@article {bnh-4446, title = {Conditions for effective coproduction in community-led disaster risk management}, journal = {Voluntas}, volume = {28}, year = {2018}, pages = {16}, abstract = {

This paper reports on a case study of collective coproduction in an Australian community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) project called {\textquoteleft}Be Ready Warrandyte{\textquoteright}. The first goal of the case study was to understand what interactions and power-sharing between citizens and government {\textquoteleft}looked and felt like{\textquoteright} in a significant example of community-led CBDRM in an Australian context. Its second, broader goal was to test the extent to which foundational coproduction theory, specifically four conditions proposed by Elinor Ostrom for enabling coproduction that is more effective than either government or citizen production alone, can explain the citizen-government interactions, roles and contributions that enable successful community-led CBDRM. The study confirms that each of the four conditions {\textendash} complementarity, authority, incentives and credible commitment {\textendash} also apply to community-led as well as government-led initiatives. It reinforces the central importance of complementarity for avoiding off-loading of risk, responsibility and cost to citizens from government, while also suggesting that specific sources of internal and external authority, incentives, and credible commitment are especially important when coproduction is community-led. It identifies leadership and its impacts on government-citizen relationships and power-sharing in coproduction as an important area that needs further research.

}, keywords = {accountability, community initiatives, community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM), Coproduction, interactive governance., leadership}, doi = {10.1007/s11266-018-9957-2}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11266-018-9957-2} } @article {bnh-4217, title = {Out of uniform - building resilience through non-traditional volunteering: annual report 2016-17}, number = {327}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The traditional model of emergency volunteering in Australia is based on formal, accredited volunteers who are affiliated with emergency management organisations, and are mostly involved in response and recovery roles [e.g. 14]. This form of volunteering is crucial and has many strengths. However, planning solely for this form of volunteering by EMOs excludes the potentially large number of people who are motivated to volunteer before, during and after emergencies in other, less ongoing and more informal ways, and without direct affiliation with established emergency management organisations (EMOs).

At the same time, the landscape of volunteering is undergoing significant change, in Australia and internationally. Large-scale socioeconomic changes have recast the conditions in which people volunteer in the 21st Century [12, 15]. As a result, emergency managers can expect to engage with a much wider and more diverse range of volunteers than in the past. These volunteers bring new opportunities, but also risks.

There are considerable benefits to be realised from greater engagement with these more diverse and, from the perspective of established emergency management organisations (EMOs) {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright}, emergency volunteers. With disaster risk increasing worldwide due to population growth, urban development and climate change [16] it is likely that non-traditional volunteers will provide much of the additional surge capacity required to respond to more frequent emergencies and disasters in the future. There is also a significant and largely untapped opportunity for EMOs to contribute to community resilience by supporting non-traditional emergency volunteers in new ways.

}, issn = {327}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger} } @article {bnh-3800, title = {Recovery volunteering after the Pinery fire, South Australia 2015: an explorative case study}, number = {254}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The goal of this exploratory study was to better understand the breadth of disaster recovery volunteering following the Pinery Fire in South Australia in 2015, with a particular focus on faith-based groups. The report draws upon experiences and perspectives from a key group of individuals (8) involved in the recovery phase of the fire. The study sought to learn from the experiences and perspectives of these individuals. The study also focused on the disaster recovery structure in South Australia within which this volunteering is embedded

The move toward engaging volunteers and NGOs not traditionally involved in disaster recovery alongside those with more established roles can be of benefit in a range of ways. The pool of volunteers to assist impacted communities will obviously be greater. Many of the members from community development and faith-based organisations have skills and approvals to volunteer and undertake a breadth of tasks and can be well-suited to provide much needed social support. However, an influx of people can put pressure on administrative processes, such as timely placement of new volunteers. In addition, organisations can incur costs undertaking recovery roles and this cost shifting of financial burden from disasters is one they do not want to, or cannot support. Furthermore, as NGOs their autonomy is important because they are NGOs and independent of government and this arrangement they do not wish to forgo even during disaster recovery.

NGOs with a common goal to assist in the recovery generally worked well together, although some rivalries and jostling about processes occurred. The experiences and reflections of interviewees about the recovery processes for the Pinery Fire were in general very positive. They acknowledge their involvement in fires like Pinery and the collaborative approaches such as South Australia{\textquoteright}s Stakeholder Forum for disaster recovery can prepare them to better share data; streamline processes and differentiate roles for future events.

}, issn = {254}, author = {Tarn Kruger and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3799, title = {Strategies for non-traditional emergency volunteers: a risk-benefit framework for decision-making}, number = {253}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents a Risk-Benefit framework that can assist decision-makers in emergency management organisations (EMOs) to identify potential benefits and risks of alternative strategies for {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} emergency volunteers. The framework was developed primarily from stakeholder input in two workshops, combined with recent research.

Non-traditional emergency volunteering includes any type of volunteering {\textendash} formal and informal - that is: 1) Focused on contributing to disaster and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, or relief/recovery and 2) Involves volunteers who are not traditional emergency management volunteers affiliated with EMOs.

Different strategies for non-traditional volunteers bring different sets of potential benefits, challenges and risks for communities, volunteers, and EMOs. Not all of the potential consequences of different options will be immediately evident to a particular organisation at a particular point in time. Without decision support EMOs may perceive greater risks with non-traditional emergency volunteers and voluntary organisations and overlook or downgrade potential benefits due to unawareness, unfamiliarity, or risk aversion.

}, issn = {253}, author = {Tarn Kruger and John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @article {bnh-3099, title = {Briefing paper: A proposed framework to assess strategies for engaging non-traditional emergency volunteers}, number = {232}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This briefing paper presents a proposed framework for assessing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of four broad, alternative strategies available to emergency management organisations (EMOs) for engaging with non-traditional emergency volunteers and voluntary organisations: Ignore, Resist, Accept, and Embrace. The framework explicitly requires consideration of multifaceted consequences for key stakeholders groups beyond established EMOs (e.g. communities impacted, the volunteers themselves), and across the emergency management cycle (before, during and after an event).

The briefing paper begins with a research-based context and rationale for developing the engagement framework. It then presents the proposed engagement framework itself and briefly outlines a process that will be used between July and December 2016 to test and refine the framework for use by EMOs as an applied decision support tool. The refinement process is centred on a series of interactive workshops with key stakeholder groups to test the framework in an applied setting.

The engagement framework is being developed by RMIT researchers as a component of the Bushfire and Natural Hazard{\textquoteright}s Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering project (http://www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/resilient-people-infrastructure-and-institutions/248).

}, issn = {232}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-2562, title = {Centralised coordination of spontaneous emergency volunteers: the EV CREW model}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {31}, year = {2016}, month = {02/2016}, abstract = {
This paper presents a case study of Emergency Volunteering {\DH} Community Response to Extreme Weather (EV CREW). EV CREW is a best-practice model for centrally coordinating spontaneous volunteers who respond during emergencies. The model was developed by Volunteering Queensland, a not-for-profit organisation and the peak volunteering body in Queensland. The case study outlines the EV CREW model, with particular attention on intended outcomes for community resilience and emergency management. It presents spontaneous volunteering as an empowering and legitimate component of recovery and resilience and, when coordinated appropriately, it adds value to recovery, is rewarding for volunteers, and reduces associated risks for volunteers, recipient organisations and communities. It also emphasises that central coordination does not replace traditional emergency management volunteering nor informal helping behaviour and emergent volunteerism. Instead, models like EV CREW extend existing emergency management arrangements to increase the variety of ways available for people to contribute to emergency management and disaster recovery.
}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-31-01-07}, author = {Julie Molloy and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3302, title = {The changing landscape of disaster volunteering: opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia}, journal = {Natural Hazards}, volume = {84}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, abstract = {

There is a growing expectation that volunteers will have a greater role in disaster management in the future compared to the past. This is driven largely by a growing focus on building resilience to disasters. At the same time, the wider landscape of volunteering is fundamentally changing in the twenty-first century. This paper considers implications of this changing landscape for the resilience agenda in disaster management, with a focus on Australia. It first reviews major forces and trends impacting on disaster volunteering, highlighting four key developments: the growth of more diverse and episodic volunteering styles, the impact of new communications technology, greater private sector involvement and growing government expectations of and intervention in the voluntary sector. It then examines opportunities in this changing landscape for the Australian emergency management sector across five key strategic areas and provides examples of Australian responses to these opportunities to date. The five areas of focus are: developing more flexible volunteering strategies, harnessing spontaneous volunteering, building capacity to engage digital (and digitally enabled) volunteers, tapping into the growth of employee and skills-based volunteering and co-producing community-based disaster risk reduction. Although there have been considerable steps taken in Australia in some of these areas, overall there is still a long way to go before the sector can take full advantage of emerging opportunities. The paper thus concludes by identifying important research and practice gaps in this area.

}, url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007\%2Fs11069-016-2532-5}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @conference {bnh-2942, title = {Harnessing the capacities of spontaneous volunteers: application and adaptation of the Queensland model}, booktitle = {AFAC16}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Brisbane}, abstract = {

Spontaneous volunteers are defined in Australia as: {\textquoteleft}those who seek to contribute on impulse{\textemdash}people who offer assistance following a disaster and who are not previously affiliated with recognised volunteer agencies and may or may not have relevant training, skills or experience{\textquoteright} (Australian Red Cross 2010; Cottrell 2010). Spontaneous volunteering by unaffiliated members of the public following a disaster event is certainly not a new occurrence (Whittaker et al. 2015). Known in the sociological disaster literature as convergence, it is recognised as an inevitable and normal response to {\textemdash} particularly large-scale {\textemdash} disasters (Drabek and McEntire 2003; Sharon 2004). A related term that is not commonly used in Australian emergency management is {\textquoteleft}emergent volunteerism{\textquoteright}. This {\textquoteleft}involves new forms of volunteering that occur in response to unmet needs, whether perceived or real{\textquoteright} (Whittaker et al., 2015, p.363).


Spontaneous volunteering has gradually gained in profile and legitimacy in Australia disaster management over the five to ten years (Australian Red Cross 2010). This process has sped up due to the combination of a number of high-profile volunteering efforts such as the Brisbane Mud Army, and the shift toward a resilience-based approach to disaster management (COAG 2011). Most recently, a National Spontaneous Volunteer Strategy was endorsed by the Australia{\textendash}New Zealand Emergency Committee in late 2015 that provides guidance to emergency management organisations.


From a management and policy perspective, until recently spontaneous volunteering has largely been portrayed as an unpredictable and uncontrollable nuisance and risk rather than as a legitimate part of response and recovery (Helsloot and Ruitenberg 2004; Scanlon et al. 2014). Certainly, having unexperienced and uninformed members of the public converge on a disaster site presents many real and difficult to manage health, safety and wellbeing risks for volunteers, residents and trained responders alike (Whittaker et al., 2015). It can also disrupt the formal response effort and divert resources away from the people and communities that are directly impacted (Fernandez et al. 2006).

}, author = {Julie Molloy and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3086, title = {Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional volunteering: Annual project report 2015-2016}, number = {220}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The traditional model of emergency volunteering in Australia is based on formal, accredited volunteers who are affiliated with emergency management organisations, and are mostly involved in response and recovery roles.

This form of volunteering is crucial and has many strengths. However, management models based solely on this form of volunteering exclude the potentially large number of people who are motivated to volunteer before, during and after emergencies in other, unaffiliated, less ongoing and/or more informal ways. Failing to plan for engagement with this wider range of emergency volunteers means that important opportunities for EMOs to help build community resilience.

At the same time, the landscape of volunteering is changing significantly. As a result, emergency managers can expect to engage with a much wider and more diverse range of volunteering that brings new opportunities but also risks.

Why is it important?

Other forms of volunteering that are {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} for the emergency management sector are: 1) on the rise, 2) inevitable, and 3) have great potential for increasing the sector{\textquoteright}s workforce surge capacity and for building community resilience are missed.

The topic is a new concern for most agencies, and there is little published research. There is awareness, however, of the need to plan for non-traditional volunteers, to move away from ad hoc approaches, and to capitalise on non-traditional volunteering to a greater extent in the future.\  \ 

How is the project addressing it?

The Out of Uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering project supports the development of more inclusive strategies for volunteer engagement for the emergency management sector.

Key contributions from the project towards this goal include:

}, issn = {220}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @conference {bnh-1564, title = {Building Community Resilience Through Informal Emergency Volunteering Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

This paper considers different types of informal volunteers and their contributions to emergency and disaster management. {\textquoteleft}Informal volunteer{\textquoteright} is defined in the context of emergencies and disasters, before literature on citizen responses to emergencies and disasters is reviewed. We examine some of the implications of informal volunteerism for emergency and disaster management, including challenges associated with organisational culture and legal liability. We argue that more adaptive and inclusive models of emergency and disaster management are needed to harness the capacities and resilience that exist within and across communities.

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-2103, title = {Community-led bushfire preparedness in action: The case of Be Ready Warrandyte}, number = {113}, year = {2015}, month = {08/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents key findings from a case study of Be Ready Warrandyte (BRW): a community-led bushfire preparedness project that was undertaken by the Warrandyte Community Association between May 2012 and June 2015. The project was described as:

{\textquotedblleft}A self-help, community-led project to develop tools and resources to help our community to be safer and more able to deal with the risk of bushfires. The project{\textquoteright}s goal is to have more Warrandyte households with effective bushfire plans{\textquotedblright}.\ 

Be Ready Warrandyte is notable for being an award-winning, community-led preparedness project, and for involving a high degree of collaboration between local community volunteers, local government and the Country Fire Authority (CFA), all of which were represented on its committee of management. It is an example of a key type of non-traditional emergency volunteering: extending volunteerism.

In the context of the Out of Uniform project, non-traditional emergency volunteering is any type of volunteering that is: 1) focused on emergency prevention, preparedness, response, or recovery, and; 2) involves volunteers who are not traditional emergency volunteers affiliated with established emergency management organisations (EMOs).

Extending volunteerism occurs when a voluntary organisation that does not have an emergency or disaster management role extends its activities into that area in response to an event or an increase in risk awareness [2]. This is the case for the Warrandyte Community Association (WCA) whose primary goal is to {\textquotedblleft}promote community life{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}defend the character and heritage of the township{\textquotedblright}\ 

The goal of this case study was to better understand the key characteristics, processes, activities and outcomes of the Be Ready Warrandyte project. It was not intended as a project evaluation. It did not seek to objectively assess the project{\textquoteright}s success. Rather, it sought to learn from the experiences and perspectives of those involved in the project. It therefore provides insights into the potential opportunities and challenges for undertaking community-led initiatives through {\textquoteleft}extending volunteerism{\textquoteright} in emergency preparedness that are suggested by the {\textquoteleft}on-the-ground{\textquoteright} experiences of Be Ready Warrandyte participants.

The findings will be valuable for emergency management organisations that are moving towards more localised, community-based and partnership approaches to community safety and engagement.

}, issn = {113}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-1721, title = {Emergency volunteering in Australia: transforming, not declining}, number = {065}, year = {2015}, month = {04/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

The landscape of volunteering is undergoing significant change, in Australia and internationally. Large-scale socioeconomic changes have recast the conditions under which people volunteer in the 21st Century.

With the notable exception of research into the role of digital volunteers, there has been very little research attention yet given to the impact of such changes on disaster and emergency volunteering. Within Australia, a narrow focus on shoring up and protecting the traditional volunteer base of Australian state and territory emergency service agencies against emerging challenges has drowned out awareness of emerging new opportunities. This has led to a narrative of crisis and decline in emergency volunteering that threatens to leave emergency management organisations falling behind in a changing volunteer environment.

This paper presents a more complete picture of the changing landscape of emergency volunteering. It identifies key shifts in the volunteering landscape as a whole and considers the possible implications for Australian emergency volunteering more particularly. Importantly, it includes within its purview volunteering that takes place both with and without affiliation to state and territory emergency service agencies.

The most significant shifts were identified by triangulating two sources of information: 1) international literature on trends in volunteering and 2) trends indicated directly in domestic data and research studies on volunteering in Australia. The same trends were identified in the international and domestic sources.

The {\textquoteright}Big 4{\textquoteright} Forces of Change

While there are numerous developments currently shaping and reshaping the nature and practice of volunteering, based on a broad review of the literature they can be justifiably distilled down to four big, interconnected forces of change.\  The first three of these are each associated with the recent burgeoning of new or previously uncommon forms of volunteering: episodic, corporate (and skills-based) and digital. Combined, these three fast-growing forms of volunteering are widely regarded as {\textquotedblleft}the wave of the future{\textquotedblright}.

The rise of episodic (shorter-term) volunteering is most directly connected to the transformation of modern life and work in the 21st Century.\  The growth of corporate volunteering reflects growing private sector engagement with the voluntary sector and with the societies and communities in which they operate. Meanwhile, digital volunteering is an exciting outcome of the revolution in communication technology, particularly the growth of interactive web 2.0, social media and mobile devices.\  The final trend is greater entanglement of the voluntary sector and government that is recasting the institutional and organisational settings in which volunteering takes place.

Opportunities for Australian Emergency Volunteering

There is no doubt that these {\textquoteleft}big 4{\textquoteright} forces of change will reshape the future landscape of emergency volunteering in Australia as elsewhere. However, exactly what shape this future landscape will take is unclear. In large part, it depends on how emergency management organisations, volunteer managers and volunteers themselves respond to the shifting constellation of challenges and opportunities that are developing in an unfolding {\textquotedblleft}new world{\textquotedblright} of volunteering. The current narrow focus on shoring up and protecting the traditional volunteer base of Australian state and territory emergency service agencies against emerging challenges needs to be expanded to embrace new opportunities to engage with a potentially larger, more diverse, more empowered and more innovative volunteer base.

Emerging research reveals numerous benefits to organisations of engaging with episodic volunteers. These include accessing a larger potential volunteer base, potentially greater flexibility, adaptability and pragmatism amongst episodic volunteers compared to traditional volunteers, and the likelihood that episodic volunteers will commit more time in the shorter-term, which is of particular relevance to disaster response.

For emergency management organisations, more diverse and flexible recruitment and retention strategies are needed to tap into the potential contribution of episodic volunteers. This includes practices such as offering more diverse volunteering roles and experiences, allowing volunteers to more actively shape their own roles, engaging further with skills-based volunteering, as well as actively fostering a sense of community and building social capital amongst volunteers.

Opportunities to develop partnerships with the private sector to support corporate and skills-based emergency volunteering are not being taken up. Most corporate volunteering appears to be reactionary and ad hoc, while on the emergency management sector side there appears to be growing doubt over the potential role of corporate volunteering in particular. Given the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies, the growth in employee volunteer programs, the growing time commitment expected in paid employment and the preferences of younger employees to combine their paid and volunteer work, it would be worthwhile renewing a focus on exploring models for partnering with the private sector to support emergency volunteering.

Digital volunteering has great potential to strengthen and diversify emergency volunteering; however it would require the greatest degree of change and adaptation within existing emergency management arrangements. While there is a nascent interest in digital volunteering in Australian emergency management, examples of digital volunteering have so far occurred more or less in isolation from the formal emergency management system.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) lists three adaptation needs amongst traditional humanitarian organisations in order to harness the potential of digital volunteering that are also pertinent to Australian emergency management. They are to adapt to: 1) work with new data sources, 2) work with new partners and techniques, and 3) the idea of information as a basic need in humanitarian response. The UN-OCHA report also argues that {\textquotedblleft}These adaptations are not optional{\textquotedblright} and stresses that {\textquotedblleft}Governments and responders will soon need answers to the questions: {\textquotedblleft}Where were you? We Facebooked/tweeted/texted for help, why didn{\textquoteright}t someone come?{\textquotedblright}

The potential impacts of the shifting relationship between government and the voluntary sector on volunteering are unclear. However, there are opportunities for pursuing supportive public-voluntary sector partnerships. The response of volunteers and volunteer-led organisations to the new organisational and institutional contexts appears to be developing along one of two divergent paths: increased professionalization and greater informality. Professionalization may create greater potential for partnerships as non-profits take up more professional and business-like models of operation that are more familiar to and compatible with government agencies. While a growth in informal, grass-roots volunteering would be less predictable for emergency management organisations, it is well aligned with the national goal of building community resilience to disasters.\ \ 

Conclusions

A key message arising from this report is that emergency volunteering is undergoing a process of transformation rather than one of decline. One thing is clear; the future landscape of emergency volunteering is going to be populated by a much wider and more diverse range of players than in the past. In order to harness the potential of this new landscape, existing emergency management organisations will need to: a) develop more diverse and flexible approaches to engage with a wider range of volunteers and volunteering styles, and b) seek out new forms of partnership and collaboration with both the voluntary and private sectors.

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-1811, title = {Exposing hidden-value trade-offs: sharing wildfire management responsibility between government and citizens}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, volume = {24}, year = {2015}, month = {02/2015}, pages = {162-169}, type = {Journal}, chapter = {162}, abstract = {

Developing resilient communities and sharing responsibility for hazard management is the key to Australia{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteleft}National Strategy for Disaster Resilience{\textquoteright}. There are, however, a wide range of conflicting views on the appropriate responsibilities of governments, citizens and communities that are not well recognised in the national policy discourse. What the ideas of resilient communities and shared responsibility mean for wildfire management and how these ideas might shape wildfire safety thinking and practice is therefore unclear and contested. This paper makes explicit some of the necessary, but often hidden, trade-offs between competing values that are implicit in assessments of where responsibility for wildfire management lies, and how it should be shared. After describing different ways in which responsibility is attributed and legitimated through legal and governance systems, this paper compares and contrasts potential legal and governance implications of four hypothetical scenarios for wildfire management, each of which portrays a contrasting set of extreme value trade-offs. The underlying purpose of the exercise is to encourage stakeholders to draw on the frameworks to explicitly acknowledge and debate the value trade-offs that are necessary, but most often unacknowledged, in more moderate decision-making about how to share responsibility for risk management between governments and citizens.

}, doi = {10.1071/WF12201}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WF12201.htm}, author = {Michael Eburn} } @conference {bnh-2078, title = {The future of {\textquoteright}non-traditional{\textquoteright} emergency volunteering: what will it look like and how can it work? - Peer reviewed}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, address = {Adelaide, Australia}, abstract = {

Research proceedings from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC \& AFAC Conference in Adelaide, 1-3 September 2015.\ 

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-1600, title = {Informal Volunteerism in Emergencies and Disasters: A Literature Review}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

This paper examines the role of informal volunteers in emergency and disaster management. It explores the ways ordinary citizens volunteer their time, knowledge, skills and resources to help others in times of crisis. First, volunteerism in emergencies and disasters is explored. Traditional definitions of volunteerism are examined and it is argued that less rigid definitions are needed to fully recognise and value citizen contributions to emergency and disaster management. Second, the role of informal volunteers in emergencies and disasters is explored. Research on convergence behaviour in disasters and the phenomenon of emergence is discussed, before examples of informal volunteerism are discussed. Third, the implications of informal volunteerism for emergency and disaster management are discussed.

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-2354, title = {Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering: Annual project report 2014-2015}, number = {147}, year = {2015}, month = {02/11/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Out of Uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering project aims to support the development of new and more inclusive models of volunteering for the emergency management sector. Its underlying purpose is to assist the sector to harness the benefits of engaging with and supporting a wider range of {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} and unaffiliated volunteers while addressing associated risks.

The three-year project is being undertaken by researchers at the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at RMIT University, led by Professor John Handmer. The project methodology involves three key activities: literature reviews, case studies, and a cross-case analysis and evaluation of alternative emergency volunteering models.

A key outcome from the project will be practical guidance for end users on supporting key types of non-traditional emergency volunteering.

Key outputs from the project this year included:

Key stakeholder engagement activities this year were: a 3-monthly project newsletter, an annual stakeholder communication workshop in October 2014, a project teleconference to assist case study selection in March 2015, and participation in the BNHCRC{\textquoteright}s Research Advisory Forum in April 2015.

Three PhD students undertaking associated projects also began or advanced their research this year. Their proejcts focus on: the use of volunteered geographic information in community engagement for bushfire preparation (Billy Haworth, University of Western Sydney), community-led recovery in the 2013 Forcett bushfires in Tasmanias (Fiona Jennings, RMIT University), and social capital, inclusive volunteer engagement and community resilience (Julie Molloy, RMIT University).

The next year of the project will see the Out of Uniform project move from conducting case studies to conducting cross-case analysis and beginning work to evaluate alternative models of emergency volunteering through workshops with end users.

}, issn = {147}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @article {bnh-1951, title = {A review of informal volunteerism in emergencies and disasters: Definition, opportunities and challenges}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {13}, year = {2015}, month = {07/2015}, pages = {358-368}, chapter = {358}, abstract = {

Despite highly specialised and capable emergency management systems, ordinary citizens are usually first on the scene in an emergency or disaster, and remain long after official services have ceased. Citizens often play vital roles in helping those affected to respond and recover, and can provide invaluable assistance to official agencies. However, in most developed countries, emergency and disaster management relies largely on a workforce of professionals and, to varying degrees, volunteers affiliated with official agencies. Those who work outside of such systems have tended to be viewed as a nuisance or liability, and their efforts are often undervalued. Given increasing disaster risk worldwide due to population growth, urban development and climate change, it is likely that {\textquoteleft}informal{\textquoteright} volunteers will provide much of the additional surge capacity required to respond to more frequent emergencies and disasters in the future. This paper considers the role of informal volunteers in emergency and disaster management. Definitions of volunteerism are reviewed and it is argued that there is an overemphasis on volunteering within, and for, state and formal organisations. We offer a broader definition of {\textquoteleft}informal volunteerism{\textquoteright} that recognises the many ways ordinary citizens volunteer their time, knowledge, skills and resources to help others in times of crisis. Two broad types of informal volunteerism are identified {\textendash} emergent and extending{\textendash} and the implications for emergency and disaster management are considered. Particular attention is given to increasing {\textquoteleft}digital volunteerism{\textquoteright} due to the greater accessibility of sophisticated but simple information and communication technologies. Culture and legal liability are identified as key barriers to greater participation of informal volunteers. We argue that more adaptive and inclusive models of emergency and disaster management are needed to harness the capacities and resilience that exist within and across communities.

