Gathering in the Face of Disaster: Understanding Festivals’ Roles in Wildfire Emergency Management

Introduction Most developed countries, including Australia, have a strong focus on national, state and local strategies for emergency management and response in the face of disasters and crises. This framework can include coping with catastrophic dislocation, service disruption, injury or loss of life in the face of natural disasters such as major fires, floods, earthquakes or other large-impact natural events, as well as dealing with similar catastrophes resulting from human actions such as bombs, biological agents, cyber-attacks targeting essential services such as communications networks, or other crises affecting large populations. Emergency management frameworks for crisis and disaster response are distinguished by their focus on the domestic context for such events; that is, how to manage and assist the ways in which civilian populations, who are for the most part inexperienced and untrained in dealing with crises and disasters, are able to respond and behave in such situations so as to minimise the impacts of a catastrophic event. Even in countries like Australia that demonstrate a strong public commitment to cultural pluralism and social cohesion, ethno-cultural diversity can be seen as a risk or threat to national security and values at times of political, natural, economic and/or social tensions and crises. Australian government policymakers have recently focused, with increasing intensity, on “community resilience” as a key element in countering extremism and enhancing emergency preparedness and response. In some sense, this is the result of a tacit acknowledgement by government agencies that there are limits to what they can do for domestic communities should such a catastrophic event occur, and accordingly, the focus in recent times has shifted to how governments can best help people to help themselves in such situations, a key element of the contemporary “resilience” approach. Yet despite the robustly multicultural nature of Australian society, explicit engagement with Australia’s cultural diversity flickers only fleetingly on this agenda, which continues to pursue approaches to community resilience in the absence of understandings about how these terms and formations may themselves need to be diversified to maximise engagement by all citizens in a multicultural polity. There have been some recent efforts in Australia to move in this direction, for example the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI)’s recent suite of projects with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities (2006-2010) and the current Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee-supported project on “Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism” (Grossman and Tahiri), which I discuss in a longer forthcoming version of this essay (Grossman). Yet the understanding of ethno-cultural identity and difference that underlies much policy thinking on resilience remains problematic for the way in which it invests in a view of the cultural dimensions of community resilience as relic rather than resource – valorising the preservation of and respect for cultural norms and traditions, but silent on what different ethno-cultural communities might contribute toward expanded definitions of both “community” and “resilience” by virtue of the transformative potential and existing cultural capital they bring with them into new national and also translocal settings. For example, a primary conclusion of the joint program between AEMI and the Australian Multicultural Commission is that CALD communities are largely “vulnerable” in the context of disasters and emergency management and need to be better integrated into majority-culture models of theorising and embedding community resilience. This focus on stronger national integration and the “vulnerability” of culturally diverse ethno-cultural communities in the Australian context echoes the work of scholars beyond Australia such as McGhee, Mouritsen (Reflections, Citizenship) and Joppke. They argue that the “civic turn” in debates around resurgent contemporary nationalism and multicultural immigration policies privileges civic integration over genuine two-way multiculturalism. This approach sidesteps the transculturational (Ortiz; Welsch; Mignolo; Bennesaieh; Robins; Stein) aspects of contemporary social identities and exchange by paying lip-service to cultural diversity while affirming a neo-liberal construct of civic values and principles as a universalising goal of Western democratic states within a global market economy. It also suggests a superficial tribute to cultural diversity that does not embed diversity comprehensively at the levels of either conceptualising or resourcing different elements of Australian transcultural communities within the generalised framework of “community resilience.” And by emphasising cultural difference as vulnerability rather than as resource or asset, it fails to acknowledge the varieties of resilience capital that many culturally diverse individuals and communities may bring with them when they resettle in new environments, by ignoring the question of what “resilience” actually means to those from culturally diverse communities. In so doing, it also avoids the critical task of incorporating intercultural definitional diversity around the concepts of both “community” and “resilience” used to promote social cohesion and the capacity to recover from disasters and crises. How we might do differently in thinking about the broader challenges for multiculturalism itself as a resilient transnational concept and practice? The Concept of Resilience The meanings of resilience vary by disciplinary perspective. While there is no universally accepted definition of the concept, it is widely acknowledged that resilience refers to the capacity of an individual to do well in spite of exposure to acute trauma or sustained adversity (Liebenberg 219). Originating in the Latin word resilio, meaning ‘to jump back’, there is general consensus that resilience pertains to an individual’s, community’s or system’s ability to adapt to and ‘bounce back’ from a disruptive event (Mohaupt 63, Longstaff et al. 3). Over the past decade there has been a dramatic rise in interest in the clinical, community and family sciences concerning resilience to a broad range of adversities (Weine 62). While debate continues over which discipline can be credited with first employing resilience as a concept, Mohaupt argues that most of the literature on resilience cites social psychology and psychiatry as the origin for the concept beginning in the mid-20th century. The pioneer researchers of what became known as resilience research studied the impact on children living in dysfunctional families. For example, the findings of work by Garmezy, Werner and Smith and Rutter showed that about one third of children in these studies were coping very well despite considerable adversities and traumas. In asking what it was that prevented the children in their research from being negatively influenced by their home environments, such research provided the basis for future research on resilience. Such work was also ground-breaking for identifying the so-called ‘protective factors’ or resources that individuals can operationalise when dealing with adversity. In essence, protective factors are those conditions in the individual that protect them from the risk of dysfunction and enable recovery from trauma. They mitigate the effects of stressors or risk factors, that is, those conditions that predispose one to harm (Hajek 15). Protective factors include the inborn traits or qualities within an individual, those defining an individual’s environment, and also the interaction between the two. Together, these factors give people the strength, skills and motivation to cope in difficult situations and re-establish (a version of) ‘normal’ life (Gunnestad). Identifying protective factors is important in terms of understanding the particular resources a given sociocultural group has at its disposal, but it is also vital to consider the interconnections between various protective mechanisms, how they might influence each other, and to what degree. An individual, for instance, might display resilience or adaptive functioning in a particular domain (e.g. emotional functioning) but experience significant deficits in another (e.g. academic achievement) (Hunter 2). It is also essential to scrutinise how the interaction between protective factors and risk factors creates patterns of resilience. Finally, a comprehensive understanding of the interrelated nature of protective mechanisms and risk factors is imperative for designing effective interventions and tailored preventive strategies (Weine 65). In short, contemporary thinking about resilience suggests it is neither entirely personal nor strictly social, but an interactive and iterative combination of the two. It is a quality of the environment as much as the individual. For Ungar, resilience is the complex entanglements between “individuals and their social ecologies [that] will determine the degree of positive outcomes experienced” (3). Thinking about resilience as context-dependent is important because research that is too trait-based or actor-centred risks ignoring any structural or institutional forces. A more ecological interpretation of resilience, one that takes into a person’s context and environment into account, is vital in order to avoid blaming the victim for any hardships they face, or relieving state and institutional structures from their responsibilities in addressing social adversity, which can “emphasise self-help in line with a neo-conservative agenda instead of stimulating state responsibility” (Mohaupt 67). Nevertheless, Ungar posits that a coherent definition of resilience has yet to be developed that adequately ‘captures the dual focus of the individual and the individual’s

