@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-8322, title = {Recognising and measuring competency in natural hazard preparation: A preparedness competency index}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {73}, year = {2022}, month = {03/2022}, abstract = {

With weather-related natural hazards increasing in number and severity, it is more important than ever for communities to prepare for all types of hazards. However, the literature does not reveal what such preparedness looks like {\textendash} how much preparation is enough and, conversely, how low levels of preparation can be easily recognised by emergency agencies. This study maps Australian emergency agency understanding of competencies that are needed by individuals and communities for effective preparation.

Using in-depth semi-structured interviews of 30 emergency agency, local council and not-for-profit organisation staff from all Australian states, participants identified a range of community and individual features that they had seen in un-prepared and well-prepared communities and which they believed were key competencies for protective action. These competencies were then mapped against participants{\textquoteright} perceptions of five different levels of preparation, resulting in a Preparedness Competency Index that allows agencies to benchmark preparation in communities, as well as to recognise when lack of preparation competency leaves groups vulnerable.

}, keywords = {community, Competency, Natural hazards, Preparedness, protective action}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102882}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420922001017?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor} } @conference {bnh-6524, title = {Intelligent warnings: a twenty-first century approach to encouraging protective action in emergencies}, booktitle = {AFAC19 powered by INTERSCHUTZ - Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Forum}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, publisher = {Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience}, organization = {Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Victorian approach to the delivery of public information and warnings is robust and leads the country in many respects. Despite this, when at-risk individuals do receive warnings, existing research clearly highlights they are unlikely to immediately act, and instead, will seek out further information and take time to process the information to determine whether any action is required. This verification process may include talking with family, friends, neighbours or colleagues, resulting in a delay before protective action is taken. To counteract this problem and provide communities with as much time as possible to take action, we need to minimise the likelihood of delays infiltrating our decision-making and warnings dissemination process. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation can help us to achieve this.

To investigate this further, a desktop review of existing literature was undertaken, supported by informal discussions and semi-structured interviews with a diverse range of academics, emergency managers and other experts across Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the United States. The discussions and interviews highlighted exciting opportunities to enhance our current approach through the use of AI and automation, which could be particularly helpful in enhancing the effectiveness of warnings for rapid impact emergencies, such as flash flooding and severe thunderstorms. During these types of emergencies, where community consequences are often experienced very rapidly after initial onset of the event, AI and automation can support the tailoring of language and content in warning products according to affected communities and likely consequences, minimise warning issuance delay and maximise the effectiveness of decision-making.

The investigation found these technologies are not a replacement for human decision making, however, if leveraged effectively they will enable us to better understand risk in realtime and reduce the considerable time taken to manually process intelligence and apply our pre-determined triggers and business rules. For the Victorian emergency management sector, these results suggest there is a need to prioritise investment in innovative new approaches to support the dissemination of potentially life-saving public information and warnings, whilst also supporting researchers to further understand human behaviour and decision-making upon receipt of a warning. In summary, this investigation has identified opportunities to better support communities to take protective action in a timely manner, to ensure we achieve our shared vision of safer and more resilient communities.

Download the full non-peer reviewed research proceedings\ from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Forumhere.

}, keywords = {Emergency management, protective action, risk management, technology, warning}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/australian-journal-of-emergency-management-monograph-series/}, author = {Riley, Jacob} }