}, keywords = {Emergency; Disaster; Citizen action; Emergence; Informal volunteerism; Resilience}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.010}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420915300388}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-4076, title = {Exposing hidden value trade-offs: sharing wildfire management responsibility between government and citizens}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, volume = {24}, year = {2014}, month = {05/2014}, pages = {162-169}, chapter = {162}, abstract = {

Developing resilient communities and sharing responsibility for hazard management is the key to Australia{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteleft}National Strategy for Disaster Resilience{\textquoteright}. There are, however, a wide range of conflicting views on the appropriate responsibilities of governments, citizens and communities that are not well recognised in the national policy discourse. What the ideas of resilient communities and shared responsibility mean for wildfire management and how these ideas might shape wildfire safety thinking and practice is therefore unclear and contested. This paper makes explicit some of the necessary, but often hidden, trade-offs between competing values that are implicit in assessments of where responsibility for wildfire management lies, and how it should be shared. After describing different ways in which responsibility is attributed and legitimated through legal and governance systems, this paper compares and contrasts potential legal and governance implications of four hypothetical scenarios for wildfire management, each of which portrays a contrasting set of extreme value trade-offs. The underlying purpose of the exercise is to encourage stakeholders to draw on the frameworks to explicitly acknowledge and debate the value trade-offs that are necessary, but most often unacknowledged, in more moderate decision-making about how to share responsibility for risk management between governments and citizens.

}, doi = {10.1071/WF12201}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/WF12201}, author = {Michael Eburn} } @article {bnh-2605, title = {Negotiating risk and responsibility through law, policy and planning}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {29}, year = {2014}, month = {2014}, abstract = {

The 2011 National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG 2011) sets the context for natural disaster management as a {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} of all sectors of government and society, as part of building a more comprehensive approach to emergency management. However, it remains difficult to change relationships and practices to share responsibility, either between emergency management agencies and other government sectors, or between governments and at-risk communities. This paper reports on the research of three independent but complementary projects established through the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre to identify the legal, policy and planning structures and processes that could enhance integration of emergency management imperatives across public policy sectors, agencies and portfolios. This article distils and summarises some key conclusions regarding a central, yet seriously under-acknowledged facet, of developing public policy for natural hazard risk in Australia: the political and social negotiation of risk and responsibility. This is an overview paper and many of the issues raised require further exploration.

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-29-03-07}, author = {Jessica Weir and Michael Eburn and John Handmer and Barbara Norman and Dovers, Steve} } @article {BF-4290, title = {Sharing Responsibility in Australian Disaster Management - Final Report for the Sharing Responsibility Project}, year = {2014}, month = {2014}, abstract = {

The Sharing responsibility project sought to open up a process of critical and reflective examination of the widely supported principle of Shared Responsibility in Australian disaster management with a focus on its meaning, significance and challenges for the way that governments and citizens work together to manage disaster risk. The ultimate aim of the project was to support stakeholders of Australian disaster management to make decisions about how to pursue a vision of Shared Responsibility.

