@article {bnh-6985, title = {Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering: annual report 2018-19}, number = {574}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering project is being jointly undertaken by researchers at RMIT University, the University of Western Australia, and Curtin University for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC). It is the only core project in the BNHCRC{\textquoteright}s research cluster on Sustainable Volunteering that is in active research phase. The goal of this cluster is to improve the long-term sustainability of the volunteer workforce, and better engage the potential of volunteering to build disaster resilience in Australian communities.

The Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering project has two broad aims, each of which is addressed by a targeted package of work:

The project complements\ other active BNHCRC research projects, especially in the Emergency management capability cluster (e.g. Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability and Catastrophic and cascading events: planning and capability projects). It also draws from work in two completed projects: the Bushfire CRC Volunteerism project (2003-2010) undertaken by researchers at La Trobe University and the BNHCRC Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional volunteering project (2015-2017), which was a precursor to the Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering project based at RMIT University.\ 

This Annual Report communicates the key activities and achievements of the Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering project in the 2018-2019 financial year. This was the second year of the project. The research phase of the project is due to end in June 2020.

}, keywords = {annual report, emergency volunteering, sustainable}, issn = {574}, author = {Blythe McLennan and Patrick Dunlop and Darja Kragt and Tarn Kruger and Djurre Holtrop and Maryl{\`e}ne Gagn{\'e} and Aleksandra Luksyte and Hawa Farid} } @article {bnh-6733, title = {Navigating authority and legitimacy when {\textquoteleft}outsider{\textquoteright} volunteers co-produce emergency management services}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, year = {2020}, month = {02/2020}, abstract = {

This paper examines the thorny issue of authority and legitimacy in relation to {\textquoteleft}outsider{\textquoteright} emergency volunteering within the context of the community resilience policy agenda. Outsider emergency volunteering is any volunteering that: (a) aims to assist communities in any aspect of disaster preparedness, response, relief and recovery, and (b) is not registered with or under the direction of a formally recognised emergency management organisation (EMO). Hence, it does not have clear grounds to establish its authority and legitimacy within the formal authorising environment of the emergency management sector. The paper draws on co-production theory to examine how three important challenges for establishing authority and legitimacy were navigated in four Australian cases of co-production involving outsider emergency volunteering. Given the rise of resilience in disaster policy and the changing nature of volunteering in modern society, the very formalised and defined foundations of authority and legitimacy in emergency management will need to soften and expand to become more networked and distributed. The four cases described here shed some light on what softer and expanded foundations for authority and legitimacy can look like and the processes that can support them in the emergency management context.

}, keywords = {Australia, authority, co-production, Emergency management, legitimacy, Unaffiliated emergency volunteering}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1727829}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2020.1727829}, author = {Blythe McLennan and J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-5415, title = {Emergency Volunteering 2030: Views from Managers in Volunteerism}, number = {452}, year = {2019}, month = {02/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

What is emergency volunteering going to look like in 2030? How (and by whom) is it going to be organised?

How can the emergency management sector best enable the value of volunteering for communities - before, during and after an emergency - into the future?

This report provides answers to these questions from the perspectives of 34 managers that have responsibilities for volunteerism in Australian emergency management organisations (EMOs) working across preparedness, response, relief, and recovery. The report is one of a series of Environmental Scan reports that will be synthesised and presented to an expert panel to assist researchers in developing alternative scenarios for the future of emergency volunteering to inform today{\textquoteright}s decision making.

}, author = {Blythe McLennan and Tarn Kruger} } @article {bnh-5773, title = {Emergency volunteering 2030: Views from the community sector}, number = {500}, year = {2019}, month = {08/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents findings from an on-line, qualitative survey of 48 community sector representatives from across the states of Australia. The purpose of the survey was to find out more about the community sector in relation to emergency volunteering and to elicit the views of key community sector representatives about changes in the volunteering landscape that have occurred in the past and are occurring now; and about their visions for a preferred future for community sector volunteering that supports communities before, during and after emergency events.

}, keywords = {Emergency management, emergency volunteering, volunteers}, issn = {500}, author = {Tarn Kruger and Blythe McLennan} } @conference {bnh-4796, title = {Emergency volunteering 2030: a sector-wide, management perspective}, booktitle = {AFAC18}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Perth}, abstract = {

What is emergency volunteering going to look like in 2030? How (and by whom) is it going to be organised? How can the emergency management sector best enable the value of this volunteering for communities - before, during and after emergencies? Researchers at RMIT University are seeking answers to these questions in a three-year project for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.\  This presentation shares insights from the first stage of this project. It provides a sector-wide, management perspective on what the sector most needs to do to adapt to the future of volunteering. It is based on interviews with 27 managers in volunteerism from across Australian government and non-government emergency management organisations (EMOs).\  Volunteerism managers paint a strong picture of the preferred future as being one where volunteering and management approaches are more flexible and adaptive to the needs of both communities and volunteers, where EMOs have stronger cultures of volunteerism, and where the sector is far more outward-looking and collaborative in its service delivery than it is today. While past research on the sustainability of emergency volunteering has mostly focused on activity at the level of specific management practices, volunteerism managers earmark changes needed at organisational and sector levels. These changes even extend into potential redesign of the ways in which emergency management services are provided to communities in different settings, as well as who is involved in providing them.

}, author = {Tarn Kruger and Blythe McLennan} } @article {bnh-5195, title = {Emergency volunteering 2030: views from local government managers}, year = {2018}, month = {12/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents views on the future of emergency volunteering from\ local government and local government association managers across\ Australia that have recent experience with this volunteering.

In this report, emergency volunteering means all types of volunteering that\ supports communities before, during and after a disaster or emergency,\ regardless of its particular organisational affiliation, or lack thereof. It\ includes formal volunteers affiliated with volunteer-based emergency\ management organisations (EMOs) as well as the diverse and growing\ types of formal and informal volunteering that supports communities\ before, during and after a disaster but is not affiliated with an EMO.

The landscape of emergency volunteering is characterised by far-reaching\ change, converging challenges and emerging new opportunities. A key\ concern today is how the changing landscape is putting pressure on the\ long-term sustainability of Australia{\textquoteright}s formal emergency management\ volunteer capacity. However, the changing landscape also opens doors\ onto new and innovative ways for organisations to enable and enhance\ the value of volunteering for communities.

Local government managers clearly see a need for change in the\ emergency management (EM) sector with respect to volunteering and\ volunteer management, and the councils represented in these interviews\ are trialling and developing new management approaches in response.\ 

These interviews flag a looming need to examine how resourcing and\ funding options and restrictions may impact on the ability of the EM sector\ to adapt to the changing landscape of volunteering.

Many of the things that local government managers see as necessary to\ move the sector towards a preferred future for emergency volunteering are\ beyond the control of a single organisation to deliver. Certainly, many are\ beyond the reach of an individual council. They will require collaborative,\ and boundary-spanning approaches involving organisations within and\ beyond the EM sector.\ 

Future strategic planning for volunteering in the EM sector will benefit from strong representation from local government stakeholders in order to build an effective, enabling environment for local level volunteering and volunteer coordination into the future.

This report is one of a series of Environmental Scan reports being prepared through the Emergency volunteering 2030: Adapting the sector project to capture diverse views of the current and emerging landscape of emergency volunteering. The reports will be used to develop alternative future scenarios for emergency volunteering to inform today{\textquoteright}s decision-making

}, issn = {430}, author = {Tarn Kruger and Blythe McLennan} } @article {bnh-5038, title = {Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering: annual project report 2017-18}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

An inexorable link exists between volunteerism and community capability and resilience with respect to disaster risk. Communities and governments increasingly expect emergency management organisations (EMOs) to actively enable and enhance the value of volunteering for communities with respect to building community capability and resilience. This is strongly reflected in disaster management policy in Australia, embodied in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG, 2011). It is also evident in the United Nation{\textquoteright}s Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction that calls on Nations to encourage {\textquotedblleft}Civil society, volunteers, organized voluntary work organizations and community based organizations to{\textquotedblright}, amongst other things, {\textquotedblleft}advocate for resilient communities and an inclusive and all-of-society disaster risk management that strengthen synergies across groups.{\textquotedblright} (UNISDR, 2015, p.23)\ 

}, issn = {423}, author = {Blythe McLennan and Patrick Dunlop and Darja Kragt and Tarn Kruger and Djurre Holtrop and Maryl{\`e}ne Gagn{\'e} and Aleksandra Luksyte and John Handmer} } @conference {bnh-4802, title = {Volunteering into the future {\textendash} disaster events, local governments \& communities}, booktitle = {AFAC18}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Perth}, abstract = {

This century presents us with many environmental challenges and the various types of hazardous events can impact urban, rural and remote communities in different ways. In Australia, councils are the closest level of government to community and many are planning and trialing a range of options to better deal with future disaster events.

The paper reports on findings from RMIT University researchers{\textquoteright} first stage of a Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project. The research looks at how the emergency management sector over the next decade can best enable the value of volunteering for communities before, during and after emergencies. It explores local governments{\textquoteright} experiences with volunteering around disaster recovery and their views about a preferred future for this volunteering. It describes some of the ways councils work together with community groups and volunteers both trained and those who come forth in response to a disaster, to enhance resilience and recovery.

The research considers ideas about the emergency management (EM) sector and the need to shift and draw upon different perspectives to involve different people to broaden approaches. Improving governance structures, particularly at the state level was considered essential for moving towards the preferred future. There is a need for on-going investment in the provision of a supportive and enabling infrastructure for volunteering such as state-wide data-bases. These can enable engagement, recruitment and preparation of volunteers from across regions to support local government and communities. Interviewees highlighted the need for reform in disaster funding for the recovery process as critical and the need for ratification between state and federal government so local governments and communities have confidence in the EM space. This paper will provide a picture of what the future might look like as local governments strive to adapt to the challenges of the 21st century.

}, author = {Tarn Kruger and Blythe McLennan} } @conference {bnh-3899, title = {Out of uniform (building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering): what have we learnt?}, booktitle = {AFAC17}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

How can the emergency management sector build capability and enable community resilience by supporting forms of volunteering that fall outside the scope of their current volunteer and community engagement models? That {\textendash} in a nutshell - is the question that the Out of Uniform (building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering) research project was set up to answer. The project concluded in June this year, and this presentation reports on key themes that emerged across four cases studies of {\textquoteleft}out-of-scope{\textquoteright} volunteering in action, all of which reinforce in various ways the role and importance of coproduction.

The cases studied were diverse in context and characteristics. Despite their wide variation, however, quite a number of shared themes were found across them that included: the value of coproduction, the impact of job mobility amongst public officials, the shapes and styles of volunteer leadership, the rising importance of brokering actors, groups, networks and platforms; and the challenge of sustainability.

Taken together, these findings reveal some surprising areas where emergency management organisations can make changes to the way they engage with communities and volunteers (both affiliated and not) that can reap potentially significant capacity-building and community resilience benefits. Many of the changes are likely to concern changes to internal organisational processes, structures, and training to build capacity for establishing, maintaining and resourcing co-productive relationships with actors, groups and organisations that have not been traditionally involved in emergency management in the past.Context

The highly demanding nature of managing emergencies can disrupt effective team performance. These disruptions can lead to an impaired operational response, creating risks to public safety, property and other assets. This project is helping to foster cohesive teamwork when it is most needed {\textendash} when teams are responding under pressure to emergency events.\ 

}, author = {J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-4217, title = {Out of uniform - building resilience through non-traditional volunteering: annual report 2016-17}, number = {327}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The traditional model of emergency volunteering in Australia is based on formal, accredited volunteers who are affiliated with emergency management organisations, and are mostly involved in response and recovery roles [e.g. 14]. This form of volunteering is crucial and has many strengths. However, planning solely for this form of volunteering by EMOs excludes the potentially large number of people who are motivated to volunteer before, during and after emergencies in other, less ongoing and more informal ways, and without direct affiliation with established emergency management organisations (EMOs).

At the same time, the landscape of volunteering is undergoing significant change, in Australia and internationally. Large-scale socioeconomic changes have recast the conditions in which people volunteer in the 21st Century [12, 15]. As a result, emergency managers can expect to engage with a much wider and more diverse range of volunteers than in the past. These volunteers bring new opportunities, but also risks.

There are considerable benefits to be realised from greater engagement with these more diverse and, from the perspective of established emergency management organisations (EMOs) {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright}, emergency volunteers. With disaster risk increasing worldwide due to population growth, urban development and climate change [16] it is likely that non-traditional volunteers will provide much of the additional surge capacity required to respond to more frequent emergencies and disasters in the future. There is also a significant and largely untapped opportunity for EMOs to contribute to community resilience by supporting non-traditional emergency volunteers in new ways.

