The Communication of Disaster Information and … management planning has been on preparedness, prevention, emergency response and recovery planning. The effectiveness of the community-based

Int. J. Environ. Res., 3(2):209-222, Spring 2009ISSN: 1735-6865

209

*Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

Received 22 Aug 2008; Revised 15 Dec. 2008; Accepted 25 Dec. 2008

The Communication of Disaster Information and Knowledge toChildren Using Game Technique: The Disaster Awareness Game

(DAG)Clerveaux, V.1* and Spence, B.2

1Department of Civil Engineering, Gunma University, 1-5-1 Tenjin-cho Kiryu, Gunma,376-8515, Japan

2Applied Disaster and Emergency Studies (ADES) Program, Faculty of Science,Brandon University, Brandon Manitoba, R7A6A9, Canada

ABSTRACT:The specific vulnerability of children and by extension, the need to promote disasterawareness among children as an integral part of disaster risk-reduction strategies is an emergenttheme in the disaster management fraternity. The challenge however, is in the design of awareness-promotion tools that are relevant to and appropriate for the specific learning needs of children. TheDisaster Awareness Game (DAG) on which this paper is based has been designed to address thischallenge. Preliminary testing of the Game among Caribbean school children suggests that it isappropriate for and effective in rising levels of awareness and consequent behaviour of children indisaster situations. In light of the preliminary nature of these results further testing of the DAG isimperative if confirmation of its reliability is to be obtained.

Key words: Game Technique, Risk Information, Disaster Awareness, Risk Reduction, Children, Risk Communication

INTRODUCTIONThe relationship between hazards/disaster

impact and sustainable development is increasinglybeing highlighted in risk reduction initiatives. Thisrelationship is especially evident in developingcountries where a single catastrophic event canreverse developmental gains by several years. Aconcurrent and compelling argument is thatprovision of and access to appropriate informationand knowledge is a critical ingredient in the riskreduction menu and advancement of theMillennium Goals. Traditionally, generation anddissemination of disaster information andknowledge has adopted a top-down centralizedprocess. In that regard, decision-making in relationto this knowledge has traditionally been the forteof the intellectual community and disastermanagement planners. The shortcomings of thisapproach in terms of its ability to maximiseparticipation of and partnership with communities

has spawned the emergent paradigm ofcommunity-based disaster management planningas the more efficient strategy for disaster loss-reduction. This new approach has the capacity togalvanize mass participation in disastermanagement decision-making, thereby creatingthe public ‘buy in’ that is a prerequisite for creatingthe culture of awareness that is necessary fordisaster risk reduction.

Occurring in conjunction with the shift frommacro-level to community-based disastermanagement planning has been a shift in mitigationemphasis from structural to non-structuralmeasures. In that regard, recent emphasis ondisaster management planning has been onpreparedness, prevention, emergency responseand recovery planning. The effectiveness of thecommunity-based approach is hinged on theprovision of appropriate information andknowledge to the widest cross-section of society

210

Clerveaux, V. and Spence, B.

through the design of appropriate mechanisms forthe communication of disaster-related information.Communication of disaster information is centralto efforts for public education, early warning,evacuation planning, and post-disaster relief(Rattien, 1996 cited in Nielsen & Lidstone, 1998).Although the new initiatives for reducing theimpacts of hazards have gained momentum, it isstill true that in many developing societies theprocess of comprehensive disaster managementhas lagged. This can be attributed to a number offactors such as:i)Paucity of information on hazards and theirimpacts that can inform disaster managementknowledge;ii)Absence of appropriate measures for thedissemination and assimilation of disaster relatedinformation;iii)The absence of an appropriate socio-economicenvironment for the implementation of disastermitigation initiatives and;iv)Discrepancies in methodological approaches tothe implementation of disaster risk-reductioninitiatives.

These gaps in the disaster managementenvironment especially of developing countrieshave resulted in incongruities between the typesof information that are generated and the needsof the people who require loss-reductioninformation. It is in this context that informationand knowledge management have emerged as keyconsiderations in the formulation of disastermanagement initiatives. Thus, “how to do?” hasbecome more focal than “what to do?” in thedesign of strategies for disaster risk-reduction.Unlike traditional top-down approaches, the newparadigm acknowledges and accommodates therole of local knowledge and good practices ininforming the ‘how to do’ of disaster loss-reduction.Disaster information and knowledge can beeffective in risk-reduction only if it addresses thesocial complexities and variations that constitutethe disaster management profiles of societies.Societies are not internally uniform, especially withregard to vulnerability, mitigation needs and thecapacity to access and assimilate disasterinformation. For instance, not only are the specificvulnerabilities of children greater than that of adultsbut their capacity to absorb and apply disasterinformation is significantly different from that ofgrown-ups.

