Session Summaries
We're continuing to add summaries daily. Please check back often!
Monday, July 15th
Summary by: Felicia Henry, University of Delaware
Session Takeaway
Indigenous storytelling and cultural practices are powerful tools in developing and contributing to contemporary disaster resilience. These practices combine ancient Indigenous knowledge with modern technology to produce better strategies for addressing climate change and disasters.
Session Summary
The keynote speaker, James Rattling Leaf, used storytelling practices to highlight the history of Indigenous peoples, how they use their knowledge and cultural tools to interpret the world around them, and how they develop innovative ideas to address challenges. Cultural tools, such as winter counts—reflections that capture what happened over the year and serve as a database of significant events, weather, conflicts, and more—are examples of practices that can be used in combination with modern technology to track the impact of climate change and generate potential solutions. The keynote speaker modeled how honoring and respecting Indigenous storytelling has led to various technological developments that have broadly improved the understanding of the environment.
Key Points
Indigenous peoples have long used their tribal cultures, traditions, and language as forms of knowledge and learning, passing them down through the generations.
Opportunities to advance education have historically remained inaccessible Indigenous groups. Social movements in the 1970s brought new prospects, namely the establishment of tribal institutions of higher education, such as Sinte Gleska University on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, the first of its kind.
These institutions paved the way for collaborations within and outside of Indigenous tribes, connecting tribal communities to resources and networks otherwise unavailable.
Indigenous scholars at Sinte Gleska University had the opportunity to develop new technology grounded in Indigenous cultural practices, such as the Rez Mapper––a geospatial/temporal information system that allowed them to integrate, view, and apply U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps.
This integration of Indigenous cultural practices and modern tools allowed for direct community engagement and contribution—it brought environmental data to the people in ways that they could engage with, share, and understand.
Indigenous methods can help build a dialogue between Western written culture and Indigenous oral culture to produce a middle space of relationship, respect, cultural strategy, and creative tools.
Using Indigenous storytelling and other cultural practices in research helps to create new relationships with Native people based on mutual understanding and trust. In turn, this shapes new meanings of our environment and can lead to innovative solutions for climate change.
Suggested Resources
Sinte Gleska University
Rez Mapper
North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center Tribal Climate Leaders Program
Ethical Space—Indigenous Climate Monitoring Toolkit
Environmental Data Science Innovation & Inclusion Lab
Summary by: TyKeara Mims, Texas A&M University
Session Takeaway
The gap between tool developers and tool users often leaves communities with unmet needs. Tools must be flexible, human-centric, and developed with user input, as well as supported by sufficient resources and enhanced collaboration. Technology alone cannot bridge all gaps; understanding community needs and maintaining adaptive capacity is essential.
Session Summary
Panelists addressed two overarching questions: What are the biggest issues and challenges around tools and new technology? And what can developers, policymakers, funders, and practitioners do to make tools more accessible?
Panelists highlighted significant challenges related to tools and new technology, emphasizing the difficulties in finding a singular platform, funding, training, and the mismatch between tool developers and users. They also discussed the importance of community engagement, adaptive capacity, and the need for collaborative tool development. Additionally, the panel suggested ways to make tools more accessible and effective, including seeking feedback, ensuring inclusivity, and learning from international partners.
Key Points
There is a demand for a singular, simple platform. However, this is improbable, resulting in the need to efficiently route users to relevant information from multiple sources.
Funding, manpower for IT support, the gap between tool developers and users, and the need for continuous training are major barriers. This often results in mismatched needs and tools.
To close the gap, tool developers should engage with communities to understand their needs and provide appropriate solutions. Cultural brokers and boundary spanners who can adapt tools to the specific needs of frontline agencies and communities are needed.
Technology is a part of the solution, but people and their knowledge are crucial. Tools should be flexible, human-centric, and accommodate qualitative data.
Tools should reinforce pre-existing cultural practices. Not all tools require technology—practical tools like workbooks, process cards, and process maps are crucial, especially in power-out situations.
Research, tools, and funding must be more accessible for small, resource-limited communities. Understanding user needs and making research available for free enhances the usability and impact of tools.
Suggested Resources
Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT)
Climate Risk and Resilience Portal
Message Design Dashboard
Summary by: Anna Gasha, Columbia University
Session Takeaway
The effectiveness of risk communication is highly contingent on the target audience. Adapting to different audiences and responding to their needs and requests may pose institutional challenges and obstacles for institutions and other stakeholders.
Session Summary
This session provided several examples of successes and failures in institutions across Australia and New Zealand (Aotearoa) related to community engagement in risk communication. Soliciting and meaningfully incorporating community input has innovations in outreach and communication about natural hazards, but such approaches still have significant obstacles. For instance, effective community engagement often entails straying from the path of least resistance. Nonetheless, engaging target audiences in risk communication helps institutions tap into existing community knowledge, skills, and resources. Doing so results in greater alignment with existing needs, as well as increased likelihood of the community understanding risk information and engaging in appropriate preparedness and response actions.
Key Points
Institutions often rely on a limited perspective of risk and risk management that centers expert perspectives rather than community needs or wants.
The process of understanding and implementing risk communication strategies that align with and reflect input from the target audiences often takes time, persistence, and flexibility.
Community engagement is most effective when it is included from the onset of a project (i.e., accounted for in budgets and planning processes).
What scientists or subject matter experts identify as the most appropriate risk communication solution may conflict with the general public’s perceptions or expectations.
The end products and outcomes that result from community engagement may be harder to quantify or frame as legitimate deliverables within institutions. Still, informal community-based systems often have a better, more holistic understanding of care and support after disasters.
Emergency response and recovery is relatively less professionalized in Australia and New Zealand than in the United States. Although there are challenges associated with this, a benefit of is that people with different backgrounds, community expertise, and skill sets become involved in emergency management during disaster. They can then take their experience back to their organizations that might otherwise have little or no knowledge about disaster response.
Suggested Resources
ECLIPSE (Eruption or Catastrophe: Learning to Implement Preparedness for Future Supervolcano Eruptions)
Foundations in Disaster Recovery: Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Course
Bounce
All Right?
He Waka Ora
After the Disaster Podcast
Public Health Implications of Multiple Disaster Exposures
Summary by: Latasha Allen, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
Session Takeaway
There are a variety of vulnerabilities associated with immigrating to a new country which are not the same for all communities and cultures. Therefore, it is important to engage and listen to populations that have newly immigrated to determine how to communicate and educate about disaster risk and resilience.
Session Summary
The session focused on household risk reduction, risk understanding, and building resilience for immigrant communities. Panelists examined how definitions and perceptions of vulnerability vary across different populations, communities, and cultures. They highlighted that perceived vulnerability and risk are influenced by cultural beliefs, lived experiences, and understanding of hazards and disasters. Panelists discussed the risks faced by communities from various backgrounds, ranging from high income households to refugees, and emphasized the need to avoid generalizing their risks. Engaging with and listening to these communities is essential to assess their ability to prepare, respond and recover disasters, and build resilience.
Key Points
Terms regularly used to categorize people—such as immigrant, foreign-born, migrant, refugee, etc.—do not represent one homogeneous group or population and can be limiting. These terms do not consider cultural background or country of origin, which are important in understanding populations.
The cultural context of the community and how information is delivered plays an important role in engaging immigrant and migratory populations. Take time to understand cultural beliefs and develop culturally appropriate preparedness information when engaging with communities.
Listen to the community, communicate often, and foster two-way relationships with community members before disasters.
One size does not fit all. Community perceptions and beliefs shape the understanding of risks.
Engaging children and youth in disaster preparedness can be a strategy to reach the whole community.
Suggested Resources
Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for Inclusion
Make Hay While the Sun Shines: How Community Organizations Cultivate Refugees’ Social Capital and Disaster Resilience
Summary by: Joseph Karanja, Arizona State University
Session Takeaway
Most disaster funding is focused on addressing needs before and immediately after disasters, but neglects long-term recovery needs, especially in instances where there are undeclared disasters at the national level. To ensure disaster funding is used efficiently and does not duplicate efforts, trust-based philanthropy should be used where funders trust those who are closest to the problem to be the ones that identify solutions and use funds accordingly. In a time where disasters are compounding and cascading, it is essential that funds be distributed through local channels based on need.
Session Summary
The session panelists represented philanthropy organizations and nonprofits, federal grant agencies, disaster relief collaborations, and those involved in volunteering activities. Discussion included how to avoid duplication of funding benefits, build an effective resilience network, and ensure long-term disaster recovery beyond immediate needs. Building capacity to support disaster survivors can enhance long-term disaster recovery. In addition, trust-based philanthropy that allows those experiencing the disaster to use funds to help boost market efficiency and ensure limited resources are used appropriately.
Moreover, engagement between disaster survivors, local organizations and funders can enable adaptive responses. These responses can capture undeclared disasters at the national level and promote appropriate use of funds before and after a disaster.
Key Points
Funding for disaster recovery should be distributed efficiently and avoid duplication since resources are limited.
Disaster volunteers are needed and in short supply. Most organizations have limited human resources.
Nonprofits have limited economic power. Often, organizations get funding when a disaster strikes, which derails long-term disaster recovery efforts.
Disasters occur concurrently and more frequently than ever before, making all-hazard funding critical.
A resilience network is needed to connect national organizations to local organizations, to build capacity, create connections, and enhance existing networks.
Given limited resources, philanthropies are well situated to address funding long-term recovery, encourage adaptive frameworks, avoid working in silos, and engage partners beyond the philanthropy space.
The federal government’s Small Businesses Administration Disaster Loan Program has revised new loan limits and considers all-hazards mitigation.
In 2021, only 2% of total philanthropic giving was disaster-related and very little of that was focused on recovery, mitigation, and resilience efforts. This demonstrates a need for philanthropies to fill.
Funders need to consider cascading and perpetual disasters in their decision-making processes.
Suggested Resources
Abstract on Unmarkets
Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) Current Recovery and Response Fund
Measuring the State of Disaster Philanthropy Report 2023
CDP Blog (includes updates on current disasters and critical topics)
CDP Issue Insight
Summary by: Carlo Chunga Pizarro, University of California, Irvine
Session Takeaway
International collaborations and innovative approaches are needed to promote disaster resilience. The Sendai Framework and associated goals can be used to measure progress. Additionally, more collaboration and sharing of existing projects between U.S. and Japan researchers is needed.
Session Summary
The session focused on enhancing disaster resilience through international collaboration, specifically focusing on small- and medium-sized enterprises and marginalized communities. Key initiatives discussed included using metrics from the Sendai Framework to assess progress, hosting collaborative workshops between Japan and the United States, and using advanced data and methods to improve hazard resilience.
