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:
1 Communication that seeks to improve the humanitarian aid response.
2 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
