@article {bnh-8285, title = {Mind the gap: Contrasting operational and behavior-oriented flood warnings}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2021}, month = {11/2021}, abstract = {

During flood events, warnings issued by emergency service agencies serve to communicate risk and guide community behavior. Yet research shows that while warnings convey operational details, they may not always be understood and appropriately actioned in a timely manner by the public. Such maladaptive behavior can place multiple parties at risk of injury and fatality. Few studies empirically consider and compare the effectiveness of traditional agency-designed operational warnings with other designs such as behavior-oriented warnings. The former typically contain technical and operational detail while the latter provide immediate priority and greater emphasis on translating the situation into specific behavioral actions to be undertaken by the public. Using operational versus newly developed behavior-oriented warnings from New South Wales State Emergency Service in Australia, a total of 774 community members rated each type of scaled warning and their likelihood to engage in adaptive and maladaptive behaviors following exposure to warnings designed to convey one of five levels of an unfolding flooding scenario from its beginning to conclusion ({\textquoteleft}Prepare for flooding{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Be ready to evacuate{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Evacuate{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}Too late to evacuate{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}Safe to return{\textquoteright}). Findings showed positive response to both types of warnings, with behavior-oriented warnings offering greater benefit for perception factors (e.g., risk and comprehension) and adaptive behavioral intentions.

}, keywords = {Behavior-oriented, community, Flood, risk communication, Warnings}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102685}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420921006464}, author = {Amisha Mehta and Dominique Greer and Clinton Weeks and Lisa Schuster and Scott Murray and Paula Dootson and Andrew Richards} } @article {bnh-7784, title = {Checks and balances: A business-oriented lens on disaster management and warnings}, journal = {Disasters}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, abstract = {

Following disasters, small businesses are critical to community recovery. Yet, factors that affect outcomes (e.g., planning, information needs, and response to warnings) are understudied. To overcome the research record{\textquoteright}s focus on policy favoured towards disaster mitigation rather than response, this article presents a two-phased, mixed method approach. The first study comprised interviews with businesses to elucidate disaster planning approaches, knowledge and information needs, and current warning system adequacy. It revealed opportunities to build knowledge and add business-specific content to agency-issued warnings. Through an online survey, study two examined how disaster knowledge, planning and experience related to existing bushfire warnings and those modified with business-relevant content. Findings showed that planning related to experience and knowledge but not to business-related protective action intentions. Modified messages were perceived as more effective and resulted in greater action intentions for those with bushfire experience. The article provides implications for small business-oriented disaster risk communication.

}, keywords = {business, communication, community, disaster, recovery}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12473}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/disa.12473}, author = {Amisha Mehta and Scott Murray and Cindy Hammill and Paula Dootson and Rebecca Langdon} }