@article {bnh-8285, title = {Mind the gap: Contrasting operational and behavior-oriented flood warnings}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2021}, month = {11/2021}, abstract = {

During flood events, warnings issued by emergency service agencies serve to communicate risk and guide community behavior. Yet research shows that while warnings convey operational details, they may not always be understood and appropriately actioned in a timely manner by the public. Such maladaptive behavior can place multiple parties at risk of injury and fatality. Few studies empirically consider and compare the effectiveness of traditional agency-designed operational warnings with other designs such as behavior-oriented warnings. The former typically contain technical and operational detail while the latter provide immediate priority and greater emphasis on translating the situation into specific behavioral actions to be undertaken by the public. Using operational versus newly developed behavior-oriented warnings from New South Wales State Emergency Service in Australia, a total of 774 community members rated each type of scaled warning and their likelihood to engage in adaptive and maladaptive behaviors following exposure to warnings designed to convey one of five levels of an unfolding flooding scenario from its beginning to conclusion ({\textquoteleft}Prepare for flooding{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Be ready to evacuate{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Evacuate{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Too late to evacuate{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}Safe to return{\textquoteright}). Findings showed positive response to both types of warnings, with behavior-oriented warnings offering greater benefit for perception factors (e.g., risk and comprehension) and adaptive behavioral intentions.

}, keywords = {Behavior-oriented, community, Flood, risk communication, Warnings}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102685}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420921006464}, author = {Amisha Mehta and Dominique Greer and Clinton Weeks and Lisa Schuster and Scott Murray and Paula Dootson and Andrew Richards} } @article {bnh-7845, title = {Checks and balances: A business-oriented lens on disaster management and warnings}, journal = {Disasters}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, abstract = {

Following disasters, small businesses are critical to community recovery. Yet, factors that affect outcomes (e.g., planning, information needs, and response to warnings) are understudied. To overcome the research record{\textquoteright}s focus on policy favoured towards disaster mitigation rather than response, this article presents a two-phased, mixed method approach. The first study comprised interviews with businesses to elucidate disaster planning approaches, knowledge and information needs, and current warning system adequacy. It revealed opportunities to build knowledge and add business-specific content to agency-issued warnings. Through an online survey, study two examined how disaster knowledge, planning and experience related to existing bushfire warnings and those modified with business-relevant content. Findings showed that planning related to experience and knowledge but not to business-related protective action intentions. Modified messages were perceived as more effective and resulted in greater action intentions for those with bushfire experience. The article provides implications for small business-oriented disaster risk communication.

}, keywords = {business, communications, disaster, Warnings}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12473}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/disa.12473?af=R}, author = {Amisha Mehta and Scott Murray and Cindy Hammill and Paula Dootson and Rebecca Langdon} } @article {bnh-8255, title = {Visual Mis/disinformation in Journalism and Public Communications: Current Verification Practices, Challenges, and Future Opportunities}, journal = {Journalism Practice}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, abstract = {

Social media platforms and news organisations alike are struggling with identifying and combating visual mis/disinformation presented to their audiences. Such processes are complicated due to the enormous number of media items being produced, how quickly media items spread, and the often-subtle or sometimes invisible-to-the-naked-eye nature of deceptive edits. Despite knowing little about the provenance and veracity of the visual content they encounter, journalists have to quickly determine whether to re-publish or amplify this content, with few tools and little time available to assist them in such an evaluation. With the goal of equipping journalists with the mechanisms, skills, and knowledge to be effective gatekeepers and stewards of the public trust, this study reviews current journalistic image verification practices, examines a number of existing and emerging image verification technologies that could be deployed or adapted to aid in this endeavour, and identifies the strengths and limitations of the most promising extant technical approaches. While oriented towards practical and achievable steps in combating visual mis/disinformation, the study also contributes to discussions on fact-checking, source-checking, verification, debunking and journalism training and education.

}, keywords = {communications, images, misinformation, Warnings}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1832139}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2020.1832139}, author = {T.J. Thomson and Daniel Angus and Paula Dootson and Edward Hurcombe and Adam Smith} } @article {bnh-5677, title = {Overcoming Ambiguity: Conflict Between Emergency Warning Messages and Socio-Environmental Cues}, journal = {Prehospital and Disaster Medicine}, volume = {34}, year = {2019}, month = {05/2019}, abstract = {

Introduction:

Emergency services are not the only source of information that the public uses when considering taking action during an event. There are also environmental cues, information from the media, or actions by peers that can influence perceptions and actions. When cues from different information sources are in conflict, it can cause uncertainty about the right protective action to take.

Aim:

Our research responds to concerns that conflicting cues exacerbate community non-compliance with emergency warnings.

Methods:

The sample consisted of 2,649 participants who completed one of 32 surveys.

Results:

The findings from this project confirmed emergency services agencies{\textquoteright} suspicions that conflicting cues can affect information processing and risk perceptions, and therefore prevent people from taking appropriate protective action. The results were reasonably consistent across fire and flood scenarios, suggesting the problem of conflicting cues is not hazard-specific. When presented with consistent cues, participants were more likely to evacuate, perceive risk about the event, share information with friends, family, and peers, find emergency warnings to be effective, and comprehend information. When faced with conflicting cues, participants were more likely to seek out additional information. It affected their information processing and self-efficacy. The results did not change for people of different ages, native language, country of birth, or post-hazard experience. This is contrary to most emergency literature research findings, which show that individual differences play a role in impacting propensity to take protective action. However, there does appear to be a significant gender effect. These results require further exploration.

Discussion:

These findings may be used to assist emergency services agencies to tailor community warnings during time-critical situations, and develop ways to mitigate ambiguity caused by conflicting cues to encourage protective action in order to save lives and properties.

}, keywords = {behaviours, Emergency management, risk, Risk perception, Warnings}, doi = { https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X1900061X}, url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine/article/overcoming-ambiguity-conflict-between-emergency-warning-messages-and-socioenvironmental-cues/F8F82D37A8E3E526E0C6BD509EB7642F}, author = {Paula Dootson and Dominique Greer and Sophie Miller and Vivienne Tippett} } @article {bnh-5438, title = {Towards Protective Action: Effective Risk and Warning Communication during Natural Hazards Annual Report 2017-2018}, number = {467}, year = {2019}, month = {03/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {
This project plan draws on three years of interdisciplinary research and end-userengagement that derived evidence-based insights into risk and warning\ communication during the response and early recovery phases of natural\ hazards. The research (both completed and in-progress) examines existing and\ modified communication to community members and business owners\ that maybe affected by natural hazards. Our research findings have been shared with\ end-users through AFAC Committees, invited presentations, private meetings,\ conferences,\ workshops\ and translated into practice via audits of agency\ messages.\ The original BNHCRC project (2013-2017) focused on\ the pre-decisional\ processes of community members and business owners, particularly their\ exposure to, attention to, and comprehension of emergency warning messages\ in the response and early recovery phase of multiple hazards. This project (2017-2020) builds on that knowledge and focuses on how the inputs into the pre-decisional process\ {\textemdash}\ environmental cues, social cues, information sources,\ channel access and preference, warning messages and receiver\ characteristics\ {\textemdash}\ inform protective action during the response and early recovery\ phases of natural hazards.
}, keywords = {communications, Multi-hazard, Natural hazards, Warnings}, author = {Vivienne Tippett and Lisa Bradley and Paula Dootson and Dominique Greer and Amisha Mehta and Sophie Miller} }