@article {bnh-8332, title = {Engaging communities to prepare for natural hazards: a conceptual model}, journal = {Natural Hazards}, year = {2022}, month = {03/2022}, abstract = {

Natural hazard preparation by communities reduces disaster-induced physical health problems and adverse experiences, lowers potential for post-traumatic stress disorders, and aids faster recovery. However, approaches to community engagement for preparedness vary widely leaving those responsible confused and often overwhelmed. This study builds on natural hazards behavior, community development, participatory, and codesign research to understand current community engagement approaches in an Australian context. Key principles for engaging communities were operationalized from document analysis and interviews with 30 community engagement practitioners from 25 Australian emergency management agencies. A thematic analysis of the agency documents and interviews led to a visualization of the pathway to community-led preparedness with the iterative community-centered engagement model for preparedness. The model reflects both current practice and aspirations. It contributes theoretically to a collaborative community-led engagement approach for risk personalization and protective action by highlighting the need to develop a deep understanding of the specific features of local communities. The model maps a pathway through different levels of community engagement toward the ultimate aim of a community-led approach to natural hazards preparation. It recognizes the changing circumstances and the situation of communities within their environment, and the barriers and enablers to support community-led preparedness. The model is significant in that it delivers a practical framework for engagement practitioners to build capacity in their communities and support their local communities to prepare for natural hazards and build relational capital for longer-term resilience.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Community-centered, model, Multi-hazard, Preparedness, risk mitigation}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05290-2}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-022-05290-2}, author = {Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor and Barbara Ryan} } @article {bnh-7342, title = {Climate Change Significantly Alters Future Wildfire Mitigation Opportunities in Southeastern Australia}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, volume = {47}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, abstract = {

Prescribed burning is used globally to mitigate the risks of wildfires, with severe wildfires increasing in frequency in recent decades. Despite their importance in wildfire management, the nature of future changes to prescribed burn windows under global warming remains uncertain. We use a regional climate projection ensemble to provide a robust spatiotemporal quantification of statistically significant future changes in prescribed burn windows for southeastern Australia. There are significant decreases during months presently used for prescribed burning, that is, in March to May in 2060{\textendash}2079 versus 1990{\textendash}2009 across several temperate regions. Conversely, burn windows show widespread significant increases in June to August, that is, months when burns have rarely occurred historically, and also in spring (September{\textendash}October). Overall, projected changes in temperature and fuel moisture show the most widespread and largest decreases (or increases) in the number of days within their respective ranges suitable for conducting burns. These results support wildfire risk mitigation planning.

}, keywords = {climate modeling, environmental change, Fire weather, Natural hazards, prescribed burns, risk mitigation}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088893}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2020GL088893}, author = {Giovanni Di Virgillio and Jason P. Evans and Hamish Clarke and Jason J. Sharples and Annette Hirsch and Melissa Anne Hart} } @article {bnh-7753, title = {Economic analysis of natural hazard mitigation using the Quick Economic Analysis Tool}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, pages = {48-55}, abstract = {

An effective way to reduce the impacts of natural hazards on communities is by mitigating the risks. However, mitigation requires time and resources, which are usually limited. To use resources effectively, planners and managers are best prepared when they know their options and which of these options provides the best value for money. When there is not enough information, or an analysis would take several months or years to complete, having access to quick economic analyses in weeks rather than months would be very useful. This paper describes a Quick Economic Analysis Tool, developed at the University of Western Australia, to conduct quick analyses. A case study is used of two prescribed burn annual rates and are compared with results of an in-depth analysis of the application of different prescribed burn annual rates over the long-term that took several years to complete. The results from the quick analysis, despite a few differences, were comparable to results from an in-depth analysis and provided enough information to determine the value for money that each prescribed burn annual rate generated. This study showed that the quick analysis tool would allow fire managers to identify options worthy of business cases and to capture the information needed to increase confidence in their decisions.

}, keywords = {economic analysis, economics, Natural hazards, Prescribed burning, risk mitigation}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-october-2020-economic-analysis-of-natural-hazard-mitigation-using-the-quick-economic-analysis-tool/}, author = {Veronique Florec and Abbie Rogers} } @article {bnh-5831, title = {Building resilience through flood risk communication annual report 2018-2019}, number = {509}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This project commenced in July 2017 and comprises two phases:

  1. Understanding behaviour in and around floodwater, and
  2. Evaluating flood risk communication materials and developing guidelines.

This project is based on the findings of earlier BNHCRC research that investigated human fatalities from natural disasters (Haynes et al., 2017). This project focuses on the two behaviours most frequently associated with flood fatalities:

  1. Driving into floodwater in a motor vehicle, and
  2. Recreating in floodwater.

The focus is on the at-risk groups identified from this earlier research including emergency services personnel, younger and older male drivers, and children and young adults who play in floodwater (Haynes et al., 2017).

The year 2 activities that have been undertaken include:

Work is now underway to transition to Phase 2 activities and to maximise project utilisation opportunities.

}, keywords = {communication, emergency management., Flood, resilience, risk, risk mitigation}, issn = {509}, author = {Mel Taylor and Katharine Haynes and Matalena Tofa} } @article {bnh-5007, title = {Australian wildland-urban interface householders{\textquoteright} wildfire safety preparations: {\textquoteleft}Everyday life{\textquoteright} project priorities and perceptions of wildfire risk}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2018}, month = {10/2018}, abstract = {

Globally, many residents of wildland-urban interface (WUI) communities are at risk of wildfire attack but do not undertake adequate preparations. Householder wildfire risk perception has been proposed as an important influence on risk mitigation preparatory actions. However, research findings have been inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis of 10 studies and found the average correlation between wildfire risk perception and risk mitigation actions to be small: r = 0.17. In order to investigate wildfire risk perception and mitigation further we conducted two studies of Australian WUI householders{\textquoteright} wildfire risk perceptions and mitigation actions in the context of their everyday life activities conceptualised as {\textquoteleft}household projects{\textquoteright}. Study 1 involved 32 interviews. Both household wildfire safety project priority rankings (r = 0.47) and wildfire risk perception ratings (r = 0.44) were related significantly to number of completed wildfire preparation actions. Study 2 involved 127 householders completing an online survey, with 83 providing household wildfire safety project priority rankings. These rankings were related significantly to number of completed wildfire safety preparation actions (r = 0.38), but risk perception ratings were not related significantly (r = 0.08). Implications of viewing wildfire preparation actions as being situated in everyday life contexts are discussed.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, everyday life, personal projects, risk mitigation, WUI risk perception}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.09.017}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918308719$\#$!}, author = {Christopher Bearman and Jim McLennan and Kubra Koksal and Danielle Every} }