Marita VOS1, Jenni HYVÄRINEN1, Marc STAL2 1University of Jyväskylä, Finland; 2Global Risk Forum GRF Davos, Switzerland

1. Public Empowerment Policies
for Crisis Management
University of Jyväskylä, Finland (coordinator)
Mid Sweden University, Sweden
Emergency Services College, Finland
Global Risk Forum Davos, Switzerland
Inconnect, the Netherlands

2. Workshop programme
• Project info – prof. Marita Vos, Marc Stal
& short opening question
• Presentation Literature review – Jenni Hyvärinen
• Plan for a toolbox – Anne-Marie van het Erve
• Technology options – Matti Haataja, Helen
Sullivan/ Markku Häkkinen
• Discussion
www.projectPEP.eu 2

3. Project objectives
Marita Vos
• Investigating key enablers for public
empowerment in crises:
– best practices in how authorities enhance individual,
family and community response
– community approaches connecting with local needs
– technological services enhancing resilience
• Road map charting promising areas for future
R&D and implementation
– Support and Coordination Action
www.projectPEP.eu 3

4. Methods
• Literature study on community resilience & citizen response
(2012)
• International online expert questionnaire on best practices
in involving citizens in coproducing safety (2012)
• Extensive interviews with municipalities and groups in
Sweden, after secondary analysis of quantitative data
(2012-2013)
• Focus groups with citizens on use and preferences in social
media and mobile services (2012-2013)
• International Expert Panel (2013-2014)
• Online dialogue platform (2014)
www.projectPEP.eu 4

5. WP1 WP2 WP3
Best practices, Community Supporting
online questionnaire approach, technology and
interviews, guide acceptance
High lightening Overview of key
promising areas enablers
WP4 WP5
Road Map, Online toolbox, with
international advice reports,
symposium theme-issue journal
WP 6
Project management
www.projectPEP.eu 5

6. Mission / societal goal:
Prevention and reduction of harm
or damage
Communication goals:
Cooperation of citizens and
Empowerment Societal understanding organizations for response activities
of citizens and organizations of risks: • supportive action (e.g. evacuate)
• prevention • providing information • assistance for relatives
• self-efficacy during a crisis • active participation in the public debate • participative decisionmaking about reconstruction
Processes:
Response network,
Communication with
Monitoring citizens needs exchange of info and
citizens and news media
coordination
Learning and growth:
Continuous evaluation Preparedness plans Best practice sharing,
and accountability and exercises retaining lessons learned
www.projectPEP.eu 6

7. Short opening question:
Co-producing safety with citizens
• What are main opportunities to further
citizen response?
www.projectPEP.eu 7

8. Jenni Hyvärinen
LITERATURE REVIEW REPORT
www.projectPEP.eu 8

9. Purpose of the review
• Bring together current knowledge on
communication contributing to community
resilience and citizen response
• Clarify the role of communication
• Identify research trends in the literature on
this topic
www.projectPEP.eu 9

10. Method, research questions
• RQ1. How are community resilience and
citizen response defined in the literature?
• RQ2. What is according to the literature the
contribution of crisis communication in
strengthening community resilience and
citizen response?
• RQ3. What are the trends and gaps in the
literature about this topic?
www.projectPEP.eu 10

11. Method, sample
• Protocol of a systematic literature review
• Searches in multiple online databases
• Search terms *“community resilience” or
“citizen response”+ and *communication+ in
the abstract, title or keywords
• Peer reviewed journals in the last 10 years
• Initially 140 hits, of which 32 articles passed
inclusion criteria
www.projectPEP.eu 11

12. Method, analysis
• Data extraction sheet
– Categories: title, informal summary, definitions
and building blocks for community resilience and
citizen response the role of crisis communication,
trends in literature, and technology
• Thematic analysis
– unit one article
www.projectPEP.eu 12

13. Results RQ1
• Community resilience
– a capacity for successful adaptation in the face of
disturbance (Norris et al. 2008)
– consist of, and can be inspected from, various
levels including e.g. individual, family and
community level
• Citizen response
– indicates how citizens react to a crisis, and
in this way is a result of resilience
www.projectPEP.eu 13

14. Results RQ2
• How crisis communication strengthens
community resilience and citizen response
Topics addressed:
– The role of communication
– Information needs
– Diversity
– Communication technology
– Trust
– Preparedness
– Ethics
www.projectPEP.eu 14

15. Results RQ3
• Trends and gaps in the literature
– Trends
• amount of articles increases
• Influential: Norris et al. (2008) , Perry & Lindell (2003),
Helsloot & Ruitenberg’s (2004)
– Perspectives
• health and psychology (community resilience)
• crisis management and the point of view of response
organisations (citizen response)
– Case-related literature
• The Asian Ocean tsunami, hurricane Katrina of New Orleans
(Colten et al. 2008), climate change, terrorism threat
www.projectPEP.eu 15

16. Conclusions
• Bottom up approach on enhancing the resilience of
communities and empowering citizens in crisis
response is a common philosophy of the topic
• Communication was addressed implicitly
– Few articles focused on communication connected to
resilience
• Future research suggestions
– Clarify further the contribution of communication to
community resilience and citizen response:
• Communication strategies
• The use of technology in communication enhancing resilience
www.projectPEP.eu 16

17. Anne-Marie van het Erve
PLAN FOR A TOOLBOX
www.projectPEP.eu 17

18. Plan for a toolbox
If there was 1 METHOD to establish resilience and
self efficacy with every citizen....
...with predictable succesfull outcome...
...and I would have invented and patented it...
...I would be DIRTY RICH!
www.projectPEP.eu 18

19. Best and promising practices
• There are no simple solutions
• Resilience is determined by an enormous
amount of variables
• Lots of international experience with
successful projects and strategies
• Spontaneously or planned changes in
attitude and behaviour of the target group
www.projectPEP.eu 19

20. The Matrix
• Desk study (open sources)
• Cases:
– projects, strategies, initiatives, campaigns, etc.
• Adjusted in the recent past (later than 2010)
• Enough open source material to be studied:
– articles and reports in popular (news) media,
evaluation reports, etc.
• Adjustable for European authorities and
organizations
www.projectPEP.eu 20

21. The Matrix
• Left side:
– Phases in the safety chain
o Preparation
o Response
o Aftercare
• Upper side:
– relevant variables
www.projectPEP.eu 21

22. The Matrix
www.projectPEP.eu 22

23. Catalogue of opportunities
• What worked … and what didn’t?
o Composition of the target group?
o Acceptance of the new technology?
o Monitoring of public rumors and mood?
• Result: a ‘catalogue of opportunities’
• A ‘Guide Michelin’ of Public Empowerment:
strong enablers for public resilience
www.projectPEP.eu 23

24. Matti Haataja, Helen Sullivan/ Markku Häkkinen
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
www.projectPEP.eu 24

25. Technology Options
How and what technology could be utilized for further
empowering individuals and communities
Desk Study:
– Description on individuals’ communication during / on
crises & disaster related issues
• With who (Authorities, Community, Large companies, …)
• Using what channels & technologies
– Technology
• Emphasis on Social Media & Mobile Solutions
• Solutions that can reach all community members
www.projectPEP.eu 25

26. Technology Options
• Identified Opportunities:
– Reachability and timeliness
– Increased personal relevancy & understandability
– Interactivity: a way to share information & data and communicate
within the community
• Challenges:
– Availability of open data
– Local communication systems may not support a heterogeneous
crowd
– Reliability & functionality of network, services & devices
– Both, correct and false information spread wide and fast
– Individuals motivation and willingness to adopt and use technology
in this domain
– Usable by a diverse audience (age, language, ability)
www.projectPEP.eu 26

27. Future Work
• Continuous research on:
– Technology acceptance
– Identification of technological solutions
for different communication needs and
purposes in the domain
• Individual and community level
• Focus group interviews on preferences for
enhancing public resilience technology
www.projectPEP.eu 27

28. Technology cannot use a
‘One Size Fits All Approach’
• Populations represent a distribution of:
– age, ability/disability, culture, education,
language, health conditions (acute/chronic)
• In the EU, and globally, approximately 17% of the
population has an identified disability (86M)
• 23 official EU languages and many more regional
variants, minority and migrant languages
• A significant portion of any population at risk includes
those who have limitations in their ability to utilize
technology and/or to perceive or understand information
www.projectPEP.eu 28

29. Accessibility: a fundamental right
• Accessibility - designing technology to be usable by
those with disabilities/limitations.
• In the context of crisis communications, accessibility is
important for critical/life safety information
• Accessibility is a legal requirement in many countries:
– Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ger
many, Hong
Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxemburg,
Netherlands, New
Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, USA
– Standards-based legislation (e.g. W3C WCAG)
www.projectPEP.eu 29

30. Inclusiveness
• Inclusiveness is a principle that ensures that all
members of the user community are considered in
design, implementation, and operational usage
• People with disabilities must be included in the planning
and development process
• Considering special needs ‘later’ is too late
www.projectPEP.eu 30

31. How disability impacts communication: SMS alerts
www.projectPEP.eu 31

32. Challenges and Opportunities
• Technology can pose barriers to disabled
• ICT implementations must consider
accessibility
• Mobile technologies can have significant
benefits (ignoring cost) for people with
disabilities and others resulting from
personalisation & built-in accessibility
www.projectPEP.eu 32

33. www.projectPEP.eu 33

34. ..
DISCUSSION TOWARDS A ROADMAP
www.projectPEP.eu 34

35. Discussion-
Towards a roadmap
1. Which promising areas for empowerment
need to be stressed?
2. Ideas for the online dialogue on future
research and implementation directions
around the next Davos conference?
www.projectPEP.eu 35