WEBVTT Kind: captions Language: en-US 00:00:00.960 --> 00:00:04.400 Thank you for having me today. I will be talking about translating 00:00:04.400 --> 00:00:07.440 hazard risk information for specific audiences, 00:00:07.440 --> 00:00:11.265 examples of existing efforts, and lessons learned. 00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:15.600 The takeaways from my talk today are that we, as a community of 00:00:15.600 --> 00:00:19.680 researchers and practitioners, need to assess how communities, 00:00:19.680 --> 00:00:22.880 specifically socially vulnerable or marginalized communities, 00:00:22.880 --> 00:00:27.840 are receiving existing hazard risk information and resources and that 00:00:27.840 --> 00:00:30.880 new risk communication efforts need to be developed in ways 00:00:30.880 --> 00:00:35.016 that involve communities and consider their needs. 00:00:35.040 --> 00:00:38.240 Today I’ll talk about how risk communication fits into this goal 00:00:38.240 --> 00:00:42.080 of reducing disaster disparities. I’ll then talk about the relationships 00:00:42.080 --> 00:00:44.880 between risk communication and action and some of the 00:00:44.880 --> 00:00:49.096 potential barriers that certain communities might face. 00:00:49.120 --> 00:00:52.960 And then, third and fourth, I’ll talk about two specific projects, 00:00:52.960 --> 00:00:56.000 one looking at developing risk communication guidance for 00:00:56.000 --> 00:00:59.680 practitioners and the second testing earthquake risk communication 00:00:59.680 --> 00:01:03.440 strategies in Portland, Oregon. Both of these projects use 00:01:03.440 --> 00:01:07.360 evidence-based practices to understand and evaluate 00:01:07.360 --> 00:01:10.720 what kinds of risk communication we should be doing, and then both 00:01:10.720 --> 00:01:14.776 are focused on working with socially vulnerable populations. 00:01:14.800 --> 00:01:17.851 I’ll finish with a call to action. 00:01:19.200 --> 00:01:24.320 As you know, disasters are a product of the hazards themselves, 00:01:24.320 --> 00:01:28.240 but they’re also a product of the social, political, economic, 00:01:28.240 --> 00:01:31.496 and environmental conditions in which they occur. 00:01:31.520 --> 00:01:35.200 And, because these different conditions are different for different people, 00:01:35.200 --> 00:01:39.736 we see inequitable impacts of disasters. 00:01:39.760 --> 00:01:44.240 In a study by Howell and Elliott in 2019, who investigated the long-term 00:01:44.240 --> 00:01:48.720 impacts of disasters on wealth inequality, they found that white, educated 00:01:48.720 --> 00:01:52.640 households who had experienced a disaster actually gained significant 00:01:52.640 --> 00:01:57.736 wealth compared to their peers who did not experience a disaster. 00:01:57.760 --> 00:02:01.920 This is in contrast to Black, less-educated households who lost 00:02:01.920 --> 00:02:04.720 tens of thousands of dollars compared to their peers 00:02:04.720 --> 00:02:07.816 who had not experienced a disaster. 00:02:07.840 --> 00:02:10.800 These results suggest that our response to disasters 00:02:10.800 --> 00:02:14.400 and how we are planning for and recovering from disasters 00:02:14.400 --> 00:02:19.126 is actually creating a lot of the inequity that we’ve seen. 00:02:19.760 --> 00:02:25.176 And so how do we approach reducing some of these inequities? 00:02:25.200 --> 00:02:30.080 So, to make these disaster impacts more equitable, we need to consider the 00:02:30.080 --> 00:02:34.880 actions across all of these different areas. And, when I say equitable, I mean that 00:02:34.880 --> 00:02:37.520 the disaster impacts would not be predicted by 00:02:37.520 --> 00:02:40.560 someone’s individual characteristics, such as gender, 00:02:40.560 --> 00:02:45.816 race, socioeconomic status, disability status, etc. 00:02:45.840 --> 00:02:51.920 And so some ideas for how we might approach reducing these impacts include 00:02:51.920 --> 00:02:56.320 identifying what are the inequities that we’re seeing, changing the policies 00:02:56.320 --> 00:03:01.280 and systems to be more equitable, mitigating and preparing specifically 00:03:01.280 --> 00:03:05.360 communities that are most at risk and most vulnerable, and implementing 00:03:05.360 --> 00:03:08.696 adaptation strategies in those communities. 00:03:08.720 --> 00:03:12.560 Re-thinking how we distribute disaster spending and aid and 00:03:12.560 --> 00:03:17.360 how we allot money for projects. Developing better networks to 00:03:17.360 --> 00:03:20.856 connect communities with resources and information. 00:03:20.880 --> 00:03:25.736 And also to communicate risk in ways that communities can take action. 00:03:25.760 --> 00:03:28.240 Today I’m going to focus on risk communication, 00:03:28.240 --> 00:03:32.080 as that is my area of expertise. 00:03:32.080 --> 00:03:35.520 Oftentimes, we make this assumption that, if we provide 00:03:35.520 --> 00:03:39.760 information about hazard and risk, people will be able to understand 00:03:39.760 --> 00:03:43.280 that information and then take action to reduce their risks. 00:03:43.280 --> 00:03:45.840 But, in reality, it is much more complicated. 00:03:45.840 --> 00:03:49.680 There’s many factors that control what kinds of actions people can take 00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:53.896 or even if they have access to the information in the first place. 00:03:53.920 --> 00:03:57.760 I’m going to use this model, which is the classic persuasion model developed by 00:03:57.760 --> 00:04:02.720 Lasswell in 1948 to help us understand some of the factors that influence 00:04:02.720 --> 00:04:08.000 whether people take action as a result of receiving information and 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:12.480 think about certain contexts for socially vulnerable populations 00:04:12.480 --> 00:04:16.136 that may also influence how they’re able to act on information. 00:04:16.160 --> 00:04:20.640 So here, if we start at the source, that is who is providing the information. 00:04:20.640 --> 00:04:23.200 Is it coming form a government agency? Is it coming from 00:04:23.200 --> 00:04:27.520 a friend or a colleague? And who that source is matters. 00:04:27.520 --> 00:04:31.280 So, if a certain community does not trust the government, for example, 00:04:31.280 --> 00:04:35.016 they’re much less likely to pay attention to that information. 00:04:35.040 --> 00:04:37.200 Then we have the channel, and that’s the means by which 00:04:37.200 --> 00:04:40.880 the information is delivered. So that could be through the radio, 00:04:40.880 --> 00:04:46.640 through TV, through a lecture, or in person. And, depending on how 00:04:46.640 --> 00:04:50.800 communities access different channels – for example, some communities may 00:04:50.800 --> 00:04:54.560 listen to one specific radio station and not many others. 00:04:54.560 --> 00:04:58.000 And so if you’re able to put your information on that station, that 00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:02.136 community will hear the message. But, if you don’t, they probably won’t. 00:05:02.160 --> 00:05:05.680 Then we have the message, which is the content of the information itself. 00:05:05.680 --> 00:05:08.560 So that could be the length of the message, the reading level of the 00:05:08.560 --> 00:05:14.000 message, whether it contains images or not, whether it’s in multiple languages 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:18.080 that different people can understand, whether it includes the risk but 00:05:18.080 --> 00:05:20.456 also what to do about the risk. 00:05:20.480 --> 00:05:24.776 All of those factors will control what people do with that information. 00:05:24.800 --> 00:05:28.080 Then we have the receiver, which is probably the most complicated 00:05:28.080 --> 00:05:33.360 piece of this and is the person who is receiving it and their characteristics. 00:05:33.360 --> 00:05:37.680 So that could be the language that they speak, the physical strength, mobility, 00:05:37.680 --> 00:05:43.680 vision, or hearing, their economic resources or social resources, and their 00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:48.240 experience with hazards in the past. And all of those variables are going to 00:05:48.240 --> 00:05:52.240 influence whether they receive a message. So, for example, 00:05:52.240 --> 00:05:58.160 if a person has low levels of hearing and the message is going out through 00:05:58.160 --> 00:06:04.456 an alarm, it’s unlikely that they’re going to be able to hear that message. 00:06:04.480 --> 00:06:07.600 Then finally, we have the effect. So what do people do 00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:12.456 with that information? And are they able to do anything? 00:06:12.480 --> 00:06:18.400 And, depending on all of these factors that precede it, people may be able to 00:06:18.400 --> 00:06:22.320 take a protective action, or they may need to seek out additional information. 00:06:22.320 --> 00:06:26.560 So, for example, in a low-income community, if the recommended action 00:06:26.560 --> 00:06:30.480 was to get earthquake insurance, it’s unlikely that that community 00:06:30.480 --> 00:06:33.040 would be able to do that. And so they’d have to seek out 00:06:33.040 --> 00:06:36.376 other ways of taking action. 00:06:36.400 --> 00:06:41.840 In my research, I think about this model and think about ways to develop 00:06:41.840 --> 00:06:45.840 different types of risk information strategies coming from a variety of 00:06:45.840 --> 00:06:50.320 sources using different styles of messaging and using best practices to 00:06:50.320 --> 00:06:55.680 create new resources that we can test. And then we assess those resources 00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:59.120 with different types of communities and measure the impact and also 00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:03.976 look at the factors that influence what kind of action was taken. 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:07.280 So now I’m going to talk specifically about two projects. 00:07:07.280 --> 00:07:10.320 The first is risk communication guidance for practitioners, 00:07:10.320 --> 00:07:13.656 which I believe Nnenia has already talked a little bit about. 00:07:13.680 --> 00:07:17.200 And then the second is testing earthquake information materials 00:07:17.200 --> 00:07:20.050 in Portland, Oregon. 00:07:21.040 --> 00:07:26.480 So, in this first project, it’s been a collaborative project with 00:07:26.480 --> 00:07:30.720 many people involved, so I want to acknowledge all of the people 00:07:30.720 --> 00:07:35.200 who have already been a part of this project and talk a little bit about 00:07:35.200 --> 00:07:41.256 this process for taking our best practices into actions. 00:07:41.280 --> 00:07:44.160 So, yeah, the goal of this project was to take evidence-based 00:07:44.160 --> 00:07:48.080 risk communication strategies that specifically look at 00:07:48.080 --> 00:07:51.520 socially vulnerable populations and think about how we take that 00:07:51.520 --> 00:07:58.160 information and those best practices and then guide that into practice. 00:07:58.160 --> 00:08:02.000 And I think this is a really good example of a – of a model 00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:07.280 for how we might do this. And so Nnenia and the team put 00:08:07.280 --> 00:08:11.680 together these resources that include an annotated bibliography that really 00:08:11.680 --> 00:08:18.480 synthesizes the risk information research and puts together a really nice resource 00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:23.176 that really just summarizes the information that we have on that topic. 00:08:23.200 --> 00:08:27.760 They then put together a guide that puts that research into the context of the 00:08:27.760 --> 00:08:33.600 disaster lifecycle and provides examples and also isolates it into these three 00:08:33.600 --> 00:08:36.720 simple messages, which are communicate through familiar and 00:08:36.720 --> 00:08:40.376 trusted messengers; provide clear, actionable information; 00:08:40.400 --> 00:08:45.736 and tailor messages and information pathways for target audiences. 00:08:45.760 --> 00:08:49.920 The third step of this process was then taking this information and 00:08:49.920 --> 00:08:54.880 creating a series of worksheets so practitioners or people who are working 00:08:54.880 --> 00:09:00.400 on a risk communication project could use these worksheets to think about how 00:09:00.400 --> 00:09:03.736 they are approaching the project and how they might be involving 00:09:03.760 --> 00:09:06.536 these communities in the work that they’re doing. 00:09:06.560 --> 00:09:10.240 And now, as a final part of the project, or a next part of the project, 00:09:10.240 --> 00:09:16.400 I should say, I’m developing a series of training sessions for flood plain 00:09:16.400 --> 00:09:20.720 practitioners to think about how we gather all these materials that have 00:09:20.720 --> 00:09:23.280 already been developed and then put them into practice. 00:09:23.280 --> 00:09:28.000 So we’re really taking these worksheets and the other guides that are available 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:32.160 to apply these principles in specific contexts. 00:09:32.160 --> 00:09:37.760 So this will be a succession course, and it’s an opportunity for practitioners 00:09:37.760 --> 00:09:41.920 to come together, work with their peers on these projects, ask questions, 00:09:41.920 --> 00:09:46.056 and really think through how we apply these principles. 00:09:46.080 --> 00:09:50.000 Another piece of this project will be doing a pre- and post-survey with the 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:55.920 participants to see how this class went and if it really did help them think about 00:09:55.920 --> 00:10:00.320 applying these principles and assessing that six months later to see if the 00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:04.880 projects that they are working on continued to incorporate these ideas 00:10:04.880 --> 00:10:10.056 in them. So I’m excited to carry out this course this spring, 00:10:10.080 --> 00:10:14.536 and hopefully we’ll have some data on how it went, probably this summer, 00:10:14.560 --> 00:10:18.240 to look at, so stay tuned. 00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:22.960 The next project is focused on Portland, Oregon, and it’s looking at assessing 00:10:22.960 --> 00:10:26.720 the influence of cultural variables, perceptions, and earthquake hazard 00:10:26.720 --> 00:10:30.136 information on household emergency preparedness. 00:10:30.160 --> 00:10:34.000 And I worked with Dr. Brittany Brand and Mike Lindell, 00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:37.176 and this is through my Boise State position. 00:10:37.200 --> 00:10:41.440 For this project, we brought together evidence-based risk communication 00:10:41.440 --> 00:10:46.560 strategies and the involvement of local partners and organizations to help 00:10:46.560 --> 00:10:52.080 develop, gather, and assess which existing resources and new resources 00:10:52.080 --> 00:10:56.000 we want to develop around hazards and risk education in the region 00:10:56.000 --> 00:10:59.840 and then test those resources with people in their community 00:10:59.840 --> 00:11:03.745 and measure the effectiveness of those resources. 00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:12.560 So we’ve developed two resources so far – or, gathered two resources 00:11:12.560 --> 00:11:16.960 associated with an existing booklet, which is the Prepare! Resource Guide 00:11:16.960 --> 00:11:20.800 developed by the Red Cross, and then we developed a best practice hazards 00:11:20.800 --> 00:11:26.056 website called hazardsready.org that allows people to type in their address 00:11:26.080 --> 00:11:29.280 and find out what their hazard risk is for where they live and what to do 00:11:29.280 --> 00:11:34.216 to prepare. And both of these resources are available in English and Spanish. 00:11:34.240 --> 00:11:39.200 And we’ve tested them using a pre- and post-survey design and are 00:11:39.200 --> 00:11:44.936 still analyzing some of that data and hoping to have that available soon. 00:11:44.960 --> 00:11:49.200 The third part of this is testing an interactive workshop specifically 00:11:49.200 --> 00:11:52.400 working with the Latino communities in the region who are considered 00:11:52.400 --> 00:11:55.920 a socially vulnerable and marginalized community. 00:11:55.920 --> 00:11:58.480 And I’m going to talk about the workshops today and 00:11:58.480 --> 00:12:02.240 some of the lessons learned. We are really early on in developing 00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:06.160 these workshops right now, so I don’t have any results to show you today, 00:12:06.160 --> 00:12:09.680 but mostly just talking about our experience involving partners and 00:12:09.680 --> 00:12:14.135 some of their recommendations so far that has guided our work. 00:12:14.720 --> 00:12:18.080 The goals of these workshops are to involve community members 00:12:18.080 --> 00:12:21.840 and participants to discuss the Cascadia earthquake and associated 00:12:21.840 --> 00:12:26.560 hazards to help people personalize their risk and to use goal-setting 00:12:26.560 --> 00:12:29.656 strategies to motivate action. 00:12:29.680 --> 00:12:32.800 And, as we’ve been developing these workshops, we want them to be 00:12:32.800 --> 00:12:38.160 really interactive and really fun for the community to participate in 00:12:38.160 --> 00:12:41.496 while they can also learn information. 00:12:41.520 --> 00:12:45.520 And so, as part of developing the workshops, we really wanted to involve 00:12:45.520 --> 00:12:50.216 and learn from community partners in terms of what the Latino population 00:12:50.240 --> 00:12:53.440 would resonate with as we were developing the workshop. 00:12:53.440 --> 00:12:56.960 And so I want to thank our partners who we’ve had a number of meetings 00:12:56.960 --> 00:13:01.680 with so far – Luis, Pilar, Marvin, and Cynthia 00:13:01.680 --> 00:13:05.656 for their contributions and ideas and time. 00:13:05.680 --> 00:13:08.560 And I’m just going to share a couple of the takeaways 00:13:08.560 --> 00:13:11.366 that we’ve had from our work with them. 00:13:12.160 --> 00:13:16.320 The first thing that they recommended after reviewing our set of PowerPoint 00:13:16.320 --> 00:13:20.480 slides and information was that it was best to not have an expert providing 00:13:20.480 --> 00:13:23.840 this material but rather a facilitator. They mentioned that, for their 00:13:23.840 --> 00:13:28.160 community, having that power differential of someone who has a Ph.D. 00:13:28.160 --> 00:13:33.120 in the room providing this information just is unlikely to resonate with them. 00:13:33.120 --> 00:13:38.296 And people are less likely to engage, ask questions, or feel comfortable 00:13:38.320 --> 00:13:42.320 just participating in the workshop. So, because of this, we’ve really pivoted 00:13:42.320 --> 00:13:46.720 from being the ones who were going to deliver the information to contracting 00:13:46.720 --> 00:13:50.720 with community-based organizations and partners who will be the ones 00:13:50.720 --> 00:13:53.600 facilitating the workshop. So we’ve pivoted to more of 00:13:53.600 --> 00:13:57.656 a train-the-trainer style of delivery. 00:13:57.680 --> 00:14:01.520 We’ll still be providing the surveys before and after and then – 00:14:01.520 --> 00:14:04.160 but we’ll be having someone else deliver the content. 00:14:04.160 --> 00:14:09.096 So that was just a really valuable recommendation from them. 00:14:09.120 --> 00:14:13.360 The second is to make recruitment strategies that really consider their 00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:16.640 community needs, so providing incentives, whether that’s childcare 00:14:16.640 --> 00:14:21.040 or food, if it was going to be in person, and for their community, really making 00:14:21.040 --> 00:14:26.640 it a community event, making it fun, really marketing it as a thing that 00:14:26.640 --> 00:14:29.840 people can come together for, is going to be important 00:14:29.840 --> 00:14:32.376 for the Latino community there. 00:14:32.400 --> 00:14:37.576 So we’ve been thinking about which ways we can market it in that way. 00:14:37.600 --> 00:14:40.400 And then the third point they had was really to keep it short. 00:14:40.400 --> 00:14:44.080 We had originally been planning on having it be about 90 minutes, and they 00:14:44.080 --> 00:14:47.440 said, you know, they’ve done that before, and it just didn’t really land. 00:14:47.440 --> 00:14:50.960 And so consolidating the information and really making it 00:14:50.960 --> 00:14:54.080 short and sweet is probably the best bet with their community. 00:14:54.080 --> 00:14:57.760 So, as a result, we are revising the content that we put together to 00:14:57.760 --> 00:15:02.240 make a little bit more digestible and shorter for their community. 00:15:02.240 --> 00:15:04.960 So I just want to encourage everyone that making connections 00:15:04.960 --> 00:15:08.320 with community partners, it takes time, but it is so worth it. 00:15:08.320 --> 00:15:11.520 And hopefully, as a result, these workshops will have more of 00:15:11.520 --> 00:15:16.534 an impact in the community in terms of reducing disaster risk. 00:15:17.440 --> 00:15:21.200 So my takeaways, again, are that, if we want risk communication to 00:15:21.200 --> 00:15:25.600 translate into action for communities that are socially vulnerable to reduce 00:15:25.600 --> 00:15:29.440 disaster risks, we really need to think about how we’re assessing the 00:15:29.440 --> 00:15:33.120 information that we’re currently providing, whether it’s effective, 00:15:33.120 --> 00:15:37.280 and involve communities in our efforts as we are developing 00:15:37.280 --> 00:15:40.000 new risk communication strategies. 00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:45.120 My final question I want to leave you with is, considering your roles, skills, 00:15:45.120 --> 00:15:49.120 and expertise, how can you best engage and support communities 00:15:49.120 --> 00:15:52.480 to reduce disaster risks and make impacts more equitable? 00:15:52.480 --> 00:15:54.800 Whether it’s through risk communication or any of those 00:15:54.800 --> 00:15:59.920 other areas I mentioned, I think we each have a role and a way to do this. 00:15:59.920 --> 00:16:04.480 So thank you so much for your time. I so appreciate it.