@article {bnh-8380, title = {Using videos in floods and bushfires to educate, signal risk, and promote protective action in the community}, journal = {Safety Science}, volume = {164}, year = {2023}, month = {04/2023}, abstract = {

Videos are commonly used by emergency services agencies in natural hazard emergencies to communicate to the public about the hazard, its possible risks, and to promote protective action. To evaluate the efficacy of the videos being disseminated and amplified during an event, this research examined the extent to which different types of videos trigger risk perceptions, promote protective action, and improve knowledge about the hazard and impact. The findings suggest a video containing a smaller number of facts is most useful at impacting the public{\textquoteright}s hazard knowledge, visualisations (real-life or infographics) of facts helps improve knowledge, and videos highlighting the impact an emergency is having (or had) through people{\textquoteright}s experiences helped improve hazard knowledge, risk perceptions, and protective action intentions. Finally, while footage of a bushfire triggers threat perceptions and some coping appraisal, the style is not as useful for building hazard knowledge. The research extends visual risk literacy knowledge and offers practical guidance for agencies operating in high-risk environments seeking to achieve behavioural compliance. The research argues videos will continue to be an important tool in the public information and warning milieu for any risk event.

}, keywords = {bushfires, Floods, Hazard knowledge, Risk perception, Visual communication, wildfires}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106166}, url = {https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S092575352300108X?token=E04DACC8FEDBF7004C50FE7FE1D497A53312A572F2594F14129DBAA7AEB2CA157658D01EDBA569E71D658B294138AA15\&originRegion=us-east-1\&originCreation=20230508003157}, author = {Paula Dootson and Erica Kuligowski and Scott Murray} } @article {bnh-6697, title = {Duty or safety? Exploring emergency service personnel{\textquoteright}s perceptions of risk and decision-making when driving through floodwater}, journal = {Progress in Disaster Science}, volume = {5}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, abstract = {

Vehicle-related flood fatalities and rescues due to driving through floodwater are a significant emergency management issue for emergency services. To reduce fatalities, injuries, and costs associated with this risky driving behaviour it is essential to develop strategies to stop or reduce the incidence of people driving through floodwater. In Australia, people are told not to enter floodwater {\textendash} on foot or in vehicles {\textendash} with the phrase {\textquoteleft}If it{\textquoteright}s flooded, forget it{\textquoteright} widely used in official messaging. As first responders responsible for floods, storms and tsunamis, Australian State Emergency Service (SES) personnel are working in flood conditions regularly and are considered an occupationally {\textquoteleft}at-risk{\textquoteright} group for driving through floodwater. Although SES agencies across states and territories in Australia are independently led, they typically promote policies of not entering floodwater to their personnel. Such policies are important for meeting duty of care obligations to employees, for protection of assets (vehicles and equipment), and for upholding organisational reputation (leading by example). This study was undertaken to explore the behaviour of driving through floodwater by SES personnel. The study explored the characteristics of those who have and have not driven through floodwater, and then used detailed situations in which SES personnel entered floodwater in vehicles to analyse their perception of risks, the conditions and contexts in which they entered floodwater, and to identify what influenced their decision to enter.

Following an earlier systematic literature review, a detailed online questionnaire was developed and administered to SES personnel from a single agency. Data from 670 respondents indicated that 54.8\% had driven through floodwater in the previous two years, and a number of differences in the profile of those who had/had not driven through floodwater were identified. Those more likely to have driven through floodwater included males, volunteer personnel with longer lengths of service, those doing more driving hours per week, those deployed to work in flood conditions, and those with current flood rescue qualifications. The location type, water depth, and water velocity were conditions that contributed more to perception of risk at the time personnel drove through the floodwater. Detailed information about an experience of entering floodwater was obtained from 201 respondents who had driven through floodwater in SES vehicles, and six factors relating to the decision to drive through floodwater were extracted. {\textquoteleft}Organisational training and safety{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}External locus of control{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}Absence of risk signals{\textquoteright} were identified as having the greatest influence on risk perception leading to decisions to drive through floodwater. The findings of the study have a number of practical implications for the improvement of occupational safety management; such as upgrading risk assessments strategies, reviewing workplace health and safety policies, enhancing training, increasing skills and knowledge of emergency services personnel about floodwater hazard situations, and improving internal flood risk communication.

}, keywords = {Decision making, Driving, emergency services, floodwater, Occupational safety, Risk perception}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100068}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061720300053?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Mozumdar Arifa Ahmed and Katharine Haynes and Matalena Tofa and Gemma Hope and Mel Taylor} } @mastersthesis {bnh-8311, title = {Investigating the psychological factors that influence cyclone mitigation behaviour}, volume = {Doctor of Philosophy}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, pages = {280}, school = {James Cook University}, address = {Townsville}, abstract = {

Tropical Cyclones can cause significant damage to houses located in high-risk areas. In Australia, cities and towns situated on the north coast of Queensland are considered some of the most cyclone-prone communities in the country. Cyclone related property damage can, however, be reduced if the citizens of these communities perform appropriate protective behaviours. People can, for example, install structural upgrades on their houses, which improves the house{\textquoteright}s ability to withstand cyclonic winds. There is also a range of short-term preparedness behaviours that have been shown to effectively mitigate cyclone related property damage. Though, to date, the proportion of people that perform these mitigation behaviours has been relatively low. The overall aim of this research project was to explore why some people do, and others do not, perform cyclone mitigation behaviours.

