Public Empowerment Policies   for Crisis Management   University of Jyväskylä, Finland (coordinator)         Mid Sweden Un...
Workshop programme• Project info – prof. Marita Vos, Marc Stal  & short opening question• Presentation Literature review –...
Project objectives                                                         Marita Vos• Investigating key enablers for publ...
Methods• Literature study on community resilience & citizen response  (2012)• International online expert questionnaire on...
WP1                     WP2                      WP3       Best practices,          Community                 Supporting  ...
Mission / societal goal:                                      Prevention and reduction of harm                            ...
Short opening question:Co-producing safety with citizens• What are main opportunities to further  citizen response?       ...
Jenni HyvärinenLITERATURE REVIEW REPORT                  www.projectPEP.eu   8
Purpose of the review• Bring together current knowledge on  communication contributing to community  resilience and citize...
Method, research questions• RQ1. How are community resilience and  citizen response defined in the literature?• RQ2. What ...
Method, sample• Protocol of a systematic literature review• Searches in multiple online databases• Search terms *“communit...
Method, analysis• Data extraction sheet  – Categories: title, informal summary, definitions    and building blocks for com...
Results RQ1• Community resilience  – a capacity for successful adaptation in the face of    disturbance (Norris et al. 200...
Results RQ2• How crisis communication strengthens  community resilience and citizen response  Topics addressed:  –   The r...
Results RQ3• Trends and gaps in the literature  – Trends     • amount of articles increases     • Influential: Norris et a...
Conclusions• Bottom up approach on enhancing the resilience of  communities and empowering citizens in crisis  response is...
Anne-Marie van het ErvePLAN FOR A TOOLBOX                          www.projectPEP.eu   17
Plan for a toolboxIf there was 1 METHOD to establish resilience and          self efficacy with every citizen....     ...w...
Best and promising practices• There are no simple solutions• Resilience is determined by an enormous  amount of variables•...
The Matrix• Desk study (open sources)• Cases:  – projects, strategies, initiatives, campaigns, etc.• Adjusted in the recen...
The Matrix• Left side:  – Phases in the safety chain     o Preparation     o Response     o Aftercare• Upper side:  – rele...
The Matrix      www.projectPEP.eu   22
Catalogue of opportunities• What worked … and what didn’t?  o Composition of the target group?  o Acceptance of the new te...
Matti Haataja, Helen Sullivan/ Markku HäkkinenTECHNOLOGY OPTIONS                           www.projectPEP.eu   24
Technology OptionsHow and what technology could be utilized for furtherempowering individuals and communitiesDesk Study:  ...
Technology Options•       Identified Opportunities:        –   Reachability and timeliness        –   Increased personal r...
Future Work• Continuous research on:  – Technology acceptance  – Identification of technological solutions    for differen...
Technology cannot use a         ‘One Size Fits All Approach’• Populations represent a distribution of:   – age, ability/di...
Accessibility: a fundamental right• Accessibility - designing technology to be usable by  those with disabilities/limitati...
Inclusiveness• Inclusiveness is a principle that ensures that all  members of the user community are considered in  design...
How disability impacts communication: SMS alerts                          www.projectPEP.eu   31
Challenges and Opportunities• Technology can pose barriers to disabled• ICT implementations must consider  accessibility• ...
www.projectPEP.eu   33
..DISCUSSION TOWARDS A ROADMAP               www.projectPEP.eu   34
Discussion-           Towards a roadmap1. Which promising areas for empowerment  need to be stressed?2. Ideas for the onli...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Public empowerment policies for crisis management

435

Published on

Marita VOS1, Jenni HYVÄRINEN1, Marc STAL2

1University of Jyväskylä, Finland; 2Global Risk Forum GRF Davos, Switzerland

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
435
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Public empowerment policies for crisis management"

