@article {bnh-6986, title = {Building best practice in child-centred disaster risk reduction: annual project report 2018-2019}, number = {575}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Emerging as a distinct approach to disaster risk reduction (DRR) over the last 15 years, the primary objective of Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction (CCDRR) is to strengthen children{\textquoteright}s knowledge and skills so that they understand the disaster risks that exist in their communities and can take a lead role in reducing those risks. In the Australian context, the most commonly practiced form of CCDRR is school-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Education (DRRRE).

To support the delivery of effective and sustainable in DRRRE in Australian schools, research conducted in the first phase of this project (2014-2017) was focused on the development of guiding models and frameworks and the evaluation and redevelopment of End-User DRRRE programs and resources.

For second phase of the project (2017-2020), the focus has shifted toward school-led DRRRE programs and initiatives, which will enable bottom-up processes to inform end-user policy and practice. The project is also addressing the vexing issue of scaled implementation through the development of an evidence-based national framework which brings together the concerns and priorities of emergency management agencies and the education sector.\ 

This Annual Report provides a summary of progress to date, including a discussion of how cumulative research outputs from the first four years of the project are being utilised by End-User agencies to inform DRRRE program design, implementation and evaluation. It then provides the details on the various research activities which comprise the 2017-2020 research program, including:

  1. Project-based learning for disaster risk reduction and resilience: an explanatory case study from Harkaway Primary School;
  2. Descriptive case studies of good practice in DRRRE;
  3. A national study of DRRRE implementation: the 3Rs of disaster education;
  4. The redevelopment of the DRRRE Practice Framework.

The report also includes a summary of current PhD projects and a comprehensive list of publications that have been produced over the course of the project.

}, keywords = {child-centred, Disaster risk reduction, education, practice}, issn = {575}, author = {Briony Towers} } @article {bnh-7227, title = {Diversity and inclusion framework for emergency management policy and practice}, number = {602}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Emergency Management Sector (EMS) is made up of diverse organisations, and its scope of activity spans the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) spectrum for a wide variety of hazards. This requires an array of activities that contribute to the safety and wellbeing of communities and those within their organisations. The EMS is also undergoing dynamic change, of which human diversity is one key element. The sector has recognised that it needs to better reflect the communities it works with, and that it has {\textquoteleft}unacceptably low levels of diversity{\textquoteright} (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, COAG, 2011). Inclusion is seen as an essential part of this process, but policy, management and practice need further development if the sector is to achieve functioning inclusive organisations who reflect the diverse communities they serve.

Diversity and inclusion (D\&I) are different but deeply entwined. Diversity can be seen as a variety of people who have different and unique characteristics. This difference can be determined by aspects such as their cultural or social background, their age, the way they think, their physical attributes or their gender or a combination of these. Increasing diversity creates a different dynamic, and inclusion is the action that is undertaken to manage this change. It is also the tool that ensures that the increased diversity is effective in serving the organisational or community needs, and does not create a risk for the community or the organisation.\ 

Although the nature and measurement of diversity is being better recognised and understood, the management and measurement of inclusion is still evolving. This is an area of innovation where not everything will work. New approaches need to be developed and adapted to suit the myriad of different contexts throughout the sector. This has resulted in numerous D\&I programs at sectoral and organisational levels. However, the effectiveness of past and present programs, and what constitutes good management and measurement, is still emerging (Young et al., 2018).\ \ 

There is often tension between the core work of EMS organisations, as the development of D\&I is often seen as a secondary activity that is a cost to the workforce rather than an investment in the future workforce. This tension has been exacerbated by deeply entrenched cultural and institutional factors. This framework aims to provide a basis for practitioners to address these issues through a strength-based approach, which builds upon current practice and expertise in the sector.\ 

The framework has been developed in response to needs that were identified in collaboration with practitioners across the sector, which included:

The framework has been developed, tested and refined in collaboration with emergency management experts, and draws on the following reports from the project:

Diversity and inclusion is not a simple problem with easy solutions. It is a dynamic situation that requires ongoing management. This means that standard notions of success and failure can be problematic, which is why this framework focuses on what has been found to be effective.\ 

As the EMS is diverse in terms of organisational composition, capability and context, what is possible and {\textquoteleft}doable{\textquoteright} will be different for each organisation. To account for this, this framework is deliberately not prescriptive. Its aim is to support and guide practitioners to develop and integrate D\&I practice, so that it becomes accepted as part of the day-to-day activities and {\textquoteleft}how things are done{\textquoteright}.\ 

This framework will be supported by two further documents that will focus on management and measurement practices.

