How does the concept of household preparedness apply in a multi-hazards context? Results from a systematic literature review.

This presentation will show preliminary results from a project looking at how the multi-hazard concept can be embedded into household preparedness plans, particularly in low-income settings. The first component of the project is a systematic review of the academic literature that addressed two questions: (a) “what are the components of a ‘good’ household preparedness plan and its uptake?” and (b) “to what extent is the concept of multi-hazards embedded into household preparedness planning research”? For each question, a range of keywords were developed and input into Web of Science, returning 427 and 177 relevant papers respectively. Papers were categorised by (i) methodological approach, (ii) geographical scope, (iii) hazards considered, and (iv) aspects of the household preparedness plan such as specific actions, uptake success and intended audience. For research question (a), papers were compared to Sutton and Tierney’s (2006) eleven general principles of household preparedness. Key findings about the current body of literature include: 

• A narrow methodological scope – the majority of papers reviewed adopted quantitative survey approaches which tend to inadequately capture the complex interplay of factors which determine levels of household preparedness. 

• A narrow geographical scope – the majority of papers reviewed apply to middle- and high-income countries and urban areas within, meaning the recommendations emerging from them are not easily applicable in Global South contexts, and may even be counterproductive.  

• A single hazard or hazard agnostic approach – many papers either focused on a narrow range of specific hazards or implied relevance to ‘all hazards’. Largely this is done in a multi-layer single hazards approach, or under the assumption that being prepared for one hazard results in improved preparedness for other hazards, which misses potential compounding interactions between hazards and/or preparedness actions. 

• Studies often focus on barriers to preparedness, rather than taking a critical collaborative approach to co-creating tools that are useful, useable and used.  

This literature review and our research findings will inform a proof-of-concept toolkit to support both households and organisations in developing household preparedness plans that is (i) mixed-methods, (ii) targeted at small to medium urban centres in the Global South, (iii) specifically address how both hazards and preparedness actions may interact to compound the impacts and/or benefits and (iv) centres affected community voices, promoting accessible approaches in line with Sendai Framework Priority 4.