91,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
A detailed guide to the design and evaluation of effective disaster learning programs Disaster Education, Communication and Engagement provides a much-needed evidence-based guide for designing effective disaster learning plans and programs that are tailored to local communities and their particular hazard risks. Drawing on the most recent research from disaster psychology, disaster sociology, and education psychology, as well as evaluations of disaster learning programs, the book contains practical guidance for putting in place a proven design framework. The book outlines the steps to take in order to tailor a disaster education, communication and engagement program and highlights illustrative examples of effective programs and activities from around the world. The author includes information on how to identify potential community learners and presents a methodology for understanding the at-risk community, its hazard risks, disaster risk reduction, and emergency management arrangements. Disaster Education, Communication and Engagement describes both country-wide campaigns and local disaster programs that involve community participation. This important resource: * Presents a detailed framework to guide the design and evaluation of tailored disaster learning programs * Includes information that links disaster resilience with sustainability and climate change learning * Describes the 'disaster cycle' and reviews learning content and methods related to the cycle * Explains effective ways to combine disaster education, disaster communications, and disaster-related engagement * Contains material on using new technologies such as gamification, virtual reality, and social media Written for emergency managers, students of emergency management, and humanitarian courses, Disaster Education, Communication and Engagement is a hands-on guide filled with ideas and templates for designing and evaluating targeted disaster learning programs.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 564
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Acknowledgements
Part I: Context
1 Disasters and Learning
1.1 Hazard
1.2 Disaster
1.3 Disasters Are Socially Constructed
1.4 Disasters and Communities
1.5 Learning
References
2 Disaster ECE
2.1 Disaster Education
2.2 Disaster Communication
2.3 Engagement
2.4 Disaster ECE
References
3 ECE Across the Disaster Management Cycle
3.1 ‘The Disaster Management Cycle’
3.2 Mitigation
3.3 Preparedness
3.4 Early Warning
3.5 Response
3.6 Recovery
3.7 Lessons Learned
3.8 Reconstruction
References
4 The Importance and Usefulness of Disaster ECE
4.1 Inputs
4.2 Activities
4.3 Outputs
4.4 Short-Term Impacts
4.5 Intermediate Impacts
4.6 Outcomes
References
5 Exploring Relevant Research Fields
5.1 Disaster Resilience
5.2 Disaster Psychology
5.3 Disaster Sociology
5.4 Learning Theory
References
Part II: Local Disaster ECE
6 Designing Effective Disaster ECE Plans and Programmes
6.1 Lifelong Learning
6.2 Localisation and Learner Needs
6.3 A Framework for Tailoring Disaster ECE
References
7 Disaster ECE Principles
References
8 Disaster ECE Content
8.1 Across the Disaster Management Cycle
8.2 Disaster Resilience
8.3 Climate Change
8.4 Sustainability
References
9 Disaster ECE Methods
9.1 A Typology of Disaster ECE Methods
9.2 Information
9.3 Interactions
9.4 Skills and Capabilities
9.5 Creative Expression
9.6 Integrating Methods
References
10 Understanding Communities and Their Risks
10.1 Understanding the Local Community
10.2 Local Disaster Risks
10.3 Risk Reduction Measures
10.4 Emergency Management
10.5 Building Resilience
References
11 Learners
11.1 Youth
11.2 Other Vulnerable People
11.3 Businesses
11.4 Animal Guardians
11.5 Tourists
11.6 Archetypes
References
12 Disaster ECE Programmes and Plans
12.1 Tailoring Disaster ECE
12.2 Disaster ECE Plans
12.3 Disaster ECE Programmes
12.4 Evaluation
12.5 Participation
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Harmonisation of disaster education, communication, and engagement.
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Summary of relevant learning theories and activities for Disaster E...
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 A typology of disaster ECE methods.
Table 9.2 The main uses of Twitter in disaster management.
Chapter 11
Table 11.1 Curriculum map showing the main opportunities for disaster resilie...
Chapter 12
Table 12.1 An extract from a Disaster ECE plan for Fairfield City, Sydney, Au...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Disaster ECE leading to learning.
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Disaster management cycle with four phases.
Figure 3.2 Awareness of flood risk from those living in high-risk floodplain...
Figure 3.3 Example of a ‘listening post’ in a shopping centre in Australia....
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Programme logic model.
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Learning outcomes for Disaster ECE related to building disaster r...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Framework for the design of local community Disaster ECE.
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Possible learning content for disaster preparedness.
Figure 8.2 Possible unpacking of the precautions part of preparedness learni...
Figure 8.3 Linkages across related ECE.
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 The mock ‘Tropical Cyclone Hunter’ used in scenario planning in t...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
xi
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
301
302
303
304
305
306
Disaster Education, Communication and Engagement
Neil Dufty
Molino Stewart Pty Ltd
Parramatta, NSW, Australia 2150
This edition first published 2020
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Neil Dufty to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data applied for
ISBN: 9781119569794 [hardback]
Cover design: Wiley
Cover Images: Flood map Courtesy of NSW State Emergency Service, People having discussion Courtesy of Neil Dufty, Flood study sign Courtesy of Campbelltown City Council, Level scale meter Courtesy of Neil Dufty
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the staff at Molino Stewart Pty Ltd for the opportunity to research disaster education, communication, and engagement over the past 16 years. I would particularly like to thank Managing Director Steven Molino who has supported my research over the years and provided sage advice, especially in floodplain risk management and emergency management.
I would like to also like to thank three members of the New South Wales State Emergency Service for motivating me to write this book:
Phil Campbell, who 12 years ago described the state of research into disaster education as a ‘black hole’.
Steve Opper, who challenged me to find the evidence that disaster education actually works to change emergency preparedness and response behaviours.
David Webber, who has given me several funded opportunities to research innovations in disaster education and engagement. He has also been a great sounding board for translating this research into practice in the emergency services.
A primary source of research for this book was from Australia. In particular, I would like to note the robust disaster research of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre from which I have drawn many examples.
Also, I would like to acknowledge the learning from my network of disaster researchers and emergency managers from around the world. One of these international networks is The International Emergency Management Society (TIEMS) and another is the Centre for Water, Communities and Resilience at the University of the West of England (of which I am a member of the International Advisory Board). In Australia, I have learned much from involvement in Floodplain Management Australia (FMA), including from participating in its annual national conferences.
Finally, I would like to thank Sydney Trains for the environment to write this book to and from work.
Part IContext
1Disasters and Learning
This book is about learning that aims to help keep people safe and minimise damage in disasters. Drawing on evidence from a range of sources, it provides guidance on how to tailor disaster-related learning to local communities.
The book offers a bridge between academic theory and research, and disaster learning practice. It enables practitioners to prepare effective disaster learning plans, programmes, and activities.
Prior to commencing discussion, it is important to define some key terms used throughout the book.
1.1 Hazard
According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2017), a hazard is a ‘process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation’.
Hazards include biological (e.g. diseases, mosquitoes carrying disease-causing agents), environmental (e.g. chemical, natural, and biological hazards), geological (e.g. earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides), hydrometeorological (e.g. tropical cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons, floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires), and technological processes and phenomena (e.g. transport accidents, dam failures, factory explosions, and nuclear radiation). Some hazard typologies also include terrorist attacks and human conflict.
More broadly, hazards can be classified as ‘natural’ or ‘anthropogenic’. However, some ‘natural’ hazards can be augmented by human activities (Kelman 2018). For example, a levee built to mitigate flood hazard may exacerbate flood depths and velocities elsewhere. This book focuses mainly on natural hazards.
1.2 Disaster
There are numerous definitions of ‘disaster’ in the literature, although most involve the concept of a community impacted by a hazard (or multiple hazards) not being able to cope by itself and requiring external assistance to recover.
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2017) defines a disaster as ‘a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts’.
‘Emergencies’ differ from disasters in that they relate to ‘hazardous events that do not result in the serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society’ (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2017).
Countries and jurisdictions within countries around the world have different criteria for declaring disasters and these can be influenced by political considerations. An analysis of global disasters between 1998 and 2017 (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters 2018) found the following:
Climate-related (hydrometeorological) and geophysical disasters killed 1.3 million people and left a further 4.4 billion injured, homeless, displaced, or in need of emergency assistance.
While the majority of fatalities were due to geophysical events, mostly earthquakes and tsunamis, 91% of all disasters were caused by floods, storms, droughts, heatwaves, and other extreme weather events.
In 1998–2017, disaster-hit countries reported direct economic losses valued at US$2908 billion. This has increased from 68% (US$895 billion) of losses (US$1313 billion) reported between 1978 and 1997.
1.3 Disasters Are Socially Constructed
Disaster research shows that the idiom ‘it was a disaster waiting to happen’ rings true. For many years it has been accepted that disasters are caused by underlying societal issues such as vulnerabilities and inequalities, and not by an ‘Act of God’ hazard. As Tierney (2014) states, ‘the origins of disaster lie not in nature, and not in technology, but rather in the ordinary everyday workings of society itself’.
After the destructive 1755 Lisbon earthquakes, in a letter young French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau challenged the great French philosopher Voltaire's view that the event was how God showed His power, glory, and might. Rousseau noted that nature did not construct thousands of buildings and houses of six to seven storeys that collapsed in the earthquakes. Some academics claim that Rousseau's letter to Voltaire symbolised the beginning of the shift in thinking leading to the socially-constructed interpretation of disaster events.
In 1976, O'Keefe et al. used empirical global economic loss data to show that social-economic and not natural factors should be seen as responsible for both the loss of many lives and the loss/damages of assets in the developing world. Since then, numerous researchers (e.g. Burton et al. 1993; Wisner et al. 2004; Bankoff et al. 2007) have demonstrated this interpretation. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2018) has adopted the critical approach to disasters by suggesting that ‘there is no such thing as a “natural” disaster, only natural hazards’.
1.4 Disasters and Communities
If disasters are socially constructed, then the role of people and their communities should be prominent. ‘Without humans and their pertinent societal spheres, hazards are simply natural events and thus irrelevant; hence much attention should be paid by concerned institutions to people and communities and their capacity to engage with nature, both as a resource and as a hazard’ (Haque and Etkin 2012).
What do we mean by ‘community’ in the disaster context? The term tends to be ambiguous; it is not necessarily only designated by a group of interacting people sharing the same place and similar understandings, values, or life practices. As Oliver-Smith (2005) points out, ‘community’ is a cultural field with a complex of symbols and, as such, possesses an identity and is capable of acting on its behalf or on behalf of those who have a claim on that identity. In that sense, community is not clearly defined and cannot be easily measured.
Titz et al. (2018) argue that ‘community’ is elusive because ‘it either escapes clear definitions or is described by too many, and it is deceiving because it has become so popular in (disaster) research and action that barely anyone bothers to question its legitimacy and usefulness’. These authors contend that ‘community’ should be replaced by more precise concepts such as neighbourhoods or social networks, e.g. a religious or ethnic group.
To support this argument, in this book general reference is made to ‘community education’ with ‘community’ used as a synonym with ‘social’, ‘civic’, or ‘public’ (each of which are used across the world in this sense). In Chapter 11, the community is broken down into community sectors for the purpose of targeting disaster learning. Elsewhere, the community discussed is clearly defined, e.g. a population at risk to a certain probability of flooding.
1.5 Learning
Given that disasters are socially constructed and the role of at-risk people and their communities in disasters is critical, then learning by these people and their communities before, during, and after a disaster is paramount. This contention is supported by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (United Nations 2015), endorsed by countries across the world, which in several instances promotes the need for disaster-related learning in its actions, including ‘to promote national strategies to strengthen public education and awareness in disaster risk reduction, including disaster risk information and knowledge, through campaigns, social media and community mobilization, taking into account specific audiences and their needs’.
This book examines the nature of disaster learning and how it can be made most effective.
A major challenge in disaster-related learning is that in comparison to other forms of personal civic learning (e.g. road safety, health, waste management, financial management), a disaster (or even an emergency) may never occur in one's lifetime. On the other hand, people learn to manage money on a regular basis, to be constantly wary of road and other transport hazards, and to be aware of lifelong risks to their health.
References
Alexandra, T., Cannon, T., and Krüger, F. (2018). Uncovering ‘community’: challenging an elusive concept.
Development and Disaster Related Work Societies
8: 71.
Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., and Hilhorst, D. (2007).
Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People
. London: Earthscan.
Burton, I., Kates, R., and White, G. (1993).
Environment as Hazard
, 2e. New York: Guilford Press.
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (2018). Economic Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998–2017. Report produced in conjunction with the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Haque, C.E. & Etkin, D. (2012). Dealing with disaster risk and vulnerability: people, community and resilience perspectives. In:
Disaster Risk and Vulnerability: Mitigation Through Mobilizing Communities and Partnerships
, (eds C.E. Haque & D. Etkin), McGill-Queen's University Press. Montreal, Canada, 3–27.
Kelman, I. (2018). Lost for words amongst disaster risk science vocabulary?
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science
9 (2): 281–291.
O'Keefe, P., Westgate, K., and Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters.
Nature
260: 566–567.
Oliver-Smith, A. (2005). Communities after catastrophe. In:
Community Building in the Twenty-First Century
(ed. S.E. Hyland), 25–44. Santa Fe, USA: School of American Research Press.
Tierney, K. (2014).
The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience
. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press.
United Nations (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Available:
https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291
.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2018). What is disaster risk reduction? [Online]. Available:
https://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/what-is-drr
(accessed 11 June 2019).
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2017). Terminology on disaster risk reduction. [Online]. Available:
https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology
(accessed 11 June 2019).
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2004).
At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters
, 2e. New York: Routledge.
2Disaster ECE
2.1 Disaster Education
2.1.1 Defining Disaster Education
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. People need to look after themselves and others during and after disasters, and thus need to be educated in how to do this.
There is a strong involvement by emergency agencies around the world in disaster education. However, most agencies only commit relatively small proportions of their budgets to it, especially compared to those for emergency operations.
Ironically, although there are a multitude of avenues for education implementation related to disasters, there is according to Preston (2012) ‘surprisingly little writing in the field of education/pedagogy itself’. This is largely due to disaster education being a ‘new area of enquiry in the field of education’ (Preston 2012) and because many of the disaster education programmes are designed by non-educators from emergency agencies and other organisations. As a result, there is a large amount of disaster education activity around the world with little technical research into its educational veracity.
Furthermore, with technological developments such as social media, all people have the opportunity to be involved in disaster education. There is therefore a pressing need to examine disaster education in this context and provide robust education-based guidance to people using these emerging technologies for disaster education.
Preston (2012) notes that ‘the disciplinary boundaries of disaster education are fluid and the literature on the topic can be found within the sociology of disasters, public health and health promotion, humanitarian response, political communication and public relations’. Although more specific education-based research is required, it is useful that disaster education continues to draw upon and combine with other disciplines including education, psychology, and sociology in understanding people's reactions to disasters (see Chapter 5).
There are several definitions of disaster education that may lead to confusion about its place in disaster management. For example, Shaw et al. (2011) believe that ‘disaster education’, ‘disaster risk education’, and ‘disaster prevention education’ are ‘different expressions that essentially mean disaster risk reduction education’. Preston (2012) views disaster education more along the lines of preparedness: helping citizens ‘prepare for various disasters, consider what they would do in a disaster and think about how they would respond’.
An understanding of the meaning of the word ‘education’ will assist in resolving this confusion. Craft (1984) noted that there are two different Latin roots of the English word ‘education’. They are educare, which means to train or to mould, and educere, meaning to lead out. While the two meanings are quite different, they are both represented in the word ‘education’. They relate to different types of learning possible across education: one calls for rote memorisation and appropriate response; the other requires questioning, thinking, and creating.
Acknowledging this explanation and the Disaster Management Cycle (Chapter 3), disaster education should ‘involve learning before, during, and after disasters’ (Dufty 2011). The design of disaster education involves two components which will be discussed in detail later in this book:
Content – what will be learnt (see
Chapter 8
).
Methods – how it will be learnt (see
Chapter 9
).
2.1.2 Modes of Disaster Education
The International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2012) identifies four modes of education that are all applicable to a study of disaster education:
Formal education. ‘Formal education is education that is institutionalised, intentional, and planned through public organisations and recognised private bodies, and – in their totality – constitute the formal education system of a country.’ For disaster education, this would include curriculum-based learning in schools and universities. ‘Programs that take place partly in the workplace may also be considered formal education if they lead to a qualification that is recognised by national education authorities (or equivalent).’
Non-formal education. This is education that is ‘institutionalised, intentional, and planned by an education provider’ – sometimes called ‘extra-curricular activities’ – and is still related to the formal education system. For disaster education, it could be a safety demonstration to schools or a
Massive Open Online Course
(
MOOC
) linked to a university. ‘It is typically provided in the form of short courses, workshops or seminars.’
Informal education. ‘Informal learning is defined as forms of learning that are intentional or deliberate, but are not institutionalised.’ ‘Informal learning may include learning activities that occur in the family, workplace, local community and daily life, on a self-directed, family-directed or socially-directed basis.’ Examples of informal learning related to disaster education include using social media to learn more about a disaster, attending a community meeting called after an emergency, and participating in an emergency training course.
Incidental or random education. These are ‘various forms of learning that are not organised or that involve communication not designed to bring about learning’. They ‘may occur as a by-product of day-to-day activities, events or communication that are not designed as deliberate educational or learning activities’. This type of learning could include watching or listening to a news broadcast that includes details of a disaster, receiving an early warning emergency message, or reading an article about emergency preparedness in a magazine.
As part of lifelong learning, people may learn across the four different modes of education. Generally, formal and non-formal education is more experienced by those under 30 years old. Both informal and incidental education is obtained by all ages.
Shaw et al. (2011) conducted a literature review of global disaster education activities in the categories of formal, non-formal, and informal education. Most of the disaster education activities they reviewed were either in the formal or non-formal modes. This trend is supported by the majority of disaster education research being in the school setting (Chapter 11).
However, informal education has particular appeal to disaster learning for all ages. Informal education can occur in a range of settings such as the home, school, job, and in small groups such as community organisations (Knowles 1950). It is viewed as a critical component of lifelong learning (Hager 2001).
According to Feng et al. (2018), informal learning makes it easier to appreciate how disaster education ‘can be integrated into community and community processes, particularly with regard to the need to personalize education in ways that facilitate its applicability to the local contexts in which people experience hazard events’.
2.1.3 Learning Relationships
Education has traditionally been seen as a pedagogic relationship between the teacher and the learner. It was always the teacher who decided what the learner needed to know and, indeed, how the knowledge and skills should be taught. For disaster education, ‘pedagogy’ relates to formal and non-formal learning modes usually with children through a prescribed curriculum or course.
Knowles (1970) distinguished between how adults and children learn and coined the term ‘andragogy’. It is based on the premise that adults are independent and strive for autonomy and self-direction. Andragogical learning is task or problem centred.
Andragogy was an important landmark in teaching and learning practices in vocational education and training and in higher education. The principles of adult learning that were derived from it transformed face-to-face teaching and provided a rationale for distance education based on the notion of self-directedness. However, it still has connotations of a teacher–learner relationship.
For disaster education, andragogical learning generally fits within the non-formal learning mode, as for adult education there are course requirements. For higher education courses, disaster-related education (e.g. degrees in emergency management, MOOCs) mainly follows pedagogical principles.
Much of the disaster-related learning is provided by emergency agencies for at-risk people and their communities. As discussed earlier, this is usually conducted through informal learning, although delivered in a pedagogical manner, i.e. in a way similar to a teacher–pupil relationship where the agency ‘knows best' and provides the required knowledge and skills.
Due to the power in disaster education emanating largely from government emergency agencies through pedagogical practices, some people can be excluded or feel disillusioned with learning. For example, Preston (2012) posits that ‘there are both tacit and overt reasons why disaster education shares racial inequalities in common with other forms of formal (and informal) education’. He shows that although there are diverse forms of disaster education they are inextricably linked to a range of inequalities in society.
One way to counter this power inequality issue is through another learning relationship. ‘Heutagogy’ is the study of self-determined learning and draws together some of the ideas presented by these various approaches to learning. It is also an attempt to challenge some ideas about teaching and learning that still prevail in teacher-centred learning and the need for ‘knowledge sharing’ rather than ‘knowledge hoarding’.
Rogers (1969) suggests that people want to learn and have a natural inclination to do so throughout their life. Indeed, he argues strongly that teacher-centred learning has been grossly overemphasised.
A heutagogical approach recognises the need to be flexible in the learning where the ‘teacher’ provides resources but the learner designs the actual course he or she might take by negotiating the learning. Thus, learners might read around critical issues or questions and determine what is of interest and relevance to them, and then negotiate further reading and assessment tasks.
The heutagogical approach has potential for disaster learning as it relates to informal and incidental education. It ties well with the concept of ‘shared responsibility’ (Council of Australian Governments 2011) where both emergency agencies and at-risk people have responsibilities before, during, and after disasters. Coupled with these responsibilities is the requirement for people to learn themselves, although there will be times (e.g. early warning) when emergency agencies need to provide direct advice (e.g. the need to evacuate).
2.2 Disaster Communication
Communication is the act of transferring information from one place to another. It can denote two different processes:
the transmission of information (a one-way process)
sharing information (a common or mutual process).
In disaster management, the transmission model (one-way process) is primarily used where there is information disseminated by emergency agencies for alerts and warnings. In contrast, the idea of sharing information implies a common or mutual process. The use of social media as an emergency communication tool inherently involves two-way information sharing.
Disaster communication can be categorised according to the length of the communication period. ‘Acute’ communication occurs during emergencies where there is a need for rapid dissemination of lifeline information. On the other hand, ‘long-term’ communication occurs over an extended period prior to and after emergency events or disasters, e.g. disaster risk reduction, post-disaster reconstruction.
However, according to Steelman and McCaffrey (2013), the two fields that best inform communication thinking for a hazard are risk communication and crisis communication.
2.2.1 Risk Communication
2.2.1.1 Risk
Risk represents the potential for loss as a result of the impact of natural, technological, and other hazards (see Chapter 1). More specifically, risk can be defined as ‘a situation or event in which something of human value (or humans themselves) has been put at stake and where the outcome is uncertain’ (Jaeger et al. 2001).
There are two main categories of definitions of ‘disaster risk’.
Disaster risk is a combination or function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. ‘Hazard’ is defined in
Chapter 1
. According to UNISDR (
2017
), ‘exposure’ is ‘the situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible human assets located in hazard-prone areas’. UNISDR (
2017
) defines ‘vulnerability’ as ‘the conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards’. Exposure describes what could be harmed by hazards while vulnerability explains why it is in harm's way (Kelman
2018
).
The combination (sometimes as a product) of the probability of an event and the consequences of the event.
Although there are these two categories of definitions, ‘the core concept within the definition of “disaster risk” does not really change over time or across different references, referring to overlapping notions of either: (1) possible losses from a hazard; or (2) potential adverse consequences in a disaster’ (Kelman 2018).
As with the disasters they produce (Chapter 1), disaster risks are socially constructed primarily through pre-existing vulnerabilities. However, this does not disregard that there are risks in the physical world (Rosa and Clarke 2012).
Vulnerabilities that create, cause, and make the disaster are present waiting to be uncovered prior to any hazard. And the vulnerabilities linger through the post-disaster recovery, long after the hazard has diminished. For example, the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina ‘arose out of a combination of place-based vulnerability and ecosystem, built environment and social vulnerability’ (Tierney 2014).
Further exploration of disaster risk and vulnerability, and their implications for disaster learning, is provided in Chapter 5.
2.2.1.2 Risk Perception
The extensive body of research on risk perception helps to clarify people's innate biases and provide insights into how cultural, social, and emotional factors shape actual perception of risk. These learnings can then be translated to make risk communication more effective.
Knowledge, experience, values, attitudes, and feelings all influence the thinking and judgement of people about the seriousness and acceptability of risks.
The mental models and other psychological mechanisms which people use to judge risks are internalised through social and cultural learning and constantly moderated (reinforced, modified, amplified, or attenuated) by media reports, peer influences, and other communication processes (Morgan et al. 2001).
According to Renn (2008), there are two main approaches to the study of risk perception:
The ‘realist approach’. This approach aims to bring perception as close as possible to the actual risk of an activity or an event. It assumes that there is an outside objective world with risks that we can recognise and acknowledge (Rosa
2008
). The solutions to problems of perception are then simply ones of more information and a greater understanding of the risk (Wachinger and Renn
2010
).
The ‘constructivist approach’. Constructivists argue that risks are not objective but that they are subjective and socially constructed (Jasanoff
1998
). That is, they are models which allow people to cope with non-reoccurring phenomena (Wachinger and Renn
2010
).
Why might the public view hazard risk differently to experts such as emergency managers? People are often presented with a large amount of information (e.g. on potential hazards) and require some way of weighing up that information if they want to reach a conclusion about relevant risks. In general, the public relies on what are called ‘heuristics’ or – more commonly – rules of thumb. Heuristics are quick, informal methods that the brain uses to generate an approximate answer to a problem and allows people to quickly make sense of a complex environment (Renn 2008).
However, using heuristics can also result in biases, where risk perceptions are out of kilter with risk assessments by emergency agencies or other authorities. For example, if someone has experienced a hazard event, they are likely to see one as more probable in the future. Consequently, personal experience can be very important in perception of the level of risk, and reminders of particular risks in the media can also have an effect (Eiser et al. 2012). This ‘availability bias’ through personal experience or ‘local knowledge’ can improve local risk assessment by authorities through a cooperative approach (Dufty 2016).
‘Optimism bias’ is a cognitive bias that causes people to believe that they are at a lesser risk of experiencing a hazard event compared to others. This can cause them to opt out of any thinking (and resultant action) towards a particular disaster risk, believing ‘this is not going to happen to me’. On the other hand, individuals may tend to overestimate the potential for exposure and the extent of a hazard, thinking that they are more dangerous in comparison to other risks (Science Communication Unit 2014).
Of importance to risk communication is the fact that research shows cultural background influences risk perception. Compared with individuals in Western Europe, for example, people from many Eastern European countries are more likely to see economic or social risks as greater than technological risks (Science Communication Unit 2014).
Renn (2008) has designed a model of risk perception which shows the dynamics between the complex layers of factors, including cultural background, heuristics, and biases. Also of note are people's beliefs and values, their socio-economic status, and world views.
The relationships between risk perception and emergency behaviours (e.g. preparedness, evacuation, and recovery) are discussed in Section 5.2.
2.2.1.3 Trust
Trust in the communicator is an important factor of risk perception with strong ramifications for effective risk communication. It becomes even more important when the individual's knowledge about the hazard is low and they have to depend on authorities for risk knowledge (Cope et al. 2010). Also, there seems to be a strong relationship between the uncertainty of the risk and the role of trust (Frewer and Salter 2007).
According to the Science Communication Unit (2014), research suggests that three main factors influence trust in an institution:
competence (i.e. the knowledge and capability to manage the risk in question);
a history of being open and honest and acting in the public interest;
sharing the same values as the individual.
2.2.1.4 Communicating Risk
Risk communication seeks to inform people about a potential future harm and the associated dangers so that they might take action to mitigate the risk.
A long tradition in risk communication has relied on the idea that simply informing people will increase their understanding and awareness of risk. This approach assumes that experts (e.g. emergency agencies), holding superior knowledge, communicate to the less informed (e.g. at-risk people). However, it has been found that a direct, linear approach to providing official information to increase recipient awareness does not necessarily lead to action (Fischhoff 1995).
Furthermore, appreciation of the input of at-risk people in disaster risk has broadened the scope of risk communication. As a result, communicative activities that place responsibility for preparedness actions in the hands of citizens are gaining relevance (Begg et al. 2016). With this in mind, four approaches of risk communication can be distinguished related to the one-way and two-way communication dimensions (Terpstra et al. 2017).
Risk message approach. This type of risk communication is a one-way flow of information from an expert source so that it is received in a consistent and accurate manner. For example, details of flood risk can be communicated by a risk map which provides clear details of flood extent to all.
Risk dialogue approach. In this two-way risk dialogue approach, the distinction between risk experts and the at-risk public is a blur. Here, participation allows for the inclusion of local knowledge from the at-risk public that can improve the quality of risk assessments and risk maps, as well as of the management process itself.
Risk government approach. Communication within the one-way risk government approach aims at changing attitudes and behaviours. This is done by authorities creating awareness of people's hazard risks and the consequences that related decisions might have on their lives.
Instrumentalist risk approach. This two-way approach aims at actively changing people's behaviour and pays close attention to the ‘interactions between information, attitudes, and behaviour’ (Demeritt and Nobert
2014
). Underlying the instrumentalist risk approach, many empirical studies focus on understanding the factors that motivate individuals to take responsibility and action in order to increase their disaster preparedness (Shreve et al.
2014
).
2.2.2 Crisis Communication
Crisis communication relates to communication as an emergency or disaster event unfolds, and as part of recovery from that event. However, Steelman and McCaffrey (2013) contend that crisis communication and risk communication should be merged in a more holistic, event-based approach. Their rationale ‘is that large-scale shifts in management response likely need to be communicated before as well as during an event, as effective outcomes may be dependent on how the communication in one period influences another’.
Crisis communication has its roots in crisis management and public relations (Williams and Olaniran 1998) and traditionally focused on the message and how it is delivered during and after the event.
2.2.2.1 Early Warning
The primary aim of an early warning system is to provide people with enough time to make themselves safe when a threat to them is imminent. A secondary aim is the protection of property. It is also important to try to ensure the safety of companion animals and livestock such as sheep, cattle, and horses.
According to Mileti and Sorensen (1990), ‘a warning system is a means of getting information about an impending emergency, communicating that information to those who need it, and facilitating good decisions and timely response by people in danger’.
Early warning is the bridge between risk and crisis communication. ‘Early warning is not only the production of technically accurate warnings but also a system that requires an understanding of risk and a link between producers and consumers of warning information, with the ultimate goal of triggering action to prevent or mitigate a disaster’ (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2009).
Clear, timely, and accurate warning information should be communicated to at-risk communities. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2014a) states that ‘the outputs of an early warning system must recognise the diversity of the audience and be appropriate to that audience. Outputs should be contextualised, granular and specific to potentially impacted localities. They should include clear explanations of degree or severity, of trend, of timing, and of the confidence associated with the prediction. The choice of the language and the medium of the communication should be appropriate to the audience, as should the level of technical complexity.’
An early warning system, where at-risk communities, emergency agencies, and other parties (e.g. the media) share information through two-way communication, helps build trust and ensure appropriate responses as the emergency or disaster event unfolds. ‘A local, “bottom-up” approach to early warning, with the active participation of local communities, enables a multi-dimensional response to problems and needs. In this way, local communities, civic groups and traditional structures can contribute to the reduction of vulnerability and to the strengthening of local capacities’ (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 2006).
2.2.2.2 Response
After the immediate impact of a hazard event, there are multiple groups requiring information including those impacted (e.g. information about evacuation centres, loved ones such as family), those that could become at risk (e.g. drive into a flooded area), and those not impacted wishing to obtain news of the event. According to Wein et al. (2016), ‘messages need to be designed for a range of population preferences for type of information, mindful of various psychological states that affect how such information is processed, retained, and acted upon’.
During a disaster, individuals turn to a large diversity of information sources as they try to decrease their uncertainty and determine which actions to take (Hodgson 2007). Several studies have found indications that those who feel more at risk seek information more actively than those at less risk. In response to chaotic and uncertain conditions, evacuated members of the public more actively and aggressively search for information and can at times be more critical of the information they find (McCaffrey et al. 2013). Spence et al. (2007) found differences in the information desired and information-seeking behaviour of the disabled and non-disabled.
As for risk communication, trust appears critical during an emergency or disaster. A key element that may shape receiver response to an information source is how useful or trustworthy that source is seen to be. The receiver must have confidence not only in the content of the message itself, but also in the source. Key characteristics related to information delivered during a crisis event include crafting honest, trustworthy messages and leveraging credible sources (Seeger 2006).
2.2.2.3 Recovery
Communication after a disaster is critical to ensure a speedy community recovery and reconstruction. In the early phases of recovery, this communication can be conducted by humanitarian organisations, as there is a tendency for media sources to move on to the next newsworthy event.
According to Hannides (2015), ‘in recent years, aid agencies have placed more emphasis on the need for information and communication in crisis, influenced by advances in technology that have dramatically increased the reach and potential of information, and by learning from the humanitarian failure that results from a lack of information and communication’.
There are two distinct, but related types of recovery crisis communication:
Communication that seeks to improve the humanitarian aid response.
Information and communication that seeks to meet the direct needs of people affected by crisis (usually involving some form of media intervention).
Communications that take place during acute crises can be different from the ones that occur during long-term reconstruction (Government of Australia 2014).
During acute crises, communication practices require a rapid gathering, verification, and distribution of information to multiple social groups about what actions have to be taken in order to reduce risk; on the other hand, long-term communication initiatives are typically developed in a context with lower risk and tend to convey messages aimed at social and behavioural change, policy reform, capacity building, and promotion of accountability and feedback mechanisms. During disaster recovery, more time is allowed to single out vulnerable social groups and identify information and communication needs for each of these and target actions accordingly.
Despite the differences between acute crises and disaster reconstruction, some common best practices in communication can be highlighted. For example, in both response and recovery contexts it is advisable to make use of a range of communication channels to reach out to a broader audience (Australian Red Cross 2010). Coordination is a core requirement in both crisis and recovery stages since the risk of duplicating efforts is high as many different actors participate in the disaster response and disaster reconstruction efforts, including governmental agencies, humanitarian organisations, private companies, media and professional groups, and community-based groups.
2.2.2.4 Between Agencies
Communication networks among responders are critical to effective coordination and information transfer across emergency agencies and other organisations that are active in disasters.
As the complexity of the event increases, information about the disaster, its effects, associated response needs, jurisdictional responsibilities, available resources, and engaged organisations and personnel is distributed among an array of responders (Militello et al. 2007). As stated by Kapucu (2006), ‘if responders are not in contact with each other and if information does not flow properly, it is hard to envision a successful disaster response’.
Research has suggested that prior plans do not appear to be good predictors of actual communication interaction between agencies (e.g. Choi and Brower 2006). On the other hand, it appears that embedding communication relations and institutions improves the efficacy of disaster network interactions (Nowell and Steelman 2015).
Further discussion about crisis communications is found in Chapter 3.
2.3 Engagement
‘Engagement’ is used here as a generic, inclusive term to describe the broad range of interactions between people. Based on the discussion about ‘community’ in Chapter 1, ‘community engagement’ is therefore a planned process with the specific purpose of working with identified groups of people, whether they are connected by geographic location, special interest, or affiliation, to address issues affecting their wellbeing (Queensland Department of Emergency Services 2001). It is sometimes called ‘civic engagement’ or ‘public engagement’.
In disaster management literature, in some cases the term ‘stakeholder’ is used to describe sections of a community. On the other hand, there may be ‘stakeholders’ other than those in the at-risk community (geographically located), and thus community engagement can be viewed as a subset of ‘stakeholder engagement’. For example, emergency managers, government agencies, and humanitarian organisations are stakeholders usually outside of the at-risk community and may also be the focus of the engagement. Stakeholders can then be defined as any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of the objectives of the engagement (Freeman 1984).
There are numerous approaches to community engagement, several of which have been adapted to assist in disaster management and disaster-related learning. Five of these broad approaches are described below.
2.3.1 Public Participation Spectrum
The key message for designing engagement processes is to avoid promising a level of participation and power that is never intended to be given, or designing processes that claim to be empowering, but merely offer ‘token’ levels of participation. Pretty and Hine (1999) have developed a typology of ‘participation’ to differentiate actions according to the level of power agencies wish to devolve to participants in determining outcomes and actions.
The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) has developed the Public Participation Spectrum (IAP2 2019) to demonstrate the possible types of engagement with stakeholders and communities. The spectrum is widely used and is quoted in most community engagement manuals.
According to the spectrum there are five types of engagement:
Inform – to provide stakeholders with balanced and objective information.
Consult – to actively seek community views and input into policy, plans, and decisions.
Involve – to deliberately put into place a method to work directly with stakeholders throughout the process.
Collaborate – to partner with the community in each aspect of the decision.
Empower – to place final decision-making in the hands of the public.
As one moves through the spectrum from ‘inform’ through to ‘empower’ there is a corresponding increase in expectation for public participation and impact. In simply ‘informing’ stakeholders there is no expectation of receiving feedback, and consequently there is a low level of public impact. At the other end of the spectrum, ‘empowering’ stakeholders to make decisions implies an increase in expectations and therefore an increased level of public impact.
The IAP2 Spectrum has been widely used to guide the design of disaster-related community engagement. For example, the Australian Government has provided guidance (Australian Emergency Management Institute 2013) that uses the spectrum because ‘different types of engagement and levels of community involvement are required for different phases of an emergency’.
It could be argued that ‘empower’ is the only true level of engagement as it enables communities to have power in decision-making (Mosse 2003). Mansuri and Rao (2004) distinguish between ‘organic participation’, which originates from the people's own initiative to be active in some aspect of social change, and ‘induced participation’, which is the normal type that arises when an organisation wants to implement a project with the local people and participation is induced by the outside organisation. Arnstein (1969) argued that ‘participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless’. For disaster-related community engagement ‘this may be overcome by an approach that builds community-wide trust and meets the real needs of those at risk’ (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2014b).
2.3.2 Crowdsourcing
Public participation in gathering scientific observation about the world is not a new phenomenon. Following the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755, volunteers from all over Europe reported their experiences to help researchers create an early version of a ‘shake map’ that estimated the extent and intensity of the event (Coen 2012).
The term ‘crowdsourcing’ was coined in 2006 by journalist Jeff Howe to describe the ways in which the internet and mobile phones are facilitating the outsourcing to the public of tasks traditionally reserved for experts (Howe 2006).
Crowdsourcing can be described as the phenomenon where large groups of people (‘the crowd’) are used as the primary source of required services or content, typically on a voluntary basis and sometimes using internet-based channels. According to Holley (2010), ‘crowdsourcing uses social engagement techniques to help a group of people achieve a shared, usually significant, and large goal by working collaboratively together as a group’.
Disasters are prime examples of situations where the collective capacity of the crowd can make a difference. If properly organised, the crowd can bring direly needed extra capacities to professionals and help accelerate the disaster recovery process. Also, crowdsourcing platforms help to bridge collaboration and information gaps between the various communities that play a role in disaster management (Neef et al. 2013).
Crowdsourcing can also be used prior to a disaster in community risk awareness and participation in risk mitigation and preparedness activities. ‘An important reason to consider including crowdsourcing in risk assessment is that in addition to providing information, participants are themselves learning about risk in their area. Crowdsourcing thus becomes an avenue for risk communication through outreach and sensitization. Through involving new participants in the process, crowdsourced approaches also create opportunities to make risk assessment more inclusive. This can both improve the quality of the risk assessment through including local knowledge and raise public confidence in the results through increased understanding and ownership of the results’ (Soden 2017).
2.3.3 Citizen Science
Many projects tend to involve interested people who collect information to achieve a particular scientific research goal or goals. ‘Most successful crowdsourcing projects are not about large anonymous masses of people. They are not about crowds. They are about inviting participation from interested and engaged members of the public’ (Owens 2019). In this way, these crowdsourcing activities can be viewed as ‘contributory citizen science’. However, as Eitzel et al. (2017) remark, ‘not all citizen science is crowdsourcing and not all crowdsourcing is citizen science, some authors are concerned that these two words may become synonymous …’.
A fundamental aspect of citizen science is that the research goal is defined by a particular person or group, with participants recruited through an open call providing some significant effort towards achieving that goal or goals. It describes the engagement of people in scientific processes who are not tied to institutions in that field of science. Citizen science projects can range from projects developed completely independently within individual volunteer initiatives, to collaborative transdisciplinary work, to formalised instructions and guidance provided by scientific facilities.
There are numerous projects and disaster learning activities that involve the scientific collection of data for research and emergency management purposes. The growth in more readily available and low-cost technologies – such as smartphones, social media, and the internet itself – is allowing disaster citizen science initiatives to grow rapidly. For example, in northeast England, a citizen science project has harvested and used quantitative and qualitative observations from the public in a novel way to effectively capture spatial and temporal river response (Starkey et al. 2017). According to these researchers, not only are these ‘community-derived datasets most valuable during local flash flood events, particularly towards peak discharge’, they assist in community risk awareness.
2.3.4 Community Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment
As part of disaster risk management, an understanding of the spatial dimensions of risk is required across vulnerability, exposure, and hazard, as well as the at-risk community's capacities (Keating et al. 2016). However, ‘a major gap still exists between what the models can provide and what local practitioners need; and there is a serious lack of appropriate local information on disaster impacts, as well as information on exposure and vulnerability, the latter of which is especially difficult to define, measure, and monitor’ (Liu et al. 2018).
Community participatory disaster risk assessment has been considered an effective way to collect disaster risk information. Major humanitarian and development organisations and agencies, such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Oxfam, and CARE International, have used community-based participatory risk assessments to gather, organise, and analyse information on the locale-specific vulnerability and capacity of communities. There are numerous examples of communities participating in risk assessments through provision of their local knowledge.
Community mapping plays a key role in the participatory disaster risk-assessment process. Mapping helps stakeholders visually represent the bio-geophysical characteristics and various resources in a community. Additionally, according to Liu et al. (2018), it ‘is highly useful in stimulating discussions among community members’ and resultant disaster learning.
2.3.5 Volunteered Geographic Information
The sharing and mapping of spatial data through voluntary information gathered by the general public is termed ‘volunteered geographic information’ (VGI). Using VGI and participatory mapping prior to disasters can involve the identification of the potential impacts to a community and vulnerable groups, and thus ‘hot spots’ of risk. However, according to Haworth et al. (2018), ‘this process may motivate residents to improve their level of preparedness, but may also provoke feelings of shame, guilt, or resentment toward those involved in the mapping’.
According to Klonner et al. (2016), research so far has emphasised the role of VGI in disaster response. The presence of both researchers and volunteers is concentrated in response to crises, as opposed to during mitigation or preparedness activities, likely related to response being more visible and prominent, especially in the media (Haworth 2016).
The crisis map is a real-time gathering, display, and analysis of data (political, social, and environmental) during a crisis. Crisis mapping allows a large number of people to control, even at a distance, response actions by providing information to manage them. According to Meier (2011), ‘Crisis-mapping can be described as a combination of three components: information collection, visualization, and analysis. All of them are incorporated in a dynamic, interactive map.’
Specific apps, social media, participatory mapping tools, local language materials, and training programmes, as well as working closely with local partners, can help increase programme outreach and strengthen stakeholder engagement (Gunawan 2013).
A well-documented example of crisis mapping is the global volunteer mapping effort which assisted the humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake (Meier 2012).
2.4 Disaster ECE
There is a tendency for emergency agencies and other emergency service organisations to divide disaster learning services into at least community ‘education’, ‘communication’, and ‘engagement’ (Dufty 2013). On the other hand, some agencies use one or some of these terms as all-encompassing titles for their disaster learning services.
The difficulty with the former approach is that there is the risk of a possible disjunct between the messaging and guidance to communities from different sections of the agency, e.g. those doing crisis communication and those doing preparedness education or engagement.
The difficulty with the latter approach is that by calling all community disaster learning one or two of the terms, the specific benefits of the term or terms excluded are not recognised and activated.
This book posits that an integrated Education, Communication, and Engagement (ECE) approach which names the three terms, and uses their independent but combined benefits, is more appropriate for emergency agencies and other emergency service organisations, such as humanitarian organisations. It follows from Dufty (2011) who argues that disaster education and engagement are both required as they provide ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’ to disaster learning. Figure 2.1 graphically shows the Disaster ECE triumvirate that leads to effective disaster learning.
Table 2.1 provides a harmonisation of the three types of community disaster learning described in this chapter. As identified in Table 2.1 by bold type, there are some similarities between aspects of ECE. For example, there is similarity between ‘Inform’ as in the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum (engagement), ‘one-way’ communication, and information-based informal and incidental education. However, as shown in Table 2.1, there are some outliers where there is no apparent harmonisation across the three types of community disaster learning; nevertheless, these should be included in Disaster ECE.
Figure 2.1 Disaster ECE leading to learning.
Table 2.1 Harmonisation of disaster education, communication, and engagement.
Education
Communication
Engagement
Informal education
One-way communication
Inform
Incidental education
Two-way communication
Involve
Formal education
Consult
Non-formal education
Collaborate
Empower
The benefits of a combined Disaster ECE approach, although appearing to be conceptually valid, have only been once directly tested through the literature. The research from Kelly and Ronan (2018) proposed that what may be most effective in disaster preparedness is not education or engagement per se, but a combination of the two. The role of social media was additionally considered in this research, given the proposal (Dufty 2012