}, issn = {327}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger} } @article {bnh-3800, title = {Recovery volunteering after the Pinery fire, South Australia 2015: an explorative case study}, number = {254}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The goal of this exploratory study was to better understand the breadth of disaster recovery volunteering following the Pinery Fire in South Australia in 2015, with a particular focus on faith-based groups. The report draws upon experiences and perspectives from a key group of individuals (8) involved in the recovery phase of the fire. The study sought to learn from the experiences and perspectives of these individuals. The study also focused on the disaster recovery structure in South Australia within which this volunteering is embedded

The move toward engaging volunteers and NGOs not traditionally involved in disaster recovery alongside those with more established roles can be of benefit in a range of ways. The pool of volunteers to assist impacted communities will obviously be greater. Many of the members from community development and faith-based organisations have skills and approvals to volunteer and undertake a breadth of tasks and can be well-suited to provide much needed social support. However, an influx of people can put pressure on administrative processes, such as timely placement of new volunteers. In addition, organisations can incur costs undertaking recovery roles and this cost shifting of financial burden from disasters is one they do not want to, or cannot support. Furthermore, as NGOs their autonomy is important because they are NGOs and independent of government and this arrangement they do not wish to forgo even during disaster recovery.

NGOs with a common goal to assist in the recovery generally worked well together, although some rivalries and jostling about processes occurred. The experiences and reflections of interviewees about the recovery processes for the Pinery Fire were in general very positive. They acknowledge their involvement in fires like Pinery and the collaborative approaches such as South Australia{\textquoteright}s Stakeholder Forum for disaster recovery can prepare them to better share data; streamline processes and differentiate roles for future events.

}, issn = {254}, author = {Tarn Kruger and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3799, title = {Strategies for non-traditional emergency volunteers: a risk-benefit framework for decision-making}, number = {253}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents a Risk-Benefit framework that can assist decision-makers in emergency management organisations (EMOs) to identify potential benefits and risks of alternative strategies for {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} emergency volunteers. The framework was developed primarily from stakeholder input in two workshops, combined with recent research.

Non-traditional emergency volunteering includes any type of volunteering {\textendash} formal and informal - that is: 1) Focused on contributing to disaster and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, or relief/recovery and 2) Involves volunteers who are not traditional emergency management volunteers affiliated with EMOs.

Different strategies for non-traditional volunteers bring different sets of potential benefits, challenges and risks for communities, volunteers, and EMOs. Not all of the potential consequences of different options will be immediately evident to a particular organisation at a particular point in time. Without decision support EMOs may perceive greater risks with non-traditional emergency volunteers and voluntary organisations and overlook or downgrade potential benefits due to unawareness, unfamiliarity, or risk aversion.

}, issn = {253}, author = {Tarn Kruger and John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @proceedings {BF-4346, title = {Firefighting the {\textquoteleft}Paradox of Place{\textquoteright} {\textendash} The Risks and Dilemmas Associated with Knowing the Place of Fire}, year = {2013}, url = {http://www.bushfirecrc.com/resources/research-report/firefighting-\%E2\%80\%98paradox-place\%E2\%80\%99-\%E2\%80\%93-risks-and-dilemmas-associated-knowing-place}, author = {Tarn Kruger and Ruth Beilin} } @article {BF-3336, title = {Visions of Sharing Responsibility for Disaster Resilience - Account of a multi-stakeholder workshop}, year = {2012}, month = {March 2012}, institution = {RMIT}, abstract = {This one-day workshop examined the idea and practice of sharing responsibility for disaster resilience. The idea of {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} is shaping emergency management thinking in Australia. It has gained significant policy traction following the Victorian 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission and the release of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. Similar ideas have been circulating in other sectors for some time. Yet it is not clear what the idea really means or what its implications are for policy and practice. The workshop, held on Thursday 29th March 2012, aimed to address two general questions: {\textbullet} First, the idea: what does the idea of {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} mean, and what are its implications? {\textbullet} Second, the practice: is it a useful policy concept, and if yes what needs to be done to implement it, and what could undermine it? The workshop was hosted by RMIT{\textquoteright}s Centre for Risk and Community Safety (CRaCS) in the School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences. It was organised on behalf of the Bushfire CRC and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility{\textquoteright}s (NCCARF) Emergency Management Network. Carbon credits were purchased to offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the event. This public account of the workshop has been prepared so that others who were unable to attend the workshop can also see the range of issues and perspectives that were voiced at the workshop.}, author = {Karyn Bosomworth and Adriana Keating and Tarn Kruger and Briony Towers} }