The comparative vulnerability of children tothe impact of hazards and disasters is beingincreasingly documented. This is especially truein developing societies where scarcity of resourceshas undermined the capacity for development andimplementation of effective measures for thepromotion of awareness among children(Fothergill, 1996). The specific vulnerability ofchildren has been highlighted by recentcatastrophic events. For instance, the October2005 earthquake in Pakistan that killed over 16,000children as a result of the collapse of schoolbuildings underscores the need for dueconsideration and promotion of measures that willallow school children to protect themselves duringsuch events. Other examples of this specificvulnerability include the mudslides on Leyte Islandin the Philippines that caused more than 200 deathsamong school children; the March 2005earthquake in Western Iran that destroyed 130schools and directly affected 36,000 children; the2002 earthquake in the Mose region in Italy where26 children were killed after the local school wasdestroyed (ISDR, 2007). The most recentreminder is the China Earthquake in which at leastsix schools collapsed killing thousands of students(CNN, 2008).

In developing societies, where the largestproportion of the population falls within theyoungest age cohorts, the potential impact ofcatastrophes is significantly multiplied. Theseimpacts extend far beyond the immediate becausethe death of each child represents the loss of 40-70 years of productivity and contributions to socialdevelopment in societies which can leastaccommodate these losses (Wisner, 2006). In lightof the preceding discussion, it is evident thatpromotion of awareness among children is acritical need for effective reduction in social andeconomic loss from disasters. Children representthe greatest human resource investment for thefuture so; the protection of children from theimpact of natural and human-induced catastrophesmust include two distinct yet interrelated sets ofpriorities: (i) disaster risk education and (ii) schoolsafety. These priorities are potential multipliers foroverall disaster risk-reduction initiatives.

The Hyogo Framework identifies Knowledgeof and Education on disaster risk reduction as ONEof the FIVE priorities for action in order to achieve

Int. J. Environ. Res., 3(2):209-222, Spring 2009

211

disaster-resilient communities and nations.Likewise, UNISDR has consistently campaignedto make disaster awareness and risk reductionintegral to school curricula whether in formal,informal, or non-formal education. The objectivehere is to promote disaster risk education innational school curricula in countries which arevulnerable to natural hazards.

Disaster education is therefore recognized asan essential element in sustainable developmentsince it accelerates the progress of societies towarddisaster resilience (UNESCO, 2004; Shobeiri andPrahallada, 2007). This view is reiterated in theHyogo Framework for Action Report (2005),where it is stated that “education for creating aculture of disaster resilience is an interactiveprocess of mutual learning among people andinstitutions. It encompasses far more than formaleducation at schools and universities, and affectsall aspects of life through the concerted effort toovercome universal barriers of ignorance, apathy,disciplinary boundaries and lack of political willpresent in communities. Education also involvesthe enhancement and use of indigenous knowledgefor protecting people, habitat, livelihoods, andcultural heritage from natural hazards.” The reportfurther postulates that history teaches thatinadequate disaster reduction awareness andpreparation repeatedly lead to preven table lossof life and damage in all major natural disastersand that preparation through education is less costlythan learning through tragedy.

According to the ISDR (2007) Report, schoolsare the best venues for inculcating collectivevalues. Recently, there has been a renewal offocus, at both the national and global levels, of theimportance of using public education as a strategyfor disaster mitigation. The 1990s Decade forNatural Disaster Reduction emphasised theimportance of governments ‘educating and trainingtheir citizens to increase awareness’ (Press,1989). Likewise, it is widely recognized that aneducated public is better able to prepare for, andadapt and respond to, hazards, and that educationfor disaster reduction is complex yet essential toany properly implemented, centrally managedhazard strategy.

The implementation of disaster loss-reductionprograms in schools is being touted as a key

element in long-term disaster risk-reductionstrategies. This is in recognition of the contributionthat children can make in reducing losses duringcatastrophic events. This contr ibution isdemonstrated in the famed Indian Ocean Tsunamicase where a child is credited to the saving ofseveral lives because of her recollection of thewarning sign of a tsunami form a geographylesson at school (ISDR, 2005). It is in this contextthat children can be regarded as importantresources in disaster risk reduction, as theyperform the role of conduits of knowledge-transferfrom classrooms to their communities, thuscontributing to more resilient societies. Wisner(2006) echoes this view in his statement that “atall levels, pupils and students from primary schoolsto post-graduate level can actively study the safetyof their own schools and work with teachers andcommunity members to find ways to protectthemselves. They can also spread the methods ofparticipatory vulnerability and capacity assessmentand hazard mapping to the broader communitiessurrounding schools and other institutions ofeducation and research of which they are a part”.Similar sentiments are expressed by the ISDR(2006), in the statement that ‘disaster loss-reduction education for children fosters awarenessand better understanding about the immediateenvironment in which they and their families liveand work. Since children are widely known to beinfluential and effective communicators, lessonslearned at school will later be transmitted to thehome’ (UNESCO, 2004). The value- added ofcurrent disaster education intervention in schools’curricula is that children who access disastereducation will, once they become adults, have agreater understanding of disasters, of the effectsof human actions and of the consequences of poorenvironmental management, as well as of the needto promote a new kind of development path thatis in greater harmony with nature (ISDR, 2002).In other words, education for disaster reduction isan integral part of education for sustainabledevelopment, as education, knowledge andawareness are critical to building the capacity forhazard loss reduction (Wisner, 2006).

