The sections above have presented different approaches to community involvement in decision-making processes with governmental stakeholders. This section summarises the main findings of our empirical study on participatory governance and community engagement (consisting of two workshops and one online survey), before we move to giving concrete recommendations on how to actively and efficiently inform, mobilize and involve citizens in all phases of the disaster management cycle, based on the empirical study and on the state-of-the-art analysis above.
Understanding the focus communities
As has become clear during our research, before starting the engagement processes, it is essential to understand the communities to be approached. Demographic, cultural, geographical and infrastructural aspects may have great influence on how to design participatory approaches. In the following part, some topics are discussed that were identified as relevant by the consulted experts.
Definitions/conceptualization. What is meant by the term “community” can depend greatly on who you ask. During one of the workshops we conducted with European experts in CBDRM, it became clear that the respondent from France understood “community” as “citizens”, while the Greek respondent also included voluntary firefighters or parts of communities that are trained to respond to disasters as parts of “communities”. The respondent from Greece noted:
“The way we conceptualize things is rather important. Because […] the way we conceptualize communities when we talk about response in Greece, it’s not with the literal meaning. […] If you have a community of 10,000 people, we don’t really mean that 10,000 people will be involved in the response phase. Rather, you use representatives or volunteers from the community.”
Meanwhile, a respondent from France said that “in France, voluntary fire fighters or other voluntary first responders are considered to be part of the official response forces and are not considered to be part of the community.” This differences in perception of who belongs to a community and who does not may be due to the fact that the term “community” is often used in a self-explanatory manner without further reflecting on what actually characterizes a group of people as a community (see chapter on Key terms). That makes clear that a common language and uniform understanding of terms is necessary, which is why we provided some definitions of key terms above.
Differences between rural and urban areas regarding community engagement. Depending on the kind of community, certain issues might arise and different engagement tactics may be necessary. One particularly stark difference is that between rural and urban communities. As one respondent from Greece explained:
“[T]he problem with urban areas is that you have a lot of heterogeneity, you don’t have a homogeneous population and it’s very difficult to distinguish between different communities the same way you do in a rural area […] or in smaller communities like villages, mountainous or other areas that are less populated. And this is a huge challenge for first responders.”
This heterogeneity and the sheer size of the population in large cities can lead to challenges in community engagement. Including a good sample of the population in training exercises, for instance, is challenging for our respondent from the Hellenic police, so in most cases they try to make them as interdisciplinary as possible, involving as many stakeholders as possible. They further pointed out that the community representatives in these cases are often not really representative of the population, as “the community” in large cities is quite diverse. Another participant stressed the difficulties that emergency responders face when they have to work in a large, complex area and hinted to the impossibility of handling the whole city. This is why response teams must be connected to smaller parts of the city. In disaster situations it is also important to have detailed information about the area you are operating in, such as where elderly people live, which houses have elevators, and where the next hospital is.
In general, the workshop participants highlighted factors that make community engagement apparently easier in rural than in urban areas. One participant shared their belief that rural communities are generally more competent and knowledgeable when dealing with disasters: “Sometimes rural communities have a better response to disasters than urban communities, because they have something like an inherited knowledge on how to deal with disasters and how to recover from them.” Another respondent stated a similar belief, attributing a rural communities’ apparent advantage when dealing with disasters to their comparably harder lives: “In rural areas, people are usually having a hard life in comparison with the standard of living in cities. Even in situations of emergencies, for a lot of urban people to walk four kilometres seems to be asking too much, whereas for rural people, this is usually not a problem.”
As these descriptions show, certain problems may occur when trying to engage an urban community. The large population size and the heterogeneity of the community make it very difficult to engage a representative sample of the population. Because it is assumed by our respondents that urban communities often have a weaker relationship with authorities than those in the countryside, it seems especially important in cities to ensure a good collaboration between community and authorities and to strengthen trust in authorities, such as emergency response teams, police, and decision makers.3 A lack of social ties and local knowledge as well as difficulties to approach the ‘whole community’ may be tackled by working with small-scale communities like neighbourhoods, sports clubs or cultural centres.
Existing and possible risks, vulnerabilities and capacities. One respondent pointed out that the decision on whom to involve highly depends on the type of hazard. For instance, when working with areas at high risk for wildfires, “we involve the local communities, […] for example the local mayor, the local law enforcement, fire service, and also representatives from the communities”. Especially fires affecting tall buildings or wildfires can be a challenge for emergency responders in terms of deciding on prioritization. The respondent highlighted how local knowledge can be useful, particularly in the case of a wildfire, as local people have knowledge of the area and the weather which external experts may be lacking. It may thus be beneficial to create guidelines for community engagement that are specific to the hazards at hand.
Concerning capacities, one respondent pointed out the importance of knowing the community and its capabilities. This includes knowing who the retired firefighters and volunteer firefighters are, who the companies and factories belong to and who has responsibilities in these facilities, who has been in the army, whether companies have emergency plans, who the nurses and doctors are and who in the community already has experience with dealing with disasters. These are people who have emergency training and experience and can be especially useful in emergency situations. It is therefore recommended to collect information about the inherent capacities of a community, so that people who already have expertise in relevant areas can be optimally engaged and utilized in DRM processes.
Establishing relationships
After understanding the individual features of a community, the actual engagement process can be started. For this, relationships must be established by approaching local networks and facilitators. This process serves as a foundation for successful mobilization for participation and implementation of CBDRM initiatives.
Building/enhancing trust in public institutions. As our discussions with different experts in the field of participatory governance/community engagement in DM have clearly shown, the relationship between the community and the authorities is extremely important for ensuring the efficient operation of disaster management and the safety of the community. Yet, as the experts emphasized, people often lack trust in authorities and tend to prefer to rely on information circulating within their community, even though they may not have the required knowledge and expertise. One respondent assumed that this lack of trust in authorities may be partly due to the institutions not knowing how to engage with and communicate with the community, and partly because people have had bad experiences with institutions in the past. They stressed that taking measures to increase faith in institutions is crucial, as this would help increase the likelihood that people adhere to their plans and instructions.
A workshop participant recalled an incident in Greece where a lack of coordination between the affected community and the responsible authorities caused many preventable deaths. They also mentioned an example of what effective collaboration can look like, recalling an incident where the mayor sent civilian groups on patrol to identify areas of potential risk for loss of lives and property. This was implemented by installing a liaison officer as an intermediary between police and community (in this case the mayor). The civilian patrols would communicate to the mayor and the mayor was in direct contact with the liaison officer from the police, who were in charge of initiating evacuations. On the other hand, the respondent also stated that initiatives that are led by the community need collaboration with state agencies to be successful, as otherwise they can have “disastrous consequences”. This may especially refer to the response phase, as grassroot initiatives, e.g. in the recovery phase, are often successful even without interference of official bodies.
Doing physical meetings. Regarding their opinions and recommendations on meetings with the community, one respondent recommended live meetings. They warned, though, that it has to be expected that the people will also want to talk about other issues not necessarily related to the topic, as they do not often have the opportunity to bring their concerns about the community directly to the authorities or to people who they feel can implement changes. The participant recommended giving the participants the opportunity to do this for the first half of the meeting, after which the focus should be shifted to the actual topic at hand – disaster risk management. One should then explain to the participants the purpose and limitations of the meeting (e.g. “This is a consultation, we will probably not be able to follow exactly what you recommend, because there is previous work that has already established some possible measures to be taken, and certain regulations that establish certain responsibilities, but we are here to listen to you and hope to receive input from you about possible measures, hopefully giving us new ideas that we had not thought about before”). The respondent also warned to not expect a high rate of participation and said that 10% of the population of a quarter participating in such a meeting would already be a very good turnout. They also underlined that those who participate are usually very committed members of the community, but also warned to expect a high number of elderly citizens as they tend to have more free time. The results of the meeting and the resulting recommendations should afterwards be presented to the authorities (“...a committee, usually have 4 or 5 people plus the president”).
In the literature, a wide range of modes for physical meetings is presented that can be utilized depending on the phase in the engagement process, the hazards addressed and the degree of community participation aimed at. These range from community meetings with the goal to share information among their members all the way to community-led assemblies with decision-making power and the support of community-initiated grass-root movements. Different degrees of participation that may be implemented during physical meetings, as well as their benefits and disadvantages according to literature are described in the chapter on Modes of Community Engagement.
Cultural awareness in community engagement. One respondent emphasized the role of cultural awareness for establishing relationships. Cultural awareness may be important, especially when dealing with immigrant or refugee communities, “because you have communities with different religious or cultural backgrounds […].” Not being aware of cultural norms may lead to uncomfortable situations and certain behaviour might even be seen as rude or unacceptable, hindering efforts of community engagement in the area or the group. The respondent further recommended that the authorities should be trained accordingly, stating:
“They should know how to address and how to approach communities, especially if they want the communities to be engaged. Otherwise you can endorse a very cynical approach and say “I don’t want the communities to be engaged, I don’t care.” But if you want them to be engaged, you have to know them, you have to know specific sensitivities, their differences, their cultural or religious background, all of this are very important. Otherwise it would be very easy to help them feel more alienated and isolated and you know, distance themselves even more from the authorities.”
Another participant mentioned the issue of language barriers that arises when dealing with certain subgroups or immigrant communities: “Now with the huge influx of refugees, there is also a language barrier which can affect participation of certain communities. It is not intentional, it is just that they don’t understand. You have to be able to reach out to every single community, even people speaking different languages. So, you have to make sure you have enough people or personnel who can speak foreign languages so they can talk to people and engage them in the process, whether you need to engage them in the preparedness or in the response phase, but you have to have people who are able to talk the language of other people to understand them.” This reiterates a topic that the workshop participants brought up multiple times, namely that effective communication is key when attempting community engagement.
Several participants also stressed that it is important to be aware of regional differences in mentality and level of involvement. One respondent, for instance, described the mentality in Southern Europe as a belief of “It will never happen to me”, ... “and if it happens, I will manage”, referring to disasters. Another said about the situation in Greece that, while many are “reluctant about the situation of the official state to manage disasters”, the population is heavily dependent on them. They therefore suggested empowering the population through education, making them less dependent on the state.
Informing, mobilizing and involving communities in DRM
In general, the participants stressed the importance of community engagement as a valuable resource in DRM. One respondent highlighted that especially in the future it will not be enough to rely on experts, but that communities will have to be more strongly involved in DM, saying that “we will not be able to face the future [challenges] only with our different associations and professional rescuers.” Yet, in order to integrate communities, they must be properly trained and take part in regular exercises. The respondent believed that “it is one of the most important political investments to involve communities in disaster management […]” and further expressed their strong belief that changes have to happen on a political level, which requires a strong political will on a European level to more strongly engage communities.
Community engagement and participation are thereby not only believed to have advantages in terms of workforce, but also for the community itself. One participant highlighted the desire of citizens to be involved in decision-making and criticized that most of the current approaches that use participatory governance/citizen engagement usually end up in telling people what to do. The general focus from only informing people should thus be changed to actively engaging them, especially in the prevention phase, as the current strategy of only informing people of what they should do ignores the psychological aspect, which potentially leads to adverse outcomes while the authorities believe to be off the hook because they supposedly did their duty by instructing the citizens.
Another participant mentioned the importance of community involvement in raising awareness and knowledge within a community. They expressed their belief that very often, citizens do not understand why responders make certain decisions during an emergency, but these decisions may have a long-term impact on their lives. Thus, citizens should be involved in negotiations so that they understand which risks may arise and why certain decisions are made. The installation of more early alert systems could also help to enhance the response to and resolution of emergencies. Basically, citizens and first responders should talk more to better understand each other’s actions and decisions.
Yet another participant recommended working with small, local units, taking into consideration that when a disaster happens, people will have immediate contact with those living near them and will be able to group up with them. They also recommended utilizing structures that are already in place, such as locally organized groups (football teams, neighbourhood associations) or spaces for communication (e.g. a cultural centre). The respondent further pointed out that every community includes people who are already involved as volunteers and have therefore already shown their commitment, meaning “they will probably be the first ones to react, to try to organize, to be sensible if the public administration talks to them”. They also mentioned that people who already have experience with managing or leading an organization will be well equipped to also be community leaders in a disaster situation. The respondent pointed out that “if you say that you are a doctor, you are a fireman, probably they [people in the community] will follow you easily”, and their respect and prominence in the community will help to attract other people who can help. They recommended utilizing local festivities for playful disaster education or similar interventions, and to ask community members about opportunities like these and about how to best reach the community in terms of disaster education. However, they warned against the risk of what they call a “parachute attitude”, wherein a lack of planning on how to approach the community might lead to opportunists abusing the effort for their own benefit, such as political popularity or financial gains.
In accordance with the respondents, (Linnell, 2013) argues that established networks like families, workplaces, clubs, organisations and church congregations could and should be considered and engaged as relevant actors for emergency and disaster management. Emergency plans are also recommended to be developed in collaboration with such actors of affected communities by Beldyga (2022).
Depending on the phase of disaster risk management, community engagement can be more or less helpful, and different methods may be required to engage the public.
Community engagement in the preparedness phase. Several participants stressed the importance of collaborating with the community in the preparedness phase, but they also mentioned that it is hard to engage the community in the preparedness phase and raise awareness because usually the community has other priorities than disaster preparedness. People tend to be involved only in the newest events, like the war in Ukraine, and disasters only become relevant for most people when they actually occur and cause a disruption to everyday life. Preparedness is different for emergency services because they are working in the field, being constantly exposed to this topic, but they constitute a minority in society.
However, as one participant pointed out, “citizens are part of the solution (response) when they adapt to what they have learned in the preparedness phase, for instance not taking bad decisions and listening to the orders of the responsible authorities.” Another said, similarly: “When I speak of the community as citizens – they have to follow the orders that they receive. For that they must be able to understand what’s happening, and for that they must be part of the preparedness.” They agreed that including citizens in the preparedness phase by informing them about potential hazards is crucial to ensure their safety for when disasters strike. When talking about specific practices, one participant working for the police in Greece stated that although the police may not be the main institution responsible for preparedness in terms of civil protection:
Another participant talked about ensuring the safety of vulnerable groups, saying: “[…] especially for earthquakes, which is a major challenge for most Greek urban areas, we try to have as much organized preparation as possible by reaching out to vulnerable groups like elderly or homeless people for example.”
The focus of community engagement in the preparedness phase should lie on informing them of potential hazards and teaching them how to act when disasters occur, e.g. making good, safe decisions and listening to the orders of the responsible authorities. As community members might not be very motivated to participate in disaster preparedness programs, one way to ensure that at least some people within the community are prepared might be to offer programs in schools or other learning facilities such as universities, perhaps offering credits for successful completion.
Community engagement in the response phase. The workshop participants agreed that community engagement in the response phase is largely out of place, because it is impossible to fully engage the population in the field as they lack the necessary training. The focus for community engagement should thus lie in the preparedness and recovery phase. A participant from the Hellenic police in Greece stated that their position on the engagement of untrained citizens in the response phase is very clear: “Unless you are specifically trained or designated to do a specific task, you have to evacuate the area.” They further specified that it is crucial for emergency responders and the community to collaborate in the recovery phase but stated that community-led approaches, for instance, are not very successful in their experience. They recalled the 2007 wildfires in Southern Europe, where due to the large area affected by the fires and a lack of resources provided by the states, some local communities had to step up and lead the response. They stated that “... they had no other option, and the results were not really successful”. Other respondents shared their opinion that “in the response phase, it should be about informing the community, like informing them about how to best evacuate, how to best get away, keep updated with the situation. This is especially important, as another respondent explained, because “…the community is much more confused about what happened, and what is going to happen and it is the phase when the community is seeking for answers and they have much more questions because they are not aware.”
Community members with training from the preparedness phase may be able to assist in the response phase, but most of the work has to be done by responders who are specifically trained. One participant described the difficult and ambivalent position of the authorities in the response phase, who oversee the reaction to the disaster but should simultaneously inform the public on how to act.
Community engagement in the recovery phase. Regarding community engagement in the recovery phase it was mentioned that this may be quite unpleasant, because people may have to deal with trauma, with disaster and with the loss of lives. Nonetheless, several respondents stated that working with the community in this phase is crucial, and that the community should be consulted or collaborated with and that they should be more included than in the response phase. One person specified that decisions about recovery efforts, such as replanting trees, should be made by the authorities and the community together, for which participation is needed. They also highlighted that mechanisms of collaboration have to be established before a disaster happens and not afterwards. Another respondent pointed out that the awareness and capacity of the community is at its highest level during the recovery phase, “where the community actually has in mind what happened, what's going on and what’s the best to do.”
One participant claimed that in Greece, unfortunately, the focus tends to be on the preparedness and response phases instead of the recovery phase. They believed that due to the rise in numbers of disasters, community engagement in this phase is becoming more and more important and that community engagement should be a priority, in particular “the engagement and collaboration with communities by state services, by government stakeholders, even by the local administration”. It should be interdisciplinary, potentially with planning from the central government, civil protection, or the community itself. They also recalled grassroot-movements in the recovery phase which “did a really good job, even without any state assistance.” They further stated that consultations with the community are likely to lead to better outcomes for the community, as at the end of the day, it’s them that are the most affected by a disaster. One respondent thus believed that the community should be even more involved in this phase than the institutions, since the community members have a better understanding of what needs to be done to rebuild their community. One possible way to ensure their participation is (physical) meetings, as already outlined above.
The engagement of informal volunteers. One respondent from the Hellenic police referred to the importance and the value of local voluntary first responders like voluntary firefighters. He emphasized that the importance of engaging the community (again, voluntary fire fighters but also the local mayor) in DM was not recognized in Greece for a long time, but this has changed significantly over the last years:
“So now, if we’re talking about today, there are certain bodies of volunteers within the communities. Even in big cities like Athens, you have the fire service for example, you have a body of volunteers, firemen, firefighters who work on a local basis for the local fire service to respond wildfires especially in rural areas but also in Athens.”
They also recalled their experience with a wildfire: due to difficulties in understanding where to reply and respond first, the police engaged the community in the response phase, and volunteers and members of the local community would “…help the police and identify areas where people were trapped or stranded so the police would respond by sending forces there to evacuate people. So, it was a very important role in terms of saving people’s lives. At the end of the day, it was about making sure nobody would be left behind, nobody would be left trapped in a house, … because it was a very difficult situation.”
The respondent believed, on the other hand, that the engagement of spontaneous volunteers who are not specifically trained is very dangerous and not recommended. He also said that it depends a bit on the culture whether people will spontaneously engage in the response phase or let the authorities respond. In Greece, at least, this practice is highly discouraged, although there were a few instances in the past “where people didn’t really comply with this and they […] spontaneously ran into the fire to help, although nobody asked them to do that, and this can be dangerous both for them and for the trained fire fighters […], it can create huge hazards and dangers for everybody.”
While this respondent highlighted the importance of trained volunteers in the response phase, they also urged to not engage untrained volunteers in this phase, except perhaps for tasks that are safe, such as patrolling and helping to identify areas where people might be trapped. Another participant stressed that spontaneous volunteers need to be coordinated, which can be especially challenging in the recovery phase, because after a disaster, lots of people would like to help, but don’t know how. “Usually, people tend to give away whatever they have. Like they send lots of clothes, or lots of diapers, or other things that are actually not needed, so they create problems because the actual helpers have to deal with all the stuff they do not need but they have no time to do so.” Effective communication with the public about what kind of help is needed and why certain items may cause more work than help might improve this situation and make the organizing of these efforts more efficient. Social media could, for instance, be used to coordinate the donation. As one respondent highlighted: “From my perspective, communication is extremely important, and of course, a successful communication channel would also have a lot of potential in engaging with volunteers on how to raise awareness and then engage people in volunteering acts, providing aid, and so on.”
Concerning volunteering, the participants stated that focusing only on crisis education is not enough, but a focus should also lie in the volunteering aspect of education. One respondent further believes that in a world of climate change and the resulting rise in the number of disasters, the involvement of volunteers is becoming increasingly indispensable to increase the workforce in disaster management.
One participant encouraged that volunteering and awareness campaigns should be done especially for younger generations in order to motivate them to participate, and another one suggested that “municipalities must be partners and organize workshops with citizens so that citizens understand what different hazards there are and what can be occurring in the future.”
Nahkur et al. (2022) reveal that disaster management systems in some European countries are slowly beginning to open their structures towards participation of informal volunteers, although only Sweden and Norway, countries with an established culture of volunteering, have regulations in place that enable the insurance of spontaneous volunteers. Since complexities of disasters increase, the authors argue for more specific plans on informal volunteer’s engagement. Thus, proper ways for registering might be needed for them to fulfil more complex tasks, since one of the biggest risks and challenges identified was the incomplete overview of informal resources. Furthermore, the potential benefit of the help from digital volunteers, providing and sharing information on the internet, is big but may be limited by the risk of the provision of incorrect information (Nahkur et al., 2022, p. 11).
Tools and methods for community engagement. The workshop participants had several suggestions from their experiences with different tools and methods for community engagement, referring particularly to the use of social media, exercises and education and trainings at school.
Use of social media
One person referred to the important role of social media by stating that in their organization, they extensively use social media and that they also “have emergency hotlines where people can call and report any suspicious events that are related with man-made or natural disasters.”
In their opinion, social media can be used to mobilize people and raise risk awareness, sharing videos, and giving advice. Another participant suggested using social media to communicate what first responders are doing, and why they decide on a certain strategy, yet institutionalized social media profiles would be needed because there is a lot of fake news out there. When used sensibly and responsibly, distributing information via social media may also help to avoid panic behaviour from citizens during the response phase. Social media, as well as special games or apps could also be used at school to teach children potential hazards and threats, how to react to them, and how to behave if they occur.
Although social media can be a very useful resource in disaster management, some respondents also highlighted potential problems with them. One stated that “all these things require electricity, and usually in the case of a disaster, the first thing that fails is electricity.” This makes social media an unreliable tool for communicating directly during or after a disaster, i.e. in the response phase. The respondent also remarked that social media can easily be used for fake news, which is a big danger because someone with bad intentions can really disturb the whole disaster management cycle. Social media may be particularly unreliable in the direct aftermath of a disaster, especially regarding fake-news or unverified information. However, interest in the topic decreases after a disaster, and when too much time has passed since a disaster (“when one year, two years, three years have passed”), people are not susceptible to the topic anymore. Therefore, the ideal time to use social media according to the participant is one or two weeks after a disaster. They further highlighted the importance of physical social networks within a community, as not every person has social media, and it is difficult to reach everyone by only using digital devices.
Use of exercises
In addition to the use of social media, respondents also stressed that real life exercises should be organized at least every six months, “with the involvement of real people of the community so they know first-hand what they should do in the case of fire”. The respondent working for the Hellenic police for instance stressed that they try to do either real-life or table-top exercises as often as possible, while another one even suggested conducting exercises that are mandatory for all citizens, like in Japan.
Respondents also suggested nominating liaison officers to communicate with the first responders, stating: “Knowing what to do can save lives. Most of the time what I have seen in the aftermaths of natural disasters is that the lack of knowledge resulted in a higher death toll. [...] If people don’t know how to respond to a natural disaster, the risk of losing their lives is increasing dramatically. So, I think the keyword here is knowledge.”
On the topic of which parts of the community they involve in the exercises, the participant stated that this depends on the disaster at hand. For earthquakes for example, they – in that case the police – try to involve as many representatives as possible, such as people from the local administration, someone from the mayor’s office, decision makers, people from community organizations, from sports clubs, young people, etc. “We try to do like a sample and use people that are as representative as possible of the local communities. And again, this is easier in smaller communities, in smaller cities.“
Education and trainings at schools and in the business sector
A participant suggested focusing on schools for disaster education for children, “...teaching them what is a crisis, what are new risks and how you have to (address them).“ They believed that schools are the most important places for people to learn disaster preparedness, and outside of school, “we can organize once a year or once every two years a specific day for preparedness training for crises and how to be prepared for that.” Another participant highlighted the importance of educating children about disasters. They recalled the case of the 2004 earthquake in Indonesia, accompanied by a devastating tsunami with many fatalities. A 10-year-old girl from England alarmed the guests of a hotel to evacuate, as she recognized the warning signs of a tsunami which she learned in school. The participant therefore stated their belief including disasters within the education system would be very beneficial, while a third respondent thought that disaster education should also be extended to the private sector. Large companies could for instance be encouraged to raise awareness about disaster preparedness. The participants thus urged for action from the side of the government as well as businesses to offer more education and awareness campaigns on the topic.
Involvement of vulnerable groups. The workshop participants agreed that involving vulnerable groups in disaster management is important, mentioning existing initiatives as well as possible ways to involve them. One respondent worked on a project on disaster risk perception and vulnerability issues, with a special focus on accessibility and mobility issues, and how to include vulnerable groups, i.e. how to reach them through social media. The participant criticized that the scientific community usually does not consider vulnerable groups. They stated that different vulnerabilities exist – physical vulnerabilities, such as blindness, and social vulnerabilities, such as low income or digital illiteracy – which all require different approaches when trying to include people with these vulnerabilities. They also argued that children should be involved more in DRM, seeing them as a valuable resource. As one participant explained:
“[W]e can involve children in the prevention by training them or involve [them] in the aftermath when a fire [occurs] in the forest, organize events like planting trees or something like that. So, I believe that every person in spite of their age or their origin can participate within this stage of the process.”
This again underlines the general opinion expressed by many of the workshop participants that community engagement should mainly happen in the preparedness and the recovery phase, while in the response phase, the work should be left to the experts. Respondents also provided reasons why children are a very good group to target: One the one hand, because it is presumably easier to give children instructions as they tend to follow orders without questioning them, more so than adults. On the other hand, children supposedly are more informed about the right behaviour in a disaster situation than adults through education at school, for instance when an earthquake occurs. Children can also be more easily engaged in educational and creative activities concerning disaster education. Firstly, because they may not be as traumatized and “blocked” yet and may therefore be more open to learn about the topic, and secondly, they are better at using modern tools, e.g., for communication and navigation, than older generations. To increase children’s motivation to participate and learn, it should be ensured that they feel important and involved. However, the consulted experts warned that when engaging children, communication may be an issue, as not all children have social media, for instance.
Regarding the current state of involving other vulnerable groups in their region, one respondent said that “… especially for earthquakes, which is a major challenge for most Greek urban areas, we try to have as much organized preparation as possible by reaching out to vulnerable groups like elderly or homeless, people for example. Another participant from Greece mentioned that they (the police) try to reach out to refugees and other vulnerable groups by using social media and leaflets to reach and “inform them of how to best prepare themselves in case of a disaster.” They also try to involve vulnerable groups in exercises, but as "not all groups are homogenous, it can be difficult to have representatives.” Especially homeless people, as one of our respondents believes, are often not very connected amongst each other, making it hard to “just pick one and include them in the exercises.” Therefore they “try to give them advice, make them aware of the threat, the risk and make sure that they respond effectively if need arises”, either, as already mentioned, by using social media, or sometimes also by providing information door to door. By deploying community policing techniques, they try to identify the more vulnerable sections of the population.
The use of modern digital tools as an engagement tactic was a general trend among participants. One respondent talked about using social media to engage elderly people and explained that in a research project, they did “research about […] how to craft […] a social media post which could be accessible to people, for instance the elderly, […] which should be very short, very concise […].” The analysed literature also emphasizes that proper communication is an important aspect for the inclusion of vulnerable groups and could be implemented by warning messages in accessible language or inclusive disaster trainings (Adams et al., 2019; Hansson et al., 2020). While the problem of tokenism should be critically reflected and measures of actual participation through partnerships, delegated power and citizen control should be prioritized (Arnstein, 1969), the consultation of representatives may be warranted, particularly in larger areas where a great number of people have to be addressed (Kirshen et al., 2018).
