@article {bnh-8194, title = {Community-led recovery - Black Summer final report}, number = {702}, year = {2021}, month = {09/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Community-led approaches to disaster recovery are regarded as the optimal approach to sustainable disaster recovery, fostering self-reliance and self-determination within affected communities (Dibley, Mitchell, Ireton, Gordon, \& Goron, 2019; Olshansky, 2005). However, as noted by Dibley et al. (2019), {\textquotedblleft}[w]hat is less clear in the literature is how government might best foster and enable community-led recovery while maintaining their role and responsibilities in coordination after a disaster,{\textquotedblright} (p. 3, emphasis in original).

The objective of this research was to address this gap by examining ways in which governments can better support and enable communities to lead their own recovery after bushfire disaster events. Specifically, the following research questions were explored:

  1. How can government best support community-led deliberative decision-making processes in post-disaster bushfire recovery?
  2. How can government best leverage existing and emerging community organisations, structures, and networks in post-disaster bushfire recovery?

This project developed a set of resources to broaden the knowledge base and disseminate best practice, both within and beyond end-user organisations. Research findings from this project expand our knowledge on how community structures may modify the decision-making function of community recovery bodies (i.e., Community Recovery Committees), and shape residents{\textquoteright} perceptions of community recovery. These resources include:

These resources are intended to be utilised by community engagement staff, other state and local government staff, CRC members, and not-for-profit staff who are involved in recovery. In all, the resources developed as part of this study are intended to be useful beyond the current cohort of CRCs operating in the wake of the 2019/20 bushfire season, which formed the basis of this research analysis. We hope that these efforts will form the basis for recovery progress monitoring, benchmarking, and support activities within disaster-affected communities and risk areas. However, it is a complex field, and so a proposed agenda is also provided for next steps in research and applications.

}, keywords = {communications, community, recovery}, issn = {702}, author = {Lisa Gibbs and Collin Gallagher and Kate Brady and Claire Leppold and Greg Ireton and Andrew Haywood and Yvette Clarke and Stewart Davies and Fyowna Norton and Vaughn Brandenburg} } @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-6225, title = {Behaviour around floodwater: challenges for floodwater safety and risk communication}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {34}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, pages = {40-47}, abstract = {

There is little disagreement that entering floodwater is risky, whether in a vehicle or on foot. There is usually little or no visibility of what is under the surface and even shallow water with moderate flow can make vehicles unstable or sweep people off their feet. In addition, floodwater will often contain contaminants and debris. Therefore, the safest course of action is to avoid entering floodwater. Indeed, the most pervasive risk communication message is {\textquoteleft}If it{\textquoteright}s flooded, forget it{\textquoteright}. This clear, unambiguous message is good at getting people{\textquoteright}s attention, but it is unclear whether it actually changes behaviour. Research with Australian public, floodplain management professionals, State Emergency Services (SES) personnel, and other emergency management experts has identified a number of challenges to floodwater safety and risk communications. Using a combination of research evidence and expert opinion, this paper discusses four pressing challenges and highlights some of the approaches being taken to help address them.

}, keywords = {communications, Fatalities, floodwater, risk, safety}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-october-2019-behaviour-around-floodwater-challenges-for-floodwater-safety-and-risk-communication/}, author = {Mel Taylor and Matalena Tofa and Katharine Haynes and Joshua McLaren and Peter Readman and Diana Ferguson and Sascha Rundle and Danny Rose} } @conference {bnh-6412, title = {Joining the dots: using social media to connect with more vulnerable Victorians during emergencies}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Day AFAC19}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

An ongoing challenge for emergency, government, and community organisations is {\textquoteleft}how can social media (social media) be best used to connect with people who may be considered more vulnerable during an emergency event?{\textquoteright} This question has three key elements. First, when using the term vulnerable who might we be referring to? Second, how is social media being used by relevant organisations and vulnerable community members? Third, how might we better use social media to connect to the more vulnerable sections of the community? This paper reports on findings from recently completed research funded by Emergency Management Victoria. This research is unique in that it combines insights and perspectives from: interviews with emergency, government and community organisations; analysis of social media postings; and interviews and a survey of community members.

Our research noted that most organisations have developed a more nuanced perspective of the term vulnerable, one which takes account of contextual and temporal factors and recognises that all Victorians are periodically vulnerable. Interviews highlighted that organisations, community groups, and vulnerable sections of the community operate in a complex informational and social media landscape. Moreover, this landscape continues to develop with changing boundaries between actors, and organisations{\textquoteright} evolving roles. Analysis of social media highlighted that the messaging was generic, with little content aimed at vulnerable sections of the community. The research also investigated how vulnerable people used social media during emergencies. Findings included a growing expectation from community members on the use of social media by emergency and government organisations and that community members increasingly prefer to obtain information from community groups on social media.

The research provides a range of suggestions to improve effective use of social media to better meet the needs of vulnerable persons during emergencies. These included the use of communities of practice, education of social media users, development of practice guidelines, standard setting, and monitoring.

}, keywords = {communications, community, social media, Vulnerability, Warnings}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/australian-journal-of-emergency-management-monograph-series/}, author = {Peter Hayes and Stan Karanasios and Vanessa Cooper and Marta Poblet} } @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} }