Introduction: To report on activities aligned with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, national governments will use the Sendai Monitor platform to track progress using a series of indicators that inform seven Global Targets originally agreed in 2015. In February 2017, the UN General Assembly adopted a set of 38 agreed indicators based on work led by an open-ended intergovernmental expert working group (OIEWG) on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. In January 2018 the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction released technical guidance documents in advance of the launch of the Sendai Monitor in March 2018. Methods: This paper discusses several challenges to recording and reporting on loss data under the Sendai Framework. Additional insights to elaborate on discussion build upon commentary and examples raised during a workshop held on developing loss data that was hosted by the United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) programme, and Public Health England (PHE) from February 15-17 2017 at the Royal Society in London, United Kingdom. The meeting’s purpose was to refine technical guidance notes concerning Global Targets A, B, C, and D, which had been drafted in coordination with the work of the OIEWG. The workshop was attended by representatives from UN Agencies, UN Member States, international scientific bodies, academic bodies, the government of the United Kingdom and the private sector. Results: Global Targets A, B, C and D of the Sendai Framework have common and specific complexities which require acknowledgement and support in recording, reporting and using disaster loss data. Discussions during the February 2017 loss data workshop highlighted a number of complexities and the need for common standards and principles for loss data. Individual target complexities include attribution of health impacts, assessing impacts, consistently calculating economic losses and measuring disruption to critical infrastructure. Discussion: Transparent monitoring is critical to ensure political will, financial efforts and effective evidence support the global shift towards more sustainable development. Data involves common challenges which can undermine accuracy and understanding of reporting across the frameworks that outline the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda. Disaster loss data adds further challenges which require support and innovation to ensure stakeholders across sectors in all sectors have appropriate technical guidance that can support useful loss data management processes. The February 2017 workshop highlighted systemic challenges with working with loss data and highlighted several pertinent pathways to progress on the breadth and reliability of disaster loss data across different settings.

Abstract Background: Animal ownership has been identified as a risk factor for human survivability of natural disasters. Animal guardians have been reported to react or act in ways that may put their own safety and that of emergency services personnel at risk when faced with a natural disaster. Recent research has suggested that this risk factor could be reconfigured as a protective factor, whereby desires to save animals from natural disaster harm could motivate increased planning and preparedness behaviours amongst animal guardians. However, there has been no research to determine if bushfire planning and response behaviours differ between pet owners with low and high attachment; and how the relationship may differ in relation to small or large animals. Methods and procedure: We investigated the relationship between people’s emotional attachment to different types of pets and their preparation and actions during the Pinery bushfire in South Australia in November 2015. Thirty-four people who were impacted by the fire participated in an online survey. Data were collected about their preparedness, planning and response behaviours as well as their animal attachment (high or low). Results: We identified 10 characteristics (behaviours, attributes, skills and beliefs) associated with high animal attachment scores, and eight associated with low animal attachment scores. Discussion: Our discussion of the differences in demographics, preparedness, planning and response characteristics of participants with high and low animal attachment confirms research suggesting that animal guardians take risks to save their animals during disasters. Our findings also support recent propositions that animal attachment and ownership could be used to increase the natural disaster preparedness and survivability of animal guardians. However, making sure that animal attachment functions as a protective factor requires active and effective intervention through education, behaviour change and social marketing strategies. Whilst our study is high in ecological validity, future research with larger samples sizes is required to determine the generalisability of our findings to animal owners and guardians in other locations, facing fires with other characteristics, especially for owners and guardians with low levels of attachment.

Introduction: Despite existing policy actions on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), many community members in Bududa still continue to settle in high-risk areas re-zoned for nonsettlement. There seems to be an apparent information asymmetry on expectations between the community and Government. The challenge then is ‘how to consult communities and seek their opinion in an adequately representative unbiased way’. This paper sets out to explore policy options on resettlement management as a DRR approach and how engaging with communities in a public discourse using the Deliberative Polling (DP) approach; to obtain their opinions and insights on these policy issues, revealed underlying challenges to policy implementation.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in Bududa in eastern Uganda with fourteen group discussions; comprising 12-15 randomly assigned participants of mixed socio-economic variables. Trained research assistants and moderators collected data. All discussions were audio taped, transcribed verbatim before analysis. Data were analyzed using latent content analysis by identifying codes from which sub-themes were generated and grouped into main themes on policy options for resettlement management.

