DIDP Scope Nov16

Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction /
Emergency Preparedness
Scoping Review
The University of Sydneys Centre for Disability

Research and Policy (CDRP) and Asia Pacific Natural
Hazards and Disaster Risk Research Group
Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction /
Emergency Preparedness
Scoping Review
November, 2016
Professor Gwynnyth Llewellyn

Associate Professor Dale Dominey-Howes
Dr Michelle Villeneuve
Alexandra Lewis-Gargett
Contact
Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences:
Professor Gwynnyth Llewellyn
C43A - A Block Cumberland Campus
Ph. +61 2 9351 9553
e-mail gwynnyth.llewellyn@sydney.edu.au
Asia Pacific Natural Hazards and Disaster Risk Research Group

Associate Professor Dale Dominey-Howes
Room 448, F09 - Madsen Building
Ph. +61 2 9351 6641
e-mail dale.dominey-howes@sydney.edu.au
Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences

Dr. Michelle Villeneuve
J106, Cumberland Campus C42
Ph. +61 2 9356 7438
e-mail michelle.villeneuve@sydney.edu.au
Acknowledgements
The study team would like to acknowledge the NSW and Commonwealth
governments National Partnership Agreement Natural Disaster Resilience
Program for funding this project under the Community Resilience Innovation
Program, Office of Emergency Management, NSW Department of Justice.
2
Disability Inclusive Disaster Preparedness in NSW: Enabling Local Community Resilience through Collaboration
CONTENTS
Background ............................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the scoping review .................................................................................. 4
Method ...................................................................................................................... 5
Search strategy ..................................................................................................... 5
Review phase ........................................................................................................ 6
Analysis and synthesis phases .............................................................................. 8
Findings .................................................................................................................... 8
Numerical analysis................................................................................................. 8
Thematic analysis .................................................................................................. 9
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 18
References .............................................................................................................. 20
Appendix 1 Search terms and databases ............................................................. 25
3
Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction
/ Emergency Preparedness
Background
Including people with disability in disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy, planning and
implementation is a relatively new phenomenon worldwide. The international disaster
risk reduction framework, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
(SFDRR) 2015 2030 underpinned by the rights framework of the UN Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD], United Nations, 2006) provides
impetus for further development in this field.
The World Report on Disability (WHO, 2010) reported that 15% of the worlds
population lives with disability. People with disability are known to be more vulnerable
in the face of a natural hazard emergency. There is now evidence to suggest that
people with disability are two to four times more likely to die or be injured during
natural disasters than the general population (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
[UNISDR}, 2013). They are also less likely to receive aid and ongoing support to
recover over the longer term. Risk for people with disability is further increased when
systems are fragmented and the responsibility for people with particular needs and
capabilities is unclear.
This paper presents a scoping review of the scientific literature undertaken as part of
the Disability Inclusive Disaster Preparedness in NSW: Enabling Local Community
Resilience Through Collaboration project. This project was funded under the
Community Resilience Innovation Program (2014-2015), Office of Emergency
Management, NSW Department of Justice. This program is part of the NSW and
Commonwealth governments National Partnership Agreement Natural Disaster
Resilience Program.
The project approach brought together community service organisations for people
with disability, people with disability, other community organisations and agencies
and personnel from emergency management agencies to build community capacity
that includes people with disability. Within the context of this project, this scoping
review presents an overview of the state of knowledge about people with disability
and disaster risk reduction contained in the scientific literature. Prior to the findings of
this review, we provide an overview of the relevant international and national
frameworks and definitions and concepts used in the field of disability inclusive
disaster risk reduction (DiDRR).
International frameworks
The relevant international framework for disaster risk reduction is the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015 - 2030. This is the first
international framework in which disability is specifically mentioned. Prior to this as
noted by UNISDR (2013b), disaster risk reduction (DRR) stakeholders had not
generally engaged with disability, and organisations serving people with disability had
not engaged with DRR stakeholders. The two earlier international DRR frameworks,
the Yokohama Strategy 1994 2004 and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005
2015 [HFA] did not recognise or reference disability (Stough & Kang, 2015).
Disability was first acknowledged by the international DRR community in 2012 in a

regional document, the Yogyakarta Declaration. This Declaration was produced as
an outcome of the 5th Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction
(AMCDRR) that occurred as part of regional HFA consultations. The declaration
specifically noted the importance of the active participation of at-risk communities as
follows:
....to ensure the active contribution of risk-prone communities, particularly

persons with disabilities, women, children and the elderly, and to meet their
different needs... (UNISDR, 2012, p.2)
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006)
is the first comprehensive, international framework devoted to disability. Article 11 of
this Convention obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to ensure the
protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including
situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural
disasters. Other articles in the CRPD are also relevant to DRR. Article 9 specifies
that people with disability have a right to equally access the physical environment,
transportation and communication technologies and systems. In a disaster context
this right includes equal access to warning systems, evacuation plans or emergency
shelters. Further, Article 29 requires that people with disability must be included in
planning, policy development and implementation in any matters that affect their
lives. This requires actively including people with disability in DRR activities and
emergency preparedness policy, planning and implementation.
Regional frameworks
In Asia and the Pacific region, the most recent regional framework, Make the Right
Real. The Incheon Strategy for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific 2012-
2020 has a clear focus on disability inclusive disaster risk reduction (DiDRR). This
framework recognizes the particular vulnerability of this region to natural disasters
and, building on CRPD, takes a rights based approach to implementing DiDRR. Goal
7 is Ensure disability inclusive disaster risk reduction and management. This is
further specified in two targets accompanied by core and supplementary indicators.
The two targets are as follows. Target 7.A Strengthen disability-inclusive disaster risk
reduction planning. Target 7.B Strengthen implementation of measures on providing
timely and appropriate support to persons with disabilities in responding to disasters.
This regional focus on DiDRR is an important step towards realising the rights of
persons with disability as required by the CRPD.
2
National frameworks
Australia has a National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG, 2011) agreed by
the Council of Australian Governments in February 2011. This framework is built on
the concept of shared responsibility to create community resilience and thereby
reduce risk in the face of natural hazard emergencies and disasters. The concept of
shared responsibility includes the role of the federal government, state and territory
governments, and local government, and the role of business, non-government
organisations and volunteers, and individuals in each and every community. The
strategy document is accompanied by the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience
Companion Booklet (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012) which contains seven priority
areas including: (1) leading change and coordinating effort; (2) understanding risks;
(3) communicating with and educating people about risks; (4) partnering with those
who affect change; (5) empowering communities to exercise choice and take
responsibility; (6) reducing risks in the built environment; and (7) supporting
capabilities for disaster resilience. Illustrated case studies accompany each priority
area for action.
The high-level governance arrangements for overseeing the implementation of the
Australian framework include the Standing Council on Police and Emergency
Management (SCPEM). SCPEM has six key responsibilities one of which is the
provision of national leadership on emergency management and disaster resilience.
There is no mention of disability in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. In
the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience Companion Booklet people with
disability receive mention as a group that requires special attention by SCPEM, as do
other groups considered to be at additional risk including indigenous people.
Disaster risk reduction: definition and concepts

According to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), DRR is defined as
the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to
analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced
exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise
management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse
events (https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology).
DRR approaches consider the scale of a disaster in terms of impact on the
population, on housing and on livelihood and public services rather than the severity
of the event. DRR encompasses a broad range of activities that target the causal
factors of disaster to lessen disaster impact. DRR policy and practices aim to
combine the best available knowledge of natural hazards and associated risks. From
a population perspective the question is: what factors can be controlled or influenced
to limit the human impact from a natural hazard and associated disaster event?
Emergency or disaster preparedness are terms more often used in the community or
public information approaches to communicate awareness and the need for
individuals and communities to be involved, prepared and to build resilience to face
natural hazard emergencies. Emergency preparedness is often described in ways
such as the following that comes from the US Center for Disease Control and
Prevention and Disease and focuses more specifically on health emergencies:
3
Many people are concerned about the possibility of a public health
emergency such as a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or disease outbreak.
You can take steps now to help you prepare for an emergency and cope if an
emergency happens.
(https://emergency.cdc.gov/preparedness/)
Disaster preparedness is frequently used in Australia for example by orgnaisations

such as Australian Red Cross to raise awareness of the need for individuals and
communities to be adequately prepared:
Being prepared for a bushfire, cyclone, flood or whatever emergency may

come your way means you're more likely to cope and get your life back on
track.
(http://www.redcross.org.au/prepare.aspx)
In this scoping review the terms emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction
are used in this dual sense of preparedness for individuals and for communities.
Purpose of the scoping review