  1. 1. Public Empowerment Policies for Crisis Management University of Jyväskylä, Finland (coordinator) Mid Sweden University, Sweden Emergency Services College, Finland Global Risk Forum Davos, Switzerland Inconnect, the Netherlands
  2. 2. Workshop programme• Project info – prof. Marita Vos, Marc Stal & short opening question• Presentation Literature review – Jenni Hyvärinen• Plan for a toolbox – Anne-Marie van het Erve• Technology options – Matti Haataja, Helen Sullivan/ Markku Häkkinen• Discussion www.projectPEP.eu 2
  3. 3. Project objectives Marita Vos• Investigating key enablers for public empowerment in crises: – best practices in how authorities enhance individual, family and community response – community approaches connecting with local needs – technological services enhancing resilience• Road map charting promising areas for future R&D and implementation – Support and Coordination Action www.projectPEP.eu 3
  4. 4. Methods• Literature study on community resilience & citizen response (2012)• International online expert questionnaire on best practices in involving citizens in coproducing safety (2012)• Extensive interviews with municipalities and groups in Sweden, after secondary analysis of quantitative data (2012-2013)• Focus groups with citizens on use and preferences in social media and mobile services (2012-2013)• International Expert Panel (2013-2014)• Online dialogue platform (2014) www.projectPEP.eu 4
  5. 5. WP1 WP2 WP3 Best practices, Community Supporting online questionnaire approach, technology and interviews, guide acceptanceHigh lightening Overview of keypromising areas enablers WP4 WP5 Road Map, Online toolbox, with international advice reports, symposium theme-issue journal WP 6 Project management www.projectPEP.eu 5
  6. 6. Mission / societal goal: Prevention and reduction of harm or damageCommunication goals: Cooperation of citizens and Empowerment Societal understanding organizations for response activities of citizens and organizations of risks: • supportive action (e.g. evacuate) • prevention • providing information • assistance for relatives • self-efficacy during a crisis • active participation in the public debate • participative decisionmaking about reconstructionProcesses: Response network, Communication with Monitoring citizens needs exchange of info and citizens and news media coordinationLearning and growth: Continuous evaluation Preparedness plans Best practice sharing, and accountability and exercises retaining lessons learned www.projectPEP.eu 6
  7. 7. Short opening question:Co-producing safety with citizens• What are main opportunities to further citizen response? www.projectPEP.eu 7
  8. 8. Jenni HyvärinenLITERATURE REVIEW REPORT www.projectPEP.eu 8
  9. 9. Purpose of the review• Bring together current knowledge on communication contributing to community resilience and citizen response• Clarify the role of communication• Identify research trends in the literature on this topic www.projectPEP.eu 9
  10. 10. Method, research questions• RQ1. How are community resilience and citizen response defined in the literature?• RQ2. What is according to the literature the contribution of crisis communication in strengthening community resilience and citizen response?• RQ3. What are the trends and gaps in the literature about this topic? www.projectPEP.eu 10
  11. 11. Method, sample• Protocol of a systematic literature review• Searches in multiple online databases• Search terms *“community resilience” or “citizen response”+ and *communication+ in the abstract, title or keywords• Peer reviewed journals in the last 10 years• Initially 140 hits, of which 32 articles passed inclusion criteria www.projectPEP.eu 11
  12. 12. Method, analysis• Data extraction sheet – Categories: title, informal summary, definitions and building blocks for community resilience and citizen response the role of crisis communication, trends in literature, and technology• Thematic analysis – unit one article www.projectPEP.eu 12
  13. 13. Results RQ1• Community resilience – a capacity for successful adaptation in the face of disturbance (Norris et al. 2008) – consist of, and can be inspected from, various levels including e.g. individual, family and community level• Citizen response – indicates how citizens react to a crisis, and in this way is a result of resilience www.projectPEP.eu 13
  14. 14. Results RQ2• How crisis communication strengthens community resilience and citizen response Topics addressed: – The role of communication – Information needs – Diversity – Communication technology – Trust – Preparedness – Ethics www.projectPEP.eu 14
  15. 15. Results RQ3• Trends and gaps in the literature – Trends • amount of articles increases • Influential: Norris et al. (2008) , Perry & Lindell (2003), Helsloot & Ruitenberg’s (2004) – Perspectives • health and psychology (community resilience) • crisis management and the point of view of response organisations (citizen response) – Case-related literature • The Asian Ocean tsunami, hurricane Katrina of New Orleans (Colten et al. 2008), climate change, terrorism threat www.projectPEP.eu 15
  16. 16. Conclusions• Bottom up approach on enhancing the resilience of communities and empowering citizens in crisis response is a common philosophy of the topic• Communication was addressed implicitly – Few articles focused on communication connected to resilience• Future research suggestions – Clarify further the contribution of communication to community resilience and citizen response: • Communication strategies • The use of technology in communication enhancing resilience www.projectPEP.eu 16
  17. 17. Anne-Marie van het ErvePLAN FOR A TOOLBOX www.projectPEP.eu 17
  18. 18. Plan for a toolboxIf there was 1 METHOD to establish resilience and self efficacy with every citizen.... ...with predictable succesfull outcome... ...and I would have invented and patented it... ...I would be DIRTY RICH! www.projectPEP.eu 18
  19. 19. Best and promising practices• There are no simple solutions• Resilience is determined by an enormous amount of variables• Lots of international experience with successful projects and strategies• Spontaneously or planned changes in attitude and behaviour of the target group www.projectPEP.eu 19
  20. 20. The Matrix• Desk study (open sources)• Cases: – projects, strategies, initiatives, campaigns, etc.• Adjusted in the recent past (later than 2010)• Enough open source material to be studied: – articles and reports in popular (news) media, evaluation reports, etc.• Adjustable for European authorities and organizations www.projectPEP.eu 20
  21. 21. The Matrix• Left side: – Phases in the safety chain o Preparation o Response o Aftercare• Upper side: – relevant variables www.projectPEP.eu 21
  22. 22. The Matrix www.projectPEP.eu 22
  23. 23. Catalogue of opportunities• What worked … and what didn’t? o Composition of the target group? o Acceptance of the new technology? o Monitoring of public rumors and mood?• Result: a ‘catalogue of opportunities’• A ‘Guide Michelin’ of Public Empowerment: strong enablers for public resilience www.projectPEP.eu 23
  24. 24. Matti Haataja, Helen Sullivan/ Markku HäkkinenTECHNOLOGY OPTIONS www.projectPEP.eu 24
  25. 25. Technology OptionsHow and what technology could be utilized for furtherempowering individuals and communitiesDesk Study: – Description on individuals’ communication during / on crises & disaster related issues • With who (Authorities, Community, Large companies, …) • Using what channels & technologies – Technology • Emphasis on Social Media & Mobile Solutions • Solutions that can reach all community members www.projectPEP.eu 25
  26. 26. Technology Options• Identified Opportunities: – Reachability and timeliness – Increased personal relevancy & understandability – Interactivity: a way to share information & data and communicate within the community • Challenges: – Availability of open data – Local communication systems may not support a heterogeneous crowd – Reliability & functionality of network, services & devices – Both, correct and false information spread wide and fast – Individuals motivation and willingness to adopt and use technology in this domain – Usable by a diverse audience (age, language, ability) www.projectPEP.eu 26
  27. 27. Future Work• Continuous research on: – Technology acceptance – Identification of technological solutions for different communication needs and purposes in the domain • Individual and community level• Focus group interviews on preferences for enhancing public resilience technology www.projectPEP.eu 27
  28. 28. Technology cannot use a ‘One Size Fits All Approach’• Populations represent a distribution of: – age, ability/disability, culture, education, language, health conditions (acute/chronic)• In the EU, and globally, approximately 17% of the population has an identified disability (86M)• 23 official EU languages and many more regional variants, minority and migrant languages• A significant portion of any population at risk includes those who have limitations in their ability to utilize technology and/or to perceive or understand information www.projectPEP.eu 28
  29. 29. Accessibility: a fundamental right• Accessibility - designing technology to be usable by those with disabilities/limitations.• In the context of crisis communications, accessibility is important for critical/life safety information• Accessibility is a legal requirement in many countries: – Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ger many, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, USA – Standards-based legislation (e.g. W3C WCAG) www.projectPEP.eu 29
  30. 30. Inclusiveness• Inclusiveness is a principle that ensures that all members of the user community are considered in design, implementation, and operational usage• People with disabilities must be included in the planning and development process• Considering special needs ‘later’ is too late www.projectPEP.eu 30
  31. 31. How disability impacts communication: SMS alerts www.projectPEP.eu 31
  32. 32. Challenges and Opportunities• Technology can pose barriers to disabled• ICT implementations must consider accessibility• Mobile technologies can have significant benefits (ignoring cost) for people with disabilities and others resulting from personalisation & built-in accessibility www.projectPEP.eu 32
  33. 33. www.projectPEP.eu 33
  34. 34. ..DISCUSSION TOWARDS A ROADMAP www.projectPEP.eu 34
  35. 35. Discussion- Towards a roadmap1. Which promising areas for empowerment need to be stressed?2. Ideas for the online dialogue on future research and implementation directions around the next Davos conference? www.projectPEP.eu 35

×