@article {bnh-8306, title = {Consistent and conflicting information in floods and bushfires impact risk information seeking, risk perceptions, and protective action intentions}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2022}, month = {01/2022}, abstract = {

A core challenge for emergency services agencies is encouraging people to take protective action in a noisy, information-rich environment. This challenge is heightened when the environment is filled with conflicting information. While investigations of conflicting information are prevalent in temporally distant health contexts such as smoking cessation, where the effects of the protective action (i.e., quitting) take years to be realised, studies have yet to examine the impact of conflicting information when the potential outcome of the protective action (e.g., saving your life) has greater temporal immediacy. In this study we compare how social cues (media, peers, commercial weather forecaster) and environmental cues (weather conditions) that are consistent/conflict with an emergency warning message, impact community risk information processing, risk perceptions, and protective action intentions. The research finds risk perception is higher and intention to undertake protective action and information sharing is more likely when there is consistency between the emergency warning message and the socio-environmental cues, whereas heuristic information processing, self-efficacy, and information seeking are more likely to occur in the presence of conflicting cues. The research moves beyond high-level discourse about conflicting information {\textquoteleft}causing confusion{\textquoteright} in the community to a more nuanced, empirical understanding of the complexities of conflicting information across multiple stages of the decision-making process, in a context with greater temporal immediacy for action. Practical suggestions are made for agencies managing conflicting information when the conflict comes from socio-environmental cues. Future research is warranted for replication and to test mitigation strategies for conflicting information.

}, keywords = {decision-making, emergency service, information, protective action}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102774}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420921007354}, author = {Paula Dootson and Erica Kuligowski and Dominique A Greer and Sophie A Miller and Vivienne Tippett} } @article {bnh-6723, title = {Why don{\textquoteright}t bushfire warnings work as intended? Responses to official warnings during bushfires in New South Wales, Australia}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {45}, year = {2020}, abstract = {

Australian fire services provide two broad types of warning to people in bushfire (or wildfire) risk areas. Fire Danger Ratings communicate the possible consequences of a bushfire due to its rate of spread, intensity and difficulty of suppression. Warnings are also issued to alert people to impending bushfires and advise them how to respond. This paper examines how people threatened and affected by bushfires in New South Wales, Australia, in 2017 understood, interpreted and acted upon warning messages they received. The research involved 113 semi-structured interviews and an online survey of 549 households. Results indicate that while most people found warnings easy to understand and useful, many did not respond in ways intended by fire services. Many waited until they were threatened before they evacuated, while others stayed to defend houses and property, assist or rescue other people, and protect pets and animals. Notably, the research highlights the tendency for people to seek confirmation of the bushfire threat before taking protective action, most commonly to avoid unnecessary evacuation and its associated costs. Furthermore, the research identifies three key messages in bushfire warnings that are not personally meaningful for many people because they do not align with how they are likely to respond to a bushfire. These include: (1) people should leave bushfire risk areas on days of Catastrophic fire danger, before there is a fire; (2) houses are not defendable under Catastrophic conditions; and (3) people should {\textquoteleft}leave early{\textquoteright}. The paper offers suggestions on how fire authorities can provide better information to help people to make more effective decisions by acknowledging and working within the context in which warnings are understood, interpreted and acted upon.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, defence, Evacuation, information, preparation, Warnings, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101476}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919304625?dgcid=author}, author = {J Whittaker and Mel Taylor and Christopher Bearman} }