JEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 1PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

JEM
Evaluating and promoting disaster awareness among children:
The disaster awareness game
Virginia Clerveaux, PhD Candidate
Balfour Spence, PhD
Toshitaka Katada, PhD

ABSTRACTINTRODUCTION

Children account for the greatest proportion ofcasualties from hazard impacts, especially in developing countries where they comprise the largest
percentage of total population. This disproportionate
vulnerability of children has recently been the focus
of various United Nations initiatives for disasterrisk reduction and is increasingly being the focus of
local and national measures to reduce the impactsof hazards. The overarching focus of these childrenspecific measures has been the promotion of disastereducation to enhance the level of awareness among
school-age children. However, this new trust toward
the disaster awareness among children presents a
new challenge for disaster planners, especially as
this relates to the development of appropriate tools
and techniques for the enhancement of the disasterknowledge base of children. Specifically, disastermanagement planners are challenged in ensuring
not only that the information provided is appropriate
to the information-assimilation capacity of children
but also that the appropriate tools and techniques
are developed to ensure effective conveyance of
information through a medium that is neither stoic
nor boring. The disaster awareness game presented
in this article was designed with these challenges
in mind and is intended to evaluate and promotedisaster awareness in children. Preliminary results
suggest that the tool is effective in meeting thisobjective.
Key words: disaster risk reduction, disaster education, hazard vulnerability, disaster educational gametechnique, disaster risk education, children

Overview of hazard impact on children
The comparative vulnerability of children to theimpact of hazards and disasters is being increasingly
documented to determine the interventions for reducing their exposure to these events. This is especiallytrue in developing societies where scarcity ofresources undermines the capacity to develop andimplement effective measures for the promotion ofawareness among children.1 The specific vulnerability of children has been highlighted by many recent
catastrophic events.2 For instance, the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami, in which children younger than 15
years, along with women, accounted for most of thefatalities. Likewise, the October 2005 earthquake inPakistan killed more than 16,000 children when theirschool house collapsed.3 Events like these underscore
the need for due consideration and promotion of measures that will allow children to protect themselvesfrom the impacts of hazards. Other examples ofchildren-specific vulnerability are exemplified by the2006 mudslides on Leyte Island in the Philippinesthat caused more than 200 deaths among school children; the March 2005 earthquake in Western Iranthat destroyed 130 schools and directly affected
36,000 children; and the 2002 earthquake in the Mose
region in Italy where 26 children were killed after the
local school was destroyed.4 Between 1991 and 2000,
the lives of an estimated 77 million children wereaffected by natural and technological disasters.5
Fatalities among children could have been significantly
higher if the “near misses” of catastrophic events are
considered. For instance, there are several instances

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

1

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 2PROOF COPY ONLY
in which school buildings have been destroyed by hazard impacts during out-of-school periods.
In developing societies, where the largest proportion of the population falls within the youngest age
cohort, the potential impact of catastrophes is significantly multiplied. These impacts extend far beyond
the immediate because the death of each child represents the loss of 40-70 years of productivity and contributions to social development in societies which
can least accommodate these losses.6 These experiences reinforce the argument that if disaster management initiatives are to be effective in the reduction ofsocial and economic loss, the promotion of awarenessamong children must be a critical component of suchinitiatives. Children represent the greatest humanresource investment for the future and, as such, theprotection of children from the impact of natural andhuman-induced catastrophes must include two distinct yet interrelated sets of priorities: (i) disaster risk
education and (ii) school safety. These priorities arepotential multipliers for overall disaster risk-reduction initiatives.6 However, while gender issues in disasters have enjoyed a higher profile in recent
years,1,7-9 current research tends to assume children
are passive victims with no role to play in communicating risks, participating in decision-making
processes, or preventing disasters.10-12
Disaster awareness among children as a strategy forloss reduction
None of the more recent theoretical models13 or
guidelines for good communication practice14 single
out the unique needs and potential role of children3
and youth3 as resources or potential informants
within risk communication systems. This is despite
the fact that almost all models detail the heterogeneous nature of those at risk and the wide socioeconomic and cultural differences in the processing andfiltering of risk information. Although within the literature some practitioners have discussed the meritsof educating children about the risks of natural hazards so they are prepared for them, only a small
minority have evaluated the benefits of this approachfor the family and wider community.13 The ability ofchildren and youth to be proactive in reducing their

2

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
own risks has been completely ignored outside thedevelopment field.10 The vast majority of the literature on the role of children in disasters is devoted tothe psychosocial impacts they endure,15,16 and thishas commonly focused on younger children, rather
than older children and youths.17 Recently, however,the continuous increase of hazard impact on youths
and children has fostered repeated calls for the inclusion of children and their particular needs in thedisaster management planning process. In addition,
the role of disaster awareness through education andknowledge transfer in building more resilient societies
and communities has been repeatedly highlighted.25
This is particularly true as it relates to the preparedness, mitigation, emergency response, and recovery
stages of the disaster management cycle.18 In similarvein, the United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction has consistently campaigned tomake disaster awareness and risk reduction integral
to school curricula in formal, informal, and nonformal
education. The objective here is to promote disasterrisk education in national school curricula in countries vulnerable to natural hazards.
It is believed that knowledge management andeducation can help hazard-prone communities to gain
better understanding of ways to cope with risks andbecome more resilient. Therefore, disaster educationis recognized as an essential element in sustainable
development because it accelerates the progress ofsocieties toward disaster resilience.19 This view is reiterated in the Kobe Report 2005,20 where it is notedthat “education for creating a culture of disaster
resilience is an interactive process of mutual learning
among people and institutions. It encompasses far
more than formal education at schools and universities, and affects all aspects of life through the concerted
effort to overcome universal barriers of ignorance,
apathy, disciplinary boundaries and lack of political
will present in communities. Education also involves
the enhancement and use of indigenous knowledge
for protecting people, habitat, livelihoods, and cultural heritage from natural hazards.” The report further postulates that history teaches that inadequate
disaster reduction awareness and the correspondinglack of preparation repeatedly lead to preventable

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 3

PROOF COPY ONLY
loss of life and damage in all major natural disasters
and that preparation through education is less costly
than learning through tragedy.
According to the ISDR Report,4 schools are thebest venues for sowing collective values. Recently,
there has been a renewal of focus, at both the nationaland global levels, on the importance of using public
education as a key to disaster mitigation. The 1990s
Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction emphasized theimportance of governments “educating and training
their citizens to increase awareness.”21(vii) Likewise, it
is widely recognized that an educated public is better
able to prepare for and adapt and respond to hazards
and that education for disaster reduction is complex
yet essential to any properly implemented, centrally
managed hazard strategy. The implementation of disaster loss reduction programs in schools is increasingly being recognized as one of the key elements inlong-term disaster risk-reduction strategies. The
rationale is that school children can play an importantrole in real-life future catastrophic events if disasterrisk reduction is integrated into school curricula. The
importance of disaster awareness in reducing fatalities
among children was demonstrated during the Indian
Ocean Tsunami, when many lives were saved becausea child was able to recall the warning signs of a possible tsunami from her geography lesson in school. It isin this context that the promotion of disaster education
among school children and the subsequent transfer of
the knowledge gained to the communities from whichthese children come can be an effective way of building
more disaster-resilient societies.
Wisner6 echoes this view in his statement that “atall levels, pupils and students from primary schools to
postgraduate level can actively study the safety of theirown schools and work with teachers and community
members to find ways to protect themselves. They canalso spread the methods of participatory vulnerability
and capacity assessment and hazard mapping to thebroader communities surrounding schools and otherinstitutions of education and research of which they
are a part.” Similar sentiments are expressed by the
ISDR,22 in the statement that “disaster loss-reduction
education for children fosters awareness and better
understanding about the immediate environment in

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
which they and their families live and work. Sincechildren are widely known to be influential and effective communicators, lessons learned at school will
later be transmitted to the home.”19 The value addedby current disaster education into the schools’ curricula is that children who get disaster education will,
once they become adults, have a greater understanding of disasters, of the effects of human actions and of
the consequences of poor environmental management,
as well as of the need to promote a new kind of development path that is in greater harmony with nature.23
In other words, education for disaster reduction is an
integral part of education for sustainable development as education, knowledge, and awareness are
critical to building the capacity for hazard loss reduction.6 This is especially the case in many developing
countries because children form the bulk of the population and a high proportion of the death tolls in a disaster.6 Excluding children from the disaster planning
process threatens their safety when disaster strikes
and ignores a valuable resource for risk communication, education, advocacy, and practical risk-reduction
activities.10
Recently, there is an emerging paradigm in whichchildren are not regarded merely as potential victimsof hazards and disasters but more so as catalysts
for loss reduction. This is because children represent
the gateway to creating a culture of prevention insociety. They can be taught the value of prevention
and encouraged to play proactive roles in disaster
reduction.24 The idea of involving children and youths
and encouraging their participation in risk-reduction
measures is in line with international commitments
toward children’s rights and is also considered criticalto the achievement of the Millennium Development
Goals.26 However, the new paradigm is not without its
challenges, especially as these relate to the development of appropriate methodologies and techniques forproviding children with information that will build
their disaster awareness capacity. Although the relevance of disaster education among children to risk
reduction cannot be overstated, the process of incorporating the relevant information into a school curriculum is fraught with challenges. Those that are most
relevant to this article include the following:

3

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 4

PROOF COPY ONLY
1. Determination of existing levels ofawareness prior to curriculum design as ameans of establishing the level of intervention required;
2. Design and development of appropriate
tools for evaluating existing levels ofawareness as well as knowledge gained
from interventions; and3. Ensuring that the techniques employed
for imparting disaster knowledge to children are sufficiently interesting and interactive to hold their attention.
These challenges are central to the design anddevelopment of the disaster awareness game (DAG)
which is the focus of this article.
THE DAG

Objectives of the DAG
The DAG is a process that combines a number oftools and techniques designed to
1. measure levels of hazard and disasterawareness,
2. educate children as well as adults about
hazards and disasters that are relevant totheir environment,
3. encourage positive behavior at allstages of the disaster management cycle,
and4. dispel myths about hazards and disasters.
These tools include presentations on local hazards and the relevant disaster management context,
a board game with related question cards, and a score
sheet that is used to evaluate levels of awarenessprior to and after exposure to the game. The board
game also helps to inform players of the consequencesof poor environmental behavior, especially as these
relate to hazards.

4

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Playing the DAG
The DAG includes a board game whereby players
learn about various hazards to which their communities are vulnerable as well as strategies to mitigate
impacts. When playing the game, each player rolls a
dice and moves a corresponding number of playing
spaces along the game board. On landing on one of
the hazard playing spaces, the player is asked a corresponding question from one of the question cards. If
the player correctly answers the question, he or she
will be required to move the game piece one space forward. If the player incorrectly answers the question,
he or she moves backward two playing spaces andloses his or her turn. Each player can only advancealong the game board by correctly answering a question or landing on a playing space that suggests positive hazard mitigation measures. If players land on ahazard picture while moving backward, they will not
be required to answer another hazard question.
The players will also move backward or forward
or lose a turn if they land on any of the marked disaster scenario boxes on the board. In addition, several
boxes contain instructions written directly on theboard. Statements or scenarios that suggest that anaction has positive environmental consequences will
require the player to move forward. Landing on a box
which suggests a negative environmental action
would require the player to move backward. Winning
the game can be achieved in one of two ways: (1) The
first player who reaches the finish box is the winner.
If the number on the dice is higher than the numberof spaces between the player’s position and the finish
line, the player must advance to the final space andthen move his or her game piece back as many spaces
as are left over from the number on the dice. (2) The
person with the most correct responses at the end ofa given timeframe can also be declared the winner.
From the players’ perspective, the objective of
playing the game is to pit his or her knowledge of hazards and disasters against that of opponents while atthe same time enjoying the competition.
Design consideration of DAG for school children
The DAG consists three tiers, basic, intermediate, and advanced, and is adaptable to any level ofJournal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 5

PROOF COPY ONLY
educational attainment or age group. The layout of
the board game is identical for all levels, but the levelof difficulty and challenge posed by questions contained on the game card varies in accordance with thelevel at which the game is being played. Currently,
the DAG is in an electronic format that allows its
users to adapt and format the game for different levels by adjusting the level of challenge of the questions, the types of hazards, and related questions toreflect local vernacular and hazard experience or
exposure. The flexibility of the game allows formatting by users to reflect specific areas of disaster management that decision makers seek to promote. The
adaptation discussed in this article targeted grade 5
primary school students and was tested in two
Caribbean countries, namely, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines (SVG) and the Turks and Caicos Islands(TCI). To date, the DAG is available in English, withtranslation into Japanese currently underway.
A number of key elements were considered indesigning the DAG adaptation for grade 5 primaryschool children. First was the need to ensure simplicity in all aspects of the game. In that regard, the DAG
question cards utilized a multiple-choice format withresponse options limited to three. Other considerations
included a minimum age that was deemed appropriate for playing the game. Consultations with educational practitioners indicated that an appropriate
minimum age would be nine years because at this age,the comprehension level of normal school children issufficiently developed for them to understand key
issues related to hazards and disasters and the effective management of these processes. The difficulty ofthe questions posed was also informed by the comprehension level of children at that age. Once developed,
the questions were submitted for review to a panelof disaster managers and educators. This process
allowed determination of the appropriateness of questions and feedback from the panel informed theredesign of relevant questions. The questions utilized
in the game focused on the four key components of thedisaster management cycle, namely, preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery. Basic facts about
hazards and disasters and explanations for the correctness of response were placed on the game cards.

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Validation of the DAG: Comparative assessment ofgrade 5 students in two Caribbean countries
Validation is a critical component in the development of any evaluation tool. With regard to the DAG,
the validation process was intended to identify andeliminate any glitch in the process. One school was
selected for evaluation in each of the countries where
the game was tested. The Marriaqua Government
School and the Ona Glinton Primary School wereselected for SVG and TCI, respectively. A total of
forty-two students were evaluated in SVG, whereas
thirty-three students were evaluated in TCI.
Validation methodology
The validation methodology was undertaken infour stages:
1. Pretest stage: This stage is intended toevaluate the existing level of disasterawareness among the target population
using a questionnaire survey.
2. DAG exposure 1: This represents thesecond stage of the pretest through exposure of the target population to the DAG.
3. Provision of disaster information: In thisstage participants are provided with disaster management information on hazards
that are pertinent to their environment.
4. Posttest stage: This stage was intended
to evaluate the impact of the game anddisaster information on the level of awareness among participants.
Pretest stage. Testing of the DAG was carried out at a
two-day workshop in each of the targeted countries.
The objective of each workshop was not only to evaluate the existing levels of disaster awareness within thecontext of the DAG but also to enhance awareness.
Participating grade 5 students in SVG ranged in age
from 9 to 12 years, with the mean age being 10.9 years.
In TCI, ages also ranged from 9 to 12 years, with themean age being 10.2. There was a significant difference

5

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 6

PROOF COPY ONLY

Figure 1. Distribution of sample by ethnicity in TCI.
School populations are often a good representationof the community or country in which they exist. In
that regard, the mixed nationality indicated in
Figure 1 for the TCI is a true microcosm of the country as a whole. Ascertaining the level of diversity thatexists in a population is important in tailoring risk
information to vulnerable populations.

between the two samples with regard to ethnicity. The
grade 5 students evaluated in SVG were homogenous
in their ethnicity, with all of them originating from
SVG, while the ethnicity of the TCI students varied(Figure 1). The ethnicity of the target population is relevant to the evaluation process because ethnic background is a major consideration in assessing perceptions, attitudes, and behavior in relation to hazards ordisasters. In spite of the ethnic homogeneity of the
SVG sample, the diversity of locations from which students originated resulted in a variety of hazard experiences, thus making the evaluation process as interesting as that of TCI where hazard experiences werelargely related to countries of origin.
Questionnaire design
The questionnaire used as an evaluation tool for
the DAG workshop consisted of 74 items or questions
that are relevant to components such as hazard
awareness, vulnerability perception, hazard management measures, and so on. The components ensured
comprehensive coverage of the relevant areas of disaster management and the organization of data in aformat that aided comparative analysis of children’s
responses. The questionnaire incorporated both factual and opinion or attitude questions. Factual questions quantified facts about hazards while opinion or
attitude questions provided a basis for the interpretation of specific behaviors. Both open-ended and6

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
closed-ended questions were used. Closed-ended
questions were appropriate where the researcher wasaware of the potential range of responses to a specificquestion. For example students were asked:
Do you know what you should do to recover fromthe damage caused by a Hurricane?
 Yes, very well  Yes, a little  No, not at all
Open-ended questions were used where uncertainty existed about potential responses, or where theopinions of respondents were required to assess aphenomenon. An example of this is as follows:
What are some measures that people can take torecover following the impact of a hurricane?
a.
________________________________________________b.
________________________________________________c.
________________________________________________
There was a bias toward the use of closed-ended
questions because this facilitated the precoding of
responses, thereby accelerating the data collection
process by minimizing the amount of writing during
the course of administering the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was arranged to accommodate a maximum number of questions per page. Check boxes
were used to allow speedy recording of responses andcomputer data entry. The questionnaires design,
therefore, allowed the assessment of children’s levelof awareness, risk perceptions, factual knowledge,
and physical preparedness for hazards to which theircommunities are vulnerable. For instance, questions
addressed to students in SVG were related to hurricanes, volcanoes, landslides, mudslides, and floods
whereas those for TCI students were confined to hurricanes and floods. The questionnaire also allowed theassessment of children’s prior exposure to specifichazards and disaster education programs designed toincrease awareness as well as knowledge and preparedness that were provided by local disaster management officials, media, and school teachers.
DAG exposure 1. At this stage of the validation
process, students were exposed to the rules of thegame and allowed to play in groups of four (Plate 1).

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 7

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Plate 1. Playing of DAG in the TCI & SVG. Students in both the TCI & SVG were divided into groups of four toplay the DAG. Students were provided with accompanying score sheets to record their responses to hazard
related questions. Since the DAG was tested in both the TCI and SVG the pictures included are of both countries.

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

7

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 8

PROOF COPY ONLY
A scorecard was kept to record the correctness of
responses but more importantly as a database fordetermining levels of awareness at this stage. The
scores of students were analyzed at the end of thisstage.
Provision of disaster information. Exposure to the
DAG was followed by the provision of relevant hazard
or disaster information in the form of simple lectures,videos, and interactive discussions with participants.
Posttest stage. The posttest stage consisted of a second exposure to the DAG and evaluation of student’s
performance in light of their previous exposure andthe provision of hazard and disaster information.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pretest analysis
The pretest analysis is discussed in terms of children’s natural hazard awareness, their risk perceptions, and their household level of preparedness.
Children’s hazard awareness. Level of hazard awareness among children is influenced by the extent of
their hazard and disaster education as well as theirlevel of exposure especially within the context of theirhousehold. During the pretest exercise, the level ofawareness among children was assessed by asking
participants to identify hazards that have or are likely
to impact their communities. Table 1 summarizes theresults of this exercise.
In all cases, children in SVG demonstrated ahigher level of pretest awareness of hazards that arelikely to impact their communities than those in TCI
for hazards that are common to both environments.
The zero score for children in the TCI in relation tolandslides or debris flows and volcanic eruption could
be anticipated since these hazards are not a part of
the hazard profile of the TCI. The generally higher
level of awareness in SVG is likely related to the frequency of occurrence of these hazards and better
media coverage when compared with the TCI. The
exception is drought, because rainfall levels are
extremely low in the TCI; yet, children demonstrated
a low level of awareness of the potential impacts of

8

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Table 1. Children’s perceptions of likely hazard
impacts on their communities (pretest results)
HazardTCI (%)SVG (%)

Hurricane

72.7

100

Flood

42.4

93.9

Tropical storm

33.3

78.8

Windstorm

18.2

54.5

Earthquake

15.2

81.8

Drought

9.1

45.5

Wildfire

6.1

12.1

Tsunami3.0

33.3

Landslide/debris flow

0

93.9

Volcanic eruption

0

97.0

meteorological and physiological drought. The likely
explanation is that in spite of low rainfall levels in the
TCI, the domestic water supply is fairly reliable owing
to the extensive use of rain water harvesting as well
as desalinization of sea water. Unlike SVG, where
drought is most noticeable in terms of its impact on
agriculture which is the main livelihood activity, agriculture as a form of livelihood in the TCI is almost
nonexistent.
The importance of hazard education in promoting
levels of awareness and by extension, risk reduction,is underscored. The level of hazard education among
sampled children was assessed in terms of exposureand access to disaster information related to two hazards (Floods and Hurricanes) that are common to the
profile of both TCI and SVG. Figure 2 summarizes theresults of this pretest exercise. For both groups of students, the pretest survey revealed that TV programs
were their primary source of flood and hurricane hazard information. These programs are for the mostpart seasonal and are broadcasted during theAtlantic Hurricane Season when impacts from hurricanes and related flooding are most likely. Schools
also feature significantly in the disaster education ofchildren. However, it is interesting to note that in SVG,

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 9PROOF COPY ONLY

Figure 2. Comparative sources of hazards or disaster
information—TCI and SVG (Sources of information
are not mutually exclusive). It depicts the sources ofhazard information that are utilized by children toaccess hazard-related information in their respective
country. The figure also illustrates among eachgroups of student which medium of communicationis the most important. This information is importantin the field of risk communication.

schools are the least important source of Hurricane
hazard-related information. This is probably because
the media and parents provide significant information
to children, thus reducing the emphasis of disaster
information in schools. It is noteworthy that the programs that provide hazard and disaster information
to children are not always intentionally educational
but take the form of popular Hollywood productions
such as, “The Day After Tomorrow,” “Volcano,” and “ThePerfect Storm,” that have been formatted for television.
Although the level of hazard education among thesample might seem relatively high, the extent andcomprehensiveness of this education needs to be thefocus of further research. Indications are that misconceptions about hazards and disasters, especiallywithin the home environment, are still rife. Becauseof this, the role of schools in providing appropriate
and factual information for disaster loss reduction
cannot be overstated. The pretest exercise suggeststhat caution should be exercised in the interpretationof results from tools designed to evaluate levels of
disaster awareness and education among children.
For instance, results from the administration of thepretest questionnaire survey suggest a high level ofawareness among the sample. However, the resultsof the DAG score sheet, a practical demonstration oflevels of awareness, were contrary to those of the

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
questionnaire survey. This discrepancy is likely the
result of the tendency of children to perceive positive
responses to questions as desirable. The practicalnature of the DAG does not allow nonfactual responses,
so the real level of awareness among children is better
evaluated.
Children’s exposure to and experiences with hazards are major influences on their disaster educationand level of awareness. Given the age cohort of thesample, exposure to hazards is a function of how
recently these events have occurred in their environment. It is for this reason that grade 5 students in the
TCI had a higher (72.7%) level of exposure to hurricanes than those in SVG (57.6%). This level of exposure is a reflection of recent (since 2004) hurricane
events such as Hurricanes Ivan, Francis, and Charlie,
which have impacted the TCI. On the other hand,children in SVG have had minimal exposure to hurricanes in recent times. Moreover, the recent hurricane
experiences were mainly coastal and would not havesignificantly impacted the Marriaqua Valley, where
the school from which the children were sampled islocated. With regard to flooding, the exposure of children in SVG was higher (57.6%) than those in TCI(39.4%), reflecting the greater frequency of floodingin SVG as well as the location of the Ona Glinton
Primary School from which the TCI sample was drawn.
Had the sample been drawn from a primary school on
the island of Providenciales in the TCI, the level of
exposure would likely be higher owing to recent flood
events on that island. This suggests that a morecomprehensive comparison of levels of awareness,
education, and exposure among Caribbean countries
would require more comprehensive and representative samplings.
Children’s risk perceptions
The risk perception of the sample was assessed interms of perceived vulnerability of their country, community, and homes. Questions such as, “If flooding
took place in your community, do you think your housemight be damaged? (Yes, likely Yes, a chance No,
unlikely No, not at all)” were asked to measure risk
perception. It is recognized that this assessment ofrisk perception is somewhat simplistic but given the9

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 10

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Table 2. Pretest risk perception among sampled children
Flood
SamplesourceHurricane

Perceived
vulnerability ofcountry

Perceived
vulnerability ofcommunity

Perceived
vulnerability ofhome

Perceived
vulnerability ofcountry

Perceived
vulnerability ofcommunity

Perceived
vulnerability ofhome

TCI (%)

75.8

56.3

43.8

87.9

81.8

63.6

SVG (%)

90.9

81.3

68.8

87.9

93.9

78.6

Table 3. Pretest summary of household preparedness among sampled children
Flood
SamplesourceHurricane

Understand what
to do to prepare

Understand what
to do toevacuate safely

Understand what
to do to recoverfrom the damage

Understand what
to do to prepare

Understand what
to do toevacuate safely

Understand what
to do to recoverfrom the damage

TCI (%)

87.9

69.7

66.7

81.8

87.9

66.7

SVG (%)

93.9

75.8

69.7

93.9

75.8

69.7

age and level of education of the sample a more complex approach to the assessment was deemed inappropriate. The assessment is confined to hazards thatare common to both TCI and SVG to allow comparison. Table 2 summarizes the risk perceptions of thesample. The higher risk perception of children in SVG,
when compared with the TCI, is consistent with higher
exposure and real vulnerability. Not only is SVG vulnerable to a wider range of hazards but frequencies ofoccurrence are also higher then in the TCI. The lowest perceived vulnerability among children in the TCI
is in relation to the effect of flooding on their homes.
This perception is consistent with reality because thesandy soils and gently undulating topography ofmuch of the TCI is not conducive to flooding except inareas adjacent to salt ponds as well as low lying areasfrom which drainage is impeded.
Although a hurricane of category 3 and above has
not been experienced in the TCI in the last 45 years,
students identified hurricane as a greater source of
threat than flooding even though small scale flooding
occurs annually throughout the TCI. The higher
threat level for hurricanes reflects experiences withthe outer bands of hurricanes that pass to the northand south of the TCI. Although these bands are far

10

PROOF COPY ONLY

removed from the eye of the hurricane, they havecaused wind damage and localized flooding. A major
natural hazard has not affected the TCI for more thanhalf a century, and although the TCI periodicallyexperiences flooding because of heavy rainfall, or hightide, this flooding has not severely affected social or
economic life, and it is seen merely as an inconvenience or a reason for a holiday. Here again, caution
must be exercised in the interpretation of questionnaire results for reasons indicated earlier. Moreextensive use of reliability check questions can eliminate such shortcomings in the data.
Children’s level of preparedness
Assessment of children’s level of disaster preparedness is in essence an evaluation of existing levels of preparedness in the household from which they originate.
Information on this was ascertained by asking students
questions such as, “What are some measures that people can take to prepare for an approaching hurricane?”
The pretest assessment of children’s preparedness, therefore, focused on their knowledge of themeasures that are required to ensure their safety andminimize impact during an event. Table 3 summarizes
household preparedness among sampled children.

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 11

PROOF COPY ONLY
The pretest results indicate relatively high levelsof preparedness among children in both TCI and
SVG. If these results are reliable, it would be
extremely difficult to explain the continued highlevels of impacts from hurricanes and floods. In thatregard, the assessment tools should have been more
exploratory in identifying the specifics of their preparedness. For instance, when a child responded thathe or she is aware of the measures required to reducethe impacts of floods and hurricanes on his or her own
household, the specifics of this knowledge requires
investigation.
The challenge is in devising means of garneringsuch information without frustrating the responses ofyoung children. It is noteworthy that while most of
the children stated that they know how to prepare forfloods and hurricanes less than 75% of them have everparticipated in emergency drills at home, at school, orin their community. While most of the samples were
aware of what the contents of an emergency bag
should be, none of the households from which theycame had such a bag. When probed, the vast majority
were unaware of simple preparedness measures suchas cutting down overhanging limbs from trees, removing fruits like coconuts that could become missiles
during storms, or elevating furniture and unplugging
electrical items before a flood. This fact points to theneed for the formal introduction of disaster education
into school curricula, as students’ disaster knowledge
would be increased and this, in turn, would have atrickle-down effect on the wider society. This points tothe need for comprehensive assessment of the preparedness measures to which children are exposed
and which can be used to inform interventions for thepromotion of disaster education in schools.
POSTTEST ANALYSISThe posttest assessment of the DAG is intended
to measure the effectiveness of this technique inenhancing the disaster awareness knowledge base oftargeted students. The pretest process was followed
by a posttest exercise in which students were again
subjected to an identical questionnaire survey, playing of the board game and evaluation of score sheets.
Changes in levels of awareness were assessed using

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
the same criteria as those of the pretest and are discussed in the ensuing sections.
Children’s risk perception
A notable increase in risk perception was observed
for both the TCI and SVG sample students for bothfloods (Figure 3) and hurricanes (Figure 4). In the caseof flooding, the risk awareness of the TCI sample
increased by an average of 20 percent, while that of the
SVG sample increased by approximately 10 percent.
The smaller increase in risk awareness for the SVG
sample is a reflection of higher levels of existing floodawareness in the pretest evaluation. This level of awareness is a function of greater exposure to flood events
when compared with the TCI sample. The analysis of
posttest data for the TCI indicates that the most significant increase in flood risk awareness related to the vulnerability of communities reflecting lower levels of exposure to and experience with flooding in the communities
from which the students originated. In the case of SVG,
the most significant increase related to the perceived
vulnerability of homes because, although students havea high level of exposure to flooding, the site-specific location of their homes makes direct impact from flooding
unlikely except in extreme high magnitude events.

Figure 3. TCI and SVG flood hazard risk perception.
Risk perception is a very important issue in the disaster management paradigm. This is because it can
influence how residents will respond in an emergency situation. Additionally, it is also believed thatchildren’s risk perception is influenced by that of
their parents or other adults in the home. It depicts
children’s risk perception in TCI and SVG before
and after the provision of formal disaster education
during the disaster awareness workshop. For bothgroups of children, a notable increase was measured
in their level of risk perception with regard to theirhome, community, and country.

11

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 12

PROOF COPY ONLY

Figure 4. TCI and SVG hurricane hazard risk perception. As is the case in Figure 3, the same holds true
for Figure 4. However, children in both the TCI and
SVG had a higher risk perception for hurricane thanfor flood hazards. Perhaps this has to do with the factthat generally hurricane hazards are feared more
and receive more media attention than flooding in
the Caribbean. Students’ risk perception of hurricanes was also measured both before and after exposure to the DAG and to the provision of disaster education in the form of lectures, viewing of hazard
related videos, etc. The results of the workshop
revealed that students’ risk perception for hurricane
increased for all areas measured.

In the case of hurricanes, the increase in risk
perceptions following exposure to the DAG was
generally lower than for flooding. In the case of TCI,
hurricane risk perception increased by approximately
7.8 percent while for SVG, the increase was 7.6 percent. The main explanation is that existing levelsof hurricane awareness before exposure to the DAG
was significantly high for both samples. The similarity of the increase for TCI and SVG reflects universality in the character and dissemination process of hurricane information throughout the Caribbean andespecially within the context of the Caribbean
Disaster Emergency Response Agency participatingstates to which the TCI and SVG belong. Information
on hurricanes is the most developed and most accessible of all the hazards that affect the Caribbean
region. In that regard, students in both the TCI and
SVG would be exposed to similar hurricane-related
information.
Children’s knowledge of hazard preparedness
As is the case of risk awareness, there was asignificant increase in children’s knowledge of

12

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Figure 5. TCI and SVG flood hazard preparedness.
This figure depicts children’s perception of theirlevel of preparedness to respond to a flood hazard.
While the results for the level of preparedness before
the workshop was high, if this information was taken
as is, then it would lead one to assume that the students and the household from which they originatedare adequately prepared to respond effectively to aflood hazard. However, further probing of students
during interactive discussion and during the playingof the DAG revealed that students lack basic knowledge of this hazard and how to effectively prepare forone. This information was important as it allowed
the workshop coordinators to better tailor the lectures that were provided to students. Consequently,
posttesting of students through playing the DAG andcompleting a questionnaire survey indicated anincrease in level of preparedness.

preparedness measures in relations to floods (Figure 5)
and hurricanes (Figure 6) for both samples. In thecase of flooding, knowledge of preparedness measuresamong students in the TCI increased by an averageof approximately 22 percent while in SVG theincrease was nearly 17 percent. In relation to hurricanes, preparedness knowledge increased by 16 percent and 15 percent for TCI and SVG, respectively.
Explanations for the difference in increase between
the two locations are similar to those for risk awareness. The increase in preparedness knowledge wasmanifested in the children’s ability to list items thatshould be included in an emergency evacuation kit aswell as how these can be used during an emergency.
In addition, children demonstrated a better understanding of hazards and their impacts and a morecomprehensive knowledge of steps that can be taken
to mitigate the effects of hazards, after exposure to
the DAG.

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 13

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
CONCLUSIONS

Figure 6. TCI and SVG hurricane hazard preparedness. This figure depicts the level of preparedness forchildren in TCI and SVG for both before and after
exposure to the disaster awareness game (DAG) workshop. Pretesting of students before the commencement of the DAG workshop indicated that children’s
perception of their level of preparedness for a hurricane hazard was significantly high. Subsequently,
children were exposed to the DAG board game which
consists of hazard-related questions and disaster scenarios to which they were required to provide a
response for and to record their responses on a score
sheet which was provided. Examination of the score
sheets indicated that there was a disparity between
the answers provided by students on the pretest questionnaire survey and on the DAG score sheet. The
DAG score sheet revealed a lower level of hazard
awareness preparedness measures than originallystated by students in both countries. Exposure to disaster information followed by a second exposure to
the DAG board game revealed an increase in student’s
knowledge of mitigation measures that can be
employed against a hurricane hazard.

Exposure to the DAG also assisted students in
identifying ways in which they can assist their parents
with disaster preparedness activities. Most were able
to compile checklists to remind their parents of preparations required to mitigate the impact of specificemergencies. Evacuation knowledge also increased
with exposure to the DAG, although more so for the
TCI than SVG. This is primarily because of a higher
incidence of pretest evacuation knowledge among students in SVG. Most of the students in the Marriaqua
Valley, where the sample school is situated, would
have had repeated exposure to evacuation exercises
during a flood and hurricane. The paucity of hurricane experience in the TCI would have hindered thedevelopment of this knowledge in children. It is for
similar reasons that recovery knowledge was higher
for students in TCI.

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

PROOF COPY ONLY

The importance of children’s knowledge in overall
disaster risk reduction and by extension the sustainability of development is increasingly being documented. However, the promotion of hazard and disasterawareness among young children is challenged by theneed to design disaster educational tools that are not
only sufficiently simple but also interesting enough to
be readily and easily embraced by children. The need topromote disaster awareness among young children in
the Caribbean cannot be overstated. However, there isa paucity of programs and tools for the education ofchildren in relation to disasters. The DAG is designed toaddress this gap in the disaster management initiatives
in the Caribbean as well as in other relevant regions.
Preliminary testing of the DAG among grade
5 students in the TCI and SVG suggest that the toolis effective in not only evaluating existing levels ofawareness but more importantly in enhancing theknowledge base of children so as to allow them to protect themselves, their families and communities fromthe impact of hazards that are a part of the profile oftheir environment. Evidently, there are gaps in thedesign component of the DAG especially as these
relate to the comprehensiveness of pretest evaluations. Further revision of the DAG will therefore beundertaken but the relevance of this technique inaddressing one of the main gaps in the disaster management initiatives of the Caribbean region-disastereducation in schools, is important.
Virginia Clerveaux, PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering,
Gunma University, Gunma, Japan.
Balfour Spence, PhD, Lecturer, Department of Geography & Geology,
The University of the West Indies, Jamaica, West Indies.
Toshitaka Katada, PhD, Prof. Department of Civil Engineering, Gunma
University, Gunma, Japan.