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which hospital disaster planners and managers understand the role of built infrastructure in delivering effective healthcare services during extreme weather events (EWEs). There is substantial evidence to indicate that many hospitals are vulnerable to EWEs. This is alarming given community reliance on hospitals during times of natural disaster and the predicted increase in the frequency and intensity of EWEs.Design/methodology/approach– In this paper, resilience and learning theories are combined to produce a new conceptual model which illustrates how hospital disaster managers learn about the relationship between health outcomes and built infrastructure during EWEs to build future hospital resilience. In this paper, the first part of the conceptual model, concerning the development of disaster management plans is explored and refined using a thematic content analysis of 14 Australian hospitals’ disaster plans and supplementary plans.Findings– The findings indicate high variability of understanding about the role of built facilities in health outcomes during an EWE. There appears to be a widespread and highly questionable assumption in the health disaster planning community that hospital built infrastructure is highly resilient to EWEs. This means that many hospitals will not be unaware of the risks that their buildings pose in the delivery of healthcare services to the community during an EWE and how to manage those risks effectively.Research limitations/implications– The theoretical framework presented in this paper provides new insights which will enable hospital infrastructure resilience to be better integrated into health service disaster risk planning and preparedness. The findings can help hospital disaster managers learn about and adapt their built environment to changing healthcare needs during EWEs.Originality/value– By integrating learning and resilience theories in a built environment context, this paper provides new insights, both theoretical and practical, into the important role of hospital infrastructure in planning for EWEs.

