Disaster and Development centre, University of Northumbria.
Response to the Pitt Interim Review on the 2007 Floods.
Following the Pitt Review of the 2007 floods, the Disaster and Development Centre would like to outline its position regarding the vulnerabilities and capacities of children and how this can be addressed through simple and cost effective education.
Within the interim review, children are highlighted as being part of the vulnerable population alongside the elderly and disabled, but their capacities and resilience at such a time is not made explicit. Research has shown that children are not only aware of the dangers within their environment, but they are full of ideas for preparedness. (Twigg, 2005, Sharpe 2007). Additionally, research has also indicated that children have the capacity to perceive high-risk, low-probability disasters (including flooding) and that they are able to communicate these risks in a way that can influence the actions of those around them (Ronan & Johnston, 2003; Sharpe, 2007).
This capacity should be encouraged and implemented through the schools curriculum and outside of school in community and youth groups such as through the Scouts movement for instance. There are already websites set up to offer advice specifically for children who are at risk from a range of natural hazards such as www.edu4hazards.org and www.fema.gov/kids. Consequently, children and youth are better informed about preparedness than their parents. This should not only be recognised but utilised further.
Within the report, there were two stories of community spirit involving children and youths who are often seen as ‘ruffians’(sic) but who waded through floodwater distributing supplies and water, for instance. These community acts can be made less risky with advance training. In countries where natural hazards are very much part of daily life, youth teams have been trained in first aid, community liaison and preparedness, including making and sharing hazard maps within their communities. (e.g. Plan, El Salvador)This has earned them both the respect of their peers and others in the community, while providing an invaluable service in terms of Disaster Risk Reduction. The result is that awareness of such events are increased and although the outcome of the next major hazard event is not known the community are better prepared. It would also put children and youth back at the heart of the community, making them feel less disenfranchised with society and less likely to be a cause of both perceived and real nuisance.
This is borne out by youth-oriented projects in the USA - http://www.certla.com/links/teensert.htm for example - that address community preparedness to disaster threats. Specifically they argue that, skills in first aid and disaster event response are taught to teenagers, but that this also fosters the ability to address other challenges, to create a community which works together irrespective of the threat, and to apply values and attitudes to any societal challenge. This holistic approach has also been carried out in Turkey (http://www.ahep.org/ev/egitim5_0e.htm) and many other countries around the world. Examples of good practice can be seen in the UNISDR publication, Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School (http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdr-publications/11-education-good-practices/education-good-practices.pdf )
The United Kingdom Government gives aid packages to countries struck by natural disaster through the Department for International Development (DFID), in which a tranche of the aid must be spent on future mitigation and education projects. However we are currently not doing the same within our own borders. We must be able to learn from such events and implement good practice sooner rather than later. In other words striking while the flood is still very much in the minds of those affected by it. After the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami there was a raft of education programmes implemented by NGO’s working in the field as well as governments. Government money should be spent on mitigation and preparedness that go beyond structural measures, allowing those living on the flood plain to understand the risks and be better prepared for future events, which could come as early as this winter.
The word ‘education’ was mentioned once in the entire document, but within the context of public education about flood insurance. Although this is a useful contribution to future preparation and mitigation, it is not necessarily the most practical and cost effective step for householders to take. The first chapters make note of the events and the impact on communities, highlighting the lack of preparedness regarding access to clean water. But it is clear that people did not stock pile water for drinking and for other uses before the floodwaters arrived, and it is not clear whether this message will be clear and accessible in the future.
Furthermore, it was noted by Sir Michael Pitt, the reports author, that people should prepare by having emergency flood kits including a battery operated radio, mobile phone etc, but this is of limited use if adequate drinking water is not kept aside as well – something NOT highlighted by the report or put forward as one of the 72 Interim Conclusions! The message from the government needs to be clear and consistent and made accessible to every home, including children and the elderly – a ‘generic emergency kit’ may not be sufficient – different people have different needs – but the basics should be known by all. This can be achieved by communicating with those working within the field of Disaster Risk Reduction and Education, such as the authors of this response and implementing their advice with regards to preparation, mitigation and planning. Many have worked in the field for may years both in the UK and abroad and have learned and written about what makes for good practice and knowledgeable about how to implement such practices here in the United Kingdom.
To conclude, it is clear that children and are vulnerable to hazard events, but that does not mean that they cannot be prepared. Simple first aid and DRR training alongside practical advice given through the citizenship and geography curriculum’s can be implemented alongside clear advice given to all sections of society about how to prepare for and cope with a natural hazard event.
It has long been argued that hazards needn’t become disasters and that it is human interaction and in some cases inaction within the environment that allows such disasters to develop. Education is key to reducing the impact of hazards on the community, while being both sustainable and cost effective. Children can be involved in problem-solving and planning for both urban and rural flood risk reduction, through careful land-use planning, community-based early warning systems, and contingency planning for livelihood asset protection. This education does not need to be didactic, but should be practical, useful and a focal point for rebuilding communities that have lost much in the floods.
References:
Ronan, Kevin. R. & Johnston, David. M. (2001), School Children’s Risk Perceptions and Preparedness: A Hazards Education Survey in The Australian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies
Ronan, Kevin. R. & Johnston, David. M. (2003), Hazards education for youth: A quasi-experimental investigation in Risk Analysis vol. 23, no5, pp. 1009-1020 [12 page(s) p 1011
Sharpe, J.E. (October 2007) How new media for Disaster Risk Reduction Education can be used effectively as a tool for and generating educational materials by children and youth, for children and youth. European and Mediterranean Workshop on Disaster Reduction at School.
Twigg, J (March 2004) Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness in Development and Emergency Programming. Humanitarian Practice Network Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK
Response to the Pitt Interim Review on the 2007 Floods.
Following the Pitt Review of the 2007 floods, the Disaster and Development Centre would like to outline its position regarding the vulnerabilities and capacities of children and how this can be addressed through simple and cost effective education.
Within the interim review, children are highlighted as being part of the vulnerable population alongside the elderly and disabled, but their capacities and resilience at such a time is not made explicit. Research has shown that children are not only aware of the dangers within their environment, but they are full of ideas for preparedness. (Twigg, 2005, Sharpe 2007). Additionally, research has also indicated that children have the capacity to perceive high-risk, low-probability disasters (including flooding) and that they are able to communicate these risks in a way that can influence the actions of those around them (Ronan & Johnston, 2003; Sharpe, 2007).
This capacity should be encouraged and implemented through the schools curriculum and outside of school in community and youth groups such as through the Scouts movement for instance. There are already websites set up to offer advice specifically for children who are at risk from a range of natural hazards such as www.edu4hazards.org and www.fema.gov/kids. Consequently, children and youth are better informed about preparedness than their parents. This should not only be recognised but utilised further.
Within the report, there were two stories of community spirit involving children and youths who are often seen as ‘ruffians’(sic) but who waded through floodwater distributing supplies and water, for instance. These community acts can be made less risky with advance training. In countries where natural hazards are very much part of daily life, youth teams have been trained in first aid, community liaison and preparedness, including making and sharing hazard maps within their communities. (e.g. Plan, El Salvador)This has earned them both the respect of their peers and others in the community, while providing an invaluable service in terms of Disaster Risk Reduction. The result is that awareness of such events are increased and although the outcome of the next major hazard event is not known the community are better prepared. It would also put children and youth back at the heart of the community, making them feel less disenfranchised with society and less likely to be a cause of both perceived and real nuisance.
This is borne out by youth-oriented projects in the USA - http://www.certla.com/links/teensert.htm for example - that address community preparedness to disaster threats. Specifically they argue that, skills in first aid and disaster event response are taught to teenagers, but that this also fosters the ability to address other challenges, to create a community which works together irrespective of the threat, and to apply values and attitudes to any societal challenge. This holistic approach has also been carried out in Turkey (http://www.ahep.org/ev/egitim5_0e.htm) and many other countries around the world. Examples of good practice can be seen in the UNISDR publication, Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School (http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdr-publications/11-education-good-practices/education-good-practices.pdf )
The United Kingdom Government gives aid packages to countries struck by natural disaster through the Department for International Development (DFID), in which a tranche of the aid must be spent on future mitigation and education projects. However we are currently not doing the same within our own borders. We must be able to learn from such events and implement good practice sooner rather than later. In other words striking while the flood is still very much in the minds of those affected by it. After the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami there was a raft of education programmes implemented by NGO’s working in the field as well as governments. Government money should be spent on mitigation and preparedness that go beyond structural measures, allowing those living on the flood plain to understand the risks and be better prepared for future events, which could come as early as this winter.
The word ‘education’ was mentioned once in the entire document, but within the context of public education about flood insurance. Although this is a useful contribution to future preparation and mitigation, it is not necessarily the most practical and cost effective step for householders to take. The first chapters make note of the events and the impact on communities, highlighting the lack of preparedness regarding access to clean water. But it is clear that people did not stock pile water for drinking and for other uses before the floodwaters arrived, and it is not clear whether this message will be clear and accessible in the future.
Furthermore, it was noted by Sir Michael Pitt, the reports author, that people should prepare by having emergency flood kits including a battery operated radio, mobile phone etc, but this is of limited use if adequate drinking water is not kept aside as well – something NOT highlighted by the report or put forward as one of the 72 Interim Conclusions! The message from the government needs to be clear and consistent and made accessible to every home, including children and the elderly – a ‘generic emergency kit’ may not be sufficient – different people have different needs – but the basics should be known by all. This can be achieved by communicating with those working within the field of Disaster Risk Reduction and Education, such as the authors of this response and implementing their advice with regards to preparation, mitigation and planning. Many have worked in the field for may years both in the UK and abroad and have learned and written about what makes for good practice and knowledgeable about how to implement such practices here in the United Kingdom.
To conclude, it is clear that children and are vulnerable to hazard events, but that does not mean that they cannot be prepared. Simple first aid and DRR training alongside practical advice given through the citizenship and geography curriculum’s can be implemented alongside clear advice given to all sections of society about how to prepare for and cope with a natural hazard event.
It has long been argued that hazards needn’t become disasters and that it is human interaction and in some cases inaction within the environment that allows such disasters to develop. Education is key to reducing the impact of hazards on the community, while being both sustainable and cost effective. Children can be involved in problem-solving and planning for both urban and rural flood risk reduction, through careful land-use planning, community-based early warning systems, and contingency planning for livelihood asset protection. This education does not need to be didactic, but should be practical, useful and a focal point for rebuilding communities that have lost much in the floods.
References:
Ronan, Kevin. R. & Johnston, David. M. (2001), School Children’s Risk Perceptions and Preparedness: A Hazards Education Survey in The Australian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies
Ronan, Kevin. R. & Johnston, David. M. (2003), Hazards education for youth: A quasi-experimental investigation in Risk Analysis vol. 23, no5, pp. 1009-1020 [12 page(s) p 1011
Sharpe, J.E. (October 2007) How new media for Disaster Risk Reduction Education can be used effectively as a tool for and generating educational materials by children and youth, for children and youth. European and Mediterranean Workshop on Disaster Reduction at School.
Twigg, J (March 2004) Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness in Development and Emergency Programming. Humanitarian Practice Network Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK
