Fix-it -

Hazard
Preparedness
INDONESIA

ANDREW POWELL
2 0 1 8 S U L AW E S I E A RT H Q U A K E A N D T S U N A M I
Research roadmap
Situate the current study – Hazard preparedness & disaster studies

Comparative study –Hazard preparedness behaviour through different perspectives

Focus – Adaptive capabilities & learning in the process of hazard preparedness

Asking…
Which psycho-social constructs help us understand hazard preparedness?

Which capabilities help people cope with hazards?

 Introduction
10years+ Experience of conducting hazard preparedness
interventions and workshops in Indonesia, Bahamas, Bangladesh,
Nepal, Vanuatu and Haiti
Experience conducting high level applied research in Indonesia e.g.
awareness of cultural dynamics and belief sensitivities from experience
in Sulawesi and Jakarta
First-hand field experience of preparedness failure and
implementing multi-hazard risk reduction and preparedness e.g. focus
groups, post-event assessment, community-based strategy
development
Existing Indonesia network - social, professional and academic
network across Indonesia
Detailed understanding of physical mechanics of hazards and
cultural and governance context e.g. ethnic and religious practices,
government bureaucracy and sensitivities
 Indonesia experience
Previous research & active linkages with:

 Tadulako University, Palu

 Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Centre (TDMRC) Syiah

Kuala University

 Affiliations with relevant institutes/gov bodies e.g. BNPB

(National Agency for Disaster Countermeasure), PMI (red cross),
World Bank, ASEAN, Village Representative Council (BPD),
Bappenas (planning)

 Previous advisory guidance e.g. INGO, UN Cluster, EEFIT

(Earthquake engineering field invest team) committee member

 GCRF Experience – e.g. CI on successful ‘Equitable Resilience in

Indonesia’ (£1M) Joffe, H (PI) & Paton, D (Advisor)
Research Aims
Implement a Hazard preparedness
intervention that is…
Sustainable,
community accessible,
With culturally-specific, media-based
features
Click icon to add picture

 Centrality of  Co-producing
Empowerment,  (across
Agency & partners &
Collaboration settings)

 Situate within
local DRR
governance &
Sub-Themes preparedness
structures
Motivation for this research…
● "Earthquake don't kill people, poorly constructed
buildings do!" (eg. the primary reason for eq-related
casualties comes from building failure)

● "We can't predict Earthquake, but we can prepare!"

After 10+years supporting communities to rebuild after

disaster, a question continued to reoccur, which became the
basis of this research journey...

In the context of hazard uncertainty, why do some people

& groups adequately prepare, and some do not?
 Interaction of human & environment

DEPTH - Indonesia Earthquake Map 1973-2010 (BMKG) FREQUENCY - Earthquakes in Indonesia 1900–2019 (USGS)
Interaction of human & environment
IMPACT - function of the vulnerability of people and the built environment

MITIGATION / ADAPTATION - In the context of earthquake risk, a vulnerability and resilience

perspective has changed a purely technological orientation in facing natural hazards. One aspect of this
change is the increasing awareness to include indigenous, traditional knowledge, community-based
action, and local adaptive practices in earthquake hazard management.

THROUGH A PROCESS OF LEARNING - But while such indigenous knowledge and learning has
existed for centuries, learning requires more than just remembering, it needs to be combined with
scientific perspectives and translated into new actions.
Stepping back for a minute…

Why focus on preparedness?

Disaster studies observations &

practitioner assumptions…
 Global Hazards
 Natural hazards are increasing in frequency and severity (SFDRR, 2015). Risk creation is outstripping risk reduction.

 Disasters, economic loss and the underlying vulnerabilities that drive risk are increasing just as ecosystems and
biospheres are at risk of collapse (GAR, 2022).

 Disaster are increasing in frequency, projected increase of 40% during the lifetime of the Sendai Framework, or 1.5
disasters a day – by 2030 (GAR 2022), amplifying the call to look above and beyond the current approach to the SFDRR.

 The GAR2022 (UNDRR global risk assessment) blames these disasters on a “broken perception of risk” based on
optimism, underestimation and ideas on invincibility. Although not included as a concept at the time of the SFDRR
(2015), UNDRR now recognise numerous hazards as socio-natural, in that they are associated with a combination of
natural and anthropogenic (human behaviour) factors.

 The basic equation that risk is a function of a hazard event combined with vulnerability and exposure has not changed
for many decades.
 Hazards & this mixed-method research

 Inspired by place-based situated knowing perspectives (Bwambale 2021, 2022), this research will investigate
the extent to which this equation needs to change eg. conceptualising of earthquake hazard as ‘event’ to ‘human-
hazard systems’.

 A number of intergovernmental bodies such as SFDRR (SFDRR, 2015) and Paris agreement (IPCC, 2015) have
highlighted the importance of “cultivating” preparedness and adaptive capabilities to increase community
resilience.

 One of the arguments underlying the UNDRR call for including BBB is that inadequate DRR preparedness
increased the magnitude of contemporary disasters.

While many studies have investigated what kinds of preparedness and adaptive capabilities have emerged in
communities after crisis, fewer have examined the processes that allow adaptive capabilities to emerge and ways
in which these maybe a part of everyday life (Kitagawa 2019, Williams et al 2023).
 Assuming a need to bring solutions
Much disaster-related research has historically been developed in the global north overlooking “other” realities
(Gaillard et al. 2020).
Just like behavioural scientists, disaster scientist routinely publish broad claims about behaviour of people in disaster
prone situations that are strongly linked to Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD)
societies (Henrich et al. 2010).
The fundamental ideas that inform humanitarian practice – often implicitly – assume that there is little variation
across societies overlooking the importance of “different” local realities linked to disasters (Bankoff et al. 2013;
Gaillard 2019).
Epistemological and ontological assumptions from the global north result in different binaries i.e. expert-community,
science-spiritual, global north-south values, beliefs, language and cultural systems (Gaillard 2023).
Therefore, it is unavoidable to rethink the need to intervene, especially when individuals are asked to conform and
standardize their behavior to western norms (Bowen et al. 2010). Fortunately, the belief in the localisation of aid is
growing, allowing for space to rethink both science and practice (ALNAP 2021, 2022; Metcalfe-Hough et al. 2021).
Hazards & Behaviour
Incorporating insights from behavioural science can enable ‘affected populations’ and ‘aid organizations’
to understand the impact of their practices and strategies and; in turn design more effective and inclusive
programs with greater reach.
 This research aims to explore which behavioural concepts and theories enable a deeper understanding
of hazard preparedness and its effectiveness in enhancing resilience. The study explores underlying
assumptions and beliefs in preparedness and DRR interventions and compares them with evidence-based
behavioural theories to identify gaps and pathways for improvement.
 The theoretical and empirical evaluation so far implies an evaluation and redesign of governmental and
resilience support programs is long overdue, emphasizing the importance of targeted and facilitated
‘social learning interactions’ in enabling vulnerable populations to share and enhance their own adaptive
capabilities for building resilience and community-driven solutions.
Current research
 Research – Aim & Objectives
 What factors need to be considered in…

Designing preparedness interventions for equitable and sustainable

multi-hazard disaster resilience development in Indonesia
Achieved by…

 Plan and complete an ambitious RCT – examination of models and

moderating features of preparedness behaviour, combining those that work
with reference to existing state of the art models (e.g. "Fix it“ and others).

 Transferable and scalable - to other "seismic cities and communities" in

Indonesia/Region

 Led by communities - themselves with minimal external ratification

 Universal or culturally sensitive design – compare initiatives e.g. a cultural

sensitivity, arts and narrative approach, etc
Hazard Preparedness
Behaviour
 Overarching question explored – What are the determinants of earthquake and
other natural hazard preparedness, are any universal?

Review and design hazard preparedness intervention, that demonstrates psycho-

social predictors Controlled intervention with control sample and a theory-based
design

 Model design: (1) Increase and sustain preparedness; (2) Evaluate predictors of
preparedness (3) Evaluate psychosocial variables to understand preparedness after
3-6 months (4) compare fix-it (evaluated), culturally specific and control

Fix-it (Joffe, 2019)

  Hazard Preparedness is predicted by feeling empowered and by living in
a socially cohesive community, as well as by having higher levels of
trust in the systems that surround one (e.g. education, scientists, the
church and health).

