Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Robert Cook, Associate Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne
Weekend storms and flooding in New South Wales led to the NSW State Emergency Service responding to more than 1,600 incidents across the state.
This follows last week’s flash floods in Victoria, where cars were swept to sea and people raced to escape. Many affected were holidaymakers but even locals were caught unprepared.
Previous flood-preparedness approaches have proved insufficient. Government and risk agencies have relied on top-down approaches that broadcast information to people and then expect them to act on it.
Despite decades of increasingly sophisticated warnings and campaigns, attempting to tell people what to do has delivered uneven and often limited results.
So what actually works?
This question was at the heart of our new paper, published in the Journal of Hydrology, which involved engaging with 641 households in flood-prone areas of Kingston and Darebin in the Greater Melbourne area.
We found a more participatory one-on-one approach leads to behaviour changes that actually reduce risk to people and property. That means really listening to people about what they know and how they feel about flood risk.
What we did
The study used a real-world, before-and-after research design to understand how households decide to reduce flood risk. We used a methodology called Community Engagement for Disaster Risk Reduction, conceived by one of us (Brian Cook) but implemented by an extensive team, which prioritises meaningful human engagement over simply spreading awareness or telling people what to do.
Our researchers worked with households in flood-prone areas, holding one-on-one conversations.
Each household completed an initial survey-interview about their experiences, perceptions, and past actions.
Researchers returned months later to repeat the process and record changes.
By combining survey data with recorded conversations, our study tracked what people actually did over time.
What we found
Our research found people made practical changes to reduce flood risk after these engagements.
What mattered was not being told something, but having the space to talk through their own situation, receive follow-up material, and feel supported in making decisions relevant to them.
One participant reflected:
I can’t recall the detail of the conversation but certainly learned from the links you sent me in reference to the SES and the responses to various potential disasters.
Others described how seeing their home in context helped:
I think the maps and the resources that [your research assistant] sent me are what increased my awareness; I think I looked at the map and where we live, and I think I saw that it was probably the risk of flooding was worse than I thought it was.
For some, the engagement helped them think through
what to do if there’s a flood, acting early, making sure everyone’s safe, just like a bushfire.
Several participants described small but meaningful steps, such as:
I’m getting my emergency box together, so if something happens then I will be prepared or at least know what to grab and run for my life.
The conversations also shaped people’s connections with others. One said they:
got in contact with a couple more neighbours since then, just exchanged numbers so that if they see something happening in our place, or vice versa, that we’ve got a contact for them to call.
Another said:
When it came time to renew my insurance policy, double checked it for our flood cover.
One explained:
I increased my house, contents, and building insurance.
Importantly, participants often framed flood risk as something shared and ongoing, not a problem solved by individual vigilance. One reflected:
There are a lot of leaves in the driveway that I went and swept up and put in my bin and then I thought “I’m never going to get them all in my bin”. I needed to make it a council issue rather than an individual owner’s issue. And if the leaves aren’t swept up, they go in the drains and then we get flooding in the driveway.
Another said:
I have asked the body corporate if they could do some new concreting because the ground has settled and that’s more risky. The water actually can come in [to the house] if we have a lot of rain.
Change emerged through feeling supported, being taken seriously, and acting within everyday constraints.
Where to from here?
In our study, change didn’t occur because people were instructed, persuaded, or repeatedly told what to do.
Nor was it the result of improved messaging, scarier warnings, or more information.
What mattered was participatory learning over time: people being invited into respectful conversations, treated as capable decision-makers, and supported to work through risk in ways that made sense within their own lives.
When people are engaged as partners rather than passive recipients, learning becomes relational, actions feel legitimate, and responsibility is shared across households, neighbours, and institutions.
Is it affordable?
Well, continuing on the current, ineffective path might well be even costlier in the long-term. Governments spend vast amounts on each advertisement campaign, with underwhelming results.
The 2022 floods along Australia’s east coast cost around A$7.7 billion in Queensland alone. If you reduced the damages by 10% you’d have more than $700 million in savings.
Engaging one-on-one with each household in high risk flood zones sounds expensive, but so too are many other tailored services provided by governments in Australia. Think, for instance, of home visits by a midwife or child health nurse after a person gives birth, or an in-home assessment provided by My Aged Care. As a society, we’ve decided those one-on-one engagements, while costly, are worth it.
Our research suggests it’s time we consider a similar approach with disaster risk reduction.
We know what works
Disaster preparedness has for too long persisted with approaches that seek to persuade, instruct, or direct.
But as recent events confirm, disasters do not unfold in neat or predictable ways.
Floods demand judgement, improvisation, and quick decisions made under extreme stress. What’s required isn’t simple compliance with predetermined instructions, but learning that can be adapted and adjusted in the moment.
Crucially, nearly all participants reported enjoying or appreciating the engagements, which helped spread the word and support further community connections.
When people are engaged in conversations that take their circumstances seriously, they build confidence and capacity to respond to unpredictable situations.
This is why participatory engagement and collaboration sit at the heart of the durable risk reduction we will need in an increasingly dangerous future.
Brian Robert Cook receives funding from Melbourne Water. He is the current president of the Institute of Australian Geographers.
Nicholas Harrigan receives funding from Australian Research Council, Hort Australia, and ACIAR. He is Macquarie University Branch President of the National Tertiary Education Union.
Peter Kamstra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. More floods are coming. Here’s what actually works to help people prepare – https://theconversation.com/more-floods-are-coming-heres-what-actually-works-to-help-people-prepare-273694