REFERENCES
1. Fothergill A: Gender, risk, and disasters. Int J Emerg Disast.
1996; 14(1): 33-56.
2. Synthesis Report of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Web site.
Available at www.tsunami-evaluation.org/. Accessed February 12,
2007.
3. UNICEF: The state of the World’s children 2007. Women andchildren—The double dividend. Available at http://www.unicef.org/
sowc07/docs/sowc07.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2007.
4. ISDR: World disaster reduction campaign: Disaster risk reduction
begins at school, 2006-2007. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/

13

DO NOT DISTRIBUTEJEM-6-5-00-Clerveaux_080020

9/9/08

10:52 AM

Page 14

PROOF COPY ONLY
about_isdr/isdr-publications/11-education-good-practices/educationgood-practices.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2008
5. Plan-UK: Children and disaster risk reduction. Available at http://
www.plan-uk.org/newsroom/publications/. Accessed February 15,
2007.
6. Wisner B: Let our children teach us! A review of the role of education and knowledge in disaster risk reduction. Available atwww.unisdr.org/knowledge-education. Accessed February 12, 2007.
7. Elaine E, Morrow B: The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through
Women’s Eyes. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.
8. Fordham MH: Making women visible in disasters: Problematising
the private domain. Disasters. 1998; 22(2): 126-143.
9. Fordham MH: Gendering vulnerability analysis: Towards a morenuanced approach. In Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds.):
Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. London:
Earthscan, 2004, 174-182.
10. Anderson WA: Bringing children into focus on the social science
research agenda. Int J Mass Emerg Disast. 2005; 23(3): 159-175.
11. Ansell N: Children, Youth and Development. London: Routledge,
2005.
12. Kirschke J, Willem van V: “How can they look so happy?”
Reconstructing the place of children after Hurricane Katrina:
Images and reflections. Child Youth Environ 2005; 15(2): 378-391.
Available at www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.
13. Ronan KR, Johnston DM: Volcanic eruptions and children:
Assessment and school based intervention. Paper presented at Pan
Pacific Hazards Conference, Vancouver, 1996.
14. Twigg J: Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness
in Development and Emergency Planning. London: Overseas
Development Institute, 2004.
15. Norris FH, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ: 60,000 disaster victims
speak: Part II. Summary and implications of disaster mental healthresearch. Psychiatry. 2002; 65(3): 240-260.
16. Ursano RJ, Norwood AE: Trauma and Disaster: Responses andManagement. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing,
2003.

14

PROOF COPY ONLY

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
17. Chen J, Thompstone G: Children and young people responding
to the tsunami. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/asiapacific/
ap-publications/docs/unicef-child-participation-forum-fair.pdf.
Accessed December 2, 2007.
18. Samuel N, Lidstone J: Public education and disaster management:
Is there any guiding theory? Aust J Emerg Manag. 1998; 13(3): 14-19.
19. UNESCO: APELL for schools and educational buildings: A
community-based approach for school safety and education fordisaster reduction. Available at www.unesco.org/science/disaster/
apell_schools.pdg. Accessed November 23, 2007.
20. UNISDR World Conference on Disaster Reduction Kobe, Japan.
Available at http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/thematic-sessions/WCDRdiscussion-paper-cluster3.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2007.
21. Press F: Implementing the International Decade for natural
Disaster Reduction, Prepared for the Secretary General of the United
Nations by the International Ad Hoc Group of Experts, 11th April
1989, United Nations, New York.
22. ISDR: Disaster Education-Latin American and the Caribbean.
Available at: http://www.eird.org/eng/revista/no_13_2006/boletin1-ing.
htm. Accessed November 24, 2007.
23. Prepared jointly by the: ISDR, Government of Japan, World
Meteorological Office and Asian Risk reduction centre, July 2002.
Available at: http://www.adrc.or.jp/publications/LWR/LWR.htm.
Accessed January 12, 2008
24. Anderson WA: Women and children facing disasters in the book
managing disaster risk in emerging economies—Disaster risk management series No. 2. Available at: www.crid.or.cr/crid/CD_Inversion/
pdf/eng/doc13121/doc13121.htm. Accessed November 24, 2007.
25. Hyogo Report: World Conference on Disaster Reduction. Building
the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters 18-22
January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. Hyogo Framework for Action
2005-2015: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Available
at: www.unisdr.org/wcdr. Accessed December 15, 2007.
26. Tom M, Haynes K, Hall N, et al.: The role of children and youth
in communicating disaster risk. Child Youth Environ 2008; 18(1):254-279.

Journal of Emergency Management
Vol. 6, No. 5, September/October 2008

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE