Search

Over the past two decades, decision-making in disaster risk management (DRM) has evolved significantly. This has resulted in a re-focus from a predominantly top-down, ‘command and control’ style of management, to the encouragement of ‘people-centred’ approaches and local participation. In this paper we critically explore this transition, particularly examining the teething problems related to the adoption of people-centred approaches, and especially to the transfer of DRM responsibility from the agencies in charge to the private citizens. We review traditional top-down approaches against a backdrop of changing circumstances relevant to disaster risk, and present some background to the international push for people-centred approaches, comparing the key characteristics of the two approaches. Using three case studies, we discuss how the personal responsibilities of citizens are weighed against the responsibilities of local authorities. The examples reveal a complex landscape characterised by insufficient resources at the local level, and lack of willingness among public at risk to share responsibility for disaster risk management with authorities. Moreover, local participation can create situations of conflict between public and private interests. If official authorities are to implement the new people-centred approach, they must better understand residents' perspectives and responsibility expectations, become more competent communicators, and be willing to engage in long-term dialogue with communities. This requires the courage to question existing institutional arrangements, and not only devolve power in DRM, but also relinquish responsibility to citizens. Future research must focus particularly on better understanding the benefits and challenges of shared state and civil responsibility in DRM theory and practice.

Building on a recognised information-to-action gap in wildfire risk communication, this paper examines what being physically and mentally ‘well prepared’ actually means to wildfire agency staff and volunteers in charge of disseminating risk information. Using the results of an open-ended survey conducted in southeast Australia, we examine how a set of preparedness messages is interpreted. The paper demonstrates that the concept of wildfire preparedness is ambiguous, and that being ‘well prepared’ is a complex mix of practical and mental preparedness measures. Many of the individual interpretations of preparedness messages are found to not align with the official outlined intent. In particular, we argue that the lack of a clear definition and engagement with ‘mental preparedness’ in wildfire risk communication has resulted in an inability to clearly relate to, and articulate what it means to be both physically and mentally prepared for wildfire. The survey illustrates how even well-trained wildfire management professionals and volunteers misinterpret relatively uncontested risk messages, and we describe how these misinterpretations might result in dangerous decisions if wildfire threat is realised. The work also reveals three key themes that define different aspects of mental preparedness: emotional control, understanding psychological strain, and the ability to know when and how to implement a wildfire plan. The paper concludes that wildfire risk communication efforts can be improved through heightened attention to the disseminators’ as well as the recipients’ understanding, explanation and adoption of risk information.