This study investigates how different facets of social capital affect community resilience in The face of disasters. There has not been a thorough study that examines social capital across various types of frequently occurring disasters and across the different phases of a disaster, that is, pre-disaster, during disaster, and post-disaster. Previous research on social capital has been conducted in both developed and developing countries using various disaster cases. To synthesize previous research, identify knowledge gaps, and set the course for future research, this study used a literature review technique. This method is both methodical and rigorous. The current analysis found a rising trend in the amount of research on the use of social capital in disaster management, demonstrating a growing interest in the function of social capital in boosting community resilience in the face of disasters. The findings of this study showed that community resilience in disaster management is influenced by social capital components. The study found that the trust and network components of social capital—which include trust, beliefs, norms, rules, networks, and values—have the greatest effects on community resilience. Greater knowledge of the function of social capital in disaster management and the aspects of social capital that are most important for fostering community resilience are provided by these results, which have a substantial impact on future research and disaster management methods.

Disaster risk management refers to the application of plans and procedures for reducing disaster risk to prevent new disaster risks, minimize current disaster risk, and manage residual risk. This process helps to reduce disaster losses and increase resilience (Disaster Risk Management | UNDRR, 2007). This study explored the experiences of disaster risk reduction and management personnel through a qualitative research method. The participants of this study were the ten (10) participants chosen from the five (5) DRRM sectors in the municipalities of the Province of Guimaras. All participants were subjected to individual in-depth interviews. The findings of this study are described in emergent themes. Four (4) emergent themes described the positive and negative experiences of the participants in the implementation of disaster risk reduction and management programs. For the positive experiences, two (2) emergent themes were developed, namely: Empowering Community Resilience and Satisfaction of Effective Crisis Response. For the negative experiences, two (2) emergent themes were also developed, namely: Hurdles in Promoting Public Compliance and Inadequate Resources and Manpower Constraints. Meanwhile, two (2) emergent themes were formulated to explain how the participants address the challenges encountered in the implementation of disaster risk reduction and management programs, namely: Collaborative Partnerships for Resource Management and Capacity Building through Continuous Training. Finally, two (2) emergent themes were created to express the Aspirations of the Participants to Improve the Quality of Service, namely: Institutional Support and Resource Sustainability and Fostering Proactive Community Engagement. Based on the emergent themes identified, it is advised that the DRRM personnel be provided with consistent resource management and community engagement training to enhance their ability to address constraints more effectively and promote a proactive stance on disaster risk reduction.

Iconic events have traditionally instigated progression in the fields of crisis and disaster science. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pressing question is how this global health emergency impacted the research agendas of our field. We reviewed contributions in ten important crisis and disaster journals in the two and a half years following the COVID-19 outbreak from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2022. Specifically, we conducted a bibliometric review using thematic mapping analysis to distill the major themes covered by the emerging COVID-19 literature within crisis and disaster science (N = 239 articles). Our results indicate that several well-known topics are applied to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as risk, crisis communication, governance, resilience and vulnerability. The pandemic also gave rise to new topics, such as citizen behavior, state power, and the business and mental health impact of crisis measures. Several studies are already looking ahead by identifying lessons for preparedness and mitigation of future pandemics. By taking stock of the surge of COVID-19 studies while this academic literature is still taking shape, this review sets the stage for future contributions to the crisis and disaster literatures. It provides valuable lessons for what topics are studied and what themes need more attention. The COVID-19 pandemic is destined to become an iconic event for our literature that not only strengthens and deepens existing debates, but also clearly offers the opportunity to draw in new perspectives and broaden the horizon of crisis and disaster science.

The COVID-19 pandemic took most communities off guard and has highlighted gaps in community preparedness and resilience in spite of the numerous technological advancements and the variety of available social media platforms that many relied on during lockdown periods. This served to emphasise the necessity for exploring the roles of social media and smart city technologies in mitigating pandemic impacts. In this systematic literature review, we examined twelve articles on social media usage and smart city technologies and their contributions to community resilience during COVID-19. The analysis focused on the use of social media platforms and smart city technologies during and after lockdown periods, examining their role in fostering community resilience. Results indicate that social media and smart city technologies were instrumental in helping communities adapt and recover from the pandemic. While past studies have examined community resilience, social media, or smart cities separately, there is limited literature collating insights on the three elements combined. We therefore argue that these technologies, employed collaboratively, enhance community resilience during crises. Nevertheless, further research is recommended, particularly on urban resilience and comparative analyses to deepen our understanding of the complex interplay between these variables.

Initial interest in community resilience by the U.S. federal government has been followed by waves of community resilience theory building and of community resilience assessment and intervention development and testing. This special issue of American Behavioral Scientist includes reviews of recent work to conceptualize, measure, and foster community resilience. These reviews identify common community resilience principles and considerations that cut across individual community resilience projects. These insights can inform next steps in community resilience practice and research.

The concept of school safety is not limited to preventing the collapse of school buildings in disasters, and safety of teachers and students, but rather extends to meet the broader goal “disaster risk management”. Objective: The present study aimed to assess the disaster management measures adopted at schools in Alexandria, and to identify knowledge and practice of disaster and crisis committee members' about school disaster and crisis management plan and it's measures. Setting: Twenty one governmental schools affiliated to Ministry of education in Alexandria Governorate were included in the study. Subjects: The study comprised210 members of the selected schools' disaster and crisis committees. Tools: Three tools were utilized for data collection; Socio demographic characteristics and school record review for disaster management plan questionnaire, knowledge of committee members related to disaster management plan questionnaire and committee member’s practices related to disaster management questionnaire. Results: The study revealed that all assessed schools had disaster and crisis management plan, the majority of the members of the crisis and disaster committee were not oriented with its content, never dealt with any emergency, never checked on the emergency equipment placed, and most significantly, the available plans were not suitable in different emergency situations. Conclusion: It could be concluded that all assessed schools had disaster and crisis management plan. The majority of the study sample obtained unsatisfactory score for their knowledge and practice related to disaster and disaster management. The low score reflects deficiencies in all assessed aspects of information; lack of knowledge, lack of training and absence of motivation. Recommendations: A comprehensive standardized national preventive strategies for achieved safety measures in schools should be developed and implemented.

An experienced and resilient community has become a much-studied discourse after COVID-19. Strengthening the ability to self-organize post-crisis events encountered difficulties around changing local risk perspectives. In addition, they are increasing the capacity of individuals as a whole to form the expected community resilience. This study explains the importance of leveraging social capital to increase community capacity, affecting the ability to survive future crises. This study used a literature review to explore prior conceptions and conclusions about fostering community resilience and essential agreement of social capital. In this research, we seek a contribution through the following arguments a) Community resilience is the outcome of reciprocity social relationships; b) Social capital is an endeavor to cultivate relationships that encourage shared-value advantages between community members; c) Intellectual capital is the valuable sources in representing action-based of knowledge. The result shows it is necessary to build community resilience through a robust social approach, maintaining and reconstructing social capital to present community advantage and shared-value embedded in each community member.

Homelessness has been framed as a growing crisis. People experiencing homelessness often face social exclusion and isolation as a result of policies and practices that promote a “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) philosophy. NIMBYism is most recognizable in its efforts to actively oppose affordable housing projects and challenge the efficacies of social servicing in the name of preserving existing neighbourhood dynamics and maintaining property values. These exclusionary discourses and practices have been challenged by a countermovement known as “Yes in my Backyard” (YIMBYism), which advocates for equitable and inclusive housing options and more impactful community programming. To better highlight the tensions between these two movements, this paper provides one of the first comprehensive reviews of multidisciplinary literature on NIMBYism and YIMBYism as they relate to homelessness. We frame the comprehensive review within a community resilience framework —a term used in disaster and emergency management—to shed light on ways communities can foster and promote community resilience in the face of techniques of social and physical exclusion.

Community resilience has been recognized and promoted as both a vision and a strategy for disaster management. This paper establishes the importance of community resilience in disaster management, describes disaster management phases and the disaster system of care, reviews definitions and dimensions of community resilience and related foundational concepts (social groups, social networks, and social capital), and endorses a conceptual framework for enhancing community resilience through social capital. Resilience, both personal and community resilience, is increased by the social capital that emerges from improved social connections and social networks. Effective disaster management, which requires an informed and engaged public, relies on social networks to connect and support individuals, families, groups, and organizations within the community and to link the community with the disaster system of care. Community disaster teams can identify and engage in activities that promote personal and community resilience, and the team process itself can create social capital that also advances personal and community resilience. The enhancement framework advocated in this paper focuses on the role of social capital in augmenting community resilience derived from people’s interactions in groups, social networks, and teams.

PurposeThis paper attempts to evaluate the current collaborative model of disaster management initiated by the Indonesian Government at the regional level. The paper aims at providing recommendations for a more functional model of local communities' resilience by promoting the synergy of roles among the community, industry and local government.Design/methodology/approachTo achieve the study objective, the authors conducted the qualitative approach. The study used The Hyogo Framework to Action (HFA) 2000–2015 disaster management approach. The HFA approach contains substances of disaster management guidelines on social, economic and environmental aspects, as well as the strategies for implementing the guidelines.FindingsThe study's findings have indicated that substandard institutions can hamper collaborative processes and lower the level of community resilience. A collaborative model can appropriately operate when the formal institution plays its role as the central coordinator and ensures that transparency, decision-making and representation are met. Furthermore, the community and formal educational institutions are essentials as the foundation of building community resilience.Practical implicationsThis study was limited to a case study in an Indonesian popular tourist destination. Hence, it could be extended by conducting comparative studies with other destinations in developing countries to explore their disaster management and the government involvement in each respective countries.Social implicationsThis study was limited to a case study in an Indonesian popular tourist destination. Hence, it could be extended by conducting comparative studies with other destinations in developing countries to explore their disaster management and government involvement in each respective country.Originality/valueIn this paper, the authors propose a novel approach to improve the current disaster management model. The proposed approach focuses on designing an institutional model for tourism destinations' disaster management, where the stakeholders are less-functional in working collaboratively. The study findings suggest that educational institutions and disaster communities must take the mediator role in bridging knowledge transfer among the government, the community and the tourism industry.

PurposePolicy is key for effective displacement governance in times of crises and in response and recovery. Therefore, this study assessed if Australian climate, disaster and emergency management policies provide effective mechanisms for governing displacement crises and areas where current approaches could be improved.Design/methodology/approachThis study assessed 18 national and state-level disaster, emergency and climate change management frameworks to determine if best practice displacement governance themes were reflected in policy documents. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase method.FindingsIssues of displacement are reflected in policies analysed in this study. However, current policy frameworks need to be equipped to comprehensively address the housing requirements of displaced people or provide long-term initiatives. Approaches are focused on crisis management rather than pre-emptively planning for displacement response and recovery. Therefore, Australia has not exercised national responsibility for displaced people appropriately.Research limitations/implicationsDisaster displacement is an under-researched area of Australian scholarship and disaster management policy and practice. Therefore, this paper has practical implications in so far as it draws attention to the issue of displacement in Australia. A limitation of this paper is that it only analysed policy frameworks specific to disasters. While broader engagement was outside the scope of this study, this limitation provides opportunities for further research from disciplinary perspectives of public housing and homelessness to examine displacement policy challenges in these fields. Furthermore, this study is limited to a theoretical inquiry into this topic through a desktop review of policy documents. While this is a necessary first step, empirical studies are required to determine accurate displacement rates, drivers and people’s experience of being displaced.Practical implicationsThis research aims to inform policy by presenting recommendations for policy interventions for disaster displacement governance. Therefore, this research has practical implications as policy and disaster risk reduction (DRR) professionals can draw from the findings of this research when planning and initiating disaster response for displaced persons.Social implicationsThis research draws attention to an area of disaster management practice and policy that has not been adequately accounted for. Highlighting gaps in current policy can assist in developing targeted strategies and solutions for internally displaced people, which protect their rights and meet their needs.Originality/valueDisplacement is a growing climate change issue. This research aims to help address this problem by drawing attention to areas where Australian disaster management approaches fail to account for displaced populations. Therefore, this research has practical implications for addressing future issues of disaster injustice that may arise if displacement continues, unacknowledged in disaster management.

GEOINFORMATION FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT 2020 (GI4DM2020): PREFACE

GEOINFORMATION FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT 2020 (Gi4DM2020): PREFACE