‘Leave no-one behind’ is the tag line for the Sustainable Development Goals. In disaster management this idea takes on a very practical meaning. People with disability are two to four times more likely to die or be injured in a disaster than the general population. So why is our disaster planning and risk reduction failing people with disability?
Being able to attend community meetings to find out what to do in an emergency is one factor. Having more than one person in the household with disability is another. Community education and plans assume everyone can get out of the house with a few belongings, get in the car and drive to safety. But some of the problem is that people with disability don’t make a plan or don’t tell anyone their plan.
There is no nationally consistent standard for including people with disability in disaster risk reduction. An article in The Conversation explains some of the research into this. It includes the comments made by people with disability when asked about disaster planning. One such comment is very telling,
“But I spoke to three different people who had three different disabilities, and you realise that the communication has to be targeted. Because those three people required completely different things. And the information they got was not in a mode which they could use.”
The title of the article in The Conversation is, ‘Nobody checked on us’: what people with disability told us about their experiences of disasters and emergencies.
The academic version was published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. The title of the paper is, Applying a person-centred capability framework to inform targeted action on Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction, and is available from ScienceDirect.
Key points from the study are:
- Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction requires collaboration with people with disability to remove barriers that increase risk in emergencies.
2. The Person-Centred Emergency Preparedness framework directs attention to the choices that people with disability have in emergency situations and factors that enable or limit them.
3. Findings can be used to support implementation of Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience by defining person-centred responsibilities of people with disability and service providers in emergencies.
Findings gave deep insight into the diversity and interrelatedness of factors that increase the vulnerability of people with disability. The report offers new perspectives on why Australian’s with disability are disproportionately affected by disaster.
Universally designed emergency management
With the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, the need to have inclusive emergency systems is paramount. Although there is some awareness of people with disability within emergency management, there are few tools that embrace universal design principles.
Research has focused on the general public, but not on stakeholders such as first responders, control room personnel and decision makers. Many of us turn to our mobile phones and downloaded apps to keep us up to date. But how inclusive are they?
A research paper from Norway takes the topic of emergency management beyond the physical environment, such as escape routes, to communications technology. Appropriate technology can improve disaster management for everyone.
The paper is a literature review of universal design methods in emergency management. Among the findings was awareness of people with disability was increasing and systems were being adapted accordingly. However, gaps remain.
Some of these are:
- Most of the work on ICT tools and platforms for Emergency Management does not take into account Universal Design nor accessibility.
- There is a lack of communication support between emergency medical responders and people that are deaf.
- In use of social networks in emergency situations, the age gap was identified as significantly more severe than the disability gap.
- Accessible tools and platforms exist, but most of them are on the conceptual or at best on the prototype level.
- Research on the use of assistive technology by older adults during disasters is a neglected issue.
- Accessibility is often limited to access to Internet, rather than the diversity of stakeholders and their access to digital solutions.
They also found that participatory design methods gave best results but were rarely used. Maps for visualising disasters were unlikely to be accessible, but had high value for users. The article is comprehensive and covers every aspect of emergency and disaster management, particularly from the perspective of emergency personnel.
The title of the article is, Universal Design of ICT for Emergency Management from Stakeholders’ Perspective. It is open source.