Managing values in disaster planning: Current strategies, challenges and opportunities for incorporating values of the public. (February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ford, Rebecca M.; Rawluk, Andrea; Williams, Kathryn J.H.
• Is Part Of: Land use policy. Volume 81(2019)
• Page Start: 131
• Page End: 142
• Publication Date: 2019-02
• Subjects: Disaster planning -- Wildfire -- Bushfire -- Assets -- Social values -- Value conflict; Land use -- Periodicals; Land use -- Government policy -- Periodicals; Sol, Utilisation du -- Périodiques; Sol, Utilisation du -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 333.7305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.029
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-8377

Abstract

Highlights: Values are managed by varied strategies at different levels of structured planning. At policy level, value cycling and multiple objective setting establish frameworks. Objective setting is a simple opportunity to align policy with values of the public. At planning level, a bias to measurability limits inclusion of broad social values. Risk analysis is used to prioritise, sidestepping some difficult value questions. Abstract: Incorporating values of the public in decisions is a way to approach accountability, transparency and inclusiveness in disaster management, but may not be an easy fit with existing systems. In this study, we analysed a bushfire risk planning system in Victoria, Australia, to identify where and how values, and value conflicts, are managed in decision-making. Using a modified institutional approach, we found a diverse set of seven strategies by which values are managed in different parts and levels of the planning system. At the policy level, cycling through time and multiple objective setting established priorities and frameworks for staff at lower levels. At the strategic planning level, a bias to measurable values and institutional norms for relying on science limited consideration of some social values. In a previously undescribed strategy for managing values, 'risk prioritisation', technical risk analysis was used to prioritise places for protection, overshadowing difficult questions of value. Finally, in moving to decisions, both team deliberation and weighting strategies were used to balance values. Staff recognised a need for new tools and processes for managing some social values. An obvious opportunity for incorporating values of the public in this system is to include them in the sets of multiple objectives that guide planning. Staff also saw opportunities to expand community engagement and develop qualitative ways to justify decisions, but these faced some challenges within longstanding institutional norms for basing decisions on ecological and bushfire sciences.