Children are now not regarded merely aspotential victims of hazards and disasters butincreasingly, as catalysts for loss reduction.However, providing children with the relevant

212

Disaster Information and Knowledge

knowledge and appropriate media for gainingaccess to this knowledge presents a number ofchallenges, especially as this relates to design ofteaching/learning methodologies that are in syncwith the mental capacity and learning modes ofchildren. Specifically, these challenges include:(i)Determination of the existing level of awarenessprior to curriculum design as a means ofestablishing the level of intervention required.(ii) Design and development of appropriate toolsfor evaluating the existing level of awareness andalso the knowledge gained from interventions.(iii) Ensuring that the techniques employed forimparting disaster knowledge to children aresufficiently interesting and interactive to hold theirattention.

The design of methodologies for educatingchildren in disaster loss-reduction issues requiresa number of critical considerations. These arehighlighted in the following section.There is generalconsensus that the tens of thousands of childrenwho lost their lives in the Indian Ocean tsunami of26 December 2004 might have survived had theybeen equipped with the relevant information andskills for disaster reduction and response. It is inthat context that a survey conducted by the AsianDisaster Reduction Centre (ADRC) indicated aconsensus among respondents that the integrationof tsunami disaster education into school curriculais the most effective way to utilize lessons forpreventing or mitigating a similar tragedy fromrecurring (Suzuki, 2006). The mainstreaming ofdisaster education in schools must take into accountkey considerations related to; i) curriculumdevelopment, ii) pedagogy, iii) tailoring of disasterinformation to the mental capacity of children, iv)measurement of level of awareness, v) children’sattention span, vi) mode of communication and vii)inclusion of children in the decision-makingprocess.

There is much interest in curriculum andteaching practice as vehicles for promotingdisaster-related knowledge among children.However, the incorporation of disaster educationinto existing school curricula cannot be ad hoc,but must be approached within the context of anoverall educational system whose strength andfunctionality is reflected in each constituentcurriculum. Interventions for the promotion ofdisaster education must therefore ensure effective

interface with the existing components of thesystem if the initiatives for risk-reduction educationare to be realistic and feasible (Wisner, 2006).

Pedagogy refers to the art of effectivelyimparting knowledge and, as such, the infusion ofdisaster education in school curricula requiresappropriate pedagogic considerations. Traditional,school curricula are largely academic in theirorientation. However, disaster education is notmerely an academic exercise but a knowledgetransfer system that can make the differencebetween life and death, between economicprogress and impoverishment and betweensustainable development and environmentaldegradation. It is in this regard that those to beentrusted with imparting disaster information tochildren should themselves be adequately andappropriately trained, not only in relation to thecontent of such knowledge but also in relation tothe methodologies of effective communication. Ifthis can be achieved in relation to school curricula,the multiplier effect on the wider society in termsof increased levels of awareness will beastounding (Wisner, 2006).

The tailoring of information towards specificgroups is a critical component of pedagogicmethodology. As such, disaster information forchildren must therefore take into considerationissues such as age, level of literacy, local language/dialects and cultural factors, in order to maximizethe detail and wealth of the collective information.Rationalization is critical to the success of anyintervention. In that regard, the promotion ofdisaster education in schools must be informedby the existing level of knowledge among children.This necessitates evaluation of targeted studentsto establish their existing knowledge in relation tohazards and disaster. Depending on the age group,it is important that the evaluation technique is insync with their level of literacy as well as mentalcapacity. It is widely recognized by educators thatgames are an effective mode of communicatinginformation to children of all abilities, and as suchgame techniques can be an effective tool in themeasurement of levels of disaster awarenessamong children.

Attention span is an important considerationin the education of young children. The tendencyis for a positive relationship between attention span


213

and the level of interactiveness of the teachingtechnique. It is for this reason that games,simulations and skits are effective tools for theimparting of disaster knowledge to children. It isimportant however, that detail and accuracy ofinformation are not sacrificed for interactiveness.Children of the same age can respond differentlyto techniques employed for their education.Careful consideration must therefore be paid tothe mode of communication used in thedissemination of disaster risk information to youngchildren and must cover a range of interactive andvisual techniques and, as far as possible, includehands-on and experiential learning methods(Wisner, 2006). Ideally therefore, a disaster-relevant curriculum would not only impartknowledge related to the relevant natural hazardsthemselves, but in addition, would ensure thatvarious media are utilized in the disseminationprocess so as to allow for the production ofunderstandable and accessible information (e.g.posters, murals, simple drawings for primary schoolchildren) for all levels of children’s mental abilities.The United Nations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child (CRC) recognises that a child “is a subjectof rights who is able to form and express opinions,to participate in decision-making processes andinfluence solutions, to intervene as a partner inthe process of social change and in the building ofdemocracy.” Most disaster risk-reductionmeasures have excluded the input of childrenalthough it is widely recognised that children areamong the most vulnerable groups to the impactof disasters. In relation to disaster risk-reduction,children can play a critical role in informing thecontents of risk-reduction measures as well as thetechniques for imparting related knowledge.Children’s participation leads to better outcomesand policies in development planning andprogramming. In order to ensure cost-effectiveness in donor funding and to make themost of limited resources, it is vital to involve allmembers of the community at all stages of aprogramme. Spending money on children’sparticipation brings dividends because it leads toimproved effectiveness and a focus on the needsof the most vulnerable (Plan UK, 2004).Consultation with children and those who teachand work with them must therefore be integral tothe promotion of disaster awareness. The DAG

was designed for the promotion of disasterawareness among children, taking into account theconsiderations aforementioned.