This scoping review set out to address the following question: What do we know
about reducing disaster risk and increasing emergency preparedness for people with
disability?
The aim of a scoping review is to scope the parameters of the field of study rather
than to provide a detailed analysis of the state of knowledge. Scoping reviews are
frequently carried out where there is a newly emerging field, typically with few
theoretical and empirical underpinnings. As Mays, Roberts and Popay (2001) noted
scoping studies aim to map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area
and the main sources and types of evidence available, can be undertaken as stand-
alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been
reviewed comprehensively before (p.194). Thus, scoping reviews aim to locate the
major writings in the field without aiming to obtain a comprehensive data base of all
available scientific publications, position papers, policy documents, program
descriptions and evaluations and so on (Arksey & Malley, 2005; Gough, Oliver &
Thomas, 2012; Levac, Colquhoun & OBrien, 2010).
The advantage of scoping reviews undertaken in an emerging field such as disaster
risk reduction for people with disabilities is the capacity to highlight initiatives from
around the world as these are reported. Papers are often prepared for example in
response to implementation of international frameworks or particular events or
circumstances that give rise to new concerns or considerations. Both of these
reasons are apparent here. In the first instance the coming into force of the UNCRPD
in 2006 and the relatively rapid signing and ratifying by member nations of this
international human rights convention. Second, there has been strong advocacy
4
internationally and in Asia and the Pacific by the Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk
Reduction Network (DiDRRN) to include people with disability as first occurred in the
Yogyakarta Declaration in 2012, followed by their inclusion in the SFDRR in 2015.
And third, impetus for new initiatives has come from the large scale natural disasters
in the United States including Hurricane Katrina and Typhoon Sandy and the Great
East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami where for the first time data became available
on the number of PWD who died or were injured.
Given this rapidly emerging field of DRR and emergency preparedness for people
with disability, we set out to provide a scoping review of the scientific literature on this
topic. We initially also explored the grey literature via relevant websites of
organisations engaged with persons with disability such as CBM International,
Handicap International, and the Centre for Disability and Development in Bangladesh
and those engaged with DRR such as UNISDR. Projects reported on these websites
and reference lists were hand searched for reference lists of key papers. In doing so,
it quickly became clear that due to the variety of terms used and project specific
terminology, locked access requiring membership to obtain reports or papers,
languages other than English, and instability of URLs, scoping this literature was not
possible. Rather, a grey literature review needed to be undertaken as a separate and
comprehensive stand-alone project beyond the time and resources available in the
current project.
Instead we refer the reader to a recent and up-to-date compilation of grey literature in
this field of DiDRR hosted by Ask Source (http://www.asksource.info/ ). In this
disability and development repository there is a section on DiDRR activities and
projects in the context of international development at
http://www.asksource.info/topics/humanitarian/disability-inclusive-drr. This is a
welcome new development. Since its inception the resources referenced on this
website have expanded exponentially. These resources are a mix of position papers,
case studies, reviews, UN documents and research study reports. This website
provides an excellent portal for those interested in non-peer-reviewed documents
and a useful proxy at this time for a more comprehensive and systematic search of
the grey literature.
Method
Search strategy
A systematic search of scientific journal databases was conducted in April 2014 then
updated in March 2015 and complemented at that time by a new search of an
additional 8 databases. The databases and keywords used in each search are
included in Appendix 1. The results of each search were exported to an EndNote
Library and duplicates removed after all search results compiled. The titles and
abstracts of the remaining papers were screened against the following exclusion
criteria. Papers were excluded if they were:
published before 2000,
5
conference or meeting papers and procedures,
editorials or letters to the Editor,
not in English,
not published in a peer-reviewed journal,
about occupational accidents, and were
resource manuals or international frameworks.
The final exclusion criteria related to alternative meanings of the search keywords for
example, the term disaster used to describe the global financial crisis.
Review phase
Search results
The first search undertaken in March 2014 returned over 800 papers (n=805). After
duplicates and excluded papers were removed one hundred and seven papers were
retained for screening. A further 64 papers were obtained from the updated search of
Medline, Sociological Abstracts, Scopus and Web of Science in May 2015. The new
searches of the 8 additional databases (Embase, Premedline, Cinahl, APA FT,
Environmental Abstracts, Geobase, Compendex, and GreenFILE) added a further
231 papers. After screening the total 502 papers using the exclusion criteria above,
88 papers were considered relevant for this scoping review. Five papers identified
through snowballing and hand searching were also added making a total of 93
papers included in the pre-analysis and coding phase.
Pre-analysis and coding phase

In the pre-analysis and coding phase, four coding frameworks were developed
following review of all abstracts. The first framework was related to country of
location of the paper. Papers were divided into North America and other countries.
This was based on understanding of the recent efforts in North America and
particularly the United States of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(https://www.fema.gov/) in relation to people with disabilities in natural hazard
emergencies (https://www.fema.gov/office-disability-integration-and-
coordination).
The second coding framework related to type of paper and methods employed based
on the diversity of approaches in this newly emerging field. The third framework
developed at this pre-analysis phase was in relation to preparedness and response.
Although the primary aim of the review was to scope papers addressing
preparedness, it became apparent that many papers also addressed response as
part of their preparedness topic and some papers combined discussion of both
preparedness and response.
During this phase, one paper was identified as not meeting the inclusion criteria and
thus excluded. A further seven papers were also excluded as these did not include
abstracts in the exported file from the database and we were unable to locate the full
6
article. These exclusions resulted in a final number of 85 papers included in this
scoping review. Of these the majority (n=55) came from North America; the
remaining 30 papers were from other countries.
Definitions for coding frameworks

Paper type by method
Descriptive: papers that provide description of activities or programs; not
empirical studies
Literature review papers: papers that provide a narrative or systematic review
of the relevant literature
Secondary analysis: analysis of existing data sets such as population
surveys, administrative data bases or data sets from previous research
studies.
Interview studies: papers that report empirical research using interview
methods
Survey studies: papers that report empirical research using survey methods
Intervention studies: papers that report evaluation of preparedness
interventions
Preparedness or response phase

Preparedness was defined according to the UNISDR description as follows: The
knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and
recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond
to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or
conditions (https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology). The papers coded
with preparedness use this term or refer to a broad number of activities that
contribute to preparedness e.g. evacuation planning, identifying and engaging
vulnerable groups in needs analysis, stockpiling supplies or medications. Papers
coded with preparedness also include those that report on planning for disasters.
Papers that report learning about preparedness from a disaster were coded as
response.
Response was defined according to the UNISDR description as follows: The
provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a
disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet
the basic subsistence needs of the people affected
(https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology). Papers coded with response
reported on analysis or review of the response phase including learning about
preparedness from a disaster as noted above under Preparedness.
A number of papers reported on both preparedness and response and were coded
accordingly in a joint category of preparedness and response.
7
Analysis and synthesis phases
All 85 papers were coded using the four coding frameworks. There were two analysis
phases. First, numerical analysis was undertaken on the 85 papers according to the
first three coding frameworks; country location of paper, paper type or method, and
preparedness, response or both. Then all 85 papers were coded using the fourth
coding framework on population of interest to identify the papers that addressed
disability specifically. The second phase involved a thematic analysis of the 45
papers that were coded as addressing disability and preparedness to meet the
requirements of the research question. (Papers addressing disability within
vulnerable populations and papers addressing response were therefore excluded
from this thematic analysis). Synthesis of this material was then undertaken to
provide discussion on the current state of knowledge in this emerging field of
DiDRR/emergency preparedness and potential ways forward.
Findings
The findings are presented first in matrix format using the coding frameworks to
capture country location, paper type by method, and preparedness or response or
combination of both. The overarching country location framework is used to
differentiate between North America and other countries. This was considered an
important distinction given that the context of a high-income country such as the
United States is significantly different from papers addressing this topic in low and
middle-income countries. The findings from the thematic analysis are then presented.
Numerical analysis
A numerical analysis was conducted of the type of paper and preparedness or
response. This is presented in Figure 1. Over half of the papers (n=55) came from
the North American context. Findings from this numerical analysis show that almost
half of papers (n=40) across both North America (n=19) and other countries (n=21)
are descriptive. That is, these papers describe the issues for people with disability in
disaster situations and/ or programs and approaches applied in response to these
issues. This finding is not surprising given the early stage of development of research
knowledge about people with disability in natural hazard and disaster situations. In
the early stages of field development, papers describing the issue or problem
dominate (Llewellyn et al., 2014 at http://sydney.edu.au/health-
sciences/cdrp/projects/auditresearch.shtml). As a field of study matures,
empirical papers that seek to answer specific questions or test interventions begin to
appear.
Most of the papers focused on preparedness (North America n=40; other countries
n=12) or both preparedness and response (North America n=3; other countries n=8).
A total of 22 papers (North America n=12; other countries n=10) were coded as
response only and therefore excluded from the thematic analysis.
8
In terms of the fourth coding framework on disability and vulnerability a total of 17
papers (North America n=10; other countries n=7) were coded as papers that
discussed vulnerability more broadly and included people with disability as one of
several groups of people who are more at risk during a disaster. These also were
excluded from the thematic analysis. This left a remaining 45 papers that had a
disability focus and were relevant to preparedness for thematic analysis.
Figure 1: Paper type, disaster phase and country