Projects addressed the unique contexts of the United States and Japan, exploring how small and medium-sized enterprises, especially minority-owned and immigrant-dependent firms, can rebound after disaster. The session also highlighted the transformative potential of digital twin technology—technology that creates computer-based replicas of real word conditions to help predict how people, processes, or products will perform—for community resilience and risk modeling to account for diverse vulnerabilities. Panelists emphasized the need for a bi-national approach involving field surveys and data and researchers exchanges to foster deeper collaboration and effective disaster management strategies.
Key Points
Implementation of the Sendai Framework and improvement of international disaster resilience requires assessment of the framework’s metrics. Metrics associated with vulnerability reduction, improved decision-making, optimal resilience investment, and capability-enhancing investments are especially important to assess.
Bi-national collaboration can take many forms including project kick-off meetings, field surveys, and exchange programs for researchers between U.S. and Japanese institutions. Suggestions include hosting collaborative workshops focused on human-centered disaster research and community building to facilitate international engagement.
An example of a bi-national project is the Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises Resilience Project that focuses on improving hazard resilience for minority-owned and immigrant-dependent businesses in the U.S. and Japan.
Leveraging technology and integrating physical and digital worlds can help enhance preparedness and response.
Risk management must be inclusive. One example is conducting advanced flood hazard and probability modeling that focuses on marginalized communities and diverse flood vulnerabilities.
Summary by: Annika Doneghy, Case Western Reserve University
Session Takeaway
Designing communities that can withstand disaster requires holistic approaches that are community-led. Community engagement and collaboration can lead to initiatives that improve community design and architecture, benefit the most impacted communities, and improve their resilience.
Session Summary
The session focused on topics related to infrastructure, community leadership, and measures of success. Panelists noted that getting communities involved in decision-making processes about their own resilience can be difficult, although not impossible. Stakeholders must work to advance community capacity building. Panelists also noted that capacity building takes time and money, which can be in short supply for impacted communities. Meaningful collaboration with communities to improve equitable outcomes is necessary, as is truly understanding what communities want and need to foster their own resilience.
Key Points
Building code enforcement and regulatory authority vary by location, which can create challenges for community redesigns. However, this also allows for local independence and tribal sovereignty. Incentives can prove useful for getting communities involved with building codes.
Community storytelling is important—many stories involve reactive elements, but the only way communities can become proactive, resilient, and ready for the next event is by learning from the past. We need to help people tell their stories and share histories to inform future plans.
Communities often struggle to plan for the future due to everyday stresses and limited resources. Progress may be slow and challenging, but change must come from within the community.
Planning takes time and projects require money, but investing in communities is important. It is critical to evaluate whether the communities that need funding the most are getting it.
Sometimes it can be challenging to get communities together and aligned about their wants and needs. Incentives, such as paying communities for their time, can be a good way to increase involvement and participation.
Common assessment metrics often include fatalities, injuries, physical damage, etc. but these are insufficient. We need metrics related to fairness, equity, and other outcomes. Assessing levels of engagement and connectedness before and after events can help measure project success.
Despite common feelings of “doomed futures,” communities are seeking knowledge and solutions to make changes now. Things are happening quickly and will get worse but the need for justice is urgent and community-led initiatives are the first step in the right direction.
Tuesday, July 16
Summary by: Melissa Villarreal, Natural Hazards Center and Chandler Wilkins, Texas A&M University
Session Takeaway
Hazard and disaster researchers must consider the role emotions play in shaping the public’s perceptions of risk. Music can be a tool for researchers and activists to evoke emotions across audiences and inspire action to address the climate crisis.
Session Summary
Panelists included physical scientists, social scientists, and musicians who presented a series of musical selections designed to evoke sorrow, hope, determination, and joy from the audience to inspire action in response to the climate change crisis. They argued that scientists cannot inspire climate action if they only share data and publish journal articles as these formats fail to connect with broad audiences. Finding creative and sometimes fun ways of disseminating risk information—like music—can be more effective. They posited that music can be an avenue to influence risk perception and stimulate emotions that inspire climate action.
The session concluded with the documentary Creating Change Through Music, which demonstrated how music enhanced emotional connection, educated on climate solutions, and inspired meaningful action. They hope to use music as a tool to reduce fear of climate change leading to denialism and disengagement and instead help people feel they have the agency to make a difference.
Key Points
Risk perception among public audiences is often shaped by feeling and experiences rather than numbers and evidence as scientists sometime assume. Thus, addressing the climate crisis requires shifting emotional responses.
Common emotions that arise in relation to the climate crisis are anger, despair, and fear. These are divisive and paralyzing emotions and likely to lead to climate inaction.
Music transcends language. It can access different parts of the brain that visual or written information cannot. As a result, music offers a way for public audiences to access positive emotions, such as hope and pride. Scientists can leverage music as a way to help public audiences relate to scientific information to inspire action around climate rather than denial.
The goal of the TEMPO project is to connect and engage a variety of actors and partners to create risk information that resonates with broad audiences. This can include researchers, practitioners, musicians, and others.
Researchers should use non-traditional tools to share their work. Panelists suggest researchers use Tempo resources and reach out to local musicians to help communicate climate research in an engaging manner.
Suggested Resources
Tempo Website
Tempo Toolkit
Luke Wallace Music
Summary by: Chandler Wilkins, Texas A&M University
Session Takeaway
To address the widespread issue of misinformation, which has been exacerbated by AI, social media, and constant connectivity, it is crucial to work collaboratively and employ strategies such as leveraging data, prebunking, and implementing best practices in social media crisis communication. Maintaining trust involves transparency about errors and using journalistic methods to identify and avoid spreading false information.