Results and Discussion: We used Deliberative Polling, an innovative approach to public policy consultation and found that although the community is in agreement with most government policy options under resettlement management, they lacked an understanding of the rationale underlying these policy options leading to challenges in implementation. The community members seemed uncertain and had mistrust in government’s ability to implement the policies especially on issues of compensation for land lost.

Key Words: Policy, Deliberative Polling, Climate change, risk-reduction, landslides, Uganda

Introduction: An all-of-society approach to disaster risk reduction emphasizes inclusion and engagement in preparedness activities. A common recommendation is to promote household preparedness through the preparation of a ‘grab bag’ or ‘disaster kit’, that can be used to shelter-in-place or evacuate. However, there are knowledge gaps related to how this strategy is being used around the world as a disaster risk reduction strategy, and what evidence there is to support recommendations.

Methods: In this paper, we present an exploratory study undertaken to provide insight into how grab bag guidelines are used to promote preparedness in Canada, China, England, Japan, and Scotland, and supplemented by a literature review to understand existing evidence for this strategy.

Results: There are gaps in the literature regarding evidence on grab bag effectiveness. We also found variations in how grab bag guidelines are promoted across the five case studies.

Discussion: While there are clearly common items recommended for household grab bags (such as water and first aid kits), there are gaps in the literature regarding: 1) the evidence base to inform guidelines; 2) uptake of guidelines; and 3) to what extent grab bags reduce demands on essential services and improve disaster resilience.

Introduction: Flooding is a common natural disaster affecting 77.8 million people and claiming the lives of 4,731 people globally in 2016. During times of flood, drowning is a leading cause of death. Flooding is a known risk factor for river drowning in Australia. With little known about river usage in Australia, this study aimed to examine the links between person demographics and self-reported participation in two flood-related behaviours, driving through floodwaters and swimming in a flooded river. Methods: A self-reported questionnaire was administered to adult river users at four high-risk river drowning locations; Alligator Creek, Townsville, Queensland; Murrumbidgee River, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales; Murray River, Albury, New South Wales; and Hawkesbury River, Windsor, New South Wales. Univariate and chi square analysis was undertaken with a 95% confidence interval (p<0.05). All river users surveyed, were also breathalysed to record an estimate of their blood alcohol content (BAC) on their expired breath. Results: 688 river users responded to the questionnaire; 676 (98.3%) answered the driving question and 674 (98.0%) answered the swimming in floodwaters questions. Of the respondents, 35.7% stated they had driven through floodwater and 18.7% had swum in a flooded river. Males were more likely (p<0.001) to report having undertaken both activities. Australian-born respondents were more likely to report having driven through floodwaters (p=0.006). Those aged 18-24 years old and those residing in outer regional areas were more likely (p<0.001) to have swum in a flooded river. Those who self-reported participating in both driving through floodwaters (p=0.001) and swimming in a flooded river (p<0.001) were significantly more likely to record contributory levels of alcohol (i.e. a BAC ≥0.05%) when breathalysed at the river. Discussion: Ensuring the safe movement of people during floods is difficult, particularly for those living in regional Australia, due in part to long distances travelled and reduced investment in infrastructure such as bridges. With males and females equally exposed, more effective prevention strategies must target both sexes and may include improved education on when it is safe to drive through (low depth, still water, stable road base) and when it is not (e.g. deep water, moving water and unstable road base). This study identified one in five respondents had swum in a flooded river, most commonly young people aged 18-24 years, with participants signficantly more likely to have recorded contributory levels of alcohol when breathalysed. Further research should examine the reasons behind participation in this behaviour, including the role of alcohol. Conclusion: Preventing drowning in floodwaters is an international challenge, made more difficult by people driving through or swimming in floodwaters. Strategies for driving through floodwaters should educate both males and females on when it is safe to drive through floodwaters and when it is not. Further research is required to improve knowledge of the poorly understood behaviour of swimming in flooded rivers.