Educating children about bushfire risk and mitigation

Bushfire risk perception: a developmental perspective - Briony Towers and Douglas Paton School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Kevin Ronan School of Psychology & ociology, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Qld 4702 One outcome of inquiries in the 2003 Canberra bushfires was recognition of a need for greater community preparedness, with schools being identified as a resource for pursuing this objective. However, the effective use of this resource requires understanding how children construct bushfire risk. There are two significant issues in this context. The first relates to the fact that risk perception is socially constructed (Joffe, 2003). The second concerns the fact that children’s understanding of constructs that underpin taking preventive actions (e.g., causality, prevention) change with age (Paton & Brown, 1991). This poster describes a model of bushfire risk perception that integrates these perspectives.Traditionally, research on risk perception has been conducted within the cognitive paradigm and focused on explaining risk perception in terms of individual characteristics (e.g., deficits ininformation processing ((Kahneman, Slovic & versky, 1982). The limited explanatory power of this approach has been recognized (Sjoberg, 2000). Consistent with the cultural approach, Joff’s (2003) Social Representation Theory (SRT) proposes that risk perceptions evolve through social interaction. Joffe’s approach complements socio-cultural theories of development that argue that the skills and knowledge of the culture are internalized through social interaction (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). Taken together, the SRT of Risk and socio-cultural theories ofdevelopmental provide a framework within which to examine children’s construction of bushfire risk. This poster discusses this through the integration of three perspectives (school, family,peer group), selected because they are implicated in children’s conceptual development in diverse knowledge domains (Case, 1992). Because the relative influence of each element of social context changes as children move fromearly childhood through to adolescence (e.g., in early adolescence, an increase in the influence of the peer group is accompanied by a decrease in family influence), risk perception will change as children develop as they get older. A need for a developmental framework is also necessitated by developmental changes in the way in the quality of children’s understanding of the causation of events and preventability (Case, 1998; Paton & Brown, 1991). The utility of this approach has been consistently demonstrated in research on health-related risk communication (Paton & Brown, 1991; Shute & Paton, 1990) and road safety education (Tolmie et al, 2005),with research in both areas providing evidence that when risk communication is designed to accommodate cognitive capability and social context, children can develop more sophisticated understanding of risk, how risk can be managed, and are more likely to covert these beliefs into protective actions and attitudes. Drawing upon data collected from interviews in several at- risk communities in Tasmania, this poster discusses the role of the social context in the construction of bushfire risk at each developmental stage and identify the cognitive constraints on the construction of bushfire risk each developmental stage. The contribution of these data to the development of a comprehensive, theoretically robust, model explaining the construction of bushfire risk over the lifespan is discussed. This will provide agencies responsible for educating communities about bushfire risk and mitigation with an evidence-based framework that they can use to design more effective risk communication programs that accommodate and capitalise on existing social resources and cognitive capabilities

Children aren\u27t liabilities in disasters - they can help, if we let them

Our world is becoming increasingly vulnerable to fire, flood and other natural hazards. While our instinct as adults may be to shield children from these possibilities, this does them a real disservice. Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines show that when children are given accurate, clear information in accessible and age-appropriate language, they are highly motivated to help reduce disaster risks, both at home and in their communities. Indeed, there is growing evidence that children can play an active and positive role in making their communities more resilient to climate change, hurricanes and bushfires, and in improving disaster recovery

Exploring NGOs-government collaboration strategies in institutionalising child-centred disaster resilience and climate change adaptation

Child-centred disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have gained traction through projects and programs implemented by various actors worldwide. However, there remains a lack of understanding of their longer-term impact and influence on policy and practice at different levels of governance. This longitudinal research examines the processes of mainstreaming child-centred disaster risk reduction (DRR) and school safety programs at various levels. The data collection methods included participatory workshops, focus group discussions, and participant observations collected in 2008 and 2019. The findings suggest that the existence of local disaster regulation and mainstream institutions does not serve as a legitimate predictor for how likely governments adopt child-centred DRR and sustain school safety policy implementation. By adopting hybrid and combining approaches to DRR institutionalisation, NGOs and governments have collaboratively combined various strategies, including local regulatory change, incentives, nudging, and coercive and discursive approaches

Disaster preparedness for children and families

Preparedness for disasters is universally low; children and families are particularly vulnerable groups. Against this backdrop, research on disaster preparedness for children and families is reviewed, with a focus on disaster preparedness and prevention education programs. Following definitions and theory/rationale, research is critically analyzed. While findings indicate a large growth in research in the past 15 years and largely positive findings, significant challenges remain. These challenges include issues related to methodological rigor, long-term effectiveness, and implementation. Recent research reflecting these important challenges is reviewed. At the same time, other recent research documents real potential for these programs, including findings which suggest that increased attention to incorporating theory- and evidence-supported components can enhance outcomes. Thus, despite some important limitations and challenges, research done to date signals promise for these programs in reducing risk and increasing resilience to disasters for children, families and the households and communities in which they live

Child-centred disaster risk reduction : can disaster resilience programs reduce risk and increase the resilience of children and households?

There has been an increasing research and policy focus internationally on the role of child-centred disaster risk reduction and resilience (CC-DRR), including disaster risk reduction and resilience education programs for children and youth. This paper summarises developments and emphasises current progress and challenges. While research has increased in the past 15 years, there are significant research gaps, including those regarding the effectiveness of programs and their relatively patchy implementation. How to solve these problems has been the focus of a world-first national program of research funded by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC. Building on international and national research to date, this paper focuses on the question of 'how can we create, evaluate, implement and scale up CC-DRR programs that work over time, including during disasters and into adulthood, to reduce risk and increase resilience for children, youth, schools, households and communities?' This includes a guiding model for research and use, and a set of research-informed tools either developed or being developed to facilitate further progress.10 page(s

Input paper HFA Thematic Review/Indicator Research: ‘Priority for Action (Pfa) 3 – Core Indicator (Ci) 2: School Curricula, Education Material And Relevant Training Include Disaster Risk Reduction And Recovery /

Introduction: Focus of Input Paper - Following the acceptance of our Abstract and subsequent consultation with UNICEF, this Input Paper will draw from the foundation provided by the Comprehensive School Safety framework (GADRRRES, 2014), with a primary focus on Pillar 3 (Risk Reduction and Resilience Education). In particular, we will home in on three primary elements in Pillar 3: formal curricula integration; informal, extracurricular and community-based education; and teacher training and staff development. Our focus will be on the research done thus far on formal and informal programs, including outcomes achieved in research to date as well as a consideration of design and methods used. We will also provide considerations regarding curricula integration to amplify, extend and supplement comprehensive advice from UNESCO/UNICEF (2012). A brief discussion about teacher training will be included in the context of achieving more integrated curricula as well as assisting teachers to deal effectively with emotional issues that arise for children in discussions and activities around DRR. Alongside this major focus, some consideration of Pillar 1 (Safe Learning Facilities) as it overlaps (a) with Pillar 3, specifically related to important gaps in learning about disaster resilient construction, and (b) with Pillar 2 (School Disaster Management). In this latter instance, the focus includes overlaps and where calls for consistency with Pillar 3 have been made. These include school drills, family reunification planning, and household disaster planning. It is worthwhile reiterating what the larger body of research on public health education and education for disaster risk reduction has learned, over several decades, about the factors that enable positive behavioural change at the family and household level (Wood et al., 2012): That people need clear, specific action-oriented messages around which there is clear consensus across trusted agencies and community stakeholder groups. People want to know that the measures they take are going to be effective (referred to as adjustment efficacy). Also, people need to feel that they personally are capable of taking these measures (referred to as self-efficacy). Specific guidance messages also need repetition over time and across multiple messaging platforms, including those that promote increasing social acceptability for taking these actions (Wood et al., 2012). We also know that some risk perception and productive anxiety (i.e., concern sufficient to encourage action) is necessary to motivate people, but we need to be careful not to provoke unproductive levels of fear. Importantly, people are more proactive when risks can be framed in terms of (surmountable) challenges and as problems to be solved as opposed to dire, insurmountable threats (Ronan & Towers, 2014). Messaging must also be two-way and developed with those at risk in order to meet the knowledge gaps, perspectives and capacities of the target groups and ensure trust (Haynes et al 2008). Finally, the wider socio-cultural, economic and political barriers to behaviour change and risk reduction must be considered when delivering any education program (Ronan & Towers, 2014). Despite the success of the delivery of the program and an increase in knowledge, these wider factors may impact significantly on any real outcomes to reduce risks (Haynes & Tanner, 2014)

Promoting child resilience to disasters policy, practice, research /

The recently published Synthesis Report on the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2013) places children at the centre of successful adaptation to disasters: “In particular children and youth have been singled out as having specific needs in terms of school safety, child-centred risk assessments and risk communication. But, more importantly, if appropriately educated and motivated on disaster risk reduction, they will lead and become the drivers of change.” Equally, here in Australia, the role of disaster education in managing disaster risk has been recognised as a major priority in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Australian Government, 2011). While Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction (CC-DRR) is increasingly popular across agencies and organisations around the world, rigorous empirical research on the efficacy of the approach is limited. This three-year program of research is planning a range of projects, unified through various means, and an integrated narrative, to increase the reach and impact of CC-DRR education within communities in Australia and New Zealand. Year 1 (of 3) of this Project is focused on planning and pilot work, a scoping and review exercise to identify what the evidence to date suggests in terms of best practices to date and challenges requiring research. Initial efforts have included pilot work on stakeholder views. Based on scooping and review, it has also included multiple team submissions to the UNISDR Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015 (GAR 15), and refereed publications, with a focus on CC-DRR. These early outputs, along with other collaborative efforts within the team, are directed towards investigating the extent to which CC-DRR influences disaster resilience at individual, household and community levels. It will also investigate how CC-DRR influences children’s (1) pre-hazard resilience and readiness and (2) post-disaster response and recovery. In doing so, it will provide disaster resilience researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners with an evidence-base for development of effective CC-DRR programming, in Australia and internationally. The Conference presentation will provide an update on progress of our systematic review and scoping efforts in Year 1 and pilot data collected to date. A main thrust will be to update Conference attendees on current research issues and gaps linked to the policy-practice-research nexus. Main themes here are that research to date has seen an increase in evaluation of CC-DRR education programs, particularly in the past 15 years. Most of the studies published to date support education program effectiveness on indicators linked to risk reduction and resilience (e.g., knowledge of DRR key messages, risk perceptions, reduced fears; child- and home-based preparedness). Challenges identified, and which are to be the focus of attention in this project, include (1) methodological issues (e.g., more rigour needed), (2) no research to date examining whether these programs reduce risk when most needed (i.e., during a hazard event) or if they are cost effective, (3) research suggests that some education programs may not reduce risk in the way envisaged and, finally, (4) education programs developed will benefit from more explicit evaluation, including whether they include theory-supported elements, whether they include effective teacher training, whether they produce bona fide DRR outcomes including over time, and the effectiveness of mechanisms designed to support sustainable, scaled implementation of education programs