location
North America
Both 2 1
Response 5 6 1
Preparedness 14 12 4 5 5
Both 4 11 2
countries
All other
Response 8 2
Preparedness 9 2 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Descriptive Survey Secondary Analysis Literature review Interview Intervention
Figure 1 presents the numerical analysis by methodology (paper type) of the papers located and the
phase of disaster (preparedness, response or both preparedness and response) they address. To
reflect the large amount of research conducted in North America the papers have been grouped in two
categories of country location: North America and all other countries.
Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis of empirical research papers (n=45) was guided by the research
question underpinning this scoping review: What do we know about reducing disaster
risk and increasing emergency preparedness for people with disability?
The themes derived from our analysis are presented in this section. The themes are:
degree of preparedness of people with disability; organizational responses to
including people with disability in preparedness activities; and community
preparedness including people with disability.
The overwhelming majority of the empirical research papers come from studies
conducted in North America. The most frequent type of research method utilised was
survey, North America papers n=20, other countries n=3; followed by interview, North
America papers n=6, other countries n=4; intervention, North America papers n=5,
other countries nil; literature review, North America papers n=1, other countries n=2;
secondary analysis North America papers n=4, other countries nil.
9
Preparedness of Individuals with disability and household
preparedness
The majority of papers in this section come from the US. The primary focus is on
assessing the personal or household preparedness of people with disability and
discussing how preparedness could be increased at the individual or household level.
Several papers have used surveys to assess the preparedness of people with
disability or their families. For example, Sakashita, Matthews & Yamamoto (2013)
evaluated the preparedness of a convenience sample of 50 families with a child
dependent on electrical medical equipment and found that most were inadequately
prepared for a power failure. Gershon et al. (2013) surveyed by way of an on-line
questionnaire a convenience sample of 253 people with cognitive and/ or physical
disabilities living in the community and all receiving personal assistance services.
These authors found that when people with disability had involvement of a personal
assistant in their emergency plan they scored higher overall on an emergency
preparedness scale.
Another approach to assessing preparedness comes from two studies that evaluated
the evacuation plans of full time wheelchair users (Hogaboom, Oyster, Riggins &
Boninger, 2013; McClure et al., 2011). Hogaboom et al. (2013) conducted telephone
interviews with a convenience sample of 21 people with spinal cord injury living in the
community. McClure et al. (2011) surveyed a convenience sample of 487 people with
spinal cord injury who use a wheelchair more than 40 hours a week and located via
six Spinal Cord Injury Model Centers. Both studies found that while most of the
respondents indicated they would be able to evacuate in an emergency the majority
did not have an evacuation plan or they had a plan that had not considered all
potential scenarios.
Only one paper outside the US context examined individual preparedness in a similar
manner to that of the US papers mentioned above. In this study by Tomio et al.
(2012) the authors assessed by survey the preparedness of over 500 (n=553)
participants from a nationwide patient group of over 1000 people with rheumatoid
arthritis in Japan. Only one-half had taken medical preparedness measures and only
one-quarter had taken general preparedness measures. They concluded that overall,
preparedness measures taken by the participants was insufficient. As the study did
not compare the preparedness scores of the participants with that of the general
population it is not clear whether this insufficient preparedness would also be found
more broadly than this specific group of people.
Preparedness of people with disability compared to the general population

The studies above rely on within-group methods to assess individual preparedness.
That is, they examine the preparedness of a particular group of people, in this case
people with disability. Missing from this method is data that would permit
understanding of the preparedness of people with disability in relation to the general
population. Ideally this would also include information on geographical location,
capacity as well as functional limitations, and inter-connectedness (or otherwise) with
local community and social networks. This information is critically important for policy
and planning purposes.
10
Five studies were located which assessed disaster preparedness of people with
disability (and often including people with poor health and chronic diseases
compared to the general population. These studies typically use survey or secondary
analysis of existing administrative data sets to understand behavioural intentions.
(Bethel, Foreman & Burke, 2010; Smith & Notaro, 2009; Uscher-Pines et al., 2009).
For example, Bethel et al. (2010) examined the association of general health status,
disability status, and chronic disease status, respectively, with disaster
preparedness, among Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey
respondents. Vulnerable populations were generally less likely to have household
preparedness items but more likely to have medication supplies than their
counterparts. Using data from the 2006-2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System of 6 states that included 188,288 self-reported respondents with disabilities
Smith and Notaro (2009) found that persons with a disability are 1.22 times more
likely to be unprepared for an emergency. For those with a disability, being female,
nonwhite, with less education, less income, and uncoupled and living in an urban
area this increases the likelihood of being unprepared for an emergency.
These findings suggest that when authors compare the emergency preparedness of
people with disability to the population as a whole, people with disability score lower
on preparedness scales than the general population without disability. However, the
findings are mixed using this method. For example, Uscher-Pines et al. (2009)
conducted a random-digit-dial telephone survey with 501 adults in southeastern
Pennsylvania in 2008. The survey instrument gathered data on socio-demographic
characteristics, disability status/functional limitations, and preparedness behaviors
related to an evacuation emergency. The authors reported that no significant
differences were identified with respect to awareness of evacuation routes,
purchasing of food and water, or creation of an emergency plan to guide evacuation
decision-making. Indicators such as arranging a place to meet, having identified a
shelter or packed a bag, people with disability were consistently around twice as
likely to have done so that then general population.
It is also helpful for policy and planning purposes to understand similarities and
differences between sub-groups in a population experiencing a similar situation.
Spence et al. (2007) study investigated, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
whether there was a difference in preparedness, information seeking behaviour and
media use between evacuees with and without disability. Their survey of 554
evacuees temporarily located in other areas of the United States found that people
with disability were more likely to prepare for a crisis by stockpiling food, medication,
emergency supplies and so on however they were less likely to plan for an
evacuation.
Interventions for improving individual or household preparedness

As noted in the early stages of an emerging field few reports of interventions are
available. We located only four papers that reported on preparedness interventions
emanating from two separate research studies. Baker and Baker (2010) first
surveyed a convenience sample of 145 families of children presenting to tertiary care
centres about their preparedness and reported significant under-preparedness.
Baker and colleagues then evaluated an education program for a convenience
sample of randomly assigned families with children with special health care needs
11
and delivered by community health care professionals aiming at increasing their
household preparedness. Using a pre and post survey design these authors and their
colleagues found a statistically significant increase in preparedness as a result of the
training 30-35 days post intervention including when families were located in different
geographical regions (Baker & Cormier, 2013; Baker, Baker & Flagg, 2012).
Hooper (2010) reported the findings from a pilot program in Washington State that
sought to use community networks to improve preparedness among people with
disability. The program developed a curriculum for building preparedness and
response skills in people with disability. The train the trainer model involved training
disability advocates to deliver the curriculum to people with disability in their
community. However, despite its apparent success, the author reports that the
curriculum was not adopted by government agencies as an ongoing program. The
author concluded that the concept of disability inclusiveness is still in its infancy in the
field of emergency management, which lacks sophistication in addressing issues for
people with disabilities in emergency preparedness and response policy and
planning decisions.
The last intervention located employed a peer-to-peer intervention for young adults
with intellectual disability living independently in the community. Eisenman et al.
(2014) reported on a study in which adults were randomly assigned to an
experimental arm or a wait-list control arm with pre-and post- testing. Four two-hour
classes co-taught by a health educator and peer-mentors focused on earthquake
safety knowledge and preparedness supplies. Improvements in preparedness were
maintained at 1-month post-intervention. Interventions such as this align with more
recent approaches to DRR and emergency preparedness which emphasise the
critical importance of including those most at risk such as people with disabilities in
learning from and teaching each other.
The second theme addresses how organisations consider people with disabilities in
their preparedness activities.
Organisational responses to including people with disabilities in

preparedness activities
The papers grouped in this theme report on the measures organisations have taken
to prepare for a disaster such as developing evacuation plans and designing
communication and alert systems. These papers specifically focus on the inclusion of
disability in these activities.
Organisational responses: is disability on the agenda?

