@article {bnh-5063, title = {Attachment, bushfire preparedness, planning, and response among animal guardians: A South Australian case study}, journal = {PLOS}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, abstract = {

Abstract Background: Animal ownership has been identified as a risk factor for human survivability of natural disasters. Animal guardians have been reported to react or act in ways that may put their own safety and that of emergency services personnel at risk when faced with a natural disaster. Recent research has suggested that this risk factor could be reconfigured as a protective factor, whereby desires to save animals from natural disaster harm could motivate increased planning and preparedness behaviours amongst animal guardians. However, there has been no research to determine if bushfire planning and response behaviours differ between pet owners with low and high attachment; and how the relationship may differ in relation to small or large animals. Methods and procedure: We investigated the relationship between people{\textquoteright}s emotional attachment to different types of pets and their preparation and actions during the Pinery bushfire in South Australia in November 2015. Thirty-four people who were impacted by the fire participated in an online survey. Data were collected about their preparedness, planning and response behaviours as well as their animal attachment (high or low). Results: We identified 10 characteristics (behaviours, attributes, skills and beliefs) associated with high animal attachment scores, and eight associated with low animal attachment scores. Discussion: Our discussion of the differences in demographics, preparedness, planning and response characteristics of participants with high and low animal attachment confirms research suggesting that animal guardians take risks to save their animals during disasters. Our findings also support recent propositions that animal attachment and ownership could be used to increase the natural disaster preparedness and survivability of animal guardians. However, making sure that animal attachment functions as a protective factor requires active and effective intervention through education, behaviour change and social marketing strategies. Whilst our study is high in ecological validity, future research with larger samples sizes is required to determine the generalisability of our findings to animal owners and guardians in other locations, facing fires with other characteristics, especially for owners and guardians with low levels of attachment.

}, url = {http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/bushfire-preparedness-planning-and-response-among-animal-guardians-a-south-australian-case-study/}, author = {Dr Lisel O{\textquoteright}Dwyer and Kirrilly Thompson} } @article {bnh-4690, title = {Bushfire Preparedness, Planning, and Response among Animal Guardians: A South Australian Case Study}, journal = {PLOS Current Disasters}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, abstract = {

Animal ownership has been identified as a risk factor for human survivability of natural disasters. Animal guardians have been reported to react or act in ways that may put their own safety and that of emergency services personnel at risk when faced with a natural disaster. Recent research has suggested that this risk factor could be reconfigured as a protective factor, whereby desires to save animals from natural disaster harm could motivate increased planning and preparedness behaviours amongst animal guardians. However, there has been no research to determine if bushfire planning and response behaviours differ between pet owners with low and high attachment; and how the relationship may differ in relation to small or large animals. Methods and procedure: We investigated the relationship between people{\textquoteright}s emotional attachment to different types of pets and their preparation and actions during the Pinery bushfire in South Australia in November 2015. Thirty-four people who were impacted by the fire participated in an online survey. Data were collected about their preparedness, planning and response behaviours as well as their animal attachment (high or low). Results: We identified 10 characteristics (behaviours, attributes, skills and beliefs) associated with high animal attachment scores, and eight associated with low animal attachment scores. Discussion: Our discussion of the differences in demographics, preparedness, planning and response characteristics of participants with high and low animal attachment confirms research suggesting that animal guardians take risks to save their animals during disasters. Our findings also support recent propositions that animal attachment and ownership could be used to increase the natural disaster preparedness and survivability of animal guardians. However, making sure that animal attachment functions as a protective factor requires active and effective intervention through education, behaviour change and social marketing strategies. Whilst our study is high in ecological validity, future research with larger samples sizes is required to determine the generalisability of our findings to animal owners and guardians in other locations, facing fires with other characteristics, especially for owners and guardians with low levels of attachment.

}, keywords = {animals, disasters, Emergency management, Planning, Preparedness, response.}, doi = {10.6084}, url = {http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/bushfire-preparedness-planning-and-response-among-animal-guardians-a-south-australian-case-study/}, author = {O{\textquoteright}Dwyer, Lisel and Kirrilly Thompson} } @article {bnh-5097, title = {Animal ownership among vulnerable populations in regional South Australia: implications for natural disaster preparedness and resilience}, journal = {Journal of Public Health Management and Practice}, volume = {23}, year = {2017}, month = {02/2017}, pages = {59-63}, chapter = {59}, abstract = {

Context:\ Few studies have examined the prevalence of\ animal ownership\ among populations likely to be at greater risk from disaster events within a\ bushfire\ context.

Objective:\ To investigate the proportion of vulnerable community members keeping animals and the types of animals kept, as well as perceived risk of harm to pets, and their inclusion in\ bushfire\ survival planning.

Design:\ Statewide anonymous online survey in 2014 of adult South Australian animal owners threatened by\ bushfire\ in January 2014. Respondents were asked about\ animal ownership, their\ bushfire\ risk perception, and household survival planning. Descriptive statistics are presented for 5 groups considered likely to contribute to increased risk of harm for households: linguistically diverse, older adults, families with young children, physically frail, and self-identifying disabled, as well as individuals with mental health considerations.

Setting:\ An opt-in purposively targeted sample of anonymous South Australians living in high fire-risk locations.

Participants:\ Adult South Australian animal owners threatened or directly impacted by\ bushfire\ events, including individuals matching 1 of the 5 vulnerable groups.

Main Outcome Measures:\ Self-reported details of\ animal ownership, perceived fire risk, survival planning, and\ vulnerability\ characteristics.

Results:\ Animal ownership\ was found to be more prevalent in these 5 populations than in the wider South Australian population. Perceived risk to pets was low to moderately low in these individuals. Variation was observed in the role of animals generally and pets specifically as motivators for preparing\ bushfire\ survival plans.

Conclusions:\ Emergency services and associated agencies need to consider how the unique needs of vulnerable populations that keep animals, and their potential differences in risk perception, relate to their\ bushfire\ survival planning and\ preparedness\ requirements.

}, doi = {10.1097/PHH.0000000000000416}, url = {https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00124784-201701000-00009}, author = {Kirrilly Thompson and Trigg, Josh and Bradley P Smith} } @article {bnh-3343, title = {Developing a scale to understand willingness to sacrifice personal safety for companion animals: The Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale (PORPS)}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {21}, year = {2017}, month = {03/2017}, pages = {205-212}, chapter = {205}, abstract = {

Multiple factors motivate people to risk their safety for companion animals during disasters. Often, this entails people re-entering dangerous areas, delaying evacuation, and risking personal harm to protect animals. Importantly, the intensity of this behaviour varies between individuals, with the capacity to take risk-mitigating actions also limited by self-efficacy when managing companion animals under threatening conditions. As these two factors have received little attention, this study presents the construction, through principal components analysis, of a stable 24-item multidimensional scale measuring the potential intensity and perceived efficacy of pet-directed actions during disasters: the Pet-Owner Risk Propensity Scale. The initial 64-item pool derived from first-person bushfire accounts of Australian companion-animal owners. Items were then administered to Australian companion-animal owners living in disaster-susceptible locations (n=553). Preliminary findings support its validity, reliability, and utility in understanding companion-animal owners{\textquoteright} risk-taking propensity, which may help predict and avoid harmful outcomes for people and their animals during disasters, both in Australia and elsewhere.

}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.004}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420916305714}, author = {Trigg, Josh and Bradley P Smith and Bennett, Pauleen and Kirrilly Thompson} } @article {bnh-4337, title = {Planned and ultimate actions of horse owners facing a bushfire threat: Implications for natural disaster preparedness and survivability}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2017}, month = {11/2017}, abstract = {

During disasters, the presence of companion animals is an identified risk for household relocation failure as well as premature return. In Australia, where bushfires are a regular summer threat, householders are encouraged to develop a written bushfire action plan that includes pets and animals. As part of this plan, householders are recommended to relocate themselves and their animals at least the day before a forecast catastrophic fire day. This advice is particularly relevant for horse owners, as the challenges and risks associated with evacuating horses are arguably much more complex than those for smaller companion animals. However, there is little empirical research on the plans and responses of horse owners to bushfire threat. In this paper, we present qualitative findings of semi-structured interviews with 21 households threatened by one of three significant fire events in South Australia in January 2014, all of which were responsible for a horse or pony. We describe and discuss nine different scenarios organised around intended and ultimate action. We found no apparent patterns between intentions and actions for pre-emptive relocation of horses. The extended explanations presented for each scenario provide important insight into equestrian cultures, especially in relation to plans, pre-emptive relocation, behaviour change, and {\textquoteleft}the horse community{\textquoteright} in Australia. We question whether the pre-emptive relocation of horses is over-emphasised for bushfires, and ask if scenario-based planning with contingencies might be more useful and realistic.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.013}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420917303369}, author = {Kirrilly Thompson and Laura Haigh and Bradley P Smith} } @article {bnh-3435, title = {An animal just like me: the importance of preserving the identities of companion-animal owners in disaster contexts}, journal = {Social and Personality Psychology Compass}, volume = {10}, year = {2016}, month = {01/2016}, pages = {26-40}, chapter = {26}, abstract = {

The widespread tendency of modern-day pet owners to self-identify with their companion animals psychologically, symbolically and relationally demonstrates how the constructed identities of animal and owner are strongly linked. This becomes particularly apparent during natural disasters. In this review, the new concept of the\ pet-owning self\ is discussed in relation to three self-psychology perspectives: self-extension, symbolic interactionism and selfobject relations. We purposefully depart from the realm of attachment theory to argue that these three epistemological approaches to self-identity, although related, warrant closer examination. Although we discuss them in relation to disaster contexts, the concept of the pet-owning self remains widely applicable. We argue for the importance of acknowledging the powerful intersubjectivity inherent to pet keeping, the inseparability of perceived pet identity from owners{\textquoteright} experiences of the self and that preserving the cohesion of the two is an essential consideration for owners{\textquoteright} psychological wellbeing when managing the integrated pet/owner in the face of risks posed by disaster and other hazards. Future research opportunities and implications are then discussed in the context of social identity theory.

}, doi = {10.1111/spc3.12233}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12233/full}, author = {Trigg, Josh and Kirrilly Thompson and Bradley P Smith and Bennett, Pauleen} } @article {bnh-3411, title = {Conflicting perspectives on nonhuman animal rescues in natural disasters}, journal = {Society \& Animals}, volume = {24}, year = {2016}, month = {2016}, pages = {358-382}, chapter = {358}, abstract = {

Nonhuman animal guardians are more at risk during natural disasters because they are likely to delay or refuse evacuation and return to evacuated disaster sites to rescue animals. Research on the human-animal bond (HAB) views animal guardians{\textquoteright} actions as a reflection of a strong attachment. However, in addition to guardians, disaster planners, rescue personnel, and other community members influence which animals are saved and how. As Irvine (2009) noted, the way people and institutions think about different animals precedes which animals are included in disaster efforts, and when and how these animals are included. This paper considers how media articles on animal rescues use moral evaluations of animals to justify or challenge people{\textquoteright}s actions in saving or not saving animals. We found that the multiple moral evaluations of animals and animal rescue were a source of misunderstanding and conflict during and after a disaster.

}, doi = {10.1163/15685306-12341417}, url = {http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685306-12341417}, author = {Danielle Every and Clemence Due and Kirrilly Thompson and Jillian Ryan} } @article {bnh-5082, title = {A moveable beast: subjective influence of human-animal relationships on risk perception and risk behaviour during bushfire threat}, journal = {The Qualitative Report}, volume = {21}, year = {2016}, month = {10/2016}, pages = {1881-1903}, chapter = {1881}, abstract = {

This article examines how human-animal connections influence risk perception and behaviour in companion animal guardians exposed to bushfire threat in Australia. Although the objective role of psychological bonds with companion animals is well accepted by researchers, subjective interpretations of these bonds by animal guardians are relatively underexamined in this context. We argue that the ways in which connections with pets and other animals are represented influences different forms of safety-risk perception and behaviour when managing animals{\textquoteright} safety in the face of disaster threat. Thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews with South Australian residents in bushfire-affected areas supported the role of the human-animal bond in shaping risk perception, and influencing engagement in risk-behaviour. Influential factors included animals{\textquoteright} {\textquotedblleft}life value,{\textquotedblright} {\textquotedblleft}relative versus absolute{\textquotedblright} risk framing, the {\textquotedblleft}constellation of bonds,{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}action paralysis{\textquotedblright} when facing threat. Implications for future research in decision-making and risk propensities of animal guardians facing disaster threat alongside their pets are then discussed.

}, url = {https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss10/9}, author = {Trigg, Josh and Kirrilly Thompson and Bradley P Smith and Bennett, Pauleen} } @article {bnh-1663, title = {Capturing community experiences: South Australian bushfires January 2014}, number = {052}, year = {2015}, month = {03/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Lightning strikes in January 2014 caused a number of significant bushfire events in South Australia that continued into February. Fires in and around Eden Valley, Bangor and Rockleigh provided an opportunity to conduct research into the bushfire risk perceptions, decision-making processes and behaviour of residents across three very different fire events involving a rapid-onset fire (Eden Valley), a long-campaign fire (Bangor), and repeat fire incidents (Rockleigh).

During April and May 2014, 171 residents in affected communities were interviewed and 606 South Australians participated in a complementary online (statewide) survey. Approximately one in two (49\%) survey respondents considered their residential area to have been impacted by fire, and almost one in five (17\%) indicated that they were directly impacted by the fires, and one in five (20\%) experienced fire threat without property damage. The aim of the research was to inform SA Country Fire Service about community members{\textquoteright} experiences of bushfires in South Australia, with particular attention to a range of research questions grouped under the three themes discussed below. The nature of the study has allowed us to provide observations and insights on each one of these themes. However, it should be noted that cause and effect relationships between the factors should not be inferred.

}, isbn = {978-0-9941696-2-4}, issn = {052}, author = {Trigg, Josh and Rainbird, Sophia and Kirrilly Thompson and Christopher Bearman and Wright, Lyndsey and Jim McLennan} } @article {bnh-2566, title = {The challenges of managing animals and their owners in disasters: perspectives of Australian response organisations and stakeholders}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {30}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

This paper documents the findings of a comprehensive national survey of Australian response organisations and other relevant stakeholders involved in the management of animals and their owners in emergencies and disasters. The aim of the study was to identify and prioritise the challenges encountered by these organisations in the management of animals and animal owners. In addition, attitudes towards organisational responsibility for the management of animals in emergencies and awareness of relevant emergency response and recovery arrangements were sought.\ 
A sample of 98 respondents representing 68 organisations from all Australian states and territories were surveyed. The main challenges identified in the management of animals and their owners were in the logistics of animal management (personnel and equipment), the physical management and rescue of animals, interactions with owners during emergency response, and post-emergency impacts on the management of animals and their owners (distress and emotional issues). As would be expected, different categories of organisations and stakeholders experienced different challenges. Issues were reported across all categories irrespective of their formally-assigned roles and responsibilities in this area.\ 

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-30-02-07}, author = {Mel Taylor and Megan McCarthy and Penny Burns and Kirrilly Thompson and Bradley P Smith and Greg Eustace} } @article {bnh-2565, title = {Does emotional closeness to pets motivate their inclusion in bushfire survival plans? Implications for emergency communicators}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {30}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

As pet ownership influences responses to the threat of bushfire, current preparedness communication acknowledges the pet-owner relationship as a key reason for including pets in emergency plans. However, not all pet-owner relationships are the same. Some people are physically and emotionally {\textquoteleft}closer{\textquoteright} to their pets than are others, a difference that could impact survival plan intentions. This South Australian study examines how differences in pet-owner closeness affects owners{\textquoteright} views of pets as a motivator for plan creation and of pet inclusion in planning across four survival-plan intention types: {\textquoteleft}stay and defend{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}split the household{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}wait and decide{\textquoteright}, and {\textquoteleft}leave early{\textquoteright}. Of several pet-owner closeness indicators, family membership of pets and anticipated separation distress influenced whether pets were considered a motivator and were included in plans.\ 
Intention-specific recommendations for creating motivating communications based on these effects are resented for emergency services communicators.

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-30-02-06}, author = {Trigg, Josh and Bradley P Smith and Kirrilly Thompson} } @conference {bnh-1562, title = {Experiences of responders in supporting animals and their owners in disasters Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, abstract = {

This paper details an initial exploratory study undertaken as part of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHRC) Managing Animals in Disasters (MAiD) project. Data to inform the scoping phase of this project are being collected via a number of small-scale studies with key groups.
The aims of this initial study were to assess attitudes towards operational responsibility for animals and to scope the range and extent of challenges faced by emergency services personnel in their interactions with animals and animal owners in the context of disasters. The goal was to gather the views and experiences of a broad cross-section of emergency services personnel operating across Australia across all hazards.
During the period May-July 2014 data were collected from 117 emergency services personnel. Around one third of responders reported occasional or recurring issues with animals and their owners, and a further 23\% felt these issues were significant/frequent or severe. The main issues noted were in the areas of logistics, unclear policy, interaction with owners during response, the physical management and rescue of animals, and inter-agency coordination. Over half the sample reported details of such experiences; these were coded and are discussed in the context of future resilience-enabling emergency management.

}, author = {Mel Taylor and Greg Eustace and Bradley P Smith and Kirrilly Thompson and Rachel Westcott and Penny Burns} } @article {bnh-2568, title = {For pet{\textquoteright}s sake, save yourself! Motivating emergency and disaster preparedness through relations of animal guardianship}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {30}, year = {2015}, abstract = {
Animal ownership and animal attachment have been considered risk factors for surviving emergencies and disasters. However, there is reason to believe that pet guardianship and animal attachment could be reconfigured from risk factor to protective factor. This is because animal guardianship provides access to a number of social networks and communication channels that can be used to disseminate information. However, information alone is insufficient to drive action. This paper refines the {\textquoteleft}pet as protective factor{\textquoteright} proposal by detailing three inter-related influences that might be compelling in the transformation of intention to action. These are motivation (relevant and irrelevant), risk perception (likelihood and consequence of risk), and duty (as a form of responsibility to specific others, or a form of moral obligation). The actions of a guardian will not only affect an animal{\textquoteright}s emergency and natural disaster survivability, but their ability to continue in the co-dependent relationship of guardianship in which they are invested. A consideration of these influences reveals an additional dimension to the {\textquoteleft}pet as protective factor{\textquoteright} proposal. While it could be used to motivate people to save their pets {\textquoteleft}for pets{\textquoteright} sake{\textquoteright} (and hopefully save themselves in the process), it could also convince people to save themselves for their pet{\textquoteright}s sake, and hopefully save their pets in the process.
}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-30-02-09}, author = {Kirrilly Thompson} } @article {bnh-2569, title = {Helping hands, hurting hooves: towards a multidisciplinary paradigm of large animal rescue}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {30}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

Large Animal Rescue (LAR) entails the removal of a large animal from a place of danger to one of safety by the most humane method, with an overriding regard for the safety and welfare of responders as well as members of the public. However, there has been little consideration for the ways in which human and animal safety are mutually incorporated and the unique challenges posed by the human-animal bond with respect to LAR. Moving beyond the focus of previous authors on its technical aspects, this article reconciles the two perspectives with a multispecies, anthrozoological account of LAR. It provides examples from three previously undocumented rescues of horses trapped in mud, flood waters, and a gully to illustrate the ways in which the safety of humans and animals are mutually dependent. Above all, the case studies signal the need for a shift towards multidisciplinary approaches to LAR that engage emergency services, engineering, veterinary sciences and social sciences in collaborative knowledge sharing and creation.\ 

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-30-02-12}, author = {Kirrilly Thompson and Maryanne Leighton and Chris Riley} } @article {bnh-2567, title = {Risk perception, preparedness and response of livestock producers to bushfires: a South Australian case study}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {30}, year = {2015}, month = {2015}, abstract = {

Animal ownership has been shown to be a risk factor for the survival of humans during emergencies and natural disasters largely due to evacuation failures. For livestock producers, it is often impossible to evacuate their animals given the need to ensure the safety of all persons, property (e.g. dwellings, equipment, paddocks), pets, and the welfare of their stock. To determine their use of information and warnings, and their planning and preparedness behaviour, 41 livestock producers from three field sites around rural South Australia that were threatened or impacted by significant bushfires in January 2014 were interviewed. The majority had a low level of concern for bushfire threat, with almost all opting to {\textquoteleft}stay and defend{\textquoteright} their property. Few had formally written {\textquoteleft}bushfire risk management plans{\textquoteright}, adequate insurance for livestock, a contingency plan, or used information resources. However, they reported multiple other routine and ordinary practices contributing to their bushfire preparedness. Such activities used a more {\textquoteleft}common sense{\textquoteright} approach, conducted as part of everyday property management practices and farming culture. It is clear that livestock producers have different needs before and during bushfires, and have a different perception of risk than other animal owners or rural dwellers in general.\ 

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-30-02-08}, author = {Bradley P Smith and Mel Taylor and Kirrilly Thompson} } @article {bnh-1691, title = {What{\textquoteright}s the Big Deal? Responder Experiences of Large Animal Rescue in Australia}, journal = {PLOS Currents Disasters}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, abstract = {

Background: The management of large animals during disasters and emergencies creates difficult operational environments for responders. The aims of this study were to identify the exact challenges faced by Australian emergency response personnel in their interactions with large animals and their owners, and to determine the readiness for large animal rescue (LAR) in Australia.

Methods: A survey tool collected the views and experiences of a broad cross section of emergency services personnel operating across Australia and across all hazards. Data were collected from 156 responders including Australian emergency services personnel, emergency managers such as federal agricultural departments, and local government.

Results: Overall, many of the respondents had serious concerns, and felt that there were significant issues in relation to LAR in Australia. These included the coordination of emergency care for animals, physical management of large animals, inter-agency coordination, and dealing with animal owners. Very few respondents had received any formal training in LAR, with an overwhelming majority indicating they would attend formal training if it were made available.

Discussion: Results help to guide the development of evidence-informed support tools to assist operational response and community engagement, and the production of professional development resources.

}, keywords = {animals, disasters, emergencies, readiness, rescue}, doi = {10.1371/currents.dis.71d34082943fa239dbfbf9597232c8a5}, url = {http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/whats-the-big-deal-responder-experiences-of-large-animal-rescue-in-australia/}, author = {Bradley P Smith and Kirrilly Thompson and Mel Taylor} }