}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-4000, title = {Sharing responsibility for implementing the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience - workshop report}, year = {2013}, month = {2013}, abstract = {A key message out of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR) is that building a disaster resilient Australia is the shared responsibility of {\textquotedblleft}governments, businesses, not-for-profit, communities and individuals{\textquotedblright}. Yet while there is wide support for this position, a lot more work needs to be done to better understand how stakeholders can share responsibility for disaster resilience effectively and fairly. It is in this context that a one-day stakeholder workshop on {\textquoteleft}sharing responsibility for implementing the NSDR{\textquoteright} was held at the University of NSW in Sydney on 13th March 2013. Throughout the workshop, three panels of speakers representing a wide range of perspectives from {\textquotedblleft}governments, businesses, not-for-profit, communities and individuals{\textquotedblright} as well as from research were asked to address one or more of the following questions: 1. What would {\textquoteleft}disaster resilience{\textquoteright} look like and will we know it when we see it? 2. What has been learned about sharing responsibility for disaster resilience from experiences so far? 3. What aspects of current practices and relationships most need to change in order that responsibilities for disaster resilience can be shared effectively and fairly? Each speaker was given just 5-10 minutes to present their views, allowing time for group discussion following each panel sessions. Attendees were able to submit questions at any time during the day by SMS. These were then read out and responded to in a one-hour open discussion session at the end of the day. This event built on the work of the Bushfire CRC research project Sharing Responsibility undertaken by the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at RMIT University and is a follow-up to a successful workshop conducted as part of this project in Melbourne in March 2012 (http://www.bushfirecrc.com/publications/citation/bf-3336). The Sydney workshop was sponsored by RMIT University, the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, University of New South Wales, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility{\textquoteright}s (NCCARF) Emergency Management and Settlements \& Infrastructure (ACCARNSI) networks. Workshop organisation was a team effort by Blythe McLennan and John Handmer from RMIT/Bushfire CRC/NCCARF-EM, Tamara Rouse and Ron Cox from UNSW/ACCARNSI, and Jennifer Hearne and Chris Lee from the OEH. Tanyia Tuckey (NSW RFS) also provided valuable assistance. The workshop was hosted as a free event so that cost was not a barrier to people being able to attend. Carbon credits were purchased through Climate Friendly to offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the event (http://www.climatefriendly.com/). This public account of the workshop has been prepared so that others who were unable to attend can also {\textquoteleft}hear{\textquoteright} the range of issues and perspectives that were voiced at the workshop. Only the people listed in the schedule of speakers are referred to individually by name as they had agreed to speak publicly. All the invited speakers have reviewed, and in some cases made changes to, the session notes included in this account to ensure that the notes reflect what each speaker said and meant as closely as possible.}, author = {Austin, Emma and Hearne, Jennifer and Henry, Susan and Rance, Aliane and Travers, Amelia} } @article {BF-3245, title = { Changing the rules of the game: mechanisms that shape responsibility-sharing from beyond Australian fire and emergency management.}, journal = {The Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {27}, year = {2012}, month = {April 2012}, chapter = {7}, abstract = {In this paper, we look beyond Australian fire and emergency management to compare ways that responsibility-sharing {\textendash} broadly conceived {\textendash} has occurred in other places and sectors where risks to community safety are faced. Responsibility-sharing occurs any time there is collective action, and formal and informal institutions provide the {\textquotedblleft}rules of the game{\textquotedblright} that prescribe how responsibility should be shared amongst the parties involved. We reviewed a broad sample of risk research literature in order to examine by what mechanisms responsibility-sharing institutions have been shaped in other places and sectors where risks to community safety are faced. Our review revealed more alternatives for shaping responsibilitysharing institutions than are widely considered by policy and decision makers in Australian fire and emergency management. It therefore raises an important question about why certain mechanisms are chosen, prioritised, overlooked or resisted in this sector. An alternative way of conceiving and pursuing shared responsibility is also discussed.}, url = {http://www.em.gov.au/Publications/Australianjournalofemergencymanagement/Currentissue/Documents/WEMA\%20Vol27No1_McLennan.PDF}, author = {John Handmer} } @proceedings {BF-3752, title = {From risk to resilience? Reframing shared responsibility in Australian disaster policy }, year = {2012}, pages = {71-74 }, publisher = {IAWF}, abstract = {An important shift is occurring in national disaster policy discourse in Australia from the language of risk to that of resilience. This shift that is likely to influence the theory and practice of community bushfire/wildfire safety. The key elements in the shift are laid out in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, released by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in February 2011 (COAG 2011). The strategy, hereafter referred to as the {\textquoteleft}NSDR{\textquoteright}, calls for a {\textquotedblleft}whole-of-nation, resilience-based approach{\textquotedblright} (p.ii) to managing disasters. It states that {\textquotedblleft}the concept of disaster resilience builds upon rather than replaces existing strengths and arrangements{\textquotedblright} (COAG 2011, p.3) in emergency management, suggesting that it may not be asking for significant changes to existing practices. Yet it is also described as heralding a {\textquotedblleft}paradigm shift{\textquotedblright} in disaster management in this country (Wilkins 2010) and as potentially being the {\textquotedblleft}single most significant policy initiative in the field of disaster management in Australia{\textquoteright}s history{\textquotedblright} (McArdle \& Archer 2011, p.1). This raises an important question: what is so different in the NSDR{\textquoteright}s vision that warrants such claims, and what are its potential implications for community bushfire safety? ...}, url = {http://www.iawfonline.org/pdf/3rd\%20Human\%20Dimensions\%20Conference\%20Proceedings\%20-\%20FINAL.pdf}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3118, title = {Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, year = {2012}, month = {01/2012}, pages = {1 - 15}, abstract = {In the context of risk, the concept of responsibility incorporates the notion that certain parties have a prospective obligation to undertake actions to manage risk. However, differences in judgements about which parties are responsible for which aspects of risk management often lead to social conflict. This paper uses the heuristic of a {\textquoteleft}responsibility continuum for risk management{\textquoteright} to highlight how judgements of the obligations of different parties to manage risk are underpinned by particular ways of framing responsibility-sharing. It then uses the heuristic to examine the case of a Royal Commission enquiry into Australia{\textquoteright}s deadliest bushfire (wildfire) event, known as Black Saturday. It argues that the Royal Commission reframed responsibility-sharing away from an emphasis on the self-reliance of at-risk communities towards a greater degree of responsibility for government emergency management agencies. This is particularly the case when fire conditions are extreme and where vulnerable people are at risk. This position runs counter to an international trend in policy towards placing greater responsibility for risk management on at-risk communities. However, the Commission{\textquoteright}s analysis is strong for the distribution of responsibility across government and between government and communities, but is weaker across the government{\textendash}private sector interface and where the factors underlying vulnerability are concerned.}, issn = {1747-7891}, doi = {10.1080/17477891.2011.608835}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3336, title = {Visions of Sharing Responsibility for Disaster Resilience - Account of a multi-stakeholder workshop}, year = {2012}, month = {March 2012}, institution = {RMIT}, abstract = {This one-day workshop examined the idea and practice of sharing responsibility for disaster resilience. The idea of {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} is shaping emergency management thinking in Australia. It has gained significant policy traction following the Victorian 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission and the release of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. Similar ideas have been circulating in other sectors for some time. Yet it is not clear what the idea really means or what its implications are for policy and practice. The workshop, held on Thursday 29th March 2012, aimed to address two general questions: {\textbullet} First, the idea: what does the idea of {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} mean, and what are its implications? {\textbullet} Second, the practice: is it a useful policy concept, and if yes what needs to be done to implement it, and what could undermine it? The workshop was hosted by RMIT{\textquoteright}s Centre for Risk and Community Safety (CRaCS) in the School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences. It was organised on behalf of the Bushfire CRC and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility{\textquoteright}s (NCCARF) Emergency Management Network. Carbon credits were purchased to offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the event. This public account of the workshop has been prepared so that others who were unable to attend the workshop can also see the range of issues and perspectives that were voiced at the workshop.}, author = {Karyn Bosomworth and Adriana Keating and Tarn Kruger and Briony Towers} } @article {BF-3119, title = {Concept review Framing challenges for sharing responsibility}, year = {2011}, month = {09/2011}, abstract = {Introduction This report presents key findings from the first stage of the Sharing Responsibility project, which aims to support stakeholders of the Australian fire and emergency management (FEM) sector to make decisions about how to address the {\textquoteleft}wicked{\textquoteright} problem of sharing responsibility for risk management and community safety. The goal of the first stage of the project{\textemdash}the {\textquoteleft}Stage 1 concept review{\textquoteright}{\textemdash}was to develop a conceptual framework to guide the Sharing Responsibility project that incorporated multiple ways of understanding and framing the underlying challenges of responsibility-sharing. The idea of frames is an important one underpinning this report. Frames are the {\textquotedblleft}underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation{\textquotedblright} (Sch{\"o}n \& Rein, 1994, p. 23) that people use to interpret and understand complex issues. The way decision makers, researchers and other stakeholders frame a risk management problem shapes what solutions they see as most viable, which information they use to make decisions, and which arguments they deem legitimate (Vaughan \& Seifert, 1992, p. 121). This report is based on the premise that reflecting on the impact of frames is important for developing a more nuanced understanding of the meaning of shared responsibility for Australian fire and emergency management. Background The Stage 1 concept review was carried out through a type of narrative literature review known as an interpretive, integrative review (Whittemore \& Knafl, 2005). In order to capture the widest range of approaches used in research to frame responsibility-sharing challenges in risk management, the review included studies of risk management in a wide range of political systems, and across various sectors such as public health, transport, new technologies and policing. In order to determine the scope of the review, the concept of responsibility needed to be examined. The idea of responsibility itself can be framed in different ways. In the context of sharing responsibility, views about what is being shared inevitably shape positions on how to share it. Four different but interrelated facets of responsibility are discernible in discussions across different disciplines, as well as in common usage of the term: obligation, accountability, causality and trustworthiness. A common emphasis in discussions of responsibility is its fundamental relationship with freedom and constraint. Three aspects of this relationship are highlighted in research literature: freedom of choice, constraint in acting, and capacity to act. A third important aspect of responsibility as an idea is its intricate relationship with risk. These two concepts are connected through the common importance of agency {\textendash} or free choice - to both. As with responsibility, concepts of risk are often linked with the exercise of human choice through decision-making. The Stage 1 concept review incorporated research studies that combined two broad but pivotal themes: risk management (Theme 1); and, responsibility-sharing issues (Theme 2). For theme 1, {\textquoteleft}risk management{\textquoteright} was interpreted broadly and included some scenarios that are not explicitly analysed through the lens of {\textquoteleft}risk{\textquoteright}. Theme 2 involved scenarios of collective risk management in which issues of how to share or distribute responsibility amongst the different parties involved were raised or addressed in some way.}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3120, title = {Policy review Mechanisms for sharing responsibility A report of the Sharing Responsibility project}, year = {2011}, month = {10/2011}, abstract = {Introduction Challenges for sharing responsibility to manage risk and community safety are not only experienced in Australia, nor are they restricted to the field of fire and emergency management. Rather, finding ways to share responsibility amongst multiple parties is a challenge faced across a range of sectors that deal with risk and uncertainty. Risk research literature abounds with studies that expose responsibility-sharing issues in fields such as environmental management, public health, workplace safety, food safety, transportation, policing, new technologies and disaster management. This report presents findings from a review of different types of mechanisms that have been used to influence the way responsibility for risk management is shared amongst different parties across a range of contexts. The review represents the third stage of a five-staged project that aims to support stakeholders of the Australian fire and emergency management (FEM) sector to make decisions about how to address the {\textquoteleft}wicked{\textquoteright} problem of sharing responsibility for risk management (see Figure 1.1). The Sharing Responsibility project is a component of the {\textquoteleft}Understanding Risk{\textquoteright} research program of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). Background The rationale for the Stage 3 policy review stems from three central positions: 1. That sharing responsibility is an important dilemma faced by the Australian fire and emergency management (FEM) sector; 2. That reflecting on the impact of frames is necessary for taming the {\textquoteleft}wicked{\textquoteright} problem of sharing responsibility; 3. That stakeholders of Australian FEM can draw valuable lessons from reflecting on the way responsibility is shared in other places and in other sectors. The first of these positions is widely supported within and also beyond Australian FEM. Regarding the second position, an underlying goal of the Stage 3 policy review, and indeed the Sharing Responsibility project as a whole, is to stimulate what Sch{\"o}n and Rein (1996; 1994) call being {\textquoteleft}frame-reflective{\textquoteright}. Being frame-reflective refers to the people, groups and organisations that are engaged in the policy-making process acknowledging and identifying different perspectives that exist, and purposefully querying the implications of the way they{\textemdash}and other stakeholders{\textemdash}frame problems. The third position recognises that drawing on experiences and ideas from other places and sectors is a powerful way to stimulate frame-reflection. It helps people to see beyond the usual boundaries and discourses in which they operate to {\textquoteleft}see{\textquoteright} problems in new ways and consider solutions that might otherwise remain hidden. Key concepts that underpin this report include those of risk, risk management, responsibility, collective action, institutions, governance and mechanisms. An inclusive concept of risk is adopted that incorporates multiple components, any one of which may be addressed through different risk management approaches. Like risk, the concept of responsibility is a complex, multi-faceted one. However, all facets of responsibility derive in some way from the existence of rules, norms and expectations in society that specify the rights and obligations associated with particular roles and relationships. Essentially, some form of responsibility-sharing occurs whenever there is collective action, and institutions have a central role in the way responsibility is shared. Importantly, most forms of risk management are multiparty undertakings, and hence involve some form of collective action. Institutions provide the shared rules, norms and expectations{\textemdash}or standards{\textemdash}through which responsibilities for risk management can be attributed, actioned and assessed. The term mechanism is used in this report to refer to any process used to establish or alter institutions for responsibility-sharing amongst parties engaged in collective action to manage risks.}, author = {John Handmer} }