Session Summary
Collaboration is needed to effectively address misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. It is imperative to address misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation proactively, rather than waiting until after an event. Trust is crucial when sharing information—the community must believe that your content is accurate and fair. It is inevitable that mistakes will occur, but maintaining transparency about errors will help maintain credibility. Admitting mistakes and correcting them can strengthen trust and demonstrate that you are a reliable and accountable source.
Key Points
Misinformation is information that is simply incorrect or false. Disinformation involves deliberate attempts to shape narratives and propagate propaganda. Malinformation, on the other hand, is intended to cause harm by intentionally contaminating the discourse and environment.
Avoid amplifying trolls and their content; prioritize highlighting and promoting accurate narratives instead.
Continue to diligently combat misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, even in the face of challenges.
Always verify your sources, even when you trust them.
Maintaining trust with the public is essential. Being truthful and transparent can help foster strong relationships.
To build trust, begin with small commitments and gradually work up to larger ones. For example, start by promising to provide an update at a specific time and ensure you follow through as promised. Consistently meeting these small commitments can help restore public confidence. Trust takes time to build but can be easily lost.
Address misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation proactively, rather than waiting until after an event.
Summary by: Terry Cooper, University of New Haven
Session Takeaway
Film has become a crucial medium for storytelling. This session focused on how disaster films and television can be informative, promote understanding of risk and response, and help keep disaster issues in the public eye.
Session Summary
Disaster movies and films can be used as tools for scientific communication, but it’s important to realize how they shape the audience’s perceptions of disasters and appropriate responses to take. This can be a positive by helping raise awareness and keep issues in the public eye or a negative when representations of disaster are false or illogical. Researching disaster films can provide behavioral insights, while connecting disaster researchers with filmmakers can create opportunities to use film and television to the best advantage.
Key Points
The disaster film genre peaked in the 1970s. Hollywood blockbuster films often followed a formula, had large casts, and over-the-top visual effects. Storylines where mainly about survival against the odds.
Disaster movies were originally used to reflect on issues of the day and often represent issues we face in current times (e.g. 1980s nuclear war movies or movies in the 1990s that focused on millennial fears).
As early as the mid-80s, Enrico Quarantelli suggested that researchers study disaster films systematically.
People retain and recall information learned in disaster movies and it impacts the way they conceptualize and respond to disasters. This can be a double-edged sword, especially if movies contain misinformation. But if the public can learn from disaster movies, then we should meet them where they are.
Disaster movie producers need to connect with disaster researchers, practitioners, and social scientists to increase accuracy in storytelling.
Movies can be especially effective for disaster communication because they make people feel good about topics they might otherwise avoid because they can induce anxiety.
The context for viewers of disaster movies should provide realistic expectations. There is no need to amplify the intensity of disasters in storytelling.
Representation in film matters. Often, if there is no representation in film, there is no expectation in real life. For instance, emergency management is rarely represented (a study of 377 films found only six emergency management characters that were central enough to have names) and so the public doesn’t have a clear understanding of their role.
Films can help people understand personal responsibility and limit their dependence on government during times of need.
Some disasters are greatly underrepresented in film and television. For instance, in a study 173 movies released from 2000-2020, researchers only identified one about wildfire (All the Brave), and found none where drought, famine, climate, or heat wave was the central theme.
Suggested Resources
Realities and mythologies in disaster films. Communications
National Academy of Sciences Science and Entertainment Exchange
Thriving with Fire
Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need
Good Energy
Disaster Movies and Films: Airport (1970), Poseidon Adventure (1972), Towering Inferno (1974), Earthquake (1974), The Day After (1983), Threads (1984), Twister (1996), Volcano (1997), Deep Impact (1998), Contagion (2011), Only the Brave (2017), Bring Your Own Brigade (2021), Don’t Look Up (2021), 13 Minutes (2021), Elemental: Reimagine Wildfire (2023), Twisters (2024).
Summary by: Melissa Villarreal, Natural Hazards Center
Session Takeaway
Despite the importance of emergency alerting, there is no nationwide functioning emergency alert system in the United States. Moreover, vulnerable populations—such as those who are deaf or who have limited English proficiency—face barriers in receiving and understanding alerts. Alert systems need to be enhanced to meet the needs of diverse communities.
Session Summary
The panelists called for more inclusive alerting thatdiverse audiences, including those who are deaf or who have limited English proficiency, can understand and trust. If alerts and warnings are not accessible to these vulnerable populations, they face heightened risk of negative impacts during emergencies. Alerting authorities should intentionally work to enhance emergency alerts by considering and addressing the unique needs of these populations. Improving alert systems by prioritizing the needs of vulnerable populations will make emergency alerts more accessible to all.
Key Points
There are several challenges with alerts and warnings that inhibit the dissemination of risk information to communities. For instance, there are thousands of individual agencies across the United States, which can lead to inconsistencies in alerting efforts. This is a public safety issue; everyone should have access to emergency information.
Inclusivity in the context of emergency alerting means that all communities receive alerts and warnings in a manner that they can understand and that includes actionable steps. Inclusive alerting should be equitable; people need effective communication in different ways and modalities.
No established metrics or best practices currently exist to measure the effectiveness and inclusiveness of alerting. Developing these metrics is crucial to assess the impact of alerts and to identify areas of improvement. Vulnerable populations must be involved in assessing the effectiveness of messaging and alerting to ensure they are accessible.
Technological advancements have created novel ways to communicate risk information to communities; however, technologies should continuously be innovated and improved. These innovations will require thinking outside of the box and the input of experts.
Panelists identified several factors crucial for effective communication: the use of plain language; development of best practices, guidelines, and procedures and metrics for evaluation; access to resources; transparency in data and use of technologies; and collaboration with experts and trusted community messengers.
Collaboration is key to inclusive alerting. These collaborations may include community members, local community organizations, legislators, experts in applicable disciplines, and other stakeholders.
Approaching inclusivity as a box to be checked should be avoided. Collaborations should be approached with active listening and without assumptions.
Suggested Resources
House Bill 23-1237: Inclusive Language in Emergency Situations
Inclusive Emergency Alerts for Colorado: An Assessment and Recommendations for Language and Disability Considerations
Notify NYC
Summary by: Ruby Hernandez, Texas A&M University
Session Takeaway
Games are tools for learning to respond to disaster situations. They use technology and playful ways to create immersive and impactful experiences on disaster preparedness.
Session Summary
There are many ways to teach disaster preparedness. Serious games are a collaborative approach to reach the public on disaster education and preparedness. This approach is a fun way to share factual with the public. Various factors (e.g., budget, community hesitation, overall game goal development), however, can influence the success and development of games, leaving the timeline of development testing and planning to vary significantly. Overall, serious games are a way to expand and build communication channels with a community. It is a different method of applied learning that allows communities to share, reflect, and learn from their experiences.
Key Points
Disaster games can apply to practice, but it’s important to know your audience and what motivates them to prepare for disasters.
Games with good game design should include factual information, have some obstacle to overcome, give players autonomy, and be playable, realistic, and, meaningful.
It’s important to ensure that playing a disaster game does not retraumatize or create trauma for the players. The age appropriateness of messages and situations should also be considered.
Credible games include quality information and are inclusive and culturally competent. Developers can ensure credibility by hosting participatory game design workshops and really listening to those requisitioning the game and the target audience.
There may be barriers to playing video games but they can be addressed by having the game designed around familiar uses and then slowly transitioned to newer ones. For those uncomfortable playing games, it’s important to have them think about the experience and not just what buttons they need to click.
Suggested Resources
Ready 2 Help (FEMA)
Kaeru-Caravan (Japanese Program)
Cascadia 9 Game
Summary by: Maribel Sandoval Contreras, University of California, Irvine
Session Takeaway
Collaborations at the local level should involve actors—from government officials to nonprofit organizations and, increasingly, the private sector—to enable the meaningful use of climate data by communities. Successful collaboration includes fostering meaningful relationships, focusing on robust data, and inclusion all community members.
Session Summary
The panel discussed collaborations between local government agencies, nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations, and the private sector, addressing the question: What information gaps, real or perceived, need to be identified to make better decisions? Topics included an update on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation programs, FEMA’s focus on the climate-informed science approach to project generation, private sector engagement challenges and best practices, the effective use of robust data, and the integration of public and private investments. The discussion also addressed the need for rigorous economic analyses and further exploration of private sector involvement. Audience members raised concerns about funding, data accessibility, and the complexity of insurance markets. The dialogue stressed the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, technical assistance, and community-specific solutions for better climate resilience.
Key Points
Decision-making can be enhanced by addressing the difficulty of obtaining actionable data and increasing awareness of the benefits investing in resilience within local communities.
Methods to secure funding or reduce the cost in investing in resilience efforts, such as providing marketplace incentives, need to be explored.
Rigorous economic analysis of the value of resilience investments is needed, as well as an increase interdisciplinary collaboration.
Robust data exists but providing context could further benefit programming. For instance, a greater emphasis on machine learning could enable local emergency management to use existing data more efficiently.
More information is needed on increasing the investment capacity of local communities.
Communities need well-informed options and easy-to-understand data to make the best decisions for their communities.
Capacity to address challenges can be built through direct technical assistance, such as third-party help with grant writing. A potential model is the Colorado Regional Grant Navigators Program, which helps communities secure resilience funds for resilience by drawing on philanthropic practices.
Interdisciplinary collaboration would increase familiarity with the many useful datasets that are available.
Capacity building is critical, and meaningful engagement takes time. Inclusivity takes longer, but it is necessary for accountability.
If resilience was the status quo it would help address the issues of being uninsured or underinsured.
Collaboration with the private sector could prevent the use of maladaptive technology and ensure both habitual and extreme events are considered. Private sector companies need to focus on minimizing risk to avoid drawing on critical resources.
Suggested Resources
Colorado Regional Grant Navigators
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
Summary by: Nicholas Humphrey, North Dakota State University
Session Takeaway
Addressing the specific needs of individuals after disasters is crucial. Researchers and practitioners should seek collaborations to better understand gaps in risk communication, evacuation planning, organizational networks, and cultural competence.
Session Summary
This session addressed the question: How can disaster response be implemented in a way that is more inclusive and equitable? Even with modern knowledge and technology, some individuals remain disproportionately impacted by hazards. Response activities and discussions of vulnerability are often too focused on broad groups of people and not enough on individual needs.
To meet these challenges, panelists recommended: (a) taking the position that no one should be left behind in a disaster, (b) assisting those who do not have the ability to evacuate, (c) considering accessibility needs, functional needs, and culture in disaster response, and (d) collaborating with community groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and voluntary organizations active in disaster (VOADs). Interdisciplinary research collaboration is necessary to build knowledge, which should be shared with a diverse audience to better inform research and practice.