MATERIALS & METHODSThe Disaster Awareness Game (DAG) is a

process that combines a number of tools andtechniques designed to:(i)Measure levels of hazard and disasterawareness,(ii)Educate children as well as adults about hazardsand disasters that are relevant to theirenvironment,(iii) Encourage positive behaviour at all stages ofthe disaster management cycle and,(iv)Dispel myths about hazards and disasters.

These tools include lectures/presentations onlocal hazards and the relevant disastermanagement context, a board game with relatedquestion cards and a score sheet that is used toevaluate levels of awareness prior to and afterexposure to the game. The board game also helpsto inform players of the consequences of poorenvironmental behaviour especially as these relateto hazards. The Disaster Awareness Game wasdesigned to fill major gaps in the capacity ofCaribbean disaster managers to communicatedisaster risk in an increasingly vulnerableenvironment. In light of inherent complexities ineffectively communicating risk in such anenvironment, the need for interactive involvementof stakeholders is being recognized as a worthwhileoption for effective risk communication. Gametechniques are proven to be an excellent methodof achieving required stakeholder participationirrespective of age group or educational level. TheDAG was undertaken during a 2 day workshop inthe Turks and Caicos Islands and St Vincent andthe Grenadines. The validation methodology wasundertaken in four stages:i.Pre-Game Survey − This stage is intended toevaluate the existing levels of disaster awarenessamong the target population using a questionnairesurvey.ii.Initial Game Exposure− This represents thesecond stage of the pre-test through exposure ofthe target population to the DAG.iii.Provision of Disaster Management Information− In this stage, participants are provided withdisaster management information on hazards thatare pertinent to their environment.


214

iv.Post-Game Assessment − This stage wasintended to evaluate the impact of the DAG andthe provision of disaster information on the levelof awareness among participants.

DAG is an educational disaster game techniquethat is designed to evaluate levels of hazardawareness in order to determine and prioritizeinterventions for disaster education. In addition,the DAG evaluation process is intended toencourage positive mitigation and responsebehaviours, as well as to dispel myths aboutdisasters in a fun yet intellectually stimulatingenvironment. An overarching theme of the DAGis the relationship between attitudes to disasterinformation and social vulnerability. Playing of thegame is intended to assess the level of knowledgeof players within the context of the disastermanagement cycle. In that regard, the gamenavigates its players through preparedness,prevention, mitigation, emergency response andrecovery/rehabilitation. There is a strong emphasison measures that can be employed to mitigateimpact and by extension contribute to thesustainability of households, communities andnations. The weakness/gaps in the answers givenby players are not interpreted negatively but areinstead regarded as opportunities for the design ofappropriate interventions for risk-reduction. Keyissues considered in developing the DAG for schoolchildren included design concept, reading andcomprehension ability, age range, usability, attentionspan and learning considerations.

The DAG game consists of 3 levels; Basic,Intermediate and Advanced levels and is adaptableto any stage of educational attainment. The boardgame layout is identical for all levels: the level isdetermined by the degree of difficulty of thequestions contained on the game cards. Currently,the DAG is in an electronic format which allowsits users to adapt and format the game for differentability levels by adjusting the degree of challengeof the questions, the types of hazards and relatedquestions in order to reflect local vernacular andhazard experience/exposure. The flexibility of thegame allows users to format it to reflect specificareas of disaster management which decisionmakers might need to highlight. The adaptationdiscussed in this paper was targeted at Grade 5primary school children and was tested in two

Caribbean countries namely, St. Vincent and theGrenadines and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Todate, the DAG is available in English, withtranslations into Japanese currently underway.

The board component of the DAG processwas designed to ensure that players are evaluatedon the hazards and related management issuesthat are relevant to their environment (Fig. 1).For this reason the contents of the boardcomponent are adjustable and dependent on theenvironment of the players. Once the content ofthe DAG board was developed, the next step wasto determine the degree of difficulty of relatedquestions. Like the board component, the level ofdifficulty of the game cards can be easily andelectronically adapted to suit the player’senvironment. In the game design for children,reading and comprehension ability were keyconsiderations. In that regard, consultation witheducators of young children preceded thedevelopment of the question cards.

Since the preliminary game was intended tobe tested on grade 5 (9-12 year old) primary-levelchildren, the consultation process established thereading and comprehension ability of this agegroup and the question cards were designedaccordingly. The questions on the game cardscoincided with the hazard content of the boardgame, thus covering similar stages of the disastermanagement cycle. The construction of thequestions using a multiple choice format was oneof the outcomes of the consultation witheducators. Likewise was the limitation ofresponse options to three (3). Further fine-tuningof questions occurred in relation to simplicity andstraightforwardness. Appropriateness of thequestions for the targeted students was furtherassessed by circulating draft questions andresponse options among a panel consisting of childeducators and disaster managers. The age rangeconsideration for playing the game is informed byknowledge of the mental and comprehensionability of different age cohorts. Based on thisknowledge, it was decided that a minimum age of9 years was required if the game was to beeffective in the promotion of disaster awarenessamong children.

The primary attraction of the DAG as aneducation tool in the promotion of disaster


215

Fig.1. DAG Board-game Component for the TCI

awareness and risk-reduction is its low resource-demand, simple technology and cost effectiveness.The inputs are low cost and easily available sothe DAG process can be easily implemented inpoor societies where resource availability is amajor constraint. Additionally, the digital formatof the board game allows facilitators to adapt andmodify the game in accordance with therequirements of the local environment in which itis being played. Similarly, the game can be easilymodified to concentrate focus on single or multiplehazards as well as on specific components of thedisaster management cycle. This level of flexibilitycan be effective in prioritizing the focus of thedisaster management education in schools. Inaddition, the board game and question cards can

be translated into multiple languages in order toensure greater universal relevance.

The DAG is intended to promote disastereducation in a relaxed and exciting environmentof mental competitiveness and enjoyment. In orderto prevent boredom, the length of play althoughflexible, was limited to one hour. Various meansof stimulating interest among children wereincorporated into both the board game and thegame cards. Colourful pictures, clip arts, graphicsand attractive text were extensively used. Sincethe game is not intended to be a formal examinationof players’ knowledge, the design of the gamecards (Fig. 2). was intended to instil confidence inplayers by providing the correct response optionas well as a brief explanation for the response.


216

When ocean waves come on shoreand lead to flooding this is called;

b

a. Urban Floods b.Coastal Floods

Coastal Floods usually occuralongcoastal areas when waves

come onshore

NO.1

Fig. 2. Game Card Sample

Positive disaster management behaviours areencouraged in the game by rewarding playerswith moving one place forward for a correctresponse and two places backward for anincorrect response. Players can also advance iftheir game pieces fall on a position that suggestsposit ive disaster management behaviour.Likewise, backward movement (penalty) canoccur if the game piece falls on a location thatindicates detrimental disaster managementbehaviour. This system of reward and penaltyhelps to reinforce the learning of positive disastermanagement behaviour. The pedagogicaleffectiveness of the DAG can be influenced byprevailing dispositions of children especially asthese relate to meta-cognitive skills, readingability and general learning attitudes. In order toachieve the objectives of the game, it wasimperative that the rules of the game be clear,complete and concise so that they could be easilygrasped by players (Fig.3).

Fig. 3. Instructions for Playing DAG Board Game

Instructions for Playing DAG • Number of Players: Two or more players. (It can also be played in teams so that the entire class or large groups can participate). • Game pieces -Game Board -1 Dice -1 game piece per player -50 question cards per hazard (which should be shuffled before each new game). -1 Score and answer sheet per player or group • To Start Playing: Begin the game by placing all game pieces in the starting box. Each player will be required to roll a 6 in order to begin playing the game. After getting a 6, the player will be required to roll the dice a 2nd time and move their game piece forward by that amount of squares according to the number rolled on the dice. • Playing the Game: Should a player land in a box with a hazard picture, a moderator or another player is to take a similar question card from the top of the card deck and ask the player the question or disaster scenario. For each correct response provided, players will be rewarded by being asked to move 1 space forward, while for each incorrect response players will be asked to move 2 spaces backwards. While moving forward if a player land on a hazard picture, he/she will not be required to answer another hazard question. However, if while moving backwards if a player lands on a hazard picture he/she will be required to answer another hazard question. The players will also move backward or forward or loose a turn if they land on any of the marked disaster scenario boxes on the board. If a player lands in a blank square he/she will not be required to answer any question, but is regarded as safe. • Winning the DAG The first player who reaches the finish box or the person who has the most correct responses after 60 minutes is the winner. If the number on the dice is higher than the number of spaces between the player’s position and the finish line, the player must advance to the final space and then move his/her game piece back as many spaces as are left over from the number on the dice. For example, if you are 2 spaces away from the finish line and the throw of the dice gives you 5, you must move your game piece to the finish line and then go back 3 spaces.

217


RESULTS & DISCUSSIONConfirmation is a critical component in the

development of any evaluation tool. With regardto the DAG the confirmation process was intendedto identify and eliminate any glitch in the process.The DAG was tested on Grade 5 students in twocountries in the Caribbean, St. Vincent and theGrenadines (SVG) and the Turks and CaicosIslands (TCI). One school was selected forassessment in each of the countries. TheMarriaqua Government Primary School wasselected in SVG and the Ona Glinton PrimarySchool in the TCI. 42 students were evaluated inSVG while 33 students were evaluated in TCI.Two-day workshops were organized for testingof the DAG in each of the targeted countries. Thegoal of the workshops was not only to evaluateexisting level of disaster awareness within thecontext of the DAG but also to enhanceawareness. Participating grade 5 students in SVGvaried in age from 9 to 12 years with the meanage being 10.9 years. In TCI ages also varied from9 to 12 years with the mean age being 10.2. Theevaluation process in the workshop involved a pre-game survey of students, an initial game exposure,provision of disaster information using variousmode and post-game assessment.

The involvement of students, their teachersand parents as major actors in disaster preventionand emergency preparedness and the fact thatworkshop activities received the support of bothMinistries of Education and National DisasterManagement Organization in each country, as wellas coverage and publicity provided by the media,contributed significantly to the smoothness of theevaluation exercise and the quality of datagenerated. The long-term relevance of the DAGis related to emerging efforts by Caribbeancountries to bench-mark the comparative disastermanagement status among countries as a meansof rationalizing and prioritizing disastermanagement interventions. In that context, theDAG can be utilized as a bench-marking tool thatallows comparison of levels of disaster awarenessamong children of similar ages throughout theregion and thereby inform the type and level ofdisaster intervention required.

At the start of the workshop, a questionnaire wasadministered to participating students and their

level of awareness assessed based on thecorrectness of their responses. The questionnairewas designed to assess not only the children’s levelof awareness but also risk perceptions, factualknowledge and physical preparedness for hazardsto which their communities are vulnerable. In thatregard, the questions relevant to students in SVGwere related to hurricane, volcano, landslide, andmudslide and flooding. Those relevant to TCIstudents focus on hurricane and flooding. Thequestionnaire was also designed to assesschildren’s prior exposure to specific hazards andto disaster education programmes designed toincrease awareness, knowledge and preparednesswhich may have been provided by local disastermanagement officials, media or by schoolteachers.

At this stage of the evaluation exercise,students were coached on the rules of the gameand were allowed to play without any additionalinformation provided to them. The idea behind thisexercise was to complement the measurementexercise undertaken in the pre-game survey. Inessence therefore, the initial game exposureprovided a reliability check for the pre-gamesurvey. A score card was kept to record thecorrectness of responses but more importantly, itcould be used as a baseline for determining levelsof awareness at this stage. At the end of thisexercise, game scores of participating studentswere compared with the results of the pre-gamesurvey in order to establish reliability.

The initial exposure to the DAG was followedby formal but interactive discussions related to therelevant hazards, their impact and management.These discussions were facilitated by simplepower-point presentations, videos and otherinteractive learning techniques. The post-testassessment consisted of a second exposure to theDAG and evaluation of the students’ performancein light of their previous exposure as well as to thedisaster management information provided. Theresults of the post-game assessment are discussedbelow and focus on the influence of the DAGexercise on i) awareness of local hazards, ii) riskperception and iii) preparedness and mitigation.

Analysis of data generated in the DAGexercise suggests that levels of awareness aboutlocal hazards increased after exposure to the DAG.


218

Although the results of the pre-game surveysuggested high levels of hazard awarenessespecially with regard to students in SVG, thereliability check provided by the initial gameexposure contradicted this. The conclusion hereis that students either did not comprehend thequestions on which the analysis is based ordeliberately inflated their knowledge of hazardsand disasters in the pre-game survey. Thecorrectness of responses on the game score sheetwas used as a comparative measure of the extentto which exposure to the game enhances disasterawareness (Table 1a & 1b).

Hazard Before Workshop %

After workshop %

Flood 64.8 86.8 Hurricane 65.4 83.4

Hazard Before Workshop %

After workshop %

Flood 69.2 74.6 Hurricane 75.0 83.0 Volcano 54.0 80.2 Landslide 51.0 92.0 Mudflow 43.0 83.0

In the case of the TCI, the level of awarenessin relation to hurricanes and floods increased byan average of 20 percent following exposure tothe DAG. For SVG, awareness increased by over24 percent in relation to the 5 hazards to whichthat country is vulnerable. While it can beconcluded that the DAG process contributedsignificantly to the enhancement of disasterawareness among the sampled children, cautionmust be exercised in relation to the reliability ofthese results. This is because there is a time-influenced tendency of knowledge attrition inrelation to an experience/event. In that regard, thereliability of these results can be confirmed onlythrough continuous evaluation of levels ofawareness over an extended period of time. Theseresults are therefore to be interpreted aspreliminary. People’s perception of risk is a majorfactor in the determination of vulnerability becausethis perception informs the decisions that willeither mitigate or aggravate vulnerability. This isespecially relevant for school children who mightbe away from adult supervision for extendedperiods of time en route to and from school. Table2a&b indicate a notable increase in risk awarenessfor both TCI and SVG samples in relation to floods(Table 2a) and hurricanes (Table 2b), followingexposure to the DAG..

TCI SVG Variables Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Perceived vulnerability of country

75.8 84.8 9.0 90.9 100 9.1

Perceived vulnerability of community

56.3 90.9 34.6 81.3 90.8 9.5

Perceived vulnerability of home

43.8 60.6 16.8 68.8 80.5 11.7

TCI SVG Variables Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Perceived vulnerability of country

87.9 93.9 6.0 87.9 95.9 6.0

Perceived vulnerability of community

81.8 90.9 9.1 93.9 98.5 4.6

Perceived vulnerability of home

63.9 72.7 8.8 78.6 90.9 12.3

Table 2a. TCI & SVG Flood Hazard Risk Perception

Table 2b. TCI & SVG Hurricane Hazard Risk Perception

Table 1b. SVG - Comparative Levels of DisasterAwareness Before and After Exposure to DAG

Table 1a. TCI- Comparative Levels of DisasterAwareness Before and After Exposure to DAG

219


In the case of flooding, the risk awareness ofthe TCI sample increased by an average of 20percent, while that of the SVG sample increasedby approximately 10 percent. The smaller increasein risk awareness for the SVG sample is areflection of higher levels of existing floodawareness in the pre-test evaluation. That levelof awareness is a function of greater exposure toflood events when compared with the TCI sample.Analysis of post-test data for the TCI indicatesthat the most significant increase in flood riskawareness related to the vulnerability ofcommunities. This reflects lower levels ofexposure to and experience with flooding in thecommunities from which the students originated.In the case of SVG, the most significant increaserelated to the perceived vulnerability of homesbecause, although students have a high level ofexposure to flooding, the site-specific location oftheir homes makes direct impact from floodingunlikely except in extreme high magnitude eventsowing to generally steep elevations of thisenvironment.

In the case of hurricanes, the increase inrisk perceptions following exposure to the DAGwas generally lower than for flooding. In theTCI, hurricane risk perception increased byapproximately 7.8 percent while for SVG theincrease was 7.6 percent. The main explanationis that existing levels of hurricane awarenessbefore exposure to the DAG were significantlyhigh for both samples. The similarity of theincrease for TCI and SVG reflects a similarity

in the character and dissemination process ofhurricane information throughout the Caribbeanand especially within the Caribbean DisasterEmergency Response Agency (CDERA:CDERA is the umbrella disaster managementorganization for the Caribbean Region)participating states to which the TCI and SVGbelong. Compared to information on otherhazards which affect the Caribbean region,information on hurricanes is the most developedand most accessible. In that regard, studentsin both the TCI and SVG would have beenexposed to similar hurr icane-rela tedinformation.

The role of preparedness and mitigation indisaster risk-reduction has emerged as a dominantparadigm in disaster management, particularlybecause of relationships to the sustainability ofdevelopment in both developed and developingcountries. Increasingly, preparedness andmitigation are being promoted at the householdand community levels and, to that end, children’sknowledge of preparedness and mitigation issueshave become a critical component of thisprevailing paradigm.

Preliminary analysis of the DAG indicatessignificant increase in children’s knowledge ofpreparedness and by extension, mitigationmeasures in relation to floods (Table 3a) andhurricanes (Table 3b) for both samples. In the caseof flooding, knowledge of preparedness/mitigationmeasures among students in the TCI increasedby an average of approximately 22 percent while

TCI SVG Variables Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Understand what to do to prepare

87.9 100 12.1 81.8 95.2 13.7

Understand what to do to evacuate safely

69.7 97.0 27.3 87.9 95.5 7.6

Understand what to do to recover from the damage

66.7 93.9 27.2 66.7 95.2 28.5

Table 3a. TCI & SVG Flood Hazard Preparedness/Mitigation


220

in SVG the increase was nearly 17 percent. Inrelation to hurricanes, preparedness/mitigationknowledge increased by 16 and 15 percent forTCI and SVG, respectively.

The difference in increase between the twolocations might be explained by similar factors tothose of risk perception.The increase inpreparedness/mitigation knowledge was evidentin children’s ability to list items that should beincluded in an emergency evacuation bag as wellas how these can be used during an emergency.Additionally, children demonstrated a betterunderstanding of hazards and their impacts andan extensive knowledge of measures that can betaken to mitigate the effects of hazards, afterexposure to the DAG. Exposure to the DAG alsoassisted students in identifying ways in which theycan assist their parents with disaster preparednessactivities. Most were able to compile check-liststo remind their parents of preparations requiredto mitigate the impact of specific emergencies.

Evacuation knowledge also increasedfollowing exposure to the DAG, although moreso for the TCI than SVG. This is mainly becauseof a higher occurrence of pre-test evacuationknowledge among students in SVG. Most of thestudents in the Marriaqua Valley where thesample school is situated would have had previousrepeated experience of evacuation during floodingand hurricane events. The dearth of hurricaneexperience in the TCI would have impeded thedevelopment of this knowledge in children. It isfor similar reasons that recovery knowledge washigher for students in TCI. This augmentation in

students’ level of awareness of hazardpreparedness and mitigation strategies can beaccredited to the exposure of students to anumber of lectures and the use of the DAG boardgame as a tool to buttress disaster managementissues.

CONCLUSIONThe importance of hazard awareness

promotion through the provision of and accessto disaster information and knowledge isincreasingly being recognised as a criticalstrategy for the mitigation of the social, economicand environmental impacts of disasters and byextension, the enhancement of the process ofsustainable development. Interventions forpromoting disaster awareness must of necessitytake into consideration the complexities in thedisaster profile of the environment in which theintervention is intended. One aspect of thatcomplexity relates to the provision to children ofappropriate and relevant information that canenhance their safety during emergency events.Given that the capacity of children tocomprehend, assimilate and apply information isdifferent from that of adults, special designconsiderations must be given in the developmentof tools targeting disaster awareness promotionamong children.

The DAG was designed with dueconsideration to the specific needs of children interms of the provision of disaster information andknowledge. The results from preliminary testingof the DAG indicate that these design

Table 3b. TCI & SVG Hurricane Hazard Preparedness/Mitigation

TCI SVG Variables Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Pre-Test Post-Test % Increase Understand what to do to prepare

93.9 100 6.1 93.9 97.6 3.7

Understand what to do to evacuate safely

75.8 96.9 21.1 75.8 93.9 18.1

Understand what to do to recover from the damage

69.7 90.9 21.2 69.7 92.9 23.2


221

considerations are for the most part effective inpromoting awareness among children. Gaps in thedesign considerations have been addressed andthe tool will undergo a second round of testing.The game can also be used as a tool for theidentification and prioritization of interventions forpromoting disaster awareness. This is especiallyrelevant in the Caribbean region where scarcityof economic resources dictates the need forprioritization. In that regard, the DAG has thecapacity to establish ranking among countries interms of the level of awareness among children.Investment in people is an essential element ofany programme. Building capacity is required atevery level of society to reduce the impact ofdisasters. Information, education, and knowledgeare key, as well as appropriate technology. Thus,it is essential that disaster preparedness featureas a component of any community developmentintervention.

Given the number of children affected bydisasters yearly, it is essential that studies andpolicies now take account of the needs, viewsand capacities of children explicitly andconsistently by including them in the disasterplanning process and empowering them to helpthemselves and others around them. Educatingchildren about hazards and mitigation strategieswill help to create a safe local habitat for childrento develop to their full potential, with theknowledge that if disaster strikes, they and theircommunity are well prepared. However, in orderto achieve this objective we must ensure thatlearning is fun, interactive and appropriate forthe level at which it is being disseminated, aswas demonstrated during the DAG workshopsin SVG and TCI.

REFERENCESAnderson, A. W. (2000). Women and Children FacingDisasters in the book Managing Disaster Risk inEmerging Economies- Disaster Risk Management SeriesNo. 2. Edited by Alcira Kreimer and Margaret Arnold.The World Bank. Washington, D. C. Retrieved March10, 2008, from www.crid.or.cr/crid/CD_Inversion/pdf/eng/doc13121/doc13121.htm.

CNN, (2008). Nearly 10,000 reported killed by Chinaquake. May 15, 2008.Retrieved June 3, 2008 from http://www.cnn .com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/12/china.quake/.

Fothergill, A. (1996). Gender, Risk, and Disasters.International Journal of Emergencies and Disasters,14 (1), 33-56.

Hyogo Framework for Action (2007) Building theResilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters.International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (I S DR). Retrieved May 10, 2007 from www.unisdr.org/wcdr.

ISDR, (2006). Disaster Risk Reduction for SustainableDevelopment in Africa. Retrieved October 3, 2008, fromhttp://www.unisdr.org/africa/af-hfa/docs/africa-regional-strategy.pdf.

ISDR, (2007). Towards a Culture of Prevention: DisasterRisk Reduction Begins at School Good Practices andLessons Learned. Retrieved September 3, 2008, fromhtt p: / /www.un isdr. org/en g/about_isdr / i sdr-publications/11-education-good-practices/education-good-practices.pdf.

ISDR, (2005). Ten lessons learned from theSouth Asia tsunami of 26 December 2004.Retr ieved September 10, 2008, from ht tp:/ /www.tsunami-evaluat ion .org/NR/rdon lyres/0B9E9E7B-5D39-4DD7-B15D-D4E826E43156/0/ISDR_Ten_Lessons_from_Tsunami_20050107.pdf.

ISDR, (2002). Gender Mainstreaming in DisasterReduction. Panel presentation by Sálvano Briceño.Director UN/ISDR Commission on the Status ofWomen. New York Secretariat of the InternationalStrategy for Disaster Reduction UN/ISDR. RetrievedMarch 23, 2007 from; http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/gender/rd-gender-eng.htm.

Nielsen, S. and Lidstone, J. (1998). Public Educationand Disaster management: Is there any GuidingTheory?Australian Journal of Emergency Management,13(3), 14-19.

Plan UK (2004). Children Changing Their World:Understanding and Evaluating Children’s Participationin Development. Retrieved March 15, 2007 fromwww.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childrensparticipation.pdf

Press, F. (1989). Implementing the International Decadefor natural Disaster Reduction, Prepared for theSecretary General of the United Nations by theInternational Ad Hoc Group of Experts, 11th April 1989,United Nations, New York.

Suzuki, K. (2006). Executive Director Asian DisasterReduction Center. Abstract − Promoting DisasterEducation for our Children. Retrieved September 12,2007 from www.adrc.or.jp/events/octoberforum/pdf/Abstract_Mr.Suzuki.pdf.


222

UN (2007) Convention on the Rights of the Child.Retrieved September 12, 2007 from www. Unicef.org.

UNESCO, (2004). APELL for Schools and EducationalBuildings: A community-based approach for schoolsafety and education for disaster reduction. RetrievedApril 21, 2007, from www.unesco.org/science/disaster/apell_schools.pdg.

UN/ISDR (2001). Environmental Management and theMitigation of Natural Disasters: A Gender Perspective.Retrieved February 21, 2008 from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/env_manage/documents/EGM-Turkey-final-report.pdf.

Wisner, B. (2006). ISDR- Let our children teach us! AReview of the Role of Education and Knowledge inDisaster Risk Reduction. Retrieved September 22, 2008,from http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/working%20groups/knowledge-education/docs/Let-our Children-Teach-Us.pdf.

Documents

The Communication of Disaster Information and … management planning has been on preparedness, prevention, emergency response and recovery planning. The effectiveness of the community-based