Writing from the UK context, Twigg (2014) analysed vulnerability and capacity
assessments often used to understand the vulnerability within particular geographic
or social communities. The author found that while the stated purpose of these
assessments is to identify and understand what makes members of a community
vulnerable at the time of disaster, identifying people with disability are often
overlooked. Of the 28 assessments reviewed, 15 did not mention disability and only
two engaged with the social exclusion of people with disability. As Stough and Kang
(2015) noted this is in contrast to the SFDRR that explicitly mentions people with
12
disability in the preamble, guiding principles, priorities for action and guiding
principles.
Organisational responses: schools

Inclusive response measures can be implemented in diverse institutional contexts in
the community. A series of Australian papers addresses the preparedness of
Australian schools to offer appropriate protective measures and inclusive responses
for children with disability. This series of papers comes from a team at James Cook
University led by Professor Helen Boon. The papers are described in some detail as
these come from the local context and are currently the most fulsome in the literature
with regard to specific institutional responses. Boon et al. (2011) published a critical
literature review of the literature on the preparedness of schools for responding to
disaster or emergency and protecting children with disabilities in their care. The
authors searched four major scientific databases relevant to disability and education
research. Their searches returned 1,080 papers of which 10 met the criteria for full
manuscript review. All of the 10 papers were US studies. The authors found from
these 10 papers that although most schools had engaged in disaster planning there
were significant gaps in preparedness efforts for accommodating the needs of
children with disabilities. The gaps included mobility or communication needs of
children with disability during evacuation procedures or connecting with local health
authorities to ensure specific health needs could be accommodated during the
response phase. The authors also noted the small amount of empirical evidence
available for schools to use when framing and developing policy in this area of
disaster risk preparedness for school children with disability.
Two further papers from Boon and her colleagues built on this literature review. The
first paper presented the results of an analysis of the publicly available policies,
guidelines and frameworks used for disaster planning in Australian schools for
disability inclusiveness. The results demonstrated that inconsistencies in definitions
and terminology around vulnerability, special needs and disability could impact on the
inclusion of children with disabilities in other policies such as those for disasters and
emergencies. The authors noted the possibility that some groups will be overlooked
for example children who function independently on a daily basis but may have an
underlying condition that places them at greater risk during an emergency. They also
identified that while students with disabilities usually have an individualised care plan
for day to day, usually these have not considered their needs in an emergency
situation. The specific requirements of students with mental health needs during and
after an emergency were also discussed noting that current plans and documents for
mental health needs of students do not consider emergency situations. In sum the
authors suggest that at risk students must be identified during the planning phase
with information relevant to emergency situations included in their individualised
plans. Coordination with local support services such as the ambulance service was
also considered critical.
In the second of the two papers reporting their follow up study Boon, Brown and
Pagliano (2014) present their findings of a survey of Australian schools about
planning for students with disability in emergency. The survey was mailed to 450
government schools in Western Australia and South Australia and 80 responses
were received. The survey was structured around five types of disability
13
(physical/mobility impairment, chronic conditions/special needs, sensory
impairments, emotional/behavioural disability, cognitive impairment) and asked about
planning for each in the planning, acute and recovery phase of disaster and for
different types of hazards. Seventy-seven percent of the respondent schools had
experienced a disaster. Less than one third of the schools had specifically addressed
the needs of students with disabilities in their disaster planning. The survey also
found that most schools were not represented at the local disaster planning group.
The authors conclude that further research, including qualitative studies, is needed to
better understand how schools appropriately include children with disabilities in their
disaster response planning.
Organisational responses: service providers

In a similar approach a group of researchers from South Carolina conducted a
telephone survey with administrators from 16 agencies that provide in-home personal
care to 2,147 clients, and five agencies that provide in-home health care to 2,180
clients to understand whether and how agencies involved in the provision of home
care services to people with disability and elderly clients were involved in preparing
their clients for disaster (Laditka et al., 2008). This qualitative study found that there
was large variation in the level of preparation amongst the agencies and that in
general health agencies were better prepared than personal care agencies. Better
coordination with other agencies and more staff training were identified as major
need for improvement by the participants.
Maja-Schultz and Swain (2012) also writing in the US context raised similar issues in
a narrative literature review of the risks for people with disability living in adult care
facilities (ACFs). The authors discussed the importance of services being involved in
preparedness activities to build the personal preparedness of staff and clients in
these facilities. Further they noted that emergency response systems need to have
built in measures to accommodate the needs of their clients at time of disaster. This
could include appropriate evacuation facilities and communication systems.
Organisational responses: Accessible preparedness and response measures

and resources
Another group of papers have explored how organisational preparedness and
response measures can be made accessible for people with disability. There are
several papers from the US context that examine communication and education
materials for their accessibility including for all literacy levels (Davis, 2007) and
people with vision or hearing impairments (Davis, 2007; Ivey et al., 2014; Neuhauser
et al., 2013). Christensen, Blair and Holt (2007) for example discussed the
importance of emergency warning systems that consider the accessibility needs of
people with disability. Johnson et al. (2010) reported on a framework for inclusive
mobilebased alert systems. Putkovich (2013) in a recent paper assessed the national
emergency warning system of the US as suitable or not for people with disability.
This paper identified needs and provided recommendations for reaching members of
the community with disability.
14
Organisational responses: Appropriately trained emergency personnel and
related workforce
Organisational preparedness responses have also been examined at the level of
workforce and training. This is a critically important issue in the response phase and
no less in the preparedness phase for building community networks and resilience
that are inclusive of people with disability. In an early paper Batscha (1997)
suggested that mental health care providers must be aware of the increased risk of
heat-related illness for their clients with longstanding mental illness and develop
heat-wave management plans with these clients, a group of persons with disability
rarely considered in DRR research.
In a paper a decade later, Rowland, White, Fox and Rooney (2007) analysed
emergency personnel training practices to assist people with mobility impairments in
three rural and three urban locations in Northeast Kansas for the extent to which they
prepared responders to assist people with disability. They reported on the barriers
and facilitators that emergency services staff identified to training specifically
focusing on building skills to assist people with disability. More recently, Wolf-
Fordham, Twyman and Hamad (2014) reported the results of an online training
program that was developed to build knowledge for disability inclusive preparedness
and response in emergency responders. Promisingly, participants improved in post-
test scores after completing the training.
Two relatively recent papers have drawn attention to the role of one particular group
of health professionals in disaster preparedness and response. In an editorial for the
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal Sinclair (2014) discussed international
health and disability and disaster risk reduction policy and their relevance for the
occupational therapy profession. She concludes by stating that increasing numbers
of people affected by disasters or conflict means that occupational therapists will
increasingly be working within these contexts and therefore the profession must
engage with translating these international policies into practice. Explaining this by
way of case study from Bangladesh, Habib et al. (2013) offered a real life example of
the experience and roles of occupational therapists in disaster management. In the
qualitative study reported, six occupational therapists were interviewed about their
experience and roles pre, during and post disasters. Their primary role pre-disaster
and during disaster was to assist with training and developing inclusive responses
such as inclusive shelters. Post disaster they supported counselling, rehabilitation,
vocational training and home modifications/rebuilding.
Community preparedness including people with disability

Community and social networks
Another group of papers have explored the social and community factors that can
contribute to vulnerability or resilience for people with disability. Bricout & Baker
(2010) discussed online social networks playing a role in communicating and locating
people with disability during disasters. These authors have proposed an analytic
model for understanding the role of distributed networks in mediating the negative
impacts of a disaster or an emergency on persons with disabilities is proposed,
15
together with key objectives for change. This provides one example of a social
strength that could build resilience. A survey with a convenience sample of 710
people with disability from 7 US states (Zakour, 2015) found that informal social
support, voluntary memberships, and personal assistance frequency were
statistically significant predictors of preparedness.
In similar vein, Tanaka (2013) writing after the Great East Japan Earthquake noted
factors that led to children with disability dying in this disaster at twice the rate of the
rest of the population. This led the author to stress the importance of engaging
families and service workers who provide the day to day care of children with
disabilities being actively engaged in all discussions about individual and household
preparedness given their familiarity with and knowledge about the particular
capacities, needs and constraints for children with disabilities and their families. This
finding came from the authors analysis of responses to the disaster in which those
who, whether as assisters or the assisted, were involved with the disabled on a daily
basis from before the disaster. Tanaka (2013) concludes that raising children as part
of their local communities is the biggest factor in saving them from disaster.
Learning from experience

Priestly and Hemingway (2007) writing in the UK context analysed the recovery
responses to two significant events The Great Asian Tsunami (2004) and Hurricane
Katrina (2005). Their analysis was framed by the social model of disability. Put
simply, this means that disability is regarded as an outcome of societal structures
and lack of accommodation for people with impairments or chronic health conditions.
These authors suggested that future preparedness planning needs to move beyond
individual preparedness and focus on structural measures. They found that in both
disasters, although occurring in very different social, political and economic contexts,
the response measures failed to meet the needs of people with disability. They also
suggested that the way in which people with disability are framed as vulnerable and
lacking capacity is one reason why response measures fail. This is because this
approach excludes people with disability from preparedness activities. Their lived
experience knowledge of disability and for many previous disasters is not taken into
account.
More recently Abbott and Porter (2013) writing from the United Kingdom conducted a
scoping review of the literature, reports and policy documents, conversations with
relevant voluntary organisations and groups of disabled people to understand their
views on the relationship between environmental hazards and disability. They set out
to examine the extent to which the voices of people with disability are included only
to find these voices largely absent from the literature on environmental hazards.
Again, these authors suggested that the skills, knowledge and lived experience of
people with disability are of great value and need to be taken into account in
preparing to manage natural disasters.
Information needs about people with disability and inclusion of disability

perspectives
Enders & Brandt (2007) and Kailes & Enders (2007) writing in the US context
identified both the importance of disability data being included in geospatial
16
information systems which guide the coordination of emergency response, and the
development of frameworks for understanding the functional needs of people with
disability in communication, mobility, transportation, and their medical needs in a
disaster scenario. Again in the US context, Webster (2014) explored the legal
implications of emergency preparedness plans and the requirements that
jurisdictions ensure the ability of plans, planning efforts, programs, and services to
meet the needs of people with disability and others with access and functional needs.
This focus is particularly relevant in the Australian context, where local government
areas are now required to prepare Disability Inclusion Plans as the third level of
government required to do so under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 as
well as Emergency Preparedness Plans.
With regard to policy approaches, from the US context Fox et al. (2007) reported the
findings from a survey of 30 randomly selected Federal Emergency Management
Agency sites. They found that people with disability were not represented in planning
activities and that only one fifth of the agencies had disability guidelines in place.
Further to this, the majority had no plans for updating policies and guidelines to
include people with disability. Rooney and White (2007) also reported on the
information needs of people with disability during a natural disaster and how people
with disability use media at those times. From an online Internet survey with a
convenience sample, 56 persons with mobility impairments who have experienced a
catastrophic event shared what they found helpful for survival, what was difficult, and
suggestions for future planning. Overall, individual preparedness was reported as
helpful however most difficulties were experienced when community or institutional
preparedness had not included people with disability in their plans or response
measures such as shelters were not inclusive.
As we reported in the research and policy briefs (attached) from the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade Australian Aid Research and Development Project in
Indonesia 2013-2015, building capacity within individuals, communities and
organisations is critical to increasing resilience for all in the face of natural disasters.
The SFDRR specifically addresses the inclusion of people with disability in
preparedness and planning policies and implementation. International activities
following this framework initiated by the Disability Rights Fund
(http://www.disabilityrightsfund.org/) included a funding round for DiDRR. Three
Disabled Persons Organisations in Indonesia were the recipients of funding under
this scheme and are currently implementing their own disability led disaster risk
reduction programs in two locations on Java Island and one on Sumatra (Pertiwi,
2016). However, the findings from the scoping review reported in this section suggest
there is much yet to be achieved in involving people with disability in preparedness
planning and implementation and importantly, in policy so that the aspiration
embedded within SFDRR for disability inclusive disaster risk reduction and
emergency preparedness can be realised.
17
Conclusion
This scoping review of the scientific literature on disaster risk reduction/ emergency
preparedness for people with disability demonstrates an emerging field of study.
Although people with disability have been recognised as likely to be at greater risk in
natural disasters it is only recently that they have been acknowledged specifically in
disaster risk reduction frameworks at the international and regional levels with
specific recognition yet to come at the Australian national level. The contribution of
CRPD from 2006 as the international human rights instrument about persons with
disability has driven a greater interest over the past decade in including people with
disability in all aspects of daily life. That said, it is as recent as 2015 when people
with disability were first specifically mentioned in an international disaster risk
reduction framework, SFDRR 2015-2030.
Prior to this time people with disability were seen primarily through the lens of
vulnerability to the extent that the earlier literature and much that was initially sourced
for this scoping review focused on individual vulnerability of people with disability and
as a sub-group of vulnerable persons. With the advent of CRPD and accompanying
initiatives to empower people with disability about their rights such as the Disability
Rights Fund the emphasis now is on inclusion and participation of people with
disability in all matters that affect their lives. Similarly, in the field of disaster risk
reduction and emergency preparedness there has been a move away from a focus
on vulnerability to addressing the capacities and capabilities of individuals and
communities to engage in preparedness activities to enhance their resilience in the
face of natural disaster events.
This scoping review demonstrates that the majority of the literature on people with
disability and emergency preparedness remains primarily US based in a context of
relatively highly developed emergency preparedness and warning systems. The
focus, not surprisingly, therefore is on particular events and being prepared taking
into account the usual population based approaches to ensuring the least possible
loss of life and injury. There is a scattering of empirical reports from other countries
including Australia which focus more specifically on the inclusion and participation of
people with disability in planning, preparedness and policy. This approach comes
directly from more recent international approaches which stress the importance of all
of community responses both at the individual and the organisational level.
As noted the literature on this topic is still in its infancy. Of the 85 papers sourced
only around half (45) reported on empirical studies in which investigations, either
quantitative or qualitative, had been undertaken. Of these most papers addressed
specific research questions using convenience samples of people with disability.
Although providing a useful starting point to understanding the capacities and needs
of people with disability in emergency preparedness, convenience samples contain
inherent bias and the findings cannot be considered as generalisable to people with
disability beyond the limits of the sample taking part in the study. A further limitation
of the literature is that most studies in essence describe the problem rather than
proposing and testing solutions. This is to be expected at the current early stage of
development in this field however to advance the field well designed interventions
18
tested with rigorous designs are now needed. This is essential to move beyond
declaring a commitment to including people with disabilities in emergency
preparedness and ensuring their inclusion leads to effective and efficient positive
outcomes for all people with disability, their families and carers and the
communities of which they are part. It is to be hoped that in the short term more
intervention endeavours are undertaken and reported to build a solid knowledge
base on best practice for including people with disabilities in emergency
preparedness policy, planning and implementation.
19
References
Abbott, D., & Porter, S. (2013). Environmental hazard and disabled people: from vulnerable to expert to
interconnected. Disability & Society, 28(6, SI), 839852.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.802222
Ablah, E., Konda, K., & Kelley Crystal, L. (2009). Factors predicting individual emergency preparedness:
a multi-state analysis of 2006 BRFSS data. Biosecurity & Bioterrorism, 7, 317-330.
Arksey, H., & OMalley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
Baker, L., R., & Baker, M., D. (2010). Disaster preparedness among families of children with special
health care needs. Disaster Medicine & Public Health Preparedness, 4, 240-245.
Baker, L., R., & Cormier, L., A. (2013). Disaster preparedness and families of children with special
needs: a geographic comparison. Journal of Community Health, 38, 106-112.
Baker, M., Daniel, Baker, L., Renee, & Flagg, L., Anne. (2012). Preparing families of children with
special health care needs for disasters: an education intervention. Social Work in Health Care,
51, 417-429.
Batscha, C. L. (1997). Heat stroke. Keeping your clients cool in the summer. Journal of Psychosocial
Nursing & Mental Health Services, 35, 12-17.
Bennett, D. (2010). State emergency plans: Assessing the inclusiveness of Vulnerable Populations.
International Journal of Emergency Management, 7, 100-110. doi:10.1504/ijem.2010.032048
Bethel, J., W., Foreman, A., N., & Burke, S., C. (2011). Disaster preparedness among medically
vulnerable populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 139-143.
Bongo, P. P., Chipangura, P., Sithole, M., & Moyo, F. (2013). A rights-based analysis of disaster risk
reduction framework in Zimbabwe and its implications for policy and practice. Jamba: Journal
of Disaster Risk Studies, 5. doi:10.4102/jamba.v5i2.81
Boon, H. J., Brown, L. H., & Pagliano, P. J. (2014). Emergency planning for students with disabilities: A
survey of Australian Schools. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 29, 45-49.
Boon, H. J., Brown, L. H., Tsey, K., Speare, R., Pagliano, P., Usher, K., & Clark, B. (2011). School
disaster planning for children with disabilities a critical review of the literature. International
Journal of Special Education, 26, 223-237. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.010
Boon, H. J., Pagliano, P., Brown, L., & Tsey, K. (2012). An Assessment of Policies Guiding School
Emergency Disaster Management for Students With Disabilities in Australia. Journal of Policy
and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 17-26. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00331.x
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.010
Bricout, J. C., & Baker, P. M. A. (2010). Leveraging online social networks for people with disabilities in
emergency communications and recovery. International Journal of Emergency Management, 7,
59-74. doi:10.1504/ijem.2010.032045
Busapathumrong, P. (2013). Disaster Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in Disaster Recovery in
Thailand. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 12, 67-83.
doi:10.1080/1536710x.2013.784176
Brown, L. M., Haun, J. N., & Peterson, L. (2014). A Proposed Disaster Literacy Model. Disaster
Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 8, 267-275. doi:10.1017/dmp.2014.43
Christensen, K. M., Blair, M. E., & Holt, J. M. (2007). The built environment, evacuations, and individuals
with disabilities: A guiding framework for disaster policy and preparation. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 17, 249-254. doi:10.1177/10442073070170040801
Cong, Z., Liang, D., & Luo, J. (2014). Family emergency preparedness plans in severe tornadoes.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46, 89-93. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.020
20
Davis, D. (2007). Emergency! Communication access needed. Volta Voices, 14, 16-18.
Eisenman, D. P., Bazzano, A., Koniak-Griffin, D., Tseng, C. H., Lewis, M. A., Lamb, K., & Lehrer, D.
(2014). Peer-Mentored Preparedness (PM-Prep): A New Disaster Preparedness Program for
Adults Living Independently in the Community. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52,
49-59. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-52.1.49
Enders, A., & Brandt, Z. (2007). Using geographic information system technology to improve emergency
management and disaster response for people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 17, 223-229. doi:10.1177/10442073070170040501
Fjord, L., & Manderson, L. (2009). Anthropological perspectives on disasters and disability: An
introduction. Human Organization, 68, 64-72.
Fox, M. H., White, G. W., Rooney, C., & Rowland, J. L. (2007). Disaster preparedness and response for
persons with mobility impairments: Results from the University of Kansas nobody left behind
study. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 196-205. doi:10.1177/10442073070170040201
Gazibara, T., Jia, H. M., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Disaster Preparedness: A Comparative Study of North
Carolina and Montana. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 8, 239-242.
doi:10.1017/dmp.2014.38
Gershon, R., R. M., Kraus, L., E., Raveis, V., H., Sherman, M., F., & Kailes, J., I. (2013). Emergency
preparedness in a sample of persons with disabilities. American journal of disaster medicine, 8,
35-47.
Gough, D; Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Habib, M., Uddin, J., Rahman Saleh, U., Jahan, N., & Akter, S. (2013). Occupational therapy role in
disaster management in Bangladesh. WFOT Bulletin, 68, 33-37.
Hess, D. B., & Gotham, J. C. (2007). Multi-modal mass evacuation in upstate New York: A review of
disaster plans. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4.
Hogaboom, N. S., Oyster, M. L., Riggins, M. S., & Boninger, M. L. (2013). Evacuation preparedness in
full-time wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 36, 290-295.
doi:10.1179/2045772312y.0000000050
Hooper, P. J. (2010). Vulnerable populations and crisis communication: A model for accessible disaster
preparedness campaigns. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818804512?ac
