Étude démographique annuelle des sociétés de Myrmica rubra L. des environs de Bruxelles

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

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

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)

Agonistic behaviour of Myrmica rubra L.

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe