Thursday 24th November 2016 - Conference
Track 4: Risk in Communities (Chair: Martina Hoffmann)
Horse owners in hendra hot spots - attitudes, perceptions and practices in response to hendra viru
Keywords: Hendra virus, horse owner, risk perception, risk mitigation
Author: Dr Jenny-Ann Toribio
Afilliation: University of Sydney
Email address: jenny-ann.toribio@sydney.edu.au
Lay summary:
A qualitative study to improve understanding of the attitudes and perceptions about Hendra virus among horse owners in two locations known as hot spots for Hendra – a deadly virus that can spillover from flying foxes to horses, and horses to people. We sought in particular to understand how these attitudes and perceptions related to horse owner decisions on implementation of action/s to prevent Hendra infection.
Abstract:
Hendra virus (HeV) is a zoonotic disease caused by spillover from flying foxes to horses and from horses to people. We investigated the experiences, attitudes and risk perceptions of horse owners in HeV hot spots, to gain a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes informing decision making around HeV risk mitigation strategies.
Two HeV spill-over hot spot locations, based on frequency and recent occurrence of HeV cases by postcode area, were selected - one in northern NSW and one in central QLD. At each location 12 horse owners were purposively chosen to construct a group of participants with maximum demographic variation (age, gender, horse industry sector involvement, and uptake of HeV vaccination) and invited to participate in the study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted covering three major areas (1) experience with and awareness of HeV, (2) risk perception of HeV and resulting response behaviour, and (3) utilised communication pathways regarding HeV. Interview audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service and de-identified. Theoretical thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo to identify and report common patterns and themes within the data.
Participants were highly engaged and had extensive experience in respective sectors of the horse industry – recreation (18.5%), club/association (18.5%), competition (11.4%), commercial enterprise (22.2%), breeding, horse racing, work/farm horses and stabling/agistment (7.4% respectively).
Interviews identified four major elements associated with the decision-making process of horse owners around HeV risk mitigation strategies: HeV risk perception, modifying factors, HeV risk mitigation applied, and perceived barriers and benefits to mitigation measures.
All participants considered HeV a disease with serious consequences but individual risk perception varied. The main factors influencing perception were location, industry sector, knowledge of HeV, trust in information obtained, information pathways and personal experience with HeV case/s.
All horse owners interviewed were familiar with recommended risk mitigation strategies and reported to use one or more measures. The majority of owners (55.6%) had vaccinated all their horses for HeV, 14.8% some horses and 29.6% no horses at all. Participants ascribed different barriers and benefits to HeV risk mitigation strategies and perception varied considerably. In particular attitudes towards the HeV vaccine were polarized. Overall, horse owners who perceived the HeV risk as high placed more emphasis on the need for and benefits of risk mitigation measures. On the other hand, implementation of mitigation measures also impacted on risk perception with some owners of vaccinated horses stating that they reduced adherence to or discontinued other measures subsequent to vaccination.
This study highlights that even in known HeV hot spots heterogeneous risk perception and mitigation strategy implementation exist among horse owners. Given that HeV vaccination of horses is being promoted as the most effective prevention measure by human and animal health agencies, knowledge from this study about perceived benefits and barriers attached to HeV risk mitigation measures will help to inform future approaches to risk communication.
A qualitative study to improve understanding of the attitudes and perceptions about Hendra virus among horse owners in two locations known as hot spots for Hendra – a deadly virus that can spillover from flying foxes to horses, and horses to people. We sought in particular to understand how these attitudes and perceptions related to horse owner decisions on implementation of action/s to prevent Hendra infection.
Abstract:
Hendra virus (HeV) is a zoonotic disease caused by spillover from flying foxes to horses and from horses to people. We investigated the experiences, attitudes and risk perceptions of horse owners in HeV hot spots, to gain a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes informing decision making around HeV risk mitigation strategies.
Two HeV spill-over hot spot locations, based on frequency and recent occurrence of HeV cases by postcode area, were selected - one in northern NSW and one in central QLD. At each location 12 horse owners were purposively chosen to construct a group of participants with maximum demographic variation (age, gender, horse industry sector involvement, and uptake of HeV vaccination) and invited to participate in the study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted covering three major areas (1) experience with and awareness of HeV, (2) risk perception of HeV and resulting response behaviour, and (3) utilised communication pathways regarding HeV. Interview audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service and de-identified. Theoretical thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo to identify and report common patterns and themes within the data.
Participants were highly engaged and had extensive experience in respective sectors of the horse industry – recreation (18.5%), club/association (18.5%), competition (11.4%), commercial enterprise (22.2%), breeding, horse racing, work/farm horses and stabling/agistment (7.4% respectively).
Interviews identified four major elements associated with the decision-making process of horse owners around HeV risk mitigation strategies: HeV risk perception, modifying factors, HeV risk mitigation applied, and perceived barriers and benefits to mitigation measures.
All participants considered HeV a disease with serious consequences but individual risk perception varied. The main factors influencing perception were location, industry sector, knowledge of HeV, trust in information obtained, information pathways and personal experience with HeV case/s.
All horse owners interviewed were familiar with recommended risk mitigation strategies and reported to use one or more measures. The majority of owners (55.6%) had vaccinated all their horses for HeV, 14.8% some horses and 29.6% no horses at all. Participants ascribed different barriers and benefits to HeV risk mitigation strategies and perception varied considerably. In particular attitudes towards the HeV vaccine were polarized. Overall, horse owners who perceived the HeV risk as high placed more emphasis on the need for and benefits of risk mitigation measures. On the other hand, implementation of mitigation measures also impacted on risk perception with some owners of vaccinated horses stating that they reduced adherence to or discontinued other measures subsequent to vaccination.
This study highlights that even in known HeV hot spots heterogeneous risk perception and mitigation strategy implementation exist among horse owners. Given that HeV vaccination of horses is being promoted as the most effective prevention measure by human and animal health agencies, knowledge from this study about perceived benefits and barriers attached to HeV risk mitigation measures will help to inform future approaches to risk communication.
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk
Keywords: Disasters, hazards, international
Author: Dr Tom Beer
Affiliation: Safe System Solutions Pty Ltd
Email address: Tom.beer@safesystemsolutions.com.au
Lay summary:
There is an international research programme known as Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. Is it integrated? Is it international? Is it successful? Come to the conference to find out.
Abstract:
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk, generally known as IRDR, is a decade-long research programme co-sponsored by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). It is a global, multi-disciplinary approach to dealing with the challenges brought by natural disasters, mitigating their impacts, and improving related policy-making mechanisms. The home page is at: http://www.irdrinternational.org/
The programme was initiated because every one of the three regional offices of ICSU (Africa, Asia/Pacific and Latin America/Caribbean) had identified Natural Hazards as a key scientific priority. ICSU then followed its normal procedure – namely: the ICSU Executive Board appointed a Scoping Group to consider the establishment of a research programme on natural and human-induced environmental hazards. The Scoping Group reported to the ICSU 28th General Assembly that research was needed on how to translate research findings about natural hazards and human behaviour into policies that are effective in minimising the human and economic costs of hazards. The Group’s recommendation, endorsed by the ICSU General Assembly, called for the development of an integrated research programme on disaster risk reduction, sustained for a decade or more. The value-added nature of such a programme would rest with the close coupling of all disciplines for all hazards around the world. A Planning Group was therefore set up.
The Planning Group suggested that the research programme be named Integrated Research on Disaster Risk—addressing the challenge of natural and human-induced environmental hazards. The Group’s conclusions and recommendations were fully endorsed by ICSU and IRDR was duly established. In November 2008 and May 2009 respectively, both the ISSC and the UNISDR agreed to join the ICSU in co-sponsoring the IRDR programme. Although the approaches in the sciences vary, the IRDR programme approaches the issues of natural and human-induced hazards and disasters from several perspectives: from the hazards to the disasters, and from the human exposures and vulnerabilities back to the hazards. This coordinated and multi-dimensional approach takes the IRDR programme beyond approaches that have traditionally been undertaken
To meet its research objectives the IRDR established four core projects, comprising working groups of experts from diverse disciplines, to formulate new methods in addressing the shortcomings of current disaster risk research.
Assessment of Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (AIRDR)
Disaster Loss Data (DATA)
Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN)
Risk Interpretation and Action (RIA)
Dr Tom Beer was a member of both the scoping and planning groups and was recently appointed to the committee to undertake a mid-term review of IRDR with the terms of reference being to examine and to report by November 2016.
His talk will give an overview of the history and science of IRDR and some of the outcomes of the mid-term review.
There is an international research programme known as Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. Is it integrated? Is it international? Is it successful? Come to the conference to find out.
Abstract:
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk, generally known as IRDR, is a decade-long research programme co-sponsored by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). It is a global, multi-disciplinary approach to dealing with the challenges brought by natural disasters, mitigating their impacts, and improving related policy-making mechanisms. The home page is at: http://www.irdrinternational.org/
The programme was initiated because every one of the three regional offices of ICSU (Africa, Asia/Pacific and Latin America/Caribbean) had identified Natural Hazards as a key scientific priority. ICSU then followed its normal procedure – namely: the ICSU Executive Board appointed a Scoping Group to consider the establishment of a research programme on natural and human-induced environmental hazards. The Scoping Group reported to the ICSU 28th General Assembly that research was needed on how to translate research findings about natural hazards and human behaviour into policies that are effective in minimising the human and economic costs of hazards. The Group’s recommendation, endorsed by the ICSU General Assembly, called for the development of an integrated research programme on disaster risk reduction, sustained for a decade or more. The value-added nature of such a programme would rest with the close coupling of all disciplines for all hazards around the world. A Planning Group was therefore set up.
The Planning Group suggested that the research programme be named Integrated Research on Disaster Risk—addressing the challenge of natural and human-induced environmental hazards. The Group’s conclusions and recommendations were fully endorsed by ICSU and IRDR was duly established. In November 2008 and May 2009 respectively, both the ISSC and the UNISDR agreed to join the ICSU in co-sponsoring the IRDR programme. Although the approaches in the sciences vary, the IRDR programme approaches the issues of natural and human-induced hazards and disasters from several perspectives: from the hazards to the disasters, and from the human exposures and vulnerabilities back to the hazards. This coordinated and multi-dimensional approach takes the IRDR programme beyond approaches that have traditionally been undertaken
To meet its research objectives the IRDR established four core projects, comprising working groups of experts from diverse disciplines, to formulate new methods in addressing the shortcomings of current disaster risk research.
Assessment of Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (AIRDR)
Disaster Loss Data (DATA)
Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN)
Risk Interpretation and Action (RIA)
Dr Tom Beer was a member of both the scoping and planning groups and was recently appointed to the committee to undertake a mid-term review of IRDR with the terms of reference being to examine and to report by November 2016.
- Strategic planning and implementation
- Governance
- Secretariat, funding and operations
- Stakeholders and partnerships
- Communication, visibility and influence
- Future development
His talk will give an overview of the history and science of IRDR and some of the outcomes of the mid-term review.
The risks of taking animals when evacuating from natural disasters
Keywords: Animals, natural hazards, attachment, dangerous, third parties
Author: Dr Lisel O’Dwyer
Affiliation: Central Queensland University
Email address: l.odwyer@cqu.edu.au
Lay summary:
Most people are attached to their pets and plan to take their animals with them if they need to evacuate for a natural disaster such as flood or bushfire. But what are the risks of taking pets and what is the risk of evacuation to the animals and third parties? Should these risks factor into decisions to evacuate?
Abstract:
To identify the risks to animals, pet owners and other parties who may be affected by the pet owners’ decision to evacuate their animals. The risks include: injury caused by the animal to the pet owner (eg when the animal is distressed, fearful or hurt); injury caused by the pet owner to the animal when attempting to evacuate them; the time taken to locate, secure and transport the animal (i.e. slowing the evacuation process down); injury caused to non-pet owners such as volunteers or emergency services personnel who attempt to secure and evacuate an individual or species they are not familiar with; relative risks associated with different species; the risks posed to other parties, pet owners and animals themselves once arrived at refuges; risks to animals and others in transit during evacuation (eg animals escaping from travel cages while inside cars causing distraction to drivers or escaping from moving car causing danger to themselves, other animals and other drivers).
Analysis of survey data of the Sampson Flat and Pinery Fires and other sources including reports from other evacuations and the wider literature.
How often such incidents occur, examples of past incidents. Although pet owners may be well prepared in terms of deciding when to evacuate, what to take with them and where to go, they do not always consider the journey itself, who else may be unintentionally affected and how their pets will cope in unfamiliar and stressful environments either while in transit or while waiting to return home.
Ways to mitigate risk and how to frame the risks in terms of adequate preparation and precautions, rather than not evacuating pets at all; how refuges can address safety for people and their pets; when risk to human safety should override attempts to evacuate or rescue uncooperative animals.
Most people are attached to their pets and plan to take their animals with them if they need to evacuate for a natural disaster such as flood or bushfire. But what are the risks of taking pets and what is the risk of evacuation to the animals and third parties? Should these risks factor into decisions to evacuate?
Abstract:
To identify the risks to animals, pet owners and other parties who may be affected by the pet owners’ decision to evacuate their animals. The risks include: injury caused by the animal to the pet owner (eg when the animal is distressed, fearful or hurt); injury caused by the pet owner to the animal when attempting to evacuate them; the time taken to locate, secure and transport the animal (i.e. slowing the evacuation process down); injury caused to non-pet owners such as volunteers or emergency services personnel who attempt to secure and evacuate an individual or species they are not familiar with; relative risks associated with different species; the risks posed to other parties, pet owners and animals themselves once arrived at refuges; risks to animals and others in transit during evacuation (eg animals escaping from travel cages while inside cars causing distraction to drivers or escaping from moving car causing danger to themselves, other animals and other drivers).
Analysis of survey data of the Sampson Flat and Pinery Fires and other sources including reports from other evacuations and the wider literature.
How often such incidents occur, examples of past incidents. Although pet owners may be well prepared in terms of deciding when to evacuate, what to take with them and where to go, they do not always consider the journey itself, who else may be unintentionally affected and how their pets will cope in unfamiliar and stressful environments either while in transit or while waiting to return home.
Ways to mitigate risk and how to frame the risks in terms of adequate preparation and precautions, rather than not evacuating pets at all; how refuges can address safety for people and their pets; when risk to human safety should override attempts to evacuate or rescue uncooperative animals.
Accountability? Trust? Credibility? What do you do when communities don’t believe your risk assessment and fight you over decisions made based on your data?
Keywords: Social values, risk perceptions, community conflict, accountability, outrage management
Author: Barbara Campany
Affiliation: GHD
Email address: Barbara.campany@ghd.com
Lay summary:
If governments or industries seek to strengthen community tolerance and support for decisions they make, they must manage community and stakeholder expectations and fears prior to and during the period where rationale for decisions is being developed. To do this, a much more courageous process to communicating and engaging about project risks is needed. It involves those impacted communities in conversations that harness their values and interests so they can be addressed very early, demonstrating a willingness to ensure these values and interests are protected and the perceptions of risk diminsh. This will then limit community outrage and a level of project or policy credibility may begin to emerge.
Abstract:
This presentation aims to stimulate discussion with regard to stakeholder risk perceptions and how values and beliefs shape behaviours. The presentation addresses the differences between accountability and trust, and puts forward a risk-based engagement approach that can assist restoring corporate and government credibility in decision making processes.
The discussion will centre on risk communication and outrage management methods used to engage communities who have been impacted by significant land use changes. Methodology is grounded in the philosophy and approach to risk communication and outrage management as developed by Dr Peter Sandman and as applied to a number of projects by the author.
This presentation will cite case studies where there is qualitative and anecdotal evidence that through the application of Dr Peter Sandman’s risk communication and outrage management strategies, an ‘involve and decide’ approach, will nurture more tolerant and less outraged communities than if a more traditional ‘decide and defend’ approach is undertaken.
Significant and lasting land use changes can trigger community fears. These changes might typically be an industrial development or expansion, linear infrastructure (like pipelines), or the result of a major remediation program or change to policy. Often when decisions are imposed by governments or industries, they cause significant outrage, and approval processes become protracted, costs expand exponentially, and optimum outcomes are seldom achieved. Remediating old and heavily polluted sites, for example, where past poor environmental practices have left a lasting legacy, the responsibility sits squarely at the feet of the polluter. To protect shareholder value, cost is usually the determining driver for technology choice. But who protects social holder values? This discussion will demonstrate the vital need to consider the social and environmental impacts of that technology in context with economic constraints. Risk perceptions of health and environmental impacts posed by remediation often sit at the heart of community fear and need to be adequately addressed very early in the planning process in genuine efforts to allay those fears. If you don’t engage early, you risk escalating the community outrage. According to Dr Peter Sandman, “outrage is the engine of hazard perception. Outrage is the cause, hazard perception is the effect.”
If governments or industries seek to strengthen community tolerance and support for decisions they make, they must manage community and stakeholder expectations and fears prior to and during the period where rationale for decisions is being developed. To do this, a much more courageous process to communicating and engaging about project risks is needed. It involves those impacted communities in conversations that harness their values and interests so they can be addressed very early, demonstrating a willingness to ensure these values and interests are protected so that perceptions of risk can diminish, because the outrage has diminished. This will then limit community outrage and a level of project or policy credibility may begin to emerge.
If governments or industries seek to strengthen community tolerance and support for decisions they make, they must manage community and stakeholder expectations and fears prior to and during the period where rationale for decisions is being developed. To do this, a much more courageous process to communicating and engaging about project risks is needed. It involves those impacted communities in conversations that harness their values and interests so they can be addressed very early, demonstrating a willingness to ensure these values and interests are protected and the perceptions of risk diminsh. This will then limit community outrage and a level of project or policy credibility may begin to emerge.
Abstract:
This presentation aims to stimulate discussion with regard to stakeholder risk perceptions and how values and beliefs shape behaviours. The presentation addresses the differences between accountability and trust, and puts forward a risk-based engagement approach that can assist restoring corporate and government credibility in decision making processes.
The discussion will centre on risk communication and outrage management methods used to engage communities who have been impacted by significant land use changes. Methodology is grounded in the philosophy and approach to risk communication and outrage management as developed by Dr Peter Sandman and as applied to a number of projects by the author.
This presentation will cite case studies where there is qualitative and anecdotal evidence that through the application of Dr Peter Sandman’s risk communication and outrage management strategies, an ‘involve and decide’ approach, will nurture more tolerant and less outraged communities than if a more traditional ‘decide and defend’ approach is undertaken.
Significant and lasting land use changes can trigger community fears. These changes might typically be an industrial development or expansion, linear infrastructure (like pipelines), or the result of a major remediation program or change to policy. Often when decisions are imposed by governments or industries, they cause significant outrage, and approval processes become protracted, costs expand exponentially, and optimum outcomes are seldom achieved. Remediating old and heavily polluted sites, for example, where past poor environmental practices have left a lasting legacy, the responsibility sits squarely at the feet of the polluter. To protect shareholder value, cost is usually the determining driver for technology choice. But who protects social holder values? This discussion will demonstrate the vital need to consider the social and environmental impacts of that technology in context with economic constraints. Risk perceptions of health and environmental impacts posed by remediation often sit at the heart of community fear and need to be adequately addressed very early in the planning process in genuine efforts to allay those fears. If you don’t engage early, you risk escalating the community outrage. According to Dr Peter Sandman, “outrage is the engine of hazard perception. Outrage is the cause, hazard perception is the effect.”
If governments or industries seek to strengthen community tolerance and support for decisions they make, they must manage community and stakeholder expectations and fears prior to and during the period where rationale for decisions is being developed. To do this, a much more courageous process to communicating and engaging about project risks is needed. It involves those impacted communities in conversations that harness their values and interests so they can be addressed very early, demonstrating a willingness to ensure these values and interests are protected so that perceptions of risk can diminish, because the outrage has diminished. This will then limit community outrage and a level of project or policy credibility may begin to emerge.
|
|
|