safety or coping of people in a natural hazard. This is explained further in the report.

Secondly, the review process uncovered significant numbers of studies that had measured the effect of community engagement techniques.\  At this point, the research team decided to add an engagement tools evaluation to the review and present the results of both aspects of the preparedness picture, with this additional overall aim:

To present a review of community engagement techniques and their levels of success.

This report details the process and outcomes of the systematic literature review component of the project.

It documents a systematic literature review that is part of a larger Bushfire and Natural Hazards Co-operative Research Centre project, Mapping Approaches to Community Engagement for Preparedness in Australia.

As a systematic literature review, it uses protocols already employed by disaster social scientists (such as Miller et al., 2017) and is informed by the Campbell Collaboration and similar protocols for these types of documents. The review builds on the work of a number of researchers (Dunlop, McNeill, Boylan, Morrison, \& Skinner, 2014a). Dunlop et al. 2014; Heagele 2016; Kohn et al., 2012; Uscher-Pines et al., 2013) to identify most effective and therefore most important preparation activities.\ \  The objectives of the project were to:

  1. Collate a list of personal preparedness activities that have been examined for their effect around the world, and these examinations published in English
  2. Collate a list of all of the community engagement tools and techniques that have been evaluated around the world and these examinations published in English
  3. Review the success or otherwise of these tools in quantifiable terms
  4. Emerge from the review with a tool kit for community communication and engagement containing a wide range of tools for a variety of circumstances

Four research questions guided this systematic literature review:

  1. What are the most effective household/personal preparedness activities across a range of hazards?
  2. What philosophical or engagement frameworks are being used or examined in the literature?
  3. What tools are being used to engage communities?
  4. What research methods were used to evaluate these tools or programs?

Using a systematically developed set of search terms that focused on preparedness activity , we searched a range of databases and secured 1,331 articles.\  In addition, we searched a range of grey literature sites and found a further 120 possibilities. After a search for duplicates, we had a database of 1,451 studies.\  Two screening processes were then employed {\textendash} searches of titles and abstracts, at which point, 1,328 studies were discarded because they were off topic, about recovery, conceptually off track, dealt with human-generated hazards, used descriptive data, or researched agency responses instead of community.

At this point we realised that studies researching the effect of discrete preparedness activities were not emerging and that community engagement techniques were.\  Once a decision was made to also consider community engagement techniques, the process was repeated for the same result. The search was effective for both because of the focus on preparedness activity, which is also an effect of good community engagement.\  Articles were then read in full to assess eligibility on the same criteria as the previous step, with 82 excluded at this point, leaving 41 articles for review.

The next step was the review the articles with each of the objectives in mind.

Objective 1 was not achieved because of the lack of research undertaken on this topic.

Objective 2 was collation of a list of community engagement tools used and evaluated around the world and this is presented in table form.\  The engagement techniques ranged from our own strategic community fire safety programs such as Community Fire Safe and FireGuard, to one off tools such as gaming simulations, exercises and co-design workshops.\  It also included information and education tools, some of which were shown to be effective.

Objective 3 related to a review of the success or otherwise of these engagement tools.\  Evaluation methods ranged from statistically rigorous pre and post surveys, as well as some attempts at longitudinal studies, to observation of workshop activity.\  Because of the systematic review process, research quality has been calculated and reported according to formulae developed for this process. The outcomes and quality are summarised in Tables 5 and 6, but detailed further in the report.

Objective 4 related to emergence of a toolkit of community engagement techniques that is also a deliverable for the wider project.\  The toolkit is detailed in raw form in Table 5, and articulated in more detail in Section 3.5.\  A toolkit format that sits more comfortably outside the systematic literature review and is more easily used by practitioners has been developed as a deliverable of the larger project and is available on the BNHRC website.

We have made recommendations arising from the limitations that we encountered in undertaking this study.\  The key of these limitations was that agencies establish a more systematic process of evaluation, and a more scheduled subsequent sharing of program and technique evaluation results.\  As well, agencies have taken the lead on preparedness checklists as an easy mechanism for the community to undertake preparedness.\  Academic research has followed, but has overlooked testing the assumptions on which these checklists rest.\ 

Household preparation techniques are backed by fire science, and building and property codes subsequently based on this science, but personal safety and coping preparation activities have not been tested for efficacy. We recommend from this limitation that the effect of discrete preparedness activities be tested, and we have suggested research techniques that could be used. Thirdly, the studies we reviewed lacked consistency and rigour, making comparisons difficult and context hard to determine.\ \  We believe that industry and academia could collaborate to develop minimum requirements for such research that enables full closure of the community preparedness knowledge loop.

}, keywords = {community engagement, literature review, Preparedness}, issn = {514}, author = {Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor and Ryan McAndrew} } @article {bnh-6034, title = {Community engagement techniques toolkit}, number = {516}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This toolkit builds on National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Community Engagement Framework Handbook 6 (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, 2013) by providing details of:

The model travels through a series of levels of community engagement planning and implementation, which helps practitioners to map and undertake the best community engagement approach for a specific community.

The base articles used to build the suite of techniques were found during a systematic literature review of preparedness activity. A systematic literature review is a rigorous, procedural approach to drawing out all available literature on a topic.\  The value of a systematic literature review is that it provides a wide ranging view of the accessible knowledge around a topic. Articles were included based on whether they measured impact of engagement techniques (such as preparedness levels, lives saved), and the quality of the research. The full list of articles can be found in the references section.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Emergency management, Evaluation, monitoring}, issn = {516}, author = {Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor} } @article {bnh-6108, title = {Mapping approaches to community engagement for preparedness in Australia - final report}, number = {515}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Community preparation in disaster response has been empirically established as a key factor in the protection of life during a disaster. Natural disasters, especially bushfires, have provided evidence showing that there is a pervasive lack of preparation (King \& Goudie 2006; Martins, Nigg, Louis-Charles \& Kendra, 2019; McLennan 2014; McLennan et al. 2011; Pinock, 2007; Teague, McLeod \& Pascoe 2010) even in communities with previous disaster experience (Mackie, McLennan \& Wright 2013; McLennan, Paton \& Wright 2015). Agencies and researchers have also reported the struggle to get people motivated to prepare (McLennan, Elliott \& Omodei 2012), and to understand what needs to be done as part of that preparation. A number of community engagement programs have been successful and have been estimated to save lives and reduce the cost of property damage and destruction (Gilbert, 2007).\  At a higher level, community engagement is also considered central to development of community resilience in disaster (Council of Australian Governments 2011).

Consultation with agencies regarding this BNHCRC project application revealed gaps in emergency agency community engagement knowledge and practice. Specifically:

Therefore, these needs frame both the priority and urgency of this project and the potential to contribute to agency and local council action. Agencies have also articulated community engagement as a priority and, in many states in Australia, are making efforts to systemise community engagement and evaluation of its effect (such as Elsworth et al. 2010; Emergency Management Victoria 2017; Inspector-General of Emergency Management 2014). This project addresses this need by developing an empirical framework - built from a systematic literature review of effective preparedness actions, a systematic literature review of community engagement for preparedness, and a synthesis of agency best practices - that offers a systematic and evidence-based standard for agency implementation for community disaster preparation. The framework, and the associated index of core competencies and relationship indices, could also contribute to informing a more sustainable community engagement policy.

This project will consider the more immediate need for community engagement by emergency end-user/agencies for preparedness, which occurs annually, rather than for resilience, which is longer term and involves cross-government involvement including from outside the emergency management sphere.

}, keywords = {Australia, community engagement, community preparedness, Multi-hazard}, issn = {515}, author = {Kim Johnston and Barbara Ryan and Maureen Taylor} } @article {bnh-6035, title = {Monitoring, evaluation and learning toolkit}, number = {517}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This toolkit builds on National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Community Engagement Framework Handbook 6 (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, 2013) by providing details of:

The model travels through a series of levels of community engagement planning and implementation, which helps practitioners to map and undertake the best community engagement approach for a specific community.

The base articles used to build the suite of techniques were found during a systematic literature review of preparedness activity. A systematic literature review is a rigorous, procedural approach to drawing out all available literature on a topic.\  The value of a systematic literature review is that it provides a wide-ranging view of the accessible knowledge around a topic. Articles were included based on whether they measured impact of engagement techniques (such as preparedness levels, lives saved), and the quality of the research. The full list of articles can be found in the references section.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Emergency management, Evaluation, monitoring}, issn = {517}, author = {Maureen Taylor and Kim Johnston and Barbara Ryan} }