provision of their local knowledge.
Community mapping plays a key role in the participatory disaster risk-assessment process. Mapping helps stakeholders visually represent the bio-geophysical characteristics and various resources in a community. Additionally, according to Liu et al. (2018), it ‘is highly useful in stimulating discussions among community members’ and resultant disaster learning.
2.3.5 Volunteered Geographic Information
The sharing and mapping of spatial data through voluntary information gathered by the general public is termed ‘volunteered geographic information’ (VGI). Using VGI and participatory mapping prior to disasters can involve the identification of the potential impacts to a community and vulnerable groups, and thus ‘hot spots’ of risk. However, according to Haworth et al. (2018), ‘this process may motivate residents to improve their level of preparedness, but may also provoke feelings of shame, guilt, or resentment toward those involved in the mapping’.
According to Klonner et al. (2016), research so far has emphasised the role of VGI in disaster response. The presence of both researchers and volunteers is concentrated in response to crises, as opposed to during mitigation or preparedness activities, likely related to response being more visible and prominent, especially in the media (Haworth 2016).
The crisis map is a real-time gathering, display, and analysis of data (political, social, and environmental) during a crisis. Crisis mapping allows a large number of people to control, even at a distance, response actions by providing information to manage them. According to Meier (2011), ‘Crisis-mapping can be described as a combination of three components: information collection, visualization, and analysis. All of them are incorporated in a dynamic, interactive map.’
Specific apps, social media, participatory mapping tools, local language materials, and training programmes, as well as working closely with local partners, can help increase programme outreach and strengthen stakeholder engagement (Gunawan 2013).
A well-documented example of crisis mapping is the global volunteer mapping effort which assisted the humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake (Meier 2012).
2.4 Disaster ECE
There is a tendency for emergency agencies and other emergency service organisations to divide disaster learning services into at least community ‘education’, ‘communication’, and ‘engagement’ (Dufty 2013). On the other hand, some agencies use one or some of these terms as all-encompassing titles for their disaster learning services.
The difficulty with the former approach is that there is the risk of a possible disjunct between the messaging and guidance to communities from different sections of the agency, e.g. those doing crisis communication and those doing preparedness education or engagement.
The difficulty with the latter approach is that by calling all community disaster learning one or two of the terms, the specific benefits of the term or terms excluded are not recognised and activated.
This book posits that an integrated Education, Communication, and Engagement (ECE) approach which names the three terms, and uses their independent but combined benefits, is more appropriate for emergency agencies and other emergency service organisations, such as humanitarian organisations. It follows from Dufty (2011) who argues that disaster education and engagement are both required as they provide ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’ to disaster learning. Figure 2.1 graphically shows the Disaster ECE triumvirate that leads to effective disaster learning.
Table 2.1 provides a harmonisation of the three types of community disaster learning described in this chapter. As identified in Table 2.1 by bold type, there are some similarities between aspects of ECE. For example, there is similarity between ‘Inform’ as in the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum (engagement), ‘one-way’ communication, and information-based informal and incidental education. However, as shown in Table 2.1, there are some outliers where there is no apparent harmonisation across the three types of community disaster learning; nevertheless, these should be included in Disaster ECE.
Figure 2.1 Disaster ECE leading to learning.
Table 2.1 Harmonisation of disaster education, communication, and engagement.
| Education | Communication | Engagement |
| Informal education | One-way communication | Inform |
| Incidental education | Two-way communication | Involve |
| Formal education | Consult | |
| Non-formal education | Collaborate | |
| Empower |
The benefits of a combined Disaster ECE approach, although appearing to be conceptually valid, have only been once directly tested through the literature. The research from Kelly and Ronan (2018) proposed that what may be most effective in disaster preparedness is not education or engagement per se, but a combination of the two. The role of social media was additionally considered in this research, given the proposal (Dufty 2012) that social media provides a good platform for a convergence of engagement and educational influences.
The research tested the education and engagement model for disaster preparedness and found that ‘whilst the model was significant, the variables that added unique predictor ability were individual factors rather than a composite of individual, community, and institutional factors as found in previous research’. Also, ‘disaster preparedness messages can be conveyed either by traditional media or social media. There was no difference in whether actions were taken nor was there any difference in confidence and trust in the types of media. Given the low cost of social media campaigns, pending replication of current findings, consideration should be given to its use over traditional media.’
Further research is required to test the effectiveness of a combined ECE approach by emergency agencies and other organisations. However, the approach is promoted in this book due to its promise in providing cumulative benefits.
References
1 Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 216–224.
2 Australian Emergency Management Institute (2013). National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Community Engagement Framework (Handbook 6). Commonwealth of Australia.
3