That religion and fatalism as well as short-termism can be barriers or

limiting factors.

Premise
One responsibility and representations of one’s government being
somewhat corrupt predict preparedness. Individualistic culture (vs
collective), put more effort into self-preparation.

Emotions, specifically anxiety was found to have a direct effect on

preparedness behaviours. The research suggests home/face-to-face visits
may have produced an optimum level of anxiety needed to bring about
preparedness behaviours.

Shared cultural hazard narratives & place-attachment can mediate

uncertainty associated with seismic hazards.
Collective level hazard preparedness
behaviour
This research seeks to better understand hazard
preparedness behaviour, in particular:
• Seismic hazards + related human systems & processes.
• At the collective level, through a cultural-historical
process.
We shall measure adjustment behaviour and evaluate
adaptive capabilities, by:
• Stimulation & measurement hazard preparedness
variables (selected from best practice models), and an
evaluation of the intervention/interaction process.
• What form of stimulation, when, embedded in what
practices maintain this adjustment?
 From Individual to Collective level
Social-cognitive to cultural-historical approach

Community Engagement Model (CET), Paton

et al (2019)
Ecological Systems of hazard preparedness –
The interdependent contributions of person, family,
community, societal, and environmental, Paton et al. (2022).
 Research questions
1. Evaluate what works and is needed to improve earthquake-related multi-hazard preparedness

2. What earthquake preparedness evidence can be evaluated for an intervention process appropriate for
use in Bandung and potentially throughout Indonesia?

3. Would a culturally appropriate alternative earthquake preparedness intervention be more effective in

increasing preparedness than the Fix-it intervention and compared to a non-intervention control?

4. What factors would increase the likelihood that an earthquake intervention will be scalable and
sustainable in other locations in Indonesia where communities or cities live on or near fault lines?
Key aspects of the research design

Stastical regression & ANOVA

Reflexive thematic analysis
Thematic and narrative coding
3. Analysis 2. Methods
Co-production
Participation and Statistical model
Goal: Improve
influence of co- Process evaluation
producers & everyday of intervention &
participant preparedness preparedness
Sustainable and inter-action & Transcripts &
scalability of inter- adjustment intepretation
actions Reflexivity

Survey response data

4. Objective 1. Data
Outcome measure
In-direct observation data
Focus group discussion
Digital group discussion
Methodology & Methods

 Methodology - A mixed-method, cross-cultural, quasi-

experimental, controlled intervention study, with a
longitudinal, pre-test/post-test design

 Quantitative statistical & process analysis of comparative

interventions & factors associated with seismic hazard
preparedness.

 Qualitative analysis and process evaluation using Reflexive

Thematic Analysis pre, post, and during intervention with
facilitators and communities participant groups (interviews
and WhatsApp enabled discussion groups)
 Exploratory Research Themes
Research investigation sub-themes
Research Themes
1)
Most effective intervention, or
interaction practices leading to
sustainable preparedness adjustment
outcome
2) Isolating powerful constructs eg.
Outcome expectancy and enhancing
collective inter-personal resources
and adjustment in environmental
hazard preparedness behaviour
3)
4)  Investigate earthquakes and
preparedness meaning before and
Analytical lens Preparedness as a normative process of after the preparedness intervention
Construct variables included from 4 models meaning/sense making and everyday “way of life”
related to preparedness (eg. CET, Fixit, QoL, . The use of quality of life concepts and measure to Socio-cultural, historical, activity mapping
IFCA) help understand this theme
Preparedness in everyday life
Theoretical framework
QoL & preparedness action measures (eg.
correlation, causation)
Outcome expectancy, social capital/identity
5) Ways of ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ investigated
Self efficacy, collective efficacy, Situated and scientific ways of ‘knowing’ and through C.H.A.T/symbolic interactionalism
empowerment, community participation, ‘doing’ and their integration to enable scalable and lens and
cooperative learning sustainable preparedness to help bridge the ‘risk-
action’ divide in preparedness
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems lens
Place & people attachments, empowerment

Psychosocial constructs role in Reference groups, trust, critical attention 6) Use of mediated cultural artifacts
shaping and reducing uncertainty in Process of social learning eg. Groups,
the assessment of the threat posed by Earthquake communities & societies creation of cultural
anxiety, Fatalism, Social artifacts to adapt and prepare for earthquake
uncertain hazards such as earthquake cohesion, Sense of responsibility, Perceived hazards enhanced through facilitated peer-to-peer
level of corruption and Religiousness. use or learning to increase the scale and
sustainability of preparedness adjustment behaviour
Hazard Preparedness Interventions
‘Fix-it’ Intervention
 Overarching question explored – What are the determinants of disaster
preparedness, are any universal?

Hazard preparedness intervention, that demonstrates psycho-social predictors

and the value of an ‘in-person’ approach confounding variable (“Hawthorne
effect”)

 Controlled intervention with control sample and a theory-based design

 4 Objectives: (1) Increase and sustain preparedness; (2) Evaluate predictors of

preparedness (3) Evaluate psychosocial variables to predict preparedness after 12
months (4) compare across two cultures
 Background of Fix-it
fix-it claims:-

 Increased multi-hazard preparedness across cultures & longitudinally (actual behaviour after 12
months)

 Findings: Outcome expectancy & Promoting a sense of agency influences preparedness (opposite of
fatalism)

 And observation by an external source of home preparatory behaviours may be a way to extend multi-
hazard preparedness across a population.
 Methods
Activate a sense of control over & responsibility for hazard safety by
facilitating…

Components:
Mechanism:
(1) hands-on training &
(1) empowerment (2)
face-to-face interaction
increase community
(2) health behaviour
Cohesion (3) build trust
change methods (3)
(4) keeping anxiety levels
Social representations of
low (5) high
hazards (Joffe et al) (4)
self/collective efficacy
hazard risk-reduction
and outcome expectancy
model (Paton et al.)

Psychosocial Variables:
evaluated longitudinally (before, after
1 week, 3 weeks and 3 months) e.g.
self-efficacy, outcome expectancy,
trust, fatalism, critical awareness,
earthquake anxiety, empowerment,
collective efficacy and corruption
Michie (2011) COM-B Behaviour Change
Wheel

* Variables selected in part due to the cross-cultural scope

 Ideas to improve
Advance inclusivity and social identity as driver of
empowering individual and community action

Consider enabling factors – place attachment, sense of

community, sense of social identity

Contextualised tool through Co-producing

Formative Research Methods

social & emotional learning modalities and Puzzles (e.g.

update of beat the quake)

Paton (2019) CET Model (Community Engagement Theory)

Wrap up…
Conclusions
 Centrality of
Enable individuals in Empowerment,  Co-producing
their social and Agency &  (across partners &
physical environment to Collaboration settings)
increase their  Applications – opportunities to  Co-producing (across universities
preparedness situate within local DRR and context) – equal ownership of
governance and humanitarian the research, build research
preparedness structures capacity in low/middle income
Implications – significant countries
opportunity to bridge gaps and Gap – academia (evidence-led)
include exposed communities lived and practice (application)
experience

 Situate within local

DRR governance &
preparedness
structures
 Ethics – ‘do no harm’
Enabling capacity - partnering &
collaborating with local
organisations
Driven, by the opportunity to explain and enable
communities with hazard risk reduction (career)
References
Risk, Transformation & Adaptation: Ideas for reframing approaches to DRR, Paton & Buergelt
(2019)

DRR activities as learning, Kitagawa (2020)

Cultural Psychology of Coping with Disasters:The Case of an Earthquake in Java, Indonesia.

Chapter 3 - A Cultural Psychological Framework for Coping with Disasters, Zaumseil et al (2014)
Research roadmap
Situate study – Hazard preparedness & disaster studies

Comparative study –Hazard preparedness behaviour through different perspectives

Focus – Adaptive capabilities & learning in the process of hazard preparedness

Asking…
Which psycho-social constructs help us understand hazard preparedness?

Which capabilities help people cope with hazards?

Questions?