Peer-reviewed paper on 'Learning for Disaster Resilience' presented to the Australian and New Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference held in Brisbane, Australia in April 2012.
The paper argues that three fields - disaster risk reduction, emergency management and community development - need to work together if community disaster resilience is to be achieved. Furthermore, it outlines research that shows that social capital formation is a critical factor in building resilience based on analysis of past disasters.
The paper then promotes the importance of education, communications and engagement (ECE) to help communities learn to build resilience using the three fields. It particularly stresses the benefits of social media in these learning processes.
The paper concludes by identifying knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in the further development and use of the 'Learning for Disaster Resilience' approach.
Using social media to build community disaster resilience articleNeil Dufty
A paper published in the February 2012 edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management. The paper investigates the ways in which social media can build disaster resilience in communities.
The paper initially establishes a disaster resilience-building framework based on current research and the Australian National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. The framework developed is based on three intersecting fields: Emergency Management, Disaster Risk Reduction and Community Development. The paper then analyses and identifies the uses of social media as education, communications and engagement (ECE) tools within the resilience-building strategic framework. It concludes by discussing the implications of this analysis for emergency managers.
Towards a learning for disaster resilience approachNeil Dufty
This paper is a first attempt to scope the possible content and learning processes that could be used in a holistic Learning for Disaster Resilience (LfDR) approach as a possible improvement to current disaster education, communications and engagement practices. The research found that LfDR should not only cover public safety aspects, but also learning about the community itself, including how to reduce its vulnerabilities and strengthen resilience. In relation to learning process, a review of learning theory found four broad learning theory groups - behavioural, cognitive, affective, social – that have relevance to LfDR. The research identified a range of potential learning activities across these groups. The use of social media in disaster management is strongly supported by the research as it has relevance to three of the four groups.
Importance of connected communities to flood resilienceNeil Dufty
Floodplain risk management and emergency management will never protect all Victorian communities in all floods. There will always be some residual risk for communities, meaning that the focus will be on how they look after themselves particularly in large flood events. This self-ability to prepare, respond and recover will largely determine how quickly communities return to normal functioning – a measure of flood resilience.
There is a relatively large body of psychological research that identifies the factors determining people’s flood preparedness, appropriate response and effective recovery. However, according to research into disaster resilient communities, not only is the participation of individuals required, but also collective action. Several researchers have found that community connectedness (especially ‘social capital’) is a critical factor in the ability of a community to recover after a disaster.
Social capital has been defined as the ‘networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam, 1995). Research into recent disasters around the world, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, has shown the benefits of social capital in providing resources for a faster and more efficient recovery. Some recent post-flood evaluations conducted in Victoria also indicate the importance of social capital in flood response and recovery. Research by the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development has shown the need for social capital formation in building general community resilience across the state.
There are several implications of these findings for floodplain and emergency agencies including the need to work with community developers in state and local government to assess and strengthen community connections through social capital formation in flood-prone Victorian communities. This should be done as a preparation for flooding to enable the different types of social capital to work in communities during and after a flood.
Another implication is that community flood education and engagement programs such as FloodSafe should include content that helps people and communities learn how to form and use social capital as part of flood preparedness.
Paper looks at whether education or engagement will help build community disaster resilience. It shows that both are required and should be interrelated to help communities learn to build disaster resilience. The paper also promotes social media as an emerging mechanism for disaster education and engagement activities.
The place of education in building disaster resilience paperNeil Dufty
Disaster education is becoming increasingly popular as a means of ensuring public safety, knowing that governments and infrastructure cannot protect all individuals and their communities in all emergencies. With the commitment by governments over the past decade to building disaster resilience, there is also a growing desire for community education to support this relatively new goal. This paper examines what is required to refine existing disaster education plans and programs to effectively help build community disaster resilience.
Paper: What is disaster resilience education?Neil Dufty
Paper Presented at the
Australian and New Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference
Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast (QLD), 5-7 May 2014
Community disaster education, communication and engagement (ECE) is an integral component of emergency management in Australia and around the world. Its main goal is to promote public safety and, to a lesser extent, reduce damages. However, many governments around the world, including Australia, aim to also build community disaster resilience, with learning viewed as a critical mechanism. There is therefore a need to examine current community disaster ECE practices with a view to aligning them to the broader goal of disaster resilience. To attempt this, an exploratory research methodology was utilised to examine possible education content and processes that could be used by emergency agencies and other organisations to design plans, programs and activities that build disaster resilience in local communities.
The research found that disaster resilience ECE content should not only cover preparedness and response aspects, but also learning about speedy and effective recovery for people, organisations (e.g. businesses) and communities. It found that disaster resilience ECE should also involve learning about the community itself, including how to reduce vulnerabilities and connect communities through social capital formation.
As a result of the research, opportunities for disaster resilience ECE were identified in the main learning domains: behavioural, cognitive, affective and social. The findings demonstrated that many current disaster ECE programs are only using limited parts of this learning ‘spectrum’, although this would be significantly increased by further embracing social media as a disaster resilience learning medium. The research also identified a framework to design disaster resilience ECE programs that can be used for any community. The framework includes guiding principles, ‘palettes’ from which to choose appropriate learning content and processes, and a series of ‘filters’ to tailor the programs to specific disaster-impacted communities.
Using social media to build community disaster resilience articleNeil Dufty
A paper published in the February 2012 edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management. The paper investigates the ways in which social media can build disaster resilience in communities.
The paper initially establishes a disaster resilience-building framework based on current research and the Australian National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. The framework developed is based on three intersecting fields: Emergency Management, Disaster Risk Reduction and Community Development. The paper then analyses and identifies the uses of social media as education, communications and engagement (ECE) tools within the resilience-building strategic framework. It concludes by discussing the implications of this analysis for emergency managers.
Towards a learning for disaster resilience approachNeil Dufty
This paper is a first attempt to scope the possible content and learning processes that could be used in a holistic Learning for Disaster Resilience (LfDR) approach as a possible improvement to current disaster education, communications and engagement practices. The research found that LfDR should not only cover public safety aspects, but also learning about the community itself, including how to reduce its vulnerabilities and strengthen resilience. In relation to learning process, a review of learning theory found four broad learning theory groups - behavioural, cognitive, affective, social – that have relevance to LfDR. The research identified a range of potential learning activities across these groups. The use of social media in disaster management is strongly supported by the research as it has relevance to three of the four groups.
Importance of connected communities to flood resilienceNeil Dufty
Floodplain risk management and emergency management will never protect all Victorian communities in all floods. There will always be some residual risk for communities, meaning that the focus will be on how they look after themselves particularly in large flood events. This self-ability to prepare, respond and recover will largely determine how quickly communities return to normal functioning – a measure of flood resilience.
There is a relatively large body of psychological research that identifies the factors determining people’s flood preparedness, appropriate response and effective recovery. However, according to research into disaster resilient communities, not only is the participation of individuals required, but also collective action. Several researchers have found that community connectedness (especially ‘social capital’) is a critical factor in the ability of a community to recover after a disaster.
Social capital has been defined as the ‘networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam, 1995). Research into recent disasters around the world, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, has shown the benefits of social capital in providing resources for a faster and more efficient recovery. Some recent post-flood evaluations conducted in Victoria also indicate the importance of social capital in flood response and recovery. Research by the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development has shown the need for social capital formation in building general community resilience across the state.
There are several implications of these findings for floodplain and emergency agencies including the need to work with community developers in state and local government to assess and strengthen community connections through social capital formation in flood-prone Victorian communities. This should be done as a preparation for flooding to enable the different types of social capital to work in communities during and after a flood.
Another implication is that community flood education and engagement programs such as FloodSafe should include content that helps people and communities learn how to form and use social capital as part of flood preparedness.
Paper looks at whether education or engagement will help build community disaster resilience. It shows that both are required and should be interrelated to help communities learn to build disaster resilience. The paper also promotes social media as an emerging mechanism for disaster education and engagement activities.
The place of education in building disaster resilience paperNeil Dufty
Disaster education is becoming increasingly popular as a means of ensuring public safety, knowing that governments and infrastructure cannot protect all individuals and their communities in all emergencies. With the commitment by governments over the past decade to building disaster resilience, there is also a growing desire for community education to support this relatively new goal. This paper examines what is required to refine existing disaster education plans and programs to effectively help build community disaster resilience.
Paper: What is disaster resilience education?Neil Dufty
Paper Presented at the
Australian and New Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference
Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast (QLD), 5-7 May 2014
Community disaster education, communication and engagement (ECE) is an integral component of emergency management in Australia and around the world. Its main goal is to promote public safety and, to a lesser extent, reduce damages. However, many governments around the world, including Australia, aim to also build community disaster resilience, with learning viewed as a critical mechanism. There is therefore a need to examine current community disaster ECE practices with a view to aligning them to the broader goal of disaster resilience. To attempt this, an exploratory research methodology was utilised to examine possible education content and processes that could be used by emergency agencies and other organisations to design plans, programs and activities that build disaster resilience in local communities.
The research found that disaster resilience ECE content should not only cover preparedness and response aspects, but also learning about speedy and effective recovery for people, organisations (e.g. businesses) and communities. It found that disaster resilience ECE should also involve learning about the community itself, including how to reduce vulnerabilities and connect communities through social capital formation.
As a result of the research, opportunities for disaster resilience ECE were identified in the main learning domains: behavioural, cognitive, affective and social. The findings demonstrated that many current disaster ECE programs are only using limited parts of this learning ‘spectrum’, although this would be significantly increased by further embracing social media as a disaster resilience learning medium. The research also identified a framework to design disaster resilience ECE programs that can be used for any community. The framework includes guiding principles, ‘palettes’ from which to choose appropriate learning content and processes, and a series of ‘filters’ to tailor the programs to specific disaster-impacted communities.
Paper - Recent research in disaster education and its implications for emerge...Neil Dufty
Paper presented at 2013 The International Emergency Management Society (TIEMS) Conference in Velaux, France.
Community disaster education is an integral component of emergency management around the world. Its main goal is to promote public safety and, to a lesser extent, reduce disaster damages. However, there has been relatively little research into the appropriateness and effectiveness of the community disaster education programs and learning activities, including those provided by emergency agencies. This is due largely to the general lack of evaluation of these programs, the difficulty in isolating education as a causal factor in aspects of disaster management performance, and disaster education not being embraced strongly by the academic field of education.
Compounding this situation is the call by many governments around the world to build community disaster resilience in addition to public safety, with education viewed as a critical mechanism. There is therefore an urgent need to not only examine current community disaster education practices based on education theory and practice, but also to align them to the broader goal of disaster resilience.
In response, an exploratory research methodology was utilised to examine possible learning content and processes that could be used by emergency agencies and other organisations to design Learning for Disaster Resilience (LfDR) plans, programs and activities for local communities.
The research found that disaster resilience learning content should not only cover preparedness aspects, but also learning about improving recovery for people, organisations (e.g. businesses) and communities. It found that disaster resilience learning should also include learning about the community itself, including how to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen resilience.
Opportunities for disaster resilience learning were identified in four broad learning domains – behavioural, cognitive, affective and social. The findings demonstrated that many current disaster education programs are only using limited parts of this learning ‘spectrum’, although this would be significantly increased by further embracing social media as a disaster resilience learning medium.
An Introduction to Resilience for Humanitarian WorkersShashanka Saadi
This presentation is a simple compilation of Resilience definitions, approach to understand resilience and indicators use to identify resilience. This will be helpful for humanitarian workers to get a overview of the resilience concept quickly. A list of reference given in the last slide for further reading.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)IJERD Editor
call for paper 2012, hard copy of journal, research paper publishing, where to publish research paper,
journal publishing, how to publish research paper, Call For research paper, international journal, publishing a paper, IJERD, journal of science and technology, how to get a research paper published, publishing a paper, publishing of journal, publishing of research paper, reserach and review articles, IJERD Journal, How to publish your research paper, publish research paper, open access engineering journal, Engineering journal, Mathemetics journal, Physics journal, Chemistry journal, Computer Engineering, Computer Science journal, how to submit your paper, peer reviw journal, indexed journal, reserach and review articles, engineering journal, www.ijerd.com, research journals,
yahoo journals, bing journals, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, google journals, hard copy of journal
Redefining Community Based Disaster Risk Management through Enhanced Early Wa...Mavic Pineda
This presentation was first delivered in ICKET 2014 held in Jeju, South Korea in July 2014. In the same month, the said presentation was echoed in Ateneo de Manila University.
As part of the implementation of the Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the World Bank/GFDRR has launched a global study on the “State of Civil Protection in the World: Typologies, Good Practices and Economic Returns”. The objective is to deepen the overall knowledge on civil protection, understand good practices, challenges and lessons-learnt, and to build consensus within the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) community on this important area for disaster risk management and resilience.
This report forms part of this overall global study, with the objective of providing:
• A description and analysis of civil protection in the Australia
• Identification of lessons-learnt and good international practices
Social Resilience andNatural Resource Dependent Societies -Kenya-Dr. Asenath Maobe
This lecture was presented to Master of Science Students at the University of Nairobi, in January 2021 at the invitation of Prof. Joanes Atela a seasoned climate change expert and a convener of Africa Research and Impact Network (ARIN).
The lecture highlights the praxis between social resilience and natural resource dependent societies, a Kenyan context. Enjoy!
Sample of a community flood education study and planNeil Dufty
Fairfield City, located in south-western Sydney, straddles parts of the Georges River and Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchments, and is home to approximately 190,000 people. Parts of the City are extremely prone to flooding.
Fairfield City Council proactively manages flood risks in accordance with the NSW Government’s 2005 Floodplain Development Manual. Council’s floodplain risk management activities are overseen by the Fairfield Floodplain Management Committee. During the last six years alone, the Committee has supervised nearly $10 million worth of investment made in floodplain management.
Although there has been this considerable investment in floodplain management, the Fairfield City communities will never be totally protected from the impacts of flooding nor can emergency authorities such as the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) ensure the safety of all residents in all floods. Therefore, it is critical that through community education the flood-affected communities across the City are aware of the flood risk, are prepared for floods, know how to respond appropriately and are able to recover as quickly as possible.
With this in mind, Council received funding to engage a suitably qualified consultant to undertake Council’s Flood Education and Awareness project for the City. Molino Stewart Pty Ltd was engaged in April 2012 to carry out the project with the main output being a community flood education plan for the City.
Methodology and findings
Molino Stewart collected a range of data to gauge the current level of flood awareness and preparedness of residents within the City. A survey that sampled flood-affected residences and a community forum on flooding run by Straight Talk Pty Ltd were the primary means of assessing flood awareness and preparedness.
The social research showed that there are generally low levels of flood awareness and preparedness across the City. This is most probably largely due to lack of flood experience as the last major flood event to occur in the City was in 1988.
Other challenges for community flood education in the City include a large culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) population and the fact there is a relatively low level of internet usage within the City’s population.
Molino Stewart also conducted research into current best practice in community flood education to help inform the development of this plan. Research showed the need to adopt a disaster resilience learning approach with communities and this is the direction that Molino Stewart has taken in developing the plan.
Paper - Recent research in disaster education and its implications for emerge...Neil Dufty
Paper presented at 2013 The International Emergency Management Society (TIEMS) Conference in Velaux, France.
Community disaster education is an integral component of emergency management around the world. Its main goal is to promote public safety and, to a lesser extent, reduce disaster damages. However, there has been relatively little research into the appropriateness and effectiveness of the community disaster education programs and learning activities, including those provided by emergency agencies. This is due largely to the general lack of evaluation of these programs, the difficulty in isolating education as a causal factor in aspects of disaster management performance, and disaster education not being embraced strongly by the academic field of education.
Compounding this situation is the call by many governments around the world to build community disaster resilience in addition to public safety, with education viewed as a critical mechanism. There is therefore an urgent need to not only examine current community disaster education practices based on education theory and practice, but also to align them to the broader goal of disaster resilience.
In response, an exploratory research methodology was utilised to examine possible learning content and processes that could be used by emergency agencies and other organisations to design Learning for Disaster Resilience (LfDR) plans, programs and activities for local communities.
The research found that disaster resilience learning content should not only cover preparedness aspects, but also learning about improving recovery for people, organisations (e.g. businesses) and communities. It found that disaster resilience learning should also include learning about the community itself, including how to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen resilience.
Opportunities for disaster resilience learning were identified in four broad learning domains – behavioural, cognitive, affective and social. The findings demonstrated that many current disaster education programs are only using limited parts of this learning ‘spectrum’, although this would be significantly increased by further embracing social media as a disaster resilience learning medium.
An Introduction to Resilience for Humanitarian WorkersShashanka Saadi
This presentation is a simple compilation of Resilience definitions, approach to understand resilience and indicators use to identify resilience. This will be helpful for humanitarian workers to get a overview of the resilience concept quickly. A list of reference given in the last slide for further reading.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)IJERD Editor
call for paper 2012, hard copy of journal, research paper publishing, where to publish research paper,
journal publishing, how to publish research paper, Call For research paper, international journal, publishing a paper, IJERD, journal of science and technology, how to get a research paper published, publishing a paper, publishing of journal, publishing of research paper, reserach and review articles, IJERD Journal, How to publish your research paper, publish research paper, open access engineering journal, Engineering journal, Mathemetics journal, Physics journal, Chemistry journal, Computer Engineering, Computer Science journal, how to submit your paper, peer reviw journal, indexed journal, reserach and review articles, engineering journal, www.ijerd.com, research journals,
yahoo journals, bing journals, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, google journals, hard copy of journal
Redefining Community Based Disaster Risk Management through Enhanced Early Wa...Mavic Pineda
This presentation was first delivered in ICKET 2014 held in Jeju, South Korea in July 2014. In the same month, the said presentation was echoed in Ateneo de Manila University.
As part of the implementation of the Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the World Bank/GFDRR has launched a global study on the “State of Civil Protection in the World: Typologies, Good Practices and Economic Returns”. The objective is to deepen the overall knowledge on civil protection, understand good practices, challenges and lessons-learnt, and to build consensus within the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) community on this important area for disaster risk management and resilience.
This report forms part of this overall global study, with the objective of providing:
• A description and analysis of civil protection in the Australia
• Identification of lessons-learnt and good international practices
Social Resilience andNatural Resource Dependent Societies -Kenya-Dr. Asenath Maobe
This lecture was presented to Master of Science Students at the University of Nairobi, in January 2021 at the invitation of Prof. Joanes Atela a seasoned climate change expert and a convener of Africa Research and Impact Network (ARIN).
The lecture highlights the praxis between social resilience and natural resource dependent societies, a Kenyan context. Enjoy!
Sample of a community flood education study and planNeil Dufty
Fairfield City, located in south-western Sydney, straddles parts of the Georges River and Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchments, and is home to approximately 190,000 people. Parts of the City are extremely prone to flooding.
Fairfield City Council proactively manages flood risks in accordance with the NSW Government’s 2005 Floodplain Development Manual. Council’s floodplain risk management activities are overseen by the Fairfield Floodplain Management Committee. During the last six years alone, the Committee has supervised nearly $10 million worth of investment made in floodplain management.
Although there has been this considerable investment in floodplain management, the Fairfield City communities will never be totally protected from the impacts of flooding nor can emergency authorities such as the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) ensure the safety of all residents in all floods. Therefore, it is critical that through community education the flood-affected communities across the City are aware of the flood risk, are prepared for floods, know how to respond appropriately and are able to recover as quickly as possible.
With this in mind, Council received funding to engage a suitably qualified consultant to undertake Council’s Flood Education and Awareness project for the City. Molino Stewart Pty Ltd was engaged in April 2012 to carry out the project with the main output being a community flood education plan for the City.
Methodology and findings
Molino Stewart collected a range of data to gauge the current level of flood awareness and preparedness of residents within the City. A survey that sampled flood-affected residences and a community forum on flooding run by Straight Talk Pty Ltd were the primary means of assessing flood awareness and preparedness.
The social research showed that there are generally low levels of flood awareness and preparedness across the City. This is most probably largely due to lack of flood experience as the last major flood event to occur in the City was in 1988.
Other challenges for community flood education in the City include a large culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) population and the fact there is a relatively low level of internet usage within the City’s population.
Molino Stewart also conducted research into current best practice in community flood education to help inform the development of this plan. Research showed the need to adopt a disaster resilience learning approach with communities and this is the direction that Molino Stewart has taken in developing the plan.
These guidelines have been prepared for local councils seeking to achieve best practice in roadside environmental management through the use of Roadside Vegetation Management Plans (RVMPs). However, the guidelines will also be of relevance to managers of other linear reserves which, by nature of their shape and issues, have similar management requirements.
This guide outlines the first stage in developing a RVMP - assessment.
Paper - A review of progress in the integration of disaster risk reduction in...Neil Dufty
This Input Paper was developed for the HFA Thematic Review and as an input to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 (GAR15). It aims to review progress in the integration of DRR into Australian school curricula programs and support materials since 2005.
How can we make stormwater education more effective?Neil Dufty
Education has been viewed by many organisations as an important non-structural stormwater management tool with considerable investment made to support it.
Stormwater education activities have included media campaigns, signage, stormwater drain stenciling and industry training courses. They aim to change the behaviour of sectors of the community whose activities are thought to impact on stormwater quality (and quantity) and the health of waterways.
Yet, have these stormwater education programs been effective in changing behaviour and achieve water quality improvements? According to research, the answer is ‘in some cases’. However, there is certainly a formula for effective stormwater education - this is developed in this paper.
NSW linear reserve environmental management forum proceedings 2012Neil Dufty
Road reserves and other linear reserves such as travelling stock routes cover about six percent of the area of New South Wales, Australia. In some parts of the State they comprise the only remnants of native vegetation due to clearing for broadacre farming.
A forum was recently organised by the NSW Roadside Environment Committee to inform linear reserve land managers and other interested groups about best practices to manage these environments. The proceedings provide some excellent best practice case studies that can be used elsewhere in Australia and across the world.
Community engagement on adaptation to sea level changeNeil Dufty
A change in mean sea levels will require new ways to estimate flood risk, and ways
to mitigate this risk. This paper looks at the process of developing Adaptation Plans,
which are suburb specific studies on the risks and options for potential sea level rise,
and the key component of successful adaptation planning, community engagement.
Many coastal decision makers are actively assessing options to manage coastal
flood risk that incorporates rising sea levels. These adaptation options are broadly
grouped into three categories - protect, accommodate or retreat and each option has
its costs and benefits. The mix of options chosen largely depends on the attitudes
and perspectives of the community at risk - without their support, decisions within a
democratic political system are unlikely to be successful.
This paper reports the findings of a large survey and series of workshops of ‘at risk’
residents within Lake Macquarie Local Government Area. The survey helped gauge
their preferences for management options and decision-making considerations.
Following on from this survey is the current work on community engagement as part
of developing Adaptation Plans. This engagement is using an innovative
collaborative approach to engaging the community on sea level rise and adaptation
that focuses on building the capacity of Council and the community to work together
to find a solution that sticks.
The usefulness of this research is to increase understanding on the key concerns of
community to coastal adaptation, and more effective collaborative engagement on a
topic that is often controversial. As a result, this work aims to develop management
strategies that are more appealing to those at risk and the wider community.
Towards a Resilient Sydney Research Seminar presentation on Emergency ManagementNeil Dufty
The report reviewed a range of international, national and Sydney specific literature and undertook interviews with relevant lead emergency management agencies. The report synthesised findings and undertook a gap analysis.
The report related largely to the resilience interrelationships of disaster risk reduction; emergency management; and community development. It also mapped the relevant legislation and governance arrangements in New South Wales.
The three key issues identified as pressing for Sydney from the interviews with the emergency agencies representatives: 1) increased workload and strain on capacity; 2) declining volunteerism; and 3) uncertainty as to the effects and community response to hazards. The report notes that climate change may drive organisational change within emergency management – requiring a shared culture that supports a willingness to further develop strategic integration and coordination across agencies.
Aspects of community development that are increasingly being viewed as critical to emergency management are volunteerism; social capital formation and disaster behavioural psychology. The report noted that no major studies were able to be sourced in relation to emergency management volunteerism, social capital formation or community disaster resilience in Sydney.
In relation to flooding in Sydney, there is increasing potential risk to infrastructure. The report outlines that it is an imperative that emergency agencies have access to data from all infrastructure owners to enable future emergency planning in flood prone lands.
There are generally gaps in research relating to recovery from disasters, potentially due to no major natural disasters in Sydney for over 10 years, but noting the research may come under other banners such as social work and health. Lower extent of research into heatwave and coastal erosion/inundation compared to flooding and bushfire. Lower level of research into the preparedness of communities / businesses in Sydney.
HM510Week 1 AssignmentHazard Reduction ProgramsOver the laSusanaFurman449
HM510
Week 1 Assignment
Hazard Reduction Programs
Over the last 100 years, the government has put in place a number of hazard-reduction programs as the result of various disasters. Write a 5–7-page paper analyzing the current and past governmental reduction programs (for both natural and man-made hazards) and trace the history of hazard mitigation from the 20th Century to current times. Cover Page and Reference page does not count at the 5-7 pages.
The list below contains a sample of programs:
· Flood Control Act (FCA) of 1917
· FCA of 1936
· FCA of 1938
· Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1950
· National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
· Disaster Relief Act of 1970
· Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
· Disaster Relief Act of 1974
· Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act-1977
· FEMA Established-1978
· Coastal Barriers Resource Act-1982
· Stafford Act-1988
· Hazard Mitigation Act of 2000
Your assignment should:
· Identify at least three (3) natural and three (3) man-made disaster mitigation programs, highlighting best practices
· Identify the sources for each of the programs and explain the influence of disasters on mitigation programs
· Explain how the programs were put in place
· Discuss the impact of such programs, including the program effectiveness and unresolved issues
.
4 or more references, In cite text a must !!!
In addition to fulfilling the specifics of the assignment, a successful paper must also meet the following criteria:
· Your submission should include a title page and reference page and be in 10- to 12-point font. (Arial, Courier, and Times New Roman are acceptable.)
· Viewpoint and purpose should be clearly established and sustained.
· Assignment should follow the conventions of Standard English (correct grammar, punctuation, etc.).
· Writing should be well ordered, logical, and unified, as well as original and insightful.
· Your work should display superior content, organization, style, and mechanics.
· Appropriate citation style should be followed.
You should also make sure to:
· Include a title page with full name, class name, section number, and date.
· Include introductory and concluding paragraphs and demonstrate college-level communication through the composition of original materials in Standard English.
· Use examples to support your discussion.
· List all sources on a separate reference page at the end of your paper and cite them within the body of your paper using APA format and citation style. For more information on APA guidelines, visit Academic Tools.
HM510
Week 1 DQ
Topic #1:
Mitigation, Preparedness, and Resilient Communities
What is the difference between mitigation and preparedness? How does mitigation play a role in the development of resilient communities? Why is this important to community sustainment? Provide examples of where this has occurred.
Reply to Student #1
Aston Smallwood
Mitigation, Preparedness, and Resilient Communities
In its classical meaning, mitigation refers to a sustained action ...
When the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian government agencies and the aid community deploy overseas in response to natural or manmade disasters and complex emergencies, they will frequently operate in the same physical space as one another. A lack of understanding and confusion over stakeholder roles, responsibilities, cultures and terminologies can impede communication and coherent programs and lead to a less effective overall response to key population needs. Issues such as shrinkage of humanitarian space due to restrictions on humanitarian access; perceptions regarding subordination of humanitarian principles; the tensions that arise between political, humanitarian and military objectives within integrated multi-agency stabilisation efforts; and the increase in numbers of organisations and individuals operating in these environments all serve to add a degree of confusion and potential for discord. However, improved mutual understanding of the roles, mandates, principles and objectives of these stakeholders will enhance constructive engagement, dialogue and communication both prior to and during deployments. With this dialogue and communication comes greater opportunity to achieve maximum benefits for people and nations affected by natural disasters and conflict.
To this end, the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (APCMCOE) and the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), in collaboration with the ADF, AFP, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Australian non government organisations (NGOs), and the Australian Red Cross have developed the document, Same Space—Different Mandates. Building and expanding upon a UK Ministry of Defence document, Same Space—Different Mandates aims to improve the collective understanding of the major stakeholders operating in international natural disasters and complex emergencies and through this, to create greater opportunity for constructive engagement amongst them. It is our hope that this document will infl uence policy and become an educational tool to support training and deployment preparation for all stakeholders as well as help inform better fi eld practices through improved collective dial ogue, communication and interaction.
Post 1The whole community” approach as described in the Natanhcrowley
Post 1
The “whole community” approach as described in the National Preparedness Goal refers to the shared responsibility amongst governmental, non-governmental, public and private sector entities, communities and individuals to work together in order to ensure national security and promote resilient communities (FEMA.gov, 2015, p. 1-2). Meaning that individuals must not simply rely on the federal, state or local governments to ensure thier safety and security, but individuals must take thier own safety seriously. Furthermore, the problem does not go away with more funding. Appropriate guidance, laws, education, training, and equipment all play significant roles in national preparedness.
The concept of “whole community” is important when viewing both short- and long-term effects that natural and man-made disasters can have on a population. Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of the lack of a "whole community approach" resulting in improper risk analysis and poor emergency planning. The substandard response and recovery efforts at the federal, state and community-level contributed to almost every issue negatively impacting this incident. Ultimately, there was no precedent for a natural disaster of that magnitude and community leaders and residents found themselves unprepared. There was no distinct chain of command to delegate resources for recovery and rescue operations. Breakdowns in coordination from the federal level to the local level were apparent. “State and local authorities understood the devastation but, due to destruction of infrastructure and response capabilities, lacked the ability to communicate with each other and coordinate a response, struggled to perform responsibilities such as the rescue of citizens stranded by the rising floodwaters, provision of law enforcement, and evacuation of the remaining population of New Orleans (Townsend, 2006, ch. 5).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency leads the charge of the whole community approach to emergency management with the goal of facilitating a culture that shifts primary responsibility from the federal government managing disaster recovery to a community-centric approach. Creating crosstalk between emergency management stakeholders, decision makers, and communities, facilitates exchange of information and best practices that can be shared between communities that have the same hazards and threats. Additionally, community leaders are able to form a shared understanding of thier respective needs and capabilities, leverage resources, strengthen infrastructure, forge more effective prevention, protection, response and recovery while increasing preparedness and resiliency across the community and the nation (FEMA.gov, 2011, p. 3).
Fostering a culture of shared responsibility places responsibility of emergency management on governments thereby sharing that responsibility amongst non-governmental, public and private sector agencies, and individual persons with the community ...
Disaster Management Systems: Building Capacity for Developing Countries and ...Connie White
Some societies are more disaster prone than others due to their geographic location and the benefits provided by it. Man has co-existed in this sort of high risk/high return relationship with mother nature throughout history. Poorer societies tend to pay a higher price both in lives taken and damage – left with many secondary and equally devastating disasters that are sure to come. We know that for every $1 USD put into preventative measures, we save ~$7 that would have gone into post-disaster recovery and rebuilding efforts. There are many international agencies working to support a variety of needs in these grief stricken areas to help them build capacity and to help these societies better prepare for and respond to the disasters they will face. These efforts are guided by the Millennium Project Goals outlined in 2000. A lot has changed since then with respect to technology, mobile devices and humanitarianism. The objective of this paper is exploit how current efforts are creating capacity on the individual, organizational and 'enabling environment' levels. This paper explores the notion that a more concerted effort can be made at building Information and Communication Disaster Management Capacity in developing countries who are most susceptible due to proximity and to a lack of funds. A 'proof of concept' is provided
Explain how the concept of whole community is used at the local le.docxSANSKAR20
Explain how the concept of whole community is used at the local level of government to mitigate against risk.
Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided to you in order to support your response. Your initial post should be at least 350 words. APA format, use ctations.
Lesson
Week Two – The National Preparedness System
In March of 2011, the executive branch of the federal government issued Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8. This directive described how the nation will prepare for those threats and hazards that constitute the greatest risk to national security. PPD 8 was followed in the fall of that same year with the publication of the National Preparedness Goal (which was updated in 2015), and then a month later with the National Preparedness System (NPS). Similar to the term “risk” that was focused upon in our first lesson, “prepare” or “preparedness” are key terms as well as it relates to the underlying principles of this entire course. In order to properly examine the National Preparedness System, these terms as used within the context of the NPS must be understood.
As previously noted, we directed attention upon the notion of risk last week. We should remain cognizant that risk refers to the overall consequences represented by various types of threats and hazards. The analysis of risk rests within an all-hazards system and approach, wherein all dangers to a community are examined. In addition, these dangers are prioritized, not on preconceived notions of importance, but upon the actual, detrimental impact they have on a community. Acts of terrorism and of other man-made incidents of violence must be considered alongside natural and technological hazards as well; prioritized in a manner where preparedness and mitigation efforts can be appropriately discussed, formulated, and implemented. In essence, through its various components, the National Preparedness System offers a very consistent and dependable methodology that can be applied to a host of activities; those that range from aiding the decision making process to identifying and allocating resources (DHS, 2011).
So just as the NPS requires us to take a broad view of those elements that determine risk, it similarly requires us to take a wide-ranging view of preparedness as well. In essence, preparedness refers to a community’s ability to respond immediately to a disastrous event (remember, disaster events range from acts of terrorism to industrial accidents to natural disasters). Preparedness also refers to the community’s ability to recover from the event; and preparedness refers to all of those actions taken by the community to either prevent the event, or to mitigate the consequences of that event.
Within the National Preparedness System, the National Preparedness Goal (2015) defines the system’s measure of success as “A secure and resilient nation with capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respon ...
A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management Princi.docxdaniahendric
A Whole Community Approach to
Emergency Management: Principles,
Themes, and Pathways for Action
FDOC 104-008-1 / December 2011
A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action
i
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
National Dialogue on a Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management .........2
Whole Community Defined .....................................................................................................3
Whole Community Principles and Strategic Themes ...........................................................4
Strategic Themes in Practice ....................................................................................... 6
Understand Community Complexity .....................................................................................6
Recognize Community Capabilities and Needs .....................................................................8
Foster Relationships with Community Leaders ..................................................................10
Build and Maintain Partnerships .........................................................................................11
Empower Local Action ..........................................................................................................14
Leverage and Strengthen Social Infrastructure, Networks, and Assets ...........................16
Pathways for Action .................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 23
A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management:
Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action
1
I n t r o d u c t i o n
The effects of natural and manmade disasters have become more frequent, far-reaching, and
widespread. As a result, preserving the safety, security, and prosperity of all parts of our society
is becoming more challenging. Our Nation’s traditional approach to managing the risks
associated with these disasters relies heavily on the government. However, today’s changing
reality is affecting all levels of government in their efforts to improve our Nation’s resilience
while grappling with the limitations of their capabilities.1 Even in small- and medium-sized
disasters, which the government is generally effective at managing, significant access and service
gaps still exist. In large-scale disasters or catastrophes, government resources and capabilities
can be overwhelmed.
The scale and severity of disasters are
growing and will likely pose systemic
threats.2 Accelerating changes in ...
Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by discipline or sector, yet individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes compound vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is likely to become
an increasingly important concept if the outlook over the next 15 to 25 years is one of
multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises, a result of the “perfect-storm” or “long-crisis” thesis of the interaction of demographics, climate change and food and energy prices. A realigned analytical lens is thus useful to bring together the various intellectual strands involved in multi-dimensional vulnerability analysis. In light of the above, this paper reviews the literature on vulnerability and asks what a “three-dimensional human
wellbeing” approach - a complement to more traditional ways of understanding poverty -might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
1. Learning for disaster resilience
Neil Dufty
Principal
Molino Stewart Pty Ltd, Parramatta, NSW, Australia
Paper presented at
EARTH: FIRE AND RAIN
Australian & New Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference
Brisbane – 16 – 18, April 2012
2. Learning for disaster resilience
Abstract Is emergency management sufficient to build disaster resilient
communities?This paper reviews current research and Australia’s National Strategy
for Disaster Resilience which indicates that the fields of ‘disaster risk reduction’ and
‘community development’ should be joined with ‘emergency management’ to form a
disaster resilience-building triumvirate. Using this strategic alliance, the paper then
showshow learning is a critical component of building disaster resilience through
‘communities of practice’. It also investigates how people and communities learn
before, during and after disasters. The paper concludes by outlining a new approach
- ‘Learning for Disaster Resilience’ - that is designed to develop and activate
‘disaster resilient learning communities’ in line with the strategic triumvirate.
Keywords: resilience, education, engagement, communications, learning,
communities
Introduction
I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you again
- James Taylor, „Fire and Rain‟
The above verse from the appropriately named song for this conference provides an
entrée to the concept of resilience: although there might be „ups and downs‟ in life,
the resilient are able to return to normal functioning regardless (a liberal
interpretation,especially on the last line!). And like the song, this paper is about
connections between people - in this case, how communities learn to resist, recover
and improve from, the impacts of disasters.
The paper investigates whether emergency management by itself is sufficient to
build community disaster resilience. As a result, the paper posits that the field of
„community development‟ should be integrated with „disaster risk reduction‟ and
„emergency management‟ to build disaster resilient communities. Based on this
strategic alliance, it argues that „disaster resilience learning communities‟ should be
developed and that education, communications and engagement (ECE) programs
run by emergency agencies be re-scoped and further refined to this end.
1
3. Disaster resilience
The concept of resilience has been in the disaster management literature since the
1980s (Wildavsky, 1988) but has come into vogue as an overriding goal in the past
ten years. This has been mainly due to its importance as a factor in achieving
sustainability (Dovers, 2004), its role as a strategy in climate change adaptation
(Gero, Méheux and Dominey-Howes, 2010), and as a perceived future requirement
for communities based on learnings from disasters such as 9/11 and Hurricane
Katrina (Boin, Comfort and Demchak, 2010).
Like the term „sustainability‟, there are a multitude of definitions of „disaster
resilience‟. The original notion of resilience, from the Latin word resilio, means to
„jump back‟ or „bounce back‟. According to de Bruijne, Boin and van Eeten (2010),
“In the pastdecades, research on resilience has been conducted at various levels of
analysis – the individual level, the group level, and the organizational or community
level – in a wide variety of disciplines including psychology, ecology, organization
and management sciences, group/team literature and safety management”.
Several researchers (e.g. Longstaff, 2005) have made an interdisciplinary effort to
further refine the concept of resilience in relation to disaster management. However,
a dilemma for researchers and planners has been whether disaster resilience should
involve the ability of a community to „bounce back‟ (i.e. resume its normal
functioning) as per the original notion, or to „bounce forward‟ after a disaster
(Manyena et al, 2011). Some researchers such as Paton (2006) opt for the latter
notion arguing that the „bounce back‟ idea neither captures the changed reality after
a disaster, nor encapsulates the new possibilities wrought by a disaster.
This paper supports the „bounce forward‟ notion based on Paton‟s reasoning. It
defines disaster resilience as the ability of a community to not only resist and recover
from a disaster, but also to adapt to the changes that the event may cause. It
includes the ability of a community to learn from the disaster and to improve its
networks, systems and capabilities for the next event.
Figure 1 shows theoretically what might be the difference between, in this case, a
flood-resilient community and a less resilient community. Note that the y-axis is
„community functioning‟ – how well individuals and organisations are performing their
normal functions.
As shown in Figure 1, the „resilient community‟ will often experience less disaster
impacts to its normal functioning, while the „less resilient community‟ will experience
greater impacts to the same level of flooding. It is also clear that the less resilient
community will take longer to recover i.e. to return to normal functioning.
Furthermore, the resilient community will most likely improve its functioning
especially through learning from the flood disaster.
2
4. Figure 1 - Theoretical differences between a resilient and a less resilient community (modified from
Mayunga, 2007)
Although the academic debate continues on what precisely disaster resilience is
(and its relationship to „vulnerability‟), governments around the world have developed
strategic policies and plans that aim to guide countries toward achieving it. For
example, the Hyogo Framework for Action was an outcome of the 2005 World
Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Japan. One of its five specific
priorities for action was “building a culture of safety and resilience”.
In December 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to adopt
a whole-of-nation, resilience-based approach to disaster management, which
recognises that a national, coordinated and cooperative effort is needed to enhance
Australia‟s capacity to prepare for, withstand and recover from disasters. The
National Emergency Management Committee subsequently developed the National
Strategy for Disaster Resilience which was adopted by COAG on 13 February 2011.
The purpose of the Strategy is to “provide high-level guidance on disaster
management to federal, state, territory and local governments, business and
community leaders and the not-for-profit sector. While the Strategy focuses on
priority areas to build disaster resilient communities across Australia, it also
recognises that disaster resilience is a shared responsibility for individuals,
households, businesses and communities, as well as for governments. The Strategy
is the first step in a long-term, evolving process to deliver sustained behavioural
3
5. change and enduring partnerships” (Attorney-General‟s Department website:
www.ag.gov.au).
The Strategy (COAG, 2011) identifies seven groups of actions to build community
disaster resilience in Australia.
1. Leading change and coordinating effort
2. Understanding risks
3. Communicating with and educating people about risks
4. Partnering with those who effect change
5. Empowering individuals and communities to exercise choice and take
responsibility
6. Reducing risks in the built environment
7. Supporting capabilities for disaster resilience.
Disaster resilience-building fields
Is disaster and emergency management sufficient to build community disaster
resilience in line with the Strategy? There is widespread recognition, particularly after
recent disasters around the world, that structural and non-structural modifications
related to disaster and emergency management can only provide certain levels of
resilience and that the „residual risk‟ is largely carried by the potentially impacted
communities.
Analysis of the seven groups of actions identified in the Strategy suggests that a
community „element‟ is required in addition to the fields of disaster risk reduction and
emergency management. For example, the actions of “communicating with and
educating people about risks” and “empowering individuals and communities to
exercise choice and take responsibility” call for individual and community
participation. Moreover, the Strategy promotes “shared responsibility for individuals,
households, businesses and governments”, thus requiring community participation to
build resilience.
Recent research also supports the coupling of community-basedprocesses (here
called „community development‟) with disaster risk reduction and emergency
management. „Community development‟ is a broad term that encompasses “the
deliberate attempt by community people to work together to guide the future of their
communities, and the development of a corresponding set of techniques for assisting
community people in such a process” (Bennett, 1973). A more recently coined and
similar process is „community capacity-building‟.
According to CCS Strategic Management (2008), community development outcomes
can include:
People participating in social activities to overcome social isolation
Mutual support
Individuals developing self-esteem, confidence and assertiveness
4
6. Increased participation in political and citizenship activities
Heightened community satisfaction
Increased safety and security
More effective community satisfaction.
Psychological, sociological and education actions are required to achieve community
development outcomes specifically related to building disaster resilience.
There has been extensive psychological research in the past ten years into individual
aspects of disaster resilience. For example, Paton et al (2003) developed and tested
a psychological model forindividual preparedness that consisted of three
developmental stages. Psychologists have also extensively researched and
developed models for the post-disaster recovery of individuals (e.g. Whittle et al,
2010).
However, according to recent research into disaster resilient communities, not only is
appropriate individual participation required, but also collective action. Several
researchers (e.g. Aldrich, 2010;Chamlee-Wright, 2010) believe that the formation of
„social capital‟ is a critical factor in the ability of a community to quickly recover and
„bounce forward‟ after a disaster.
Social capital has been defined as the “networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995). It is
generally agreed that there are three distinct forms of social capital: bonding,
bridging and linking. Bonding social capital grows from organisations and activities
connecting similar individuals who often live in close proximity to each other.
Bridging activities and organisations, in contrast, bring together individuals from
different neighbourhoods, ethnicities and races. According to Szreter and Woolcock
(2004) linking social capital is composed of “norms of respect and networks of
trusting relationships between people who are interacting across explicit, formal or
institutionalized power or authority gradients in society”. Where bridging social
capital connects individuals of approximate equal social status, linking social capital
connects those of unequal status, providing them with access to power.
Research into the recovery after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (e.g. Aldrich,
2011a) and Hurricane Katrina (e.g. Boettke et al, 2007) has shown the benefits of
social capital in providing resources for a faster and more efficient recovery.
However, there were some minor negative effects found. For example, in villages in
Southeast India impacted by the 2004 tsunami,although high levels of social capital
reduced barriers to collective action for members of the uurpanchayats (hamlet
councils) and parish councils speeding up their recovery and connecting them to aid
organisations, at the same time social capital reinforced obstacles to recovery for
those outside of these organisations such as women, Dalits, migrants, and Muslims
(Aldrich, 2011a).
5
7. It therefore appears that a triumvirate of disaster risk reduction, emergency
management and community development (with a focus on individual psychological
development and social capital formation) is required to build disaster-resilient
communities. This is strongly supported by Aldrich (2011b) who states, “Rather than
imagining that disaster mitigationand recovery are functions of characteristics
external to the community – such as aid provided by the government or
nongovernmental organizations, the amount of damage from the crisis, or the
competency of local and national political leaders – scholars should recognize that
the level of connectedness and cohesion within the neighbourhood is critical to
recovery”. Like two individuals exposed to the same disease, recovery may have
more to do with the quality of the host than the nature of the disease (Aldrich, 2008).
The interrelationship of the three disaster resilience-building fields is shown as a
simple Venn diagram in Figure 2.
Emergency
management
Disaster risk Community
reduction development
Figure 2–Interrelationship of the three fields required to build community disaster resilience based on
recent research
Depending on the resilience „profile‟ of a community, the importance of each field
can be larger or smaller(i.e. not necessarily equal as shown in Figure 2).
One could argue the value of the „disaster risk reduction‟ and „emergency
management‟ division shown in Figure 2when Prevention, Preparedness, Response
and Recovery (PPRR) in emergency management could encapsulate both. One
reason for this is that it distinguishes hazard risk mitigation (prevention) activities
from preparedness activities, the boundaries of which are which are sometimes
6
8. confused. According to the Topping (2011), “Mitigation is distinguished from
preparedness by its emphasis on creating long-term resilience through permanent
modification of physical and other circumstances which create risk and vulnerability.
Yet mitigation is widely misunderstood, often confused with preparedness - and not
just by news media and the general public.”
The distinction between disaster risk reduction and emergency management is
demonstrated practically in several parts of Australia through the demarcation of
responsibility and activity. For example, in NSW, floodplain risk management is
primarily the responsibility of local councils, with the NSW State Emergency Service
responsible for flood preparedness and response.
Educationally, the distinction between risk mitigation and emergency management is
also apposite. A common fallacy underpinning the design of some disaster-related
community ECE programs is that risk awareness will directly lead to preparedness
and then appropriate response and recovery behaviours. Research (e.g. Boura,
1998; Rhodes, 2011) has shown that this linear logic process appears to not exist,
and that „risk awareness‟ or perception is a part of several psychological processes
leading to preparedness (Paton, McClure and Burgelt, 2006). Thus, ECE programs
should be designed specifically to achieve separate risk awareness and
preparedness learning outcomes.
The intersections between the fields in Figure 2 are relevant to resilience learningin
addition to the fields themselves. For example, the emergency
management/community development intersection can include the role of
emergency volunteers in forming social capital. Researchers such as Fahey (2003)
and Wollebaek and Selle (2002) have identified this link and some concerns with its
potency. Hems (2011) feels that“the distinction between bonding and bridging social
capital exposes the lack of robustness of the definitions and concepts we utilise in
relation to volunteering. Bridging social capital is most likely to involve formal
volunteeringwhere individuals volunteer through not-for-profit organisations e.g.
helping out at a drop-in centre for the homeless. Informal volunteering is undertaken
on one‟s own initiative and is most likely to be associated with bonding social capital
e.g. babysitting for a neighbour”.
Learning for disaster resilience
As stated explicitly or implicitly in the groups of actions listed above from the National
Strategy for Disaster Resilience, there is a need for agency and community learning
to help build resilient communities. Central to this requirement is the concept of
„communities of practice‟. According to Wenger (2006), “communities of practice are
groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn
how to do it better as they interact regularly”. Examples of disaster-related
7
9. communities of practice include those interested in finding out about a hazard event
as it unfolds or emergency managers interested in using social media to improve
ECE (e.g. #smem on Twitter). It should be noted that communities of practice may
extend across ethnicities, race and other backgrounds, and not be necessarily
confined to geographic boundaries (e.g. potentially impacted locations - which have
been the sole targets for many emergency agency ECE activities).
The notion of „communities of practice‟ or „learning communities‟ is not new and has
already been linked to community development activities to form social capital in
communities in a resilience context (Kilpatrick, 2002). Kilpatrick found that “learning,
social capital and change are inter-linked. At the micro level of interactions purpose-
related knowledge resources and identity resources oil the process of change to
enhance outcomes. The process of change in a community is a learning process,
which simultaneously draws on and builds social capital. Learning and change lead
to more effective outcomes if they are able to use the knowledge and skills of
community members in an integrated fashion”.
Some Australian emergency agencies have shown a willingness to develop internal
and external learning communities. For example, as part of one the goals in its
corporate plan, the NSW State Emergency Service will “improve its service by
supporting a learning environment through a planned exercise regime, measuring
performance and establishing a best practice Lessons Learned Unit” (NSW SES,
2011). However, there is a general tendency of Australian emergency agencies to
provide top-down ECE to communities, rather than considering the psychological
needs and social connections of the learners (Molino Stewart, 2007).
If one accepts the strategic interrelationshipof the three resilience-building fields
shown in Figure 2 and that developing communities of practice is an important
mechanism in achieving resilience, it is possible here to define a process that
combines the two. „Learning for Disaster Resilience‟ (LfDR) is therefore definedas
„any learning process or activity in emergency management, disaster risk reduction
and community development that helps build disaster resilience through
communities of practice‟.
Social learning for disasters
AsLfDR is learner-centred, it is critical to understand the social learning domains
used by individualsand communities before, during and after a disaster. Although, as
noted above, there has been extensive research into the psychological aspects of
preparedness and recovery (and ways to treat psychological problems related to
disasters), there has been relative little educational research into how peoplelearn
through the parts of the disaster „cycle‟.
Goldstein (1984) believes that in terms of unplanned changes such as disasters,
“social learning involves the interplay of cognition, emotion and behavior. The
8
10. importance of personal values and symbols requires attention to the emotional as
well as the thinking and acting aspects of learning”.
In a study of Dutch citizens‟ flood preparedness, Terpstra (2011) found two parallel
learning paths – cognitive and affective – that lead from perceptions to behaviour.
Both paths include multiple dependent variables and indicate how people combine
affect and reason in order to respond to risk (Finucane and Holup, 2006).LfDR
should recognise and assist individual learning within these domains.
Collectively, a participatory approach to learning should be supported by LfDR.
According to Paton (2005), “participation in identifying shared problems and
collaborating with others to develop and implement solutions to deal them facilitates
the development of efficacy, sense of community, and commitment to action. That is,
it engenders the development of competencies that enhance community resilience to
adversity”. To implement this, Paton suggests that “hazard education could be
facilitated by inviting representatives of community groups to review hazard
scenarios in regard to potential challenges, opportunities and threats they could pose
for the community. They would then propose strategies to capitalise on them, or to
manage or contain them”.
In a national review of natural hazard community education, awareness and
engagement programs for the Australian Government, Elsworth et al (2009)
identified active community participation as part of their model for effective programs.
They stress that programs “would be greatly improved if they involved active
community participation during their development and implementation. Levels of
community participation of this kind that move towards wide consultation,
collaborative development of activities and programs and democratic forms of policy-
related decision-making require conscious design, considerable effort in
implementation and on-going evaluation”.
In the participatory LfDRapproach, the emergency management agencies assimilate
and support the needs and directions of the community. They thus act as consultants
to communities (e.g. facilitators, resource providers, change agents, coordinators)
rather than directing the change process in a top-down manner. It should be
acknowledged that many Australian emergency agencies are implementing their
engagement activities in this manner.
Implications for emergency agencies
Who should be responsible for LfDR in Australia? As stressed in the National
Strategy for Disaster Resilience, a basic tenet for building disaster resilience is
„shared responsibility‟. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission in its Final Report
(2010) uses the expression „shared responsibility‟“to mean increased responsibility
for all. It recommends that state agencies and municipal councils adopt increased or
improved protective, emergency management and advisory roles. In turn,
communities, individuals and households need to take greater responsibility for their
9
11. own safety and to act on advice and other cues given to them before and on the day
of a bushfire.
“Shared responsibility does not mean equal responsibility ... there are some areas in
which the state should assume greater responsibility than the community. For
example, in most instances state fire authorities will be more capable than
individuals when it comes to identifying the risks associated with bushfire; the state
should therefore assume greater responsibility for working to minimise those risks.”
In line with this explanation of shared responsibility, it is reasonable and practical to
expect that disaster and emergency agencies take the lead in some aspects of LfDR.
For example, agencies should take the lead in communicating warnings to
communities as they are privy to critical emergency intelligence (although this is not
to say that communities cannot be involved in providing feedback and intelligence
e.g. through „crowdsourcing‟). On the other hand, during the preparedness and parts
of the recovery phase agencies and communities can share responsibility of tasks
through participatory learning.
There are several LfDR„best practices‟ for agencies and communitiesto usebased on
current research and practice. These include:
As noted above, LfDR ECE programs and activities should be learner-centred
and thus an understanding of the learning community is important in their
design (Elsworth et al, 2009; Molino Stewart, 2007). This can be achieved
through processes such as community profiling, social research and social
network analysis.
As also noted above, LfDR should be participatory (e.g. coordinated through
local committees) and designed for cognitive, affective and behavioural
learning domains.
Learning should be focused on outcomes for disaster risk reduction (e.g.
„minimising residual risk‟), emergency management (e.g. „helping to ensure
community safety‟) and community development (e.g. „forming resilience
social capital‟).
Learning should be aligned with structural and other non-structural methods
used in disaster risk reduction, and with emergency management measures
such as operations and planning (Molino Stewart, 2007).
Learning should be designed for before, during and after a disaster and be
ongoingin delivery as a disaster can occur at any time (Dufty, 2008).
LfDR should help build disaster resilient communities of practice.
LfDR requires a cross-hazard and cross-agency approach to learning (Dufty,
2008).
Program evaluation is a critical requirement of all LfDR activities (Elsworth et
al, 2009). Excellent examples of this have been conducted by the Bushfire
CRC (http://www.bushfirecrc.com).
10
12. The use of social media should be an important component of LfDR (Dufty,
2012), as well as the more „traditional‟ ECE activities (e.g. events, media,
websites, meetings).
Post-disaster learning is important to help stimulate the „bounce forward‟
effect (Molino Stewart, 2007; Dufty, 2008). This learning can be derived from
ECE activities such as de-brief community meetings, community resilience
webinars (used extensively after the 2011 Queensland floods) and social
media discussions.
Conclusion
The above argument for a more holistic LfDR approachis consistent not only with the
National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and current research, but also with the
findings of some major government inquiries into recent disasters. For example, the
Victorian Floods Review (2011) in its final report recommended that the State:
Involve local communities in the development and ownership of community
resilience plans based on a „all hazards‟ approach and tailored for the specific
needs of each community
Encouraging local communities to form resilience committees to develop and
administer community resilience plans(Recommendation 93)
However, there are knowledge gaps in the literature that require further research to
validate and refine the LfDR approach. These gaps include:
The practical interrelationships between disaster risk reduction, emergency
management and community development e.g. through community case
studies
How communities learn before, during and after an event
The value of social media in building community disaster resilience
Best practice methods to evaluate community disaster ECE activities
Design of appropriate and effective community disaster resiliencelearning
plans and programs.
Hopefully, this paper will encourage agencies and communities to move further down
the path to holistic disaster resilience learning. In closing, in the words of Theodore
Roosevelt appropriate for any community around the world:
Americans learn only from catastrophe
and not from experience.
References
Aldrich, D.P., 2008, The Crucial Role of Civil Society in Disaster Recovery and
Japan‟s Emergency Preparedness, Japan aktuell, Vol. 3, pp.81-96.
11
13. Aldrich, D.P., 2010, Fixing Recovery: Social Capital in Post-Crisis Resilience,Journal
of Homeland Security, Vol. 6, June 2010, pp. 1- 10.
Aldrich, D.P., 2011a, The Externalities of Social Capital: Post-Tsunami Recovery in
Southeast India,Journal of Civil Society, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 81-99.
Aldrich, D. P., 2011b, Between Market and State: Directions in Social Science
Research on Disaster,Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2011 pp. 61-68.
Bennett, A.,1973, Professional staff member‟s contributions to
communitydevelopment,Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 4,
pp.58-68.
Boettke, P., Chamlee-Wright, E., Gordon, P., Ikeda, S., Leeson, P.T., &Sobel, R.,
2007, The Political, Economic, and Social Aspects of Katrina, Southern Economic
Journal, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 363-376.
Boin, A., Comfort, L.K., &Demchak, C.C., 2010, The Rise of Resilience, in Comfort,
L.K., Boin, A., &Demchak, C.C. (eds.), Designing Resilience: preparing for extreme
events, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Boura, J., 1998, Community Fireguard: Creating partnerships with the community to
minimise the impact of bushfire, TheAustralian Journal of Emergency
Management,Vol. 13, pp. 59-64.
CCS Strategic Management, 2008, Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire Community
Facilities and Services Plan 2020 Report 5, compiled in association with Geografia.
Chamlee-Wright, E., 2010, The Cultural and Political Economy of Recovery: Social
Learning in a Post-Disaster Environment, Routledge, New York.
COAG, 2011, National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Building our nation’s
resilience to disasters, Australian Government.
deBruijne, M., A., Boin, A., & van Eeten, M., 2010, Resilience: Exploring the Concept
and its Meanings, in Comfort, L.K., Boin, A., &Demchak, C.C. (eds.), Designing
Resilience: preparing for extreme events, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Dovers, S., 2004, Sustainability and Disaster Management, TheAustralian Journal of
Emergency Management, Vol. 19, pp. 21-25.
Dufty, N., 2008, A new approach to community flood education, The Australian
Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 4-8.
Dufty, N., 2012, Using Social Media to Build Community Disaster Resilience, The
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 40-45.
Elsworth, G., Gilbert, J., Robinson, P., Rowe, C., and Stevens, K., 2009, National
Review of Community Education, Awareness and Engagement Programs for Natural
12
14. Hazards, report by RMIT University commissioned by the National Community
Safety Working Group of the Australian Emergency Management Committee.
Fahey, C., 2003, „Working with communities‟ to „build social capital‟ Reflecting on old
and new thinking about volunteers, The Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.12-17.
Finucane, M.L., &Holup, J.L., 2006, Risk as value: combining affect and analysis in
risk judgements, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 141-164.
Gero, A., Méheux, K., &Dominey-Howes, D., 2010, Disaster risk reduction and
climate change adaptation in the Pacific: The challenge of integration, ATRC-NHRL
Miscellaneous Report 4.
Goldstein, H., 1984, Social Learning and Change: A Cognitive Approach to Human
Services, Tavistock Publications, USA.
Hems, L., 2011, Building Social Capital – volunteering, participation and pro-social
behaviours, blog from the Centre for Social Impact, May 4, 2011
https://secure.csi.edu.au/site/Home/Blog.aspx?defaultblog=http%3a%2f%2fblog.csi.
edu.au%2f2011%2f05%2fbuilding-social-capital-%25e2%2580%2593-volunteering-
participation-and-pro-social-behaviours%2f
Kilpatrick, S., 2002, Learning and Building Social Capital in a Community of Farm
Businesses, Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, Discussion
Paper D1/2002.
Longstaff, P.H., 2005, Security, resilience and communication in unpredictable
environments such as terrorism, natural disasters and complex technology, Program
on Information Resources Policy, Centre for Information Policy Research, Harvard
University. Available at http://www.pirp.harvard.edu
Manyena, S.B., O‟Brien, G., O‟Keefe, P., & Rose, J., 2011, Disaster resilience; a
bounce back or a bounce forward ability?,Local Environment, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.417-
424.
Mayunga, J.S, 2007, Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community
Disaster Resilience: A capital-based approach, draft paper prepared for the Summer
Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, 22-28 July 2007, Munich,
Germany
Molino Stewart, 2007, Roles and Responsibilities for VICSES in Flood Education, a
report commissioned by VICSES. available at:
http://www.ses.vic.gov.au/CA256AEA002EBBF1/Lookup/Emergency-Management-
Research/$file/Roles%20and%20Responsibilities%20for%20VICSES%20in%20Floo
d%20Education%20Dec%202007.pdf
13
15. NSW SES, 2011, One SES: NSW SES Plan 2011-2015. Available at
http://www.ses.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/pdf/47777/plan-11-15
Paton, D., Smith, L., Johnston, D., Johnston, M., & Ronan, K., 2003, Developing a
model to predict the adoption of natural hazard risk reduction and preparatory
adjustments, (Research Project No. 01-479): EQC Research Report
Paton, D., 2005, Community Resilience: Integrating Hazard Management and
Community Engagement, School of Psychology, University of Tasmania. Available
athttp://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Paton-Douglas-final.pdf
Paton, D., 2006, Disaster resilience: building capacity to co-exist with natural
hazards and their consequences, in Paton, D., & Johnston, D., (eds.), Disaster
Resilience: An Integrated Approach, Charles C Thomas Publishers Ltd, Springfield.
Paton, D., McClure, J., &Burgelt, P.T., 2006, Natural hazard resilience: the role of
individual and household preparedness, in Paton, D., & Johnston, D., (eds.),
Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach, Charles C Thomas Publishers Ltd,
Springfield.
Putnam, R., 1995, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, pp. 65-78.
Rhodes, A., 2011, Opinion: Ready or not? Can community education increase
householder preparedness for bushfire?,The Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Volume 26, No. 2, pp. 6-10.
Royal Commission into the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2010, Final Report, State
Government of Victoria, Australia.
Szreter, S., &Woolcock, M., 2004, Health by association?Social capital, social
theory, and the political economy of public health.International Journal of
Epidemiology Vol. 33 No. 4 pp.650-667.
Terpstra, T., 2011, Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive
Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior, Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 10, pp.1658-
1675.
Topping, K., 2011, Strengthening resilience through mitigation planning, Natural
Hazards Observer, Vol. 36, No.2.
Victorian Floods Review, 2011, Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings and
Response, State of Victoria, Australia.
Wenger, E., 2006, Communities of practice: a brief introduction, available at
www.ewenger.com/research.
Whittle, R., Medd, W., Deeming, H., Kashefi, E., Mort, M., Walker, G., &Watson, N.,
2010, After the rain - learning the lessons from flood recovery in Hull. Final project
14
16. report for 'Flood, Vulnerability and Urban Resilience: a real-time study of local
recovery following the floods of June 2007 in Hull, Project Report, Lancaster, UK.
Wildavsky, A.B., 1988, Searching for safety, Transaction, New Brunswick.
Wollebaek, D., &Selle, P., 2002, Does Participation in Voluntary Associations
Contribute to Social Capital? The impact of intensity, scope and type, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.32-61.
15