Key Points
Many people are left behind in disasters, including aging populations, disabled individuals, and others experiencing hardships. Learning how to improve response outcomes is challenging but important work.
Inclusive response means leaving no one behind, prioritizing the most vulnerable, and focusing on equity.
Vulnerability discussions must shift the focus from broad groups of people to individuals with specific needs.
Researchers and practitioners must consider accessibility needs, functional needs, and cultural considerations.
Collaboration with community groups, NGOs, and VOADs, along with storytelling, creates response plans that address everyone’s needs.
Evacuation efforts often focus on traffic management for those who self-evacuate. More research on assisted evacuation is needed.
Researchers and practitioners must recognize knowledge gaps, engage in interdisciplinary work, and partner with each other. Funding structures also need to be changed to promote more interdisciplinary research and publication.
While focus is often put on failures in response, acknowledging and translating successes can also help to address gaps.
Policy briefs, peer-reviewed articles, and after-action reports reach a limited audience. Researchers and practitioners should find ways to broadly disseminate knowledge.
While government agencies cannot fulfill every need during disaster response, collaborating with school districts, churches, and community-serving organizations before disaster can identify those who will need help.
Wednesday, July 17
Summary by: Minh Anh Ly, University of Colorado Boulder and Wesam Mohamed, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Session Takeaway
The Community Brigade Pilot Program shows how community resilience is built from community collaboration. It is through this collaboration, networks, trust, and effective communication that communities have practical forms of love and healing relationships during a time of crisis.
Session Summary
In the aftermath of the 2018 Woolsey Fire in Southern California, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Fire Department approved the establishment of the Community Brigade Pilot Program. After a five-year development cycle from 2018 to 2023, the program was officially implemented in 2024 through various processes, including recruitment, training, communications, credentialing, and deployment. The panelists discussed diverse aspects of this collaborative effort, emphasizing a high level of trust and positive relationships among researchers, governmental entities, state agencies, and community members.
Key Points
Researchers published The 2018 Woolsey Fire: A Catalyst for Change Independent Report to provide a roadmap to increase resiliency for urban communities in a climate of increasing wildfire risks. The report highlights the inevitability of disasters, the misalignment of expectations, declining resiliency, and increased risk to disaster.
The establishment milestones of the Community Brigade Pilot Program included the program’s collaborative approach, development cycle, target communities, and operational processes. The key to community engagement in this program was highlighted as “shared risk, shared responsibility.”
A good theory as a solid foundation was important in establishing the program, as well as networks, social capital, love, and healing relationships between different parties. The program is not only an opportunity to care for and serve the community but also a change of perspective to accept to live with and adapt to risks.
Encouraging community from within to collaborate with the Los Angeles County Fire Department for immediate response and evacuation was pivotal. Community members would be a part of the department’s operation rather than just evacuating.
Building trust and effective communication between community members and the county is demanding work. A mutual foundation of “shared risk, shared responsibility” is essential to establish positive relationships.
Having strong social capital, especially informal social networks, is crucial for a community to stay strong during the fire and to recover afterwards. After the 2018 Woolsey Fire, citizens of Malibu experienced a powerful sense of community to stay, fight, and rebuild for better resiliency.
Mitigation work is paramount. The speakers cited the National Fire Protection Association wildfire mitigation specialist certification and community education as key to their program. If mitigation efforts are effective, there will be minimal response.
Suggested Resources
NFPA Wildfire Mitigation Specialist Certification
2018 Woolsey Fire: A Catalyst for Change Independent Report
Summary by: Anamika Malla, Texas Tech University
Session Takeaway
The 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake revealed numerous response issues, including difficulty coordinating mutual assistance, disproportionate impacts related to gender and age, and dangers related to evacuation and poor shelter options. Early research is focused on intergovernmental assistance processes, coordination issues, and the provision of resources to vulnerable populations.
Session Summary
The 7.5 magnitude 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake struck on New Year’s Day. The earthquake and subsequent tsunami, which resulted in 299 deaths and $17.6 billion in damages. Panelists used their expertise in disaster resiliency, housing, evacuation strategies, and long-term recovery to assess the immediate impacts the quake. They described the complexity of coordinating mutual assistance among municipalities and how that posed significant challenges, especially for those far from the disaster site. This highlighted the need for a standardized response system. Additionally, gender imbalances in local government and volunteer organization were revealed.
Several lessons were derived from the event, including the need to adapt to a new normal and focus on smart transformation, improved use of digital tools, better coordination between local agencies, and the necessity of community-based assisted living. The audience highlighted the need for gender-specific data and information on secondary deaths, especially for coinciding hazards.
Key Points
The earthquake accelerated aging-related issues by almost a decade. Older populations who were put into shelters and group homes did not have access to essential care services because of a severe shortage of healthcare workers in the area.
The earthquake highlighted the need for coordinated mutual assistance, even though Japan's mutual assistance system has evolved since significant changes were made after major earthquakes in 1995 and 2011.
Recovery efforts included damage assessment and the demolition of damaged houses. Temporary wooden housing was used to address the needs of the elderly.
Due to severe damage and limited road access, an improvised wide-area evacuation relocated people to safer areas with hotel accommodations.
Secondary deaths due to evacuation and sheltering conditions were significant and often correlated with the number of evacuees. The legal implications of secondary deaths, including insurance payments was also discussed.
Summary by: Amber Spears, Onyx Enterprise
Session Takeaway
There is a growing need to quantify traditionally qualitative data focused on vulnerable communities during disasters. Researchers on this panel showed healthy approaches to localized emergency preparedness and response using a variety of datasets.
Session Summary
Four researchers presented their work in this session featuring students and new professionals. Presentations highlighted a variety of global issues around emergency preparedness and response, including in the United States, Chile, Haiti, and Zambia. In the United States, a lack of standardization in hazard mitigation planning makes it difficult to ensure that vulnerable populations, such as those with disabilities, will be rescued if a hazard occurs. In Chile, Haiti, and Zambia, societal levels of trust in government and officials are not proportional to their capacity to address disaster risk reduction, showing the importance of having traditional and local leaders informed to respond to disasters. Communities and populations who are the most vulnerable to climate change need resources to be allocated equitably and for planning to include the losses and feedback of those who have not recovered from disasters.
Key Points
Some variables used to develop the national Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) data set—age, migration, and other demographics—were also incorporated into the BRIC South Carolina program along with additional indicators, such as the number of buildings and schools in a floodplain. National datasets were also updated where possible, substantially shifting the locations with the lowest resilience. Applying variables related to the entire nation is not always feasible for a state.
In Texas a voluntary registry of disabled people was not incorporated into Houston’s emergency management plans before Hurricane Harvey, overemphasizing individual responsibility. The registered disabled individuals were not provided service for Hurricane Harvey.
Colonialism in Zambia split power and governance between members of parliament—known for disaster risk reduction and management—and traditional leaders, who are the primary authority of rural residents. Trust for parliament is lower than that for traditional leaders in rural communities, who are more responsive and more likely to be turned to in disaster. Even though traditional leaders govern rural communities, however, their knowledge is not often incorporated on the national scale.
The 2010 earthquake in Haiti had more casualties than the 2010 earthquake in Chile of a higher magnitude because of disparities in infrastructure and the Chile’s robust emergency preparedness plan. Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) surveys demonstrated that trust in law-and-order institutions was less tethered to casualties and infrastructure damage during natural hazards. The resilience of civilians and their cooperation during crises ultimately led to the link in high trust between law-and-order and civilians in the communities.
Suggested Resources
Margot Habets’ Work
Gardiner Brown’s 2024 Student Paper Competition Paper
Julia Munsaka’s work
Gabriella Bellow’s 2024 Student Paper Competition paper
Summary by: Minh Anh Ly, University of Colorado Boulder
Session Takeaway
Building Colorado’s Climate Preparedness Roadmap was a collaborative effort, involving multiple government agencies and private sector partners, along with local community input. The translatability of the data into achievable and actionable near-term goals was crucial to building an effective Climate Preparedness Roadmap.
Session Summary
Panelists discussed the creation of Colorado’s Climate Preparedness Roadmap, focusing on the project’s missions, goals, challenges and processes. After the Marshall Fire, the most destructive disaster in the state’s history, the state’s governor and legislature directed the creation of the roadmap to understand changing climate risk and ways to address it. The panelists highlighted how numerous data sources allowed the climate science research team to highlight climate risks specific to Colorado, as well as how they focused the scope of the roadmap on effectively taking actionable and achievable next steps.
The Project has three main goals: (1) establish a base for future climate risks specific to the state, (2) create a statewide, scientifically derived understanding of climate risks—including spatial and social vulnerability data—that will be useful to multiple state agencies, institutions, and communities, and (3) establish actions to reduce risk and adapt to climate change.
Key Points
One of key challenges was capturing and accounting for the vast differences among Colorado’s communities. It required a creative approach to ensure all groups are represented, nuanced climate-related experiences are captured, and diverse perspectives are synthesized.
RadicalxChange, a nonprofit organization that uses a model called Community Exchange to gather representative groups of residents, collected engagement data on experiences and opinions about climate preparedness.
The public health team focused on addressing extreme heat risks among access and functional needs groups, including residents of long-term care facilities, youth, incarcerated populations, and outdoor workers. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is implementing steps to mitigate extreme heat impacts, including expanding education on the heat danger, increasing communication about cooling centers, and coordinating with healthcare providers and state agencies.
The roadmap informs the economic aspects of climate risks and preparedness. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment is pairing the insights from the roadmap with projections for jobs across Colorado to create resources for the segments of the workforce most vulnerable to climate hazards.
Suggested Resources
Colorado Climate Preparedness Roadmap
Summary by: Amber Spears, Onyx Enterprise
Session Takeaway
The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Coastlines and Peoples (CoPe) program research hub members discussed the complexity of addressing coastal issues in collaboration with communities. To achieve co-production—a shared creative process between partners—researchers and practitioners identified the planning phase as the most appropriate time for all partners to come together. A comprehensive and mutually beneficial funding proposal addresses the needs of everyone and supports actionable solutions to local problems.
Session Summary
The NSF will fund research that leads to equity and public welfare, seeking applicable new knowledge. Active listening, affirming realities, and being flexible throughout the process is key to ensuring the research empowers communities and delivers meaningful solutions. Practitioners and community organizations are often short-staffed and may not receive the public exposure they deserve, making partnerships with researchers worthwhile. A liaison, relationship manager, and boundary-setter can assist facilitation, particularly when research hubs have several members. Ensuring direct benefits to community members that are delivered in accessible ways is paramount. Access to training and education is one of the most valued benefits to practitioners and community partners.
Key Points
There should be a connection between the priorities of the researcher and practitioner and/or community partner values.
Representatives from municipalities often field questions about decision-making, even if it is the decision of emergency managers. This is important for researchers to keep in mind.
Practitioners and community partners apply for grants and may even come from a research background. Shared language and values can help connect and engage all involved, especially for long-term research hubs and liaisons. Acronyms, jargon, and arduously complex language should be minimized.
Time for various tasks should be accounted for at the planning phase. Implementation of proposed solutions will require additional buy-in and time for community members.
Researchers can keep a comprehensive record of tasks and agreements to help execute collaborative project(s) more easily.
Allowing practitioners to present at academic conferences can help them obtain credits for licensing or certification requirements, offering benefits to collaboration.
Summary by: Maria Huang, University of California, Berkeley
Session Takeaway
Federal science initiatives—such as the National Volcano Threat Layer and National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program presented at this session—play a crucial role in reducing risk and infrastructure loss. By fostering effective multi-level, multi-agency partnerships and advancing scientific efforts, these programs bridge gaps and support local decision-making, particularly in underserved and rural communities.
Session Summary
Understanding and executing the role of federal science is challenging, particularly in delivering hazard science that serves nationwide needs while addressing the local impacts of geologic hazards. The session discussed how federal science reduces risk from geological hazards and highlighted partnerships that translate scientific efforts into both national and local action. The panelists addressed how non-national agencies and organizations use volcano- and landslide-related federal science in their work, the role of federal science in reducing risk at the rural, underserved, and other local areas, and the challenges of federal science partnerships and strategies to address these issues.
Key Points
The scale of federal science initiatives can make it challenging to tailor data and strategies to specific local contexts, however, they are one of the greatest areas of improvement in federal science partnerships.
Applying federal science to local contexts requires training and equipping local emergency managers and community leaders with knowledge and resources. Incorporating workshops, training programs, and other resources are essential in translating federal scientific data to actionable strategies for enhancing community resilience.
Engaging with local communities and nonprofits to gather feedback and understand their specific needs is vital. Encouraging ongoing dialogue between partners and federal agencies ensures risk reduction.
Practitioners and community leaders often want access to research findings quickly, but data standards prevent them from being accessed as quickly as needed. Ensuring quality control in data releases is crucial for maintaining data integrity, however, it is equally important to develop real-time data dissemination mechanisms for those who require immediate access.
New nationwide science initiatives strive to bridge existing gaps in hazard assessment and risk reduction. These initiatives focus on creating more detailed hazard maps, improving predictive models, and developing better early warning systems to ensure that both national and local agencies have the necessary tools and information.
Effective risk reduction requires robust collaboration between multiple federal agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Weather Service. Interagency collaborations at the district and regional level change interactions with federal partners.
Suggested Resources
National Volcano Early Warning System
U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Hazards Program
U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazards Program
National Volcanic Threat Layer
2021 National Landslide Preparedness Act
National Strategy for Landslide Loss Reduction
USAID Volcano Disaster Assistance Program
Summary by: Hannah Friedrich, University of Arizona
Session Takeaway
HazardAware provides a property-level summary of previous disaster exposure and future risk for 15 hazards in 196 counties along the Gulf Coast. Most homeowners are not aware of their property risk. This tool can help them learn more and find out how to reduce their risk.
Session Summary
The HazardAware platform provides a snapshot of property-level information on previous exposure from separate hazard types, average cost breakdown by hazards, future hazard risk, and community-level summaries of hazard vulnerabilities. Notably, the platform has recommendations and resources for homeowners about ways to reduce hazard risk. Without understanding these risks, homeowners may not know about their loss potential or immediate actions they can take to lessen thazard risk.
Key Points
It is difficult for the average homeowner to track down information on previous and potential hazard exposure and risk, as well as basic information on building standards and codes.
Traditional hazard risk communication metrics (e.g., 100-year floodplain) are ineffective ways to communicate risk, leading homeowners to underestimate their potential liability.
HazardAware assembles property-level risk information, as well as community-level summaries of social vulnerability, resilience actions, and flood insurance savings.
The platform includes tools such as a mitigation calculator that can enable homeowners to evaluate the cost tradeoffs of weatherizing their homes.
This detailed risk information aims to increase homeowner confidence in making informed decisions about mitigating losses and reducing risk to their property.
Suggested Resources
HazardAware Website
Summary by: Anamika Malla, Texas Tech University
Session Takeaway
The session featured short presentations by Bill Anderson Fund fellows, showcasing their work in the hazards and disaster field. The session underscored the importance of diverse perspectives and community engagement in research and practice, including innovative approaches to addressing the needs of vulnerable populations in disaster contexts.
Session Summary
The Bill Anderson Fund was established to honor the late William Averette Anderson, a significant contributor to disaster science and a champion for diversity in the field. The Fund focuses on expanding the number of historically underrepresented professionals in hazards and disaster research through mentorship, professional development, and network building. Presentations included a variety of topics, including long-term recovery, the influence of disasters on perceptions of disability, challenges of rural communities of color, and the role of dollar stores in community resilience.
Key Points
As emphasized by Bill Anderson, diversity in the hazards field is crucial for addressing blind spots in disaster research and making a tangible impact.
All presenters highlighted the importance of engaging with and understanding the needs of marginalized communities in disaster preparedness and recovery.
Presentations provided practical insights into improving disaster resilience through better organizational practices, inclusive policies and community-based approaches.
Suggested Resources
Bill Anderson Fund website