A New Guiding Framework for Engaging Diverse Populations in Disaster Risk Reduction: Reach, Relevance, Receptiveness, and Relationships

Jay Marlowe; Andreas Neef; Chelsea R. Tevaga; Cedric Tevaga

doi:10.1007/s13753-018-0193-6

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2018 > 6(4): 507-518

Jay Marlowe, Andreas Neef, Chelsea R. Tevaga, Cedric Tevaga. A New Guiding Framework for Engaging Diverse Populations in Disaster Risk Reduction: Reach, Relevance, Receptiveness, and Relationships[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2018, 6(4): 507-518. doi: 10.1007/s13753-018-0193-6

Citation:

Jay Marlowe, Andreas Neef, Chelsea R. Tevaga, Cedric Tevaga. A New Guiding Framework for Engaging Diverse Populations in Disaster Risk Reduction: Reach, Relevance, Receptiveness, and Relationships[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2018, 6(4): 507-518. doi: 10.1007/s13753-018-0193-6

Citation:

Jay Marlowe, Andreas Neef, Chelsea R. Tevaga, Cedric Tevaga. A New Guiding Framework for Engaging Diverse Populations in Disaster Risk Reduction: Reach, Relevance, Receptiveness, and Relationships[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2018, 6(4): 507-518. doi: 10.1007/s13753-018-0193-6

PDF

A New Guiding Framework for Engaging Diverse Populations in Disaster Risk Reduction: Reach, Relevance, Receptiveness, and Relationships

doi: 10.1007/s13753-018-0193-6

1 Counselling, Human Services and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand;
2 Development Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand;
3 The Southern Initiative, Auckland Council, Auckland 1010, New Zealand

Funds:

The research for this project received funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) under the National Science Challenge No. 11: “Responding to Nature’s Challenges.”

Available Online: 2021-04-26

Abstract

Abstract

In urban environments characterized by rich diversity across language, migration status, demographic profiles, and usage of different forms of media, there can be significant challenges to ensuring that particular disaster risk reduction (DRR) communications reach those potentially affected. This article presents a study with 20 Pacific Island community leaders and connectors about their communities’ perspectives and anticipated responses to natural hazards in Auckland, New Zealand. Home to the largest population of Pacific people in the world, Auckland provides the basis for understanding the complexities of delivering disaster information across numerous community groups. The rich cultural and linguistic backgrounds of multiple Pacific communities living in this city highlight the need to consider the complexities of disaster messaging related to natural hazards. In particular, the article forwards the importance of incorporating the guiding concepts of reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships into a DRR approach with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. These concepts are presented as an embedded guiding framework that can helpfully inform disaster communication.
- Auckland,
- Community resilience,
- Disaster communication,
- Disaster risk reduction,
- New Zealand,
- Pacific Island groups,
- Social capital

FullText(HTML)

References(32)

References

Aiono-Le Tagaloa, F. 2003. Tapua’i: Samoan worship. Apia, Samoa: Malua Printing Press.

Aldrich, D.P. 2012. Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Auckland Council. 2015. Pacific peoples in Auckland: Results from the 2013 Census. Economic and Social Research and Evaluation Unit. Auckland. http://temp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. Accessed 3 Mar 2018.

Auckland Council. 2017. Translating for a diverse Auckland: A guide to decide how and when to translate. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Barclay, J., K. Haynes, T. Mitchell, C. Solanda, R. Teeuw, A. Darnell, H.S. Crosweller, P. Cole, et al. 2008. Framing volcanic risk communication within disaster risk reduction: Finding ways for the social and physical sciences to work together. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 305: 163–177.

Blake, D., J. Marlowe, and D. Johnston. 2017. Get prepared: Discourse for the privileged? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25: 283–288.

Court, D., and R. Abbas. 2013. Whose interview is it, anyway? Methodological and ethical challenges of insider–outsider research, multiple languages, and dual-researcher cooperation. Qualitative Inquiry 19(6): 480–488.

Covello, V., R. Peters, J. Wojtecki, and R. Hyde. 2001. Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: Responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. Journal of Urban Health 78(2): 382–391.

Dunsford, D., J. Park, J. Littleton, W. Friesen, P. Herda, P. Neuwelt, J. Hand, P. Blackmore, et al. 2011. Better lives: The struggle for health of transnational Pacific peoples in New Zealand, 1950–2000. Research in Anthropology & Linguistics, Monograph No. 9. Auckland: The University of Auckland.

Eisenman, D., S. Cordasco, S. Asch, J. Golden, and D. Glik. 2007. Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Public Health 97(S1): 109–115.

Gonzalez-Muzzio, C., and V. Sandoval Henriquez. 2015. Resilient responses from communities and companies after the 2010 Maule earthquake in Chile. UNISDR: A 2015 Report on the Patterns of Disaster Risk Reduction Actions at Local Level. https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/assets/documents/privatepages/Resilient%20responses%20from%20communities%20and%20companies%20after%20in%20Chile.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2018.

Guadagno, L. 2016. Human mobility in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 7(1): 30–40.

Infanti J., J. Sixsmith, M. Barry, J. Núñez-Córdoba, C. Oroviogoicoechea-Ortega, and F. Guillén-Grima. 2013. A literature review on effective risk communication for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in Europe. Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

Kuhlicke, C., and A. Steinführer. 2012. Social capacity building for natural hazards: Toward more resilient societies. Braunschweig, Germany: European Commission. https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/196511_en.html. Accessed 1 July 2018.

Lee, H. 2009. Pacific migration and transnationalism: Historical perspectives. In Migration and transnationalism: Pacific perspectives, ed. H. Lee, and S.T. Francis, 7–41. Canberra: ANU E Press.

Lilomaiava-Doktor, S. 2009. Samoan transnationalism: Cultivating “home” and “reach”. In Migration and transnationalism: Pacific perspectives, ed. H. Lee, and S.T. Francis, 57–71. Canberra: ANU E Press.

Luna, F. 2009. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1): 121–139.

Macpherson, C., and L. Macpherson. 2009. Kinship and transnationalism. In Migration and transnationalism: Pacific perspectives, ed. H. Lee, and S.T. Francis, 73–90. Canberra: ANU E Press.

Marlowe, J. 2015. Belonging and disaster recovery: Refugee background communities and the Canterbury Earthquakes. British Journal of Social Work 45(S1): 188–204.

Marlowe, J., and R. Bogen. 2015. Young people from refugee backgrounds as a resource for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14(2): 125–131.

Masaki, H.T. 2015. Exploring climate change, gender and transnationalism: Perspectives of Pacific women in Auckland. M.A. thesis, Development Studies, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Mathbor, G. 2007. Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters. International Social Work 50(3): 357–369.

Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. 2018. “The 4Rs”. https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/cdem-framework/the-4rs/. Accessed 12 May 2018.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2018. U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: Overview. NOAA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/. Accessed 8 Nov 2018.

Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. London: Simon & Schuster.

Reynolds, M. 2016. Relating to Va: Re-viewing the concept of relationships in Pasifika education in Aotearoa New Zealand. AlterNative: An International Journal for Indigenous Peoples 12(2): 190–202.

Saldaña, J. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

Shepherd, J., and K. van Vuuren. 2014. The Brisbane Flood: CALD gatekeepers risk communication role. Disaster Prevention and Management 23(4): 469–483.

Stats NZ. 2018. 2013 Census. http://archive.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census.aspx. Accessed 28 June 2018.

Tierney, K. 2014. The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024–1054.

Wylie, S. 2012. Best practice guidelines: Engaging with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in times of disaster. Christchurch, NZ: Community Language Information Network Group (CLING).

Relative Articles

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Proportional views