countid=14757 http://DD8GH5YX7K.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-
2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/Sociological+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft.genre
=dissertations+%26+theses&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Hooper%2C+Patricia+Jean&rft.aulast=
Hooper&rft.aufirst=Patricia&rft.date=2010-01-
01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781109725377&rft.btit
Hutton, D. (2009). Putting the puzzle together: reducing vulnerability through people-focused planning.
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 134, 193-196.
Ivey Susan, L., Tseng, W., Dahrouge, D., Engelman, A., Neuhauser, L., Huang, D., & Gurung, S.
(2014). Assessment of state- and territorial-level preparedness capacity for serving deaf and
hard-of-hearing populations in disasters. Public Health Reports, 129, 148-155.
Johnson, J., Mitchell, H., LaForce, S., Price, E., & Lucia, F. (2010). Mobile emergency alerting made
accessible. International Journal of Emergency Management, 7, 88-99.
doi:10.1504/ijem.2010.032047
Kailes, J. I., & Enders, A. (2007). Moving beyond "special needs": A function-based framework for
emergency management and planning. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 230-237.
doi:10.1177/10442073070170040601
Kimura, T., & Aoyama, K. (2000). Earthquake induced disaster during snow period: Questionnaire
survey on earthquakes occurred in Niigata Prefecture during snowfall period.
21
Kipling, J., Newton, R., & Ormerod, M. (2011). Accessing emergency rest centres in the UK - lessons
learnt. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 2, 47-58.
doi:10.1108/17595901111108362
Klappa, S., Audette, J., & Do, S. (2014). The roles, barriers and experiences of rehabilitation therapists
in disaster relief: post-earthquake Haiti 2010. Disability & Rehabilitation, 36, 330-338.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.791726
Kolwaite Amy, R., Hlady, W. G., Simon Matthew, C., Cadwell Betsy, L., Daley, W. R., Fleischauer
Aaron, T., . . . Thoroughman, D. (2013). Assessing functional needs sheltering in Pike County,
Kentucky: using a community assessment for public health emergency response. Disaster
Medicine & Public Health Preparedness, 7, 597-602.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2013.110
Laditka Sarah, B., Laditka James, N., Cornman Carol, B., Davis Courtney, B., & Chandlee Maggi, J.
(2008). Disaster preparedness for vulnerable persons receiving in-home, long-term care in
South Carolina. Prehospital & Disaster Medicine, 23, 133-142; discussion 143.
Landry, M. D., O'Connell, C., Tardif, G., & Burns, A. (2010). Post-earthquake Haiti: The critical role for
rehabilitation services following a humanitarian crisis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, 1616-
1618. doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.500345
Laska, S., & Morrow, B. H. (2006). Social vulnerabilities and Hurricane katrina: An unnatural disaster in
new Orleans. Marine Technology Society Journal, 40, 16-26.
Lee Hoe, C. (2014). The role of occupational therapy in the recovery stage of disaster relief: a report
from earthquake stricken areas in China. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61, 28-31.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12106
Levac, D., & Colquhoun, H., & OBrien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology.
Implementation Science, 5, 69 at www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/69
Levac, J., Toal-Sullivan, D., & O'Sullivan Tracey, L. (2012). Household emergency preparedness: a
literature review. Journal of Community Health, 37, 725-733.
Lindell, M. K., Kang, J. E., & Prater, C. S. (2011). The logistics of household hurricane evacuation.
Natural Hazards, 58, 1093-1109. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9715-x
Liu, M., Kohzuki, M., Hamamura, A., Ishikawa, M., Saitoh, M., Kurihara, M., . . . Matsuzaka, N. (2012).
How did rehabilitation professionals act when faced with the Great East Japan earthquake and
disaster? Descriptive epidemiology of disability and an interim report of the relief activities of
the ten Rehabilitation-Related Organizations. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44, 421-428.
Llewellyn, G., Centre for Disability Research and Policy (2014). Report of the Audit of Disability
Research in Australia at http://sydney.edu.au/health-
sciences/cdrp/Report%20of%20Audit%20of%20Disability%20Research%20in%20Australi
a%20_July%202014.pdf
Mace Sharon, E., Sharieff, G., Bern, A., Benjamin, L., Burbulys, D., Johnson, R., & Schreiber, M. (2010).
Pediatric issues in disaster management, Part 1: the emergency medical system and surge
capacity. American journal of disaster medicine, 5, 83-93.
Maja-Schultz, T., & Swain, B. (2012). Disabled adults in adult care facilities facing disasters in New York
City: an aggregate assessment. Care Management Journals, 13, 67-74.
Malizia, A., Acuna, P., Onorati, T., Daz, P., & Aedo, I. (2009). CAP-ONES: An emergency notification
system for all. International Journal of Emergency Management, 6, 302-316.
doi:10.1504/ijem.2009.031568
Malizia, A., Onorati, T., Diaz, P., Aedo, I., & Astorga-Paliza, F. (2010). SEMA4A: An ontology for
emergency notification systems accessibility. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3380-3391.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.10.010
Mays, N., Roberts, F., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising research evidence. In N. Fulop, P. Allen, A.
Clarke, & N. Black. (Eds.). Studying the organization and delivery of health services: Research
methods. London: Routledge.
22
McClure, L., A., Boninger, M., L., Oyster, M., L., Roach, M., Joan, Nagy, J., & Nemunaitis, G. (2011).
Emergency evacuation readiness of full-time wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Archives
of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 92, 491-498.
McCormick, L. C., Pevear, J., & Xie, R. (2013). Measuring levels of citizen public health emergency
preparedness, Jefferson County, Alabama. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice,
19, 266-273. doi:10.1097/PHH.0b013e318264ed8c
McGough, M., Frank Loreeta, L., Tipton, S., Tinker Tim, L., & Vaughan, E. (2005). Communicating the
risks of bioterrorism and other emergencies in a diverse society: a case study of special
populations in North Dakota. Biosecurity & Bioterrorism, 3, 235-245.
Metz William, C., Hewett Paul, L., Jr, Muzzarelli, J., & Tanzman, E. (2002). Identifying Special-Needs
Households That Need Assistance for Emergency Planning. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, 20, 255-281.
Morris, J. T., Mueller, J. L., & Jones, M. L. (2014). Use of social media during public emergencies by
people with disabilities. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15, 567-574.
doi:10.5811/westjem.2014.4.21274
Murray John, S. (2011). Disaster preparedness for children with special healthcare needs and
disabilities. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing: JSPN, 16, 226-232.
Neuhauser, L., Ivey, S. L., Huang, D., Engelman, A., Tseng, W., Dahrouge, D., . . . Kealey, M. (2013).
Availability and Readability of Emergency Preparedness Materials for Deaf and Hard-of-
Hearing and Older Adult Populations: Issues and Assessments. PLoS ONE, 8.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055614
Ng, M., Behr, J., & Diaz, R. (2014). Unraveling the evacuation behavior of the medically fragile
population: Findings from hurricane Irene. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 64, 122-134. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.015
Petrolia, D. R., & Bhattacharjee, S. (2010). Why Don't Coastal Residents Choose to Evacuate for
Hurricanes? Coastal Management, 38, 97-112. doi:10.1080/08920751003605365
Petrolia, D. R., Bhattacharjee, S., & Hanson, T. R. (2011). Heterogeneous evacuation responses to
storm forecast attributes. Natural Hazards Review, 12, 117-124. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-
6996.0000038
Phillips, B. D. (2009). Engendering disaster risk reduction a north American perspective. Regional
Development Dialogue, 30, 52-60.
Priestley, M. & Hemingway, L. (2006). Natural Hazards, Human Vulnerability and Disabling Societies: A
Disaster for Disabled People? The Review of Disability Studies, 2(3), 6857
Priestley, M. & Hemingway, L. (2007). Disability and Disaster Recovery: A Tale of Two Cities?,
7118(April). http://doi.org/10.1300/J198v05n03
Putkovich, K. (2013). Emergency warning for people with disabilities. Journal of Emergency
Management, 11, 189-200.
Renne, J. L., Sanchez, T. W., & Litman, T. (2011). Carless and special needs evacuation planning: A
literature review. Journal of Planning Literature, 26, 420-431. doi:10.1177/0885412211412315
Robinson Scott, E., Gerber Brian, J., Eller Warren, S., & Gall, M. (2013). Emergency Planning and
Disabled Populations: Assessing the FNSS Approach. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, 31, 315-329.
Rooney, C., & White, G. W. (2007). Consumer perspective: Narrative analysis of a disaster
preparedness and emergency response survey from persons with mobility impairments.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 206-215. doi:10.1177/10442073070170040301
Rowland, J. L., White, G. W., Fox, M. H., & Rooney, C. (2007). Emergency response training practices
for people with disabilities: Analysis of some current practices and recommendations for future
training programs. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 216-222.
doi:10.1177/10442073070170040401
23
Sakashita, K., Matthews, W., J., & Yamamoto, L., G. (2013). Disaster preparedness for technology and
electricity-dependent children and youth with special health care needs. Clinical Pediatrics, 52,
549-556.
Sinclair, K. (2014). Global policy and local actions for vulnerable populations affected by disaster and
displacement. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61, 1-5.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12117
Smith, D., L., & Notaro, S., J. (2009). Personal emergency preparedness for people with disabilities from
the 2006-2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Disability & Health Journal, 2, 86-
94.
Spence, P., R., Lachlan, K., Burke, J., M., & Seeger, M., W. (2007). Media use and information needs of
the disabled during a natural disaster. Journal of Health Care for the Poor & Underserved, 18,
394-404.
Stough, L. M., & Kang, D. (2015). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Persons with
Disabilities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 140
149.http://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0051-8
Sullivan, H. T., & Hkkinen, M. T. (2011). Preparedness and Warning Systems for Populations with
Special Needs: Ensuring Everyone Gets the Message (and Knows What To Do). Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 29, 225-236. doi:10.1007/s10706-010-9363-z
Tanaka, S. (2013). Issues in the support and disaster preparedness of severely disabled children in
affected areas. Brain & Development, 35, 209-213.
Tatsuki, S. (2012). Challenges in Counter-disaster Measures for People with Functional Needs in Times
of Disaster Following the Great East Japan Earthquake. International Journal of Japanese
Sociology, 21, 12-20. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6781.2012.01158.x
Thompson, K., Every, D., Rainbird, S., Cornell, V., Smith, B., & Trigg, J. (2014). No pet or their person
left behind: Increasing the disaster resilience of vulnerable groups through animal attachment,
activities and networks. Animals, 4, 214-240. doi:10.3390/ani4020214
Tomio, J., Sato, H., & Mizumura, H. (2012). Disparity in disaster preparedness among rheumatoid
arthritis patients with various general health, functional, and disability conditions. Environmental
Health & Preventive Medicine, 17, 322-331.
Twigg, J. (2014). Attitude before method: disability in vulnerability and capacity assessment. Disasters,
38, 465-482. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/disa.12066
Twigg, J., Kett, M., Bottomley, H., Tan, L. T., & Nasreddin, H. (2011). Disability and public shelter in
emergencies. Environmental Hazards, 10, 248-261. doi:10.1080/17477891.2011.594492
Twum-Danso Nana, Y. (2002). Disaster epidemiology: prudent public health practice in the Pacific
Islands. Pacific Health Dialog, 9, 58-63.
Uscher-Pines, L., Hausman, A., J., Powell, S., DeMara, P., Heake, G., & Hagen Michael, G. (2009).
Disaster preparedness of households with special needs in southeastern Pennsylvania.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37, 227-230.
Van, W., Edwards, T., Edwards, B., & Hessee, S. (2002). Riding out the storm: Experiences of the
physically disabled during Hurricanes Bonnie, Dennis, and Floyd. Natural Hazards Review, 3,
98-106. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2002)3:3(98)
Webster Elizabeth, M. (2014). Emergency planning for people with disabilities and others with access
and functional needs to ensure inclusiveness. Journal of Emergency Management, 12, 211-
218. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5055/jem.2014.0173
Wolf-Fordham, S. B., Twyman, J. S., & Hamad, C. D. (2014). Educating First Responders to Provide
Emergency Services to Individuals with Disabilities. Disaster Medicine and Public Health
Preparedness, 8, 533-540. doi:10.1017/dmp.2014.129
Zakour, M. J. (2015). Effects of Support on Evacuation Preparedness of Persons with Disabilities.
Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 14, 1-22.
doi:10.1080/1536710X.2015.989561
24
Appendix 1 Search terms and
databases
Jan 2014 Search Terms
Database Disability Disaster Preparedness

and risk
reduction
Medline Exp. Disabled Disaster/s OR prep* or plans or

person/s OR disab* disaster* Avalanche* planning or "risk
OR handicap* OR OR Earthquake* OR reduction" OR
mental* retard* OR Volcan* OR Flood* "emergenc* plan*"
development* OR Tsunami* OR OR "emergenc*
disability* OR Blizzard* OR prep" OR
intellectual disability* Cyclone* OR management
OR learning Drought* OR
disabilit* OR Hurricane* OR
learning disorder* Typhoon* OR
OR vision Hailstorm* OR "Heat
impairment* OR wave*" OR Tornado*
hearing impairment* OR Wildfire
OR vision disorder*
OR hearing
disorder*
Scopus, disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* or plans or

Sociological OR "mental* retard*" Avalanche* OR planning or "risk
Abstracts, OR "development* Earthquake* OR reduction" OR
Web of disabilit*" OR Volcan* OR Flood* "emergenc* plan*"
Science "intellectual OR Tsunami* OR OR "emergenc*
disability*" OR Blizzard* OR prep" OR
"learning disability*" Cyclone* OR management
OR "learning Drought* OR
disorders*" OR "vision Hurricane* OR
impairment*" OR Typhoon* OR
"hearing impairment*" Hailstorm* OR "Heat
OR "vision disorder*" wave*" OR Tornado*
OR "hearing OR Wildfire
disorder*"
March 2015** Search terms

and risk
reduction
25
Medline Exp. Disabled Disaster/s OR prep* OR plans
person/s OR disab* disaster planning OR planning OR
OR handicap* OR OR disaster* OR "risk reduction"
mental* retard* OR natural hazard* OR
development* natural disaster*
disability* OR OR mitigation OR
intellectual disability* avalanche* OR
OR learning earthquake* OR
disabilit* OR volcan* OR flood*
learning disorder* OR tsunami* OR
OR vision blizzard* OR cyclon*
impairment* OR OR drought* OR
hearing impairment* hurricane* OR
OR vision disorder* typhoon* OR hail*
OR hearing OR "heat wave*" OR
disorder* tornado* OR wildfire*
OR storm* OR * OR
landslide*
Sociological disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Abstracts OR "mental* retard*" Avalanche* OR OR planning OR
OR "development* Earthquake* OR "risk reduction"
disabilit*" OR Volcan* OR Flood*
"intellectual disabilit*" OR Tsunami* OR
OR "learning Blizzard* OR Cyclon*
disabilit*" OR OR Drought* OR
"learning disorder*" Hurricane* OR
OR "vision Typhoon* OR Hail*
impairment*" OR OR "Heat wave*" OR
"hearing impairment*" Tornado* OR
OR "vision disorder*" Wildfire* OR storm*
OR "hearing OR landslide* OR
disorder*" "natural disaster*"
OR "natural hazard*"
OR mitigation
Scopus disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

OR "mental* retard*" avalanche* OR OR planning OR
OR "development* earthquake* OR "risk reduction"
disabilit*" OR volcan* OR flood*
"intellectual disabilit*" OR tsunami* OR
OR "learning blizzard* OR
disabilit*" OR cyclon* OR
"learning disorder*" drought* OR
OR "vision hurricane* OR
impairment*" OR typhoon* OR hail*
"hearing impairment*" OR "Heat wave*"
OR "vision disorder*" OR tornado* OR
OR "hearing wildfire* OR storm*
disorder*" OR landslide* OR
"natural disaster*"
OR "natural
hazard*" OR
mitigation
26
Web of disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans
Science OR "mental* retard*" avalanche* OR OR planning OR
OR "development* earthquake* OR "risk reduction"
OR "learning blizzard* OR cyclon*
disabilit*" OR OR drought* OR
"learning disorder*" hurricane* OR
OR "vision typhoon* OR hail*
"hearing impairment*" tornado* OR wildfire*
OR "vision disorder*" OR storm* OR
OR "hearing landslide* OR
OR mitigation
New Search Terms

Searches
March 2015

and risk
reduction
Embase disabled person/exp disaster* OR prep* OR plans

OR disab* OR avalanche*OR OR planning/exp
learning earthquake* OR OR planning OR
disorder/exp OR volcan* OR flood* risk
developmental OR tsunami* OR reduction/exp OR
disorder/exp OR blizzard* OR cyclon* risk reduction
intellectual OR drought* OR
impairment/exp OR hurricane* OR
visual typhoon* OR hail*
impairment/exp OR OR heat wave OR
hearing tornado* OR wildfire*
impairment/exp OR OR storm* OR
visual disorder/exp landslide* OR
OR hearing natural disaster OR
disorder/exp natural disasters
OR natural hazard
OR natural hazards
OR mitigation
Premedline disab* or handicap* or disaster* or prep* or plans or

"mental* retard*" or avalanche* or planning or "risk
"development* earthquake* or reduction"
disabilit*" or volcan* or flood* or
"intellectual disabilit*" tsunami* or blizzard*
or "learning disabilit*" or cyclon* or
or "learning disorder*" drought* or
or "vision hurricane* or
impairment*" or typhoon* or hail* or
"hearing impairment*" "Heat wave*" or
27
or "vision disorder*" or tornado* or wildfire*
"hearing disorder* or storm* or
landslide* or "natural
disaster*" or "natural
hazard*" or
mitigation
Cinahl disab* or handicap* or disaster* or prep* or plans or

"mental* retard*" or avalanche* or planning or "risk
"development* earthquake* or reduction"
"hearing disorder*" or storm* or
hazard*" or
mitigation
APA FT via disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Informit OR "mental* retard*" avalanche* OR OR planning OR
Online OR "development* earthquake* OR "risk reduction"
OR mitigation
EVA disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Environmetal OR "mental* retard*" avalanche* OR OR planning OR
Abstracts via OR "development* earthquake* OR "risk reduction
Informit disabilit*" OR volcan* OR flood*
landslide* OR
"natural disaster*"
28
OR "hearing OR "natural hazard*"
disorder*" OR mitigation OR
emergenc*
Geobase via disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Engineering OR "mental* retard*" avalanche* OR OR planning OR
Village OR "development* earthquake* OR "risk reduction"
disorder* "natural disaster*"
OR mitigation OR
emergenc*
Compendex disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

via OR "mental* retard*" avalanche* OR OR planning OR
Engineering OR "development* earthquake* OR "risk reduction"
Village disabilit*" OR volcan* OR flood*
disorder* "natural disaster*"
OR mitigation OR
emergenc*
GreenFILE disab* or handicap* or disaster* or prep* OR plans

via Proquest "mental* retard*" or avalanche* or OR planning OR
"development* earthquake* or "risk reduction"
"hearing disorder*" or storm* or
hazard*" or
29
mitigation or
emergenc*
**Differences between April 2014 and May 2015 search

- added mitigation, natural hazard, natural disaster, storm, and landslide
- took out keywords "emergency plan*, emergency prep*, management
30
END OF REPORT
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government, unless the
views expressed in the project materials have been publicly supported by the Government, or Government
Agency.
31

DIDP Scope Nov16

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DIDP Scope Nov16

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction /

The University of Sydneys Centre for Disability

Professor Gwynnyth Llewellyn

Asia Pacific Natural Hazards and Disaster Risk Research Group

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences

Disability was first acknowledged by the international DRR community in 2012 in a

....to ensure the active contribution of risk-prone communities, particularly

Disaster risk reduction: definition and concepts

Disaster preparedness is frequently used in Australia for example by orgnaisations

Being prepared for a bushfire, cyclone, flood or whatever emergency may

Purpose of the scoping review

Pre-analysis and coding phase

Definitions for coding frameworks

Preparedness or response phase

Figure 1: Paper type, disaster phase and country

Descriptive Survey Secondary Analysis Literature review Interview Intervention

Preparedness of people with disability compared to the general population

Interventions for improving individual or household preparedness

Organisational responses to including people with disabilities in

Organisational responses: is disability on the agenda?

Organisational responses: schools

Organisational responses: service providers

Organisational responses: Accessible preparedness and response measures

Community preparedness including people with disability

Learning from experience

Information needs about people with disability and inclusion of disability

Jan 2014 Search Terms

Database Disability Disaster Preparedness

Medline Exp. Disabled Disaster/s OR prep* or plans or

Scopus, disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* or plans or

March 2015** Search terms

Database Disability Disaster Preparedness

Sociological disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Scopus disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

New Search Terms

Database Disability Disaster Preparedness

Embase disabled person/exp disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Premedline disab* or handicap* or disaster* or prep* or plans or

Cinahl disab* or handicap* or disaster* or prep* or plans or

APA FT via disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

EVA disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Geobase via disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

Compendex disab* OR handicap* disaster* OR prep* OR plans

GreenFILE disab* or handicap* or disaster* or prep* OR plans

**Differences between April 2014 and May 2015 search

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen