@article {bnh-6883, title = {Models and frameworks for assessing the value of disaster research}, journal = {Progress in Disaster Science}, volume = {6}, year = {2020}, month = {04/2020}, abstract = {

Funders, governments, stakeholders and end-users expect to see tangible evidence that an investment in research is a worthy use of resources. Research has impact if it makes a demonstrable contribution to the economy, society, culture, public policy, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond academia.

This paper reviews frameworks that assess the impact of research and considers their usefulness in the conceptualisation and measurement of research impact in the disaster domain. Frameworks demonstrate impact through attribution, measurement and quantification of academic, social, and economic impacts in the short, medium and long term. While there is no specific framework in the hazard domain, adaptation of the {\textquotedblleft}pathways to research impact{\textquotedblright} tool created by Cruz Rivera et al. (2017) provides a well-considered basis for assessing disaster research impact.

}, keywords = {disaster, framework, Impact, research, Value, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100094}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061720300314?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Ken Strahan and Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-7214, title = {The value of research from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, number = {601}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC {\textendash} the CRC) retained us to develop a transparent, reproducible estimate of the total value to Australia of its research: to answer the question, what is the return to Australia of its investment in the BNHCRC?

Cooperative Research Centres, like the BNHCRC, represent the main formal vehicle for explicitly enhancing research and industry collaboration in Australia.\  With government sponsorship, researchers and industry work closely to produce socially and commercially desirable outcomes.\ 

Funders of all research, including that of bushfire and emergency management, increasingly want to ensure that their investments generate value for the emergency management sector and contribute to risk reduction.\  Research value can take a number of forms, from a readily assessed improvement in performance due to a new widget or process, to increases in capacity and risk management across the emergency sector, and direct and indirect benefits to the whole of society and economy.\ \ 

The ARC (Australian Research Council) has a broad definition of research impact:

{\textquotedblleft}Research impact is the contribution that research makes to the economy, society, environment or culture, beyond the contribution to academic research.{\textquotedblright}\ 

The definition suggested by the European Commission is broader still and includes indirect impacts and effects, on for example, innovation culture, capacity building, and increasing the stock of useful knowledge.\  We use the ARC{\textquoteright}s definition broadened slightly to encompass the specifics set out in the European definition as they help to capture the CRC{\textquoteright}s contribution. This is achieved through four pathways to value, set out in the following section.

}, keywords = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, research, Value}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-7-1}, issn = {601}, author = {John Handmer and Adriana Keating and Ken Strahan} } @article {bnh-5955, title = {The value of disaster research: a review of the literature}, number = {505}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Increasingly, funders, governments, stakeholders and end-users expect to see tangible evidence that an investment in research is a worthy use of resources; that it informs policy and practice; or to justify the provision of current and future funding. The value of research is measured by assessing the extent to which research has impact. Research impact is defined as {\textquotedblleft}a demonstrable contribution that research makes to the economy, society, culture, national security, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond contributions to academia{\textquotedblright} (Alla et al.). These value-outcomes are achieved via the pathways of knowledge generation, capacity building, creation of scientific methods, researcher and end-user network collaborations, and policymaking support. Bushfire and natural hazard research evidence is utilised by emergency and fire agencies, governments, policymakers, and householders and landowners.

Research impact assessment is undertaken with the aim of addressing advocacy, analysis, accountability and allocation. It is also a valuable tool for use whilst planning research to ensure a greater impact. A major problem associated with research impact assessment is that of attribution: it is extremely difficult to assign causality for any outcome to a specific piece of research. This difficulty is exacerbated by the usually large time lag between research findings and policy impact, behaviour change, or change in environment or economy.

Various frameworks have been developed to assess the impact of research; whilst the majority of those reviewed were developed for the healthcare sector, there are more broad frameworks which have evolved to encompass a breadth of research areas and level of research. Impact has generally been categorised as economic (direct influence on the economy of the researcher, agency, population, or government as well as knowledge, market and network spill overs); academic (influence within academia, researcher and end-user collaborations, capacity building, training and leadership); and social or societal (a broad category including social values, national security, influence on policy and decision making).

Economic impact has largely been measured using cost-benefit analysis or a return on investment approach (including a social return on investment). Over the effect life cycle, public research is valued at 3 to 8 times the initial investment. Median annual rates of return are between 20\% and 50\% but this varies considerably between sectors. (Georghiou (2015)) . At an aggregate level, the return on investment in Australian disaster research has been estimated at between $1.17 to $1.40 for each dollar invested (Access Economics, 2003, Access Economics, 2008) . As most of the research within the natural hazard sector does not produce goods or services which pass through a market, a non-market method of valuing outcomes is required. The application of public value theory has created methodologies including public value mapping to understand the non-economic and non-scientific goals of research; that is, the core values (public values) of the research.

There is no specific framework for assessing the value of research in the bushfire and wildfire context, however adaptation of the {\textquotedblleft}pathways to research impact{\textquotedblright} tool created by Cruz Rivera et al. (2017) may be helpful in achieving appropriate impact measurement.\ 

}, keywords = {cost-effective, economics, Emergency management, Natural disasters, Policy, risk management}, issn = {505}, author = {Ken Strahan and Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-5456, title = {Self-evacuation archetypes in Australian bushfire}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {27}, year = {2018}, month = {03/2019}, abstract = {

Australian householders respond to bushfire in diverse and complex ways according to their circumstances and characteristics. They tend not to simply make a binary decision to evacuate from or remain at their property, or simply to {\textquoteright}wait and see{\textquoteright} what happens before they decide. Seven self-evacuation archetypes displaying universally recognisable, fundamentally human characteristics were identified through cluster and discriminant function analysis of data from 457 householders who had recently experienced a bushfire.

These seven archetypes characterise the diverse attitudes and behaviour of typical groupings of householders faced with making a protective decision during a bushfire. The archetypes comprise those who deny a threat exists (Threat Denier), who do not believe that they are responsible for themselves (Responsibility Denier) or are unable to take responsibility for their safe evacuation (Dependent Evacuator). They include those who are determined to safely evacuate (Considered Evacuator), those who look to advice and guidance from their community (Community Guided) and those who make considerable efforts to remain but are concerned they lack the experience to do so successfully (Worried Waverers). Some, who are experienced with bushfire, self-reliant and well prepared are committed to remaining (Experienced Independents) but in unfavourable circumstances may evacuate. Bushfire safety policy and programs should not treat these householders as simply stereotypical {\textquoteright}evacuators{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteright}remainers{\textquoteright} but accommodate the diversity of these archetypes to effectively meet their educational and engagement needs.

}, keywords = {hazard, Personal safety, Public policy, Wildfire}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.016}, url = {https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:46864}, author = {Ken Strahan and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @mastersthesis {bnh-5457, title = {Factors influencing householder self-evacuation in two Australian bushfires}, year = {2017}, month = {08/2017}, school = {RMIT}, type = {Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The thesis investigated householder self-evacuation decision-making during bushfires in the Perth and Adelaide Hills in 2014 and 2015. It explored the factors that influenced householders{\textquoteright} decisions to evacuate, identified factors that predict self-evacuation and established the characteristics of self-evacuators. The Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) provided a conceptual framework for the research. Its theoretical and analytical usefulness in an Australian context, was assessed. A mixed methods research strategy was used involving quantitative telephone surveys of 457 bushfire-affected participants and face-to-face interviews of 109 participants in 59 households.\ 

The study concluded that environmental and social cues and warnings and householders{\textquoteright} perceptions of the threat, of hazard adjustments and of other stakeholders, influenced self-evacuation decision-making. Protective action perceptions, particularly the effectiveness of evacuating or not evacuating in protecting personal safety or property, were most important in predicting self-evacuation. Receipt of official warnings and the perception of likely impact of the bushfire on property were also important predictors. Undertaking long-run hazard adjustments, although not predictive of self-evacuation, was pivotal in shaping perceptions of the effectiveness of evacuating and remaining in protecting personal safety and property and indirectly influenced evacuation decisions. Seven archetypes that characterised householders{\textquoteright} self-evacuation attitudes and behaviour were identified. These included Threat, and Responsibility Deniers, Dependent, and Considered Evacuators, Community Guided and Experienced Independents all who took different decisional {\textquoteleft}rules of thumb{\textquoteright} and routes toward evacuating or remaining . The PADM needs to be split into two separate models to incorporate the influence of long-run hazard adjustments on protective action decision-making in an Australian bushfire.

The findings suggest that future research on those who wait and see during a bushfire should take account of their decisional rules of thumb and that design and targeting of Australian bushfire safety policy should better account for self-evacuator characteristics.\ 

}, keywords = {{\textquoteright}Dependent Evacuator{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteright}Wait and See{\textquoteright}, Archetypes, Bushfire, decision-making, Long-run hazard adjustment, PADM, Prediction Policy, Self-evacuation, Wildfire}, url = {https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:162093}, author = {Ken Strahan} }