Past research has shown that Expectancy Value (EV) theories help to explain whether people perform mitigation behaviours for natural hazards. However, an EV based theory has yet to be applied to explain cyclone related structural mitigation behaviour. This research project addressed this research gap by testing the extent to which an adapted EV theory helps to explain people{\textquoteright}s intention to install cyclone shutters. An initial study showed that psychological factors within the adapted EV theory were significant predictors of mitigation behaviour. The results also indicated that an adapted EV theory can be used differentiate between different types of people and their levels of intention to install cyclone shutters. A follow up study showed that that hazard intrusiveness, perceived benefits and perceived cost were the only significant predictors of shutter installation status when controlling for other psychological, demographic and experience factors. The results indicate that when perceived benefits (i.e., the secondary benefits of a structural upgrade) and perceived efficacy (i.e., the perceived ability of the structural upgrade to mitigate harm) are considered separate constructs, only perceived benefits is a significant predictor of structural mitigation\ behaviour. The findings suggest that people are more likely to invest in shutters if they believe that the secondary benefits of shutters outweigh the cost.

Although most EV theories suggest that risk perception influences protective behaviour, empirical research has shown that risk perception is not always a significant predictor of mitigation behaviour. This research project also tested a new method of assessing risk perception to determine if it was significant predictor of short-term cyclone preparedness behaviour. The results indicate that when controlling for objective risk and protective action perceptions, the predicted damage and anticipated negative emotions associated with that damage were both significant predictors of preparedness intention. The results suggest that it is possible to identify a relatively strong link between risk perception and mitigation intention when it is considered a dual-process phenomenon and objective risk is controlled for in the analysis.

Research investigating mitigation behaviour for natural hazards also tends to show that people with experience perceive more risk and are more prepared for future events. However, the link between experience, risk perception and mitigation behaviour seems to be dependent on the type of experience. One type of experience that has not been studied empirically is that of fringe experience. The final study addressed this research gap by exploring how people who had experienced the fringe effects of a severe cyclone (i.e., experienced lesser wind speeds compared to those near the eye of storm) predicted future damage from similar cyclone event. It was found that the more people overestimated the severity of the cyclone they experienced, the less damage they predicted they would experience from a future severe cyclone. The results highlight the importance of specifying the type of experience being assessed in empirical research and that fringe experience is one type of experience can lower risk perception.

The findings from this research project have several implications. The results show that different psychological factors are important for explaining different types of mitigation behaviour. It is, therefore, important for future research applying EV theories to adapt them in accordance with the type of behaviour they are attempting to explain. The findings also suggest that the link between experience, risk perception and cyclone mitigation behaviour is dependent on the way in which these variables are conceptualised and operationalised. Overall, this research project shows that how people think about cyclones and mitigation behaviours helps to explain the extent to which they prepare for cyclones.

}, keywords = {cyclone mitigation behavior, cyclone preparedness, cyclones, fringe experience, hazard intrusiveness, hazard-related attributes, protection motivation theory, protective action decision model, Risk perception}, doi = {10.25903/rsvz-3w27}, url = {https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/68936/}, author = {Mitchell Scovell} } @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} } @mastersthesis {bnh-6624, title = {Domestic architecture and the perception of risk in bushfire-prone areas}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, school = {University of Sydney}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

This thesis examines the way in which the architecture of a house, specifically construction materials and the structure{\textquoteright}s immediate environs, influences residents{\textquoteright} perception of bushfire risk. Three research questions were used to consider different aspects of risk perception for domestic architecture within a bushfire context. These questions were: {\textbullet} Do residents living in bushfire-prone areas of Australia give the same bushfire risk rating to their locality and their house? Do these reflect the bushfire risk for the same area as assessed by the state fire authority? {\textbullet} When anticipating a bushfire, which parts of their current house do residents in bushfire-prone areas of Australia believe to be the safest and which parts the most vulnerable? {\textbullet} What architectural interventions might change residents{\textquoteright} perceptions of the bushfire risk of their homes? The method used to test the research questions was mixed methods with pragmatism as the research worldview. A questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative questions was distributed to residents in eight sample sites selected from bushfire-prone areas of the Blue Mountains and the Central Coast of NSW, Australia. The questionnaire was completed by 252 respondents either in print or electronic form. The majority of respondents gave a lower bushfire risk rating for their local area than their local fire authority, the NSW Rural Fire Service. The majority of respondents gave the same or a lower risk rating for their house than for their local area. During a bushfire respondents indicated they intended to take shelter in up to twenty different places/parts of their house and immediate environs. While the bathroom was the most frequent choice, it represented less than one quarter of responses given. Respondents identified up to ten different places/parts of their house and immediate environs that they intended to avoid during a bushfire, with upstairs rooms and spaces being the most frequent choices. Materials used in the construction of homes did not appear to influence how respondents allocated the bushfire risk to their house. Rather it was the area directly surrounding their house and its proximity to bushland (particularly National Parks) that respondents used to determine the bushfire risk of their property. Non-architectural variables such as gender, age, pet ownership, property ownership, and responsibility for dependents had little effect on the way respondents allocated their bushfire risk. The age of the house also did not influence respondents{\textquoteright} perception of their bushfire risk with respondents in houses constructed to the latest building codes (AS 3959) not indicating that their houses had greater bushfire resistance. Respondents identified fifteen architectural improvements to increase the safety of houses during a bushfire; the most frequently ones were, roof sprinklers and the clearing of vegetation close to the house. For architectural improvement, four overarching themes emerged: specific bushfire-resistant additions; building construction; cleared space/limited vegetation; and building maintenance/defence. The findings of this research, when evaluated against industry knowledge, may be useful in developing new regulatory standards or providing advice in relation to new or existing homes in wild/forest/bushfire-prone areas of the world.

}, keywords = {architecture, Bushfire, land management, Risk perception}, url = {https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/18959}, author = {Brown, Douglas} } @article {bnh-5042, title = {Driving into floodwater: A systematic review of risks, behaviour and mitigation}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {31}, year = {2018}, month = {10/2018}, pages = {10}, chapter = {953}, abstract = {

This systematic review summarises the findings of research focused on the risks associated with driving into floodwater. The review aims to compare and document the magnitude of the problem internationally; identifying the risk factors; exploring the application of theories and presence of theoretical models to explain people{\textquoteright}s risky behaviour; and documenting the intervention strategies utilised or proposed. Literature were searched from a number of databases (e.g. PsycInfo, ScienceDirect, Informit) for publication dates to 31 August 2017, then assessed based on their titles, abstracts and full texts and finally 24 articles were selected. This review compares flood fatality data from four countries (Australia, United States, Greece, and Sweden), groups identified risk factors from these selected studies into seven categories, and proposes a holistic integrated intervention model. The results of the review indicate that studies were predominantly conducted in Australia (10 studies) and USA (7 studies). People{\textquoteright}s decisions to drive into, or turn back from, floodwater are identified as a consequence of both their risk perception and the combined impact of all other factors (e.g. individual, social, environmental etc.) that interdependently contribute to shape decision-making, The theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was the only theory that has been utilised within the literature to understand drivers{\textquoteright} willingness to take risks. Improving people{\textquoteright}s decision-making through educational initiatives, advanced structural mechanisms, regulating existing edicts, and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of current strategies are identified as the best approaches to addressing the challenges in this area. Findings suggest that future studies require data and analysis from a larger range of countries, more comparative analyses within and between countries, an exploration of the relationship between risk factors and their relative level of influence and a greater application of behavioural and decision making theories.

}, keywords = {Behavioural theories, Driving, Drowning, Fatalities, Flood, Risk factors, Risk mitigation measures, Risk perception, Vehicles}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.007}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918300323}, author = {Mel Taylor and Katharine Haynes and Mozumdar Arifa Ahmed} } @article {BF-4277, title = {Householders{\textquoteright} safety-related decisions, plans, actions and outcomes during the 7 February 2009 Victorian (Australia) wildfires}, journal = {Fire Safety Journal}, volume = {61}, year = {2013}, month = {10/2013}, pages = {175-184}, chapter = {175}, abstract = {This study examined decisions made by householders under wildfire threat. Data were obtained from interviews with survivors of severe wildfires in Victoria (Australia) on 7 February 2009 which killed 172 civilians and destroyed more than 2000 homes. Prior to this, Australian fire agency community wildfire safety policy was that residents should: {\textquoteleft}Prepare, stay and defend or leave early{\textquoteright}. Most of the 223 interviewees who stayed and defended did so because this was their wildfire safety plan, and they believed that they would be successful despite the predicted extreme fire danger weather. In 79\% of cases, defence was successful; for the remaining 21\% the house was destroyed and several lives were imperilled. Of the 216 who left for a safer location only 39\% said that this was their wildfire safety plan; for most, the action of leaving was triggered by realisation of the imminent threat posed by the fire; 36\% self-evacuated under hazardous conditions. The findings suggest that community wildfire safety programs should emphasize: (a) the risks associated with staying to defend a property; and (b) how householders should prepare in order to leave safely if a fire threatens.}, keywords = {Community wildfire safety, Decision making, Evacuation, Property defence, Risk perception, Wildfire survival}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.09.003}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037971121300146X}, author = {Jim McLennan and Elliott, Glenn and Omodei, Mary and J Whittaker} }