}, keywords = {diversity and inclusion, Emergency management, framework, Policy, practice}, issn = {602}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-7811, title = {Driving into floodwater: using data from emergency responders to inform workplace safety policy and practice}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, pages = {26-34}, abstract = {

Since 2001, approximately 45 per cent of all flood fatalities in Australia are attributed to people entering floodwater in motor vehicles. This behaviour is considered high-risk and avoidable. However, for emergency services personnel performing their duties, there may be additional pressure to take on such risks. In Victoria, the Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES) is the control agency for floods and storms and its personnel encounter floodwater frequently. At an organisational level, good workplace health and safety practices are fundamental and duty of care is of paramount importance. VICSES personnel are discouraged from driving through floodwater; an exception being when responding to life-threatening situations. Doing so exposes staff to personal harm and driving through floodwater in work vehicles can result in vehicle and equipment damage. There is also the potential for VICSES reputation damage if people observe VICSES personnel driving into floodwaters and not heeding safety advice to {\textquoteright}never drive (walk, or ride) through floodwater{\textquoteright}. This raises public safety concerns if people take similar risks. This paper presents findings from a larger study into the circumstances in which SES personnel drive through floodwater in SES or private vehicles. Outcomes from this research will inform policy, practice and training to improve safety, keep staff and equipment safe and model good practice in communities.

}, keywords = {data, Driving, emergency responders, floodwater, Policy, practice, workplace safety}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-october-2020-driving-into-floodwater-using-data-from-emergency-responders-to-inform-workplace-safety-policy-and-practice/}, author = {Mel Taylor and Tim Wiebusch and Benjamin Beccari and Katharine Haynes and Mozumdar Arifa Ahmed and Matalena Tofa} } @article {bnh-7510, title = {Urban planning and natural hazard risk reduction: critical frameworks for best practice}, number = {631}, year = {2020}, month = {11/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Urban planning offers a range of potential benefits to reduce or even avoid many of the risks associated with natural hazards.\  However, it is is not always fully utilised as a core mechanism to manage natural hazard risks, particularly those relating to human settlements.

This document sets out a critical framework to guide improved integration of land use planning and wider natural hazard risk reduction actions. It is intended to support emergency managers and urban and regional planning practitioners in the complex task of integrating land use planning and disaster risk reduction in different Australian jurisdictions. The critical framework has been designed to speak to current terminology, processes and arrangements already used by these audiences.

The diagnostioc tools are scalable and adapatable to various circumstances and needs. Hence, the diagnoses can be applied to particiular hazards, certain geographical places, parts of or the entire planning system, or specific challenges associated with disaster risk reductions.

Three interconnected elements comprise the diagnstic tools, based on developing and applying knowledge regarding:

  1. Natural Hazards, the sources of harm or situations with a potential to cause loss with their core transmission systems in the natural world.0F[1]
  2. Cross-Cutting Themes, core disaster risk reduction principles that apply to all urban planning, settlement and natural hazard circumstances.
  3. Diagnostic Focus Areas, risk reduction principles that relate to key categories of urban planning, communities and the range of other systems they interact with.

The diagnostic tool includes a sequenced approach to examine complex situations and to develop logical and evidence-based directions for improved urban planning. This also allows improved connections with wider Disaster Risk Reduction practices.\ 

1 {\textendash} Establish Context, scope and key focus

2 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of relevant hazards

3 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of cross-cutting themes and challenges

4 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of specific diagnostic focus areas

5 {\textendash} Review and adjust or modify as appropriate

[1] It is assumed here that expertise and data will mainly come from a variety of credible sources as a basis for effective action.\  Accordingly, detailed descriptions of each hazard are not included here. Rather, reference to more exhaustive materials available elsewhere is provided.

}, keywords = {frameworks, natural hazard, practice, risk reduction, urban planning}, issn = {631}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Hedwig van Delden and Janet Stanley and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} }