Reshaping disaster management: An integrated community‐led approach

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract The management of disasters has traditionally involved public, private, and nongovernmental organisations working together. While scholars have examined the value of collaborations among these entities, less is known about how to successfully engage and empower communities in disaster management. Based on network governance theory, this article contributes to the growing body of public management literature on community engagement by presenting findings from an Australian research initiative conducted after the 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires in New South Wales. Through workshops and semi‐structured interviews with a total of 58 members from local communities and emergency agencies, this paper identifies differing perspectives on power distribution among stakeholders, indicating complexities in achieving an integrated and community‐led disaster management approach. The findings underscore the need to shift from exclusively centralised to more inclusive systems, recognising the unique contributions of nonofficial community‐based groups. To address this, the study suggests: a funded community consultation committee, ensuring government and local community representation; collaborative debriefing sessions, leveraging technology for knowledge capture; and the adoption of different leadership styles able to identify, include, and integrate communities as both steerers and rowers within established hierarchical arrangements. Points for practitioners The current centralised emergency management system, which relies on recognised experts and state‐controlled facilities, limits the integration of nonofficial resources and community‐based knowledge. A shift towards a more community‐centric and integrated approach (collaborative polycentric governance) is needed to enhance disaster resilience and response in Australia. Different stages of disaster reduction could and should have different leadership styles: a transformational, collaborative community‐based style should be implemented before and after the disaster, while a transactional leadership style, more focused on restructuring the system or how it is applied, should be adopted during the disaster.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.