http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2120-5529
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Can public administrators use community education interventions in disaster management? We examine community education interventions as tools that raise awareness of hazards, communicate risks, and develop resilience in communities. We study a programme in Essex County, UK, in which Essex County Fire and Rescue Services used the results of proportional hazards modelling to identify localities at risk of accidental dwelling fires and to target community education interventions. We then assess the intervention’s impact by comparing the incidence of accidental dwelling fires before and after the Parish Safety Volunteer programme began, as well as between treated and untreated areas, in a difference-in-difference regression. We find that there are greater reductions in accidental dwelling fires in treated areas than in untreated areas, and argue that community education interventions can forge vital networks and increase safety for vulnerable people, as well as build trust and resilience important for disaster and crisis prevention.
Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this paper benefitted from comments and suggestions from Alex Greer, Lex Drennan and participants of the workshops and conferences-within-conferences on Disaster and Politics at the Southern Political Science Association (New Orleans, US – Jan 2018) and the International Workshop on Public Policy (IWPP) (Pittsburgh, June 2018), as well as the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting (Boston, September 2018). The authors additionally thank Scott Robinson, Will Everett, Francis James and staff at the Essex Fire and Rescue Service, particularly Andrea MacAlister and Kieron Moir.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Group 1 - Householders on low incomes living in social housing
Mosaic Types K51 (Often indebted families living in low rise estates), N61 (Childless tenants in social housing flats with modest social needs), O68 (Families with varied structures living on low rise social housing estates) and, to a lesser extent, O69 (Vulnerable young parents needing substantial state support) had more accidental dwelling fires than expected. These Mosaic Type households comprise 7.9% of Essex households (59,000 households) and 14.2% of all accidental dwelling fires.
K51 households were likely to be well-established having lived in their properties for at least 10 years or more; this Type had the largest overall number of ADFs. Lone occupants from Type N61 also recorded a relatively large number of ADFs; these occupants were slightly more likely to be male. All these Mosaic Types are linked through their likelihood of having relatively low incomes and of being in receipt of benefits, especially unemployment benefit (this may mean that these Types are more likely to be at home in the daytime and thus more at risk of fire in the home). These Types are also likely to be heavy smokers. Lone parent households suffering ADFs were often householders on low incomes living in social housing.
Group 2 - Transient singles
Mosaic Types G33 (Transient singles, poorly supported by family and neighbours) and I43 (Older town centres terraces with transient, single populations) have more ADFs than expected. These Types comprise 3.1% of Essex households (23,000 households) and 6.2% of all accidental dwelling fires.
These householders were often living alone in terraces and flats which they rent privately or from the council or housing association. Mosaic also shows that there is a higher than average incidence of smoking, alcohol misuse and substance abuse amongst Types G33 and I43, as well as higher levels of unemployment and benefit claiming.
Type G33 households tend to be a mixture of ages, usually without children and often living alone or as homesharers. Type I43 households tend be younger (under 40); many single parent families suffering ADFs were also from household Type I43. Car ownership is low for both household Types.
Group 3 - Poorer elderly householders living in social housing
Mosaic Group M households (Elderly people reliant on state support) comprise 5.6% of Essex households (41,000 households) and 3.9% of all accidental dwelling fires.
Analysis suggests that elderly people from Group M households, many of whom live alone, are at increased risk of being injured or dying in an accidental dwelling fire. The most vulnerable were Type M56 (Older people living on social housing estates with limited budgets) and Type M58 (Less mobile older people requiring a degree of care).
The vast majority of M householders are elderly women living alone, usually in relatively small houses and flats (social housing) that they have occupied for 10 years or more. Low incomes, benefits claimants, low car ownership and poor health are some characteristics of this group.
Group 4 - Couples and young singles in modern starter homes
Mosaic Types H36 (Young singles and sharers renting small purpose built flats) and H37 (Young owners and rented developments of mixed tenure) comprise 5.2% of Essex households (39,000 households) and 5.1% of all accidental dwelling fires.
Type H36 recorded more chip pan fires than other household Types. Although the overall number here was small, chip pan fires were identified as one of the relatively frequent fire ignition sources causing kitchen injuries. Type H36 householders were often owner-occupiers living in converted flats. Most have only lived in their flats for a short period (1–2 years), few have children and many perceive it difficult to cope on their income. Car ownership is below average with most travelling to work on public transport.
A lack of alarm systems might be an issue for H36 households; almost one third of the ADFs recorded in these households did not have a smoke alarm or any active safety system in place.
Group 5 - Owner occupiers in older style housing
Mosaic Types J45 (Low income communities reliant on low skill industrial jobs) and J46 (Residents in blue collar communities revitalised by commuters) comprise 5.7% of Essex households (42,000 households) and 5.2% of all accidental dwelling fires, as well as 11.5% of smoking-related ADFs.
Householders were usually long-term residents living in owner-occupied terraced housing. J45 Types tended to be of mixed age and household composition; J46 Types contained fewer elderly householders, comprising mainly of middle-aged families. A lack of alarm systems could be an issue for J45 and J46 households; almost one fifth of the ADFs recorded in these households did not have a smoke alarm or any active safety system in place.
Group 6 - Wealthier older households in rural locations and on town edges
Mosaic Types A01 (Rural families with high incomes, often from city jobs), A02 (Retirees electing to settle in environmentally attractive localities), B05 (Better off empty nesters in low density estates on town fringes) and D13 (Higher income older champions of village communities) make up 11.8% of all households (88,000 households) in Essex and 13.9% of all accidental dwelling fires.
Although ADFs in B05 households were more likely to have started in the kitchen, those in the other household Types were more likely to have started in other rooms in the home (as well as a relatively high proportion of chimney fires). B05 households were the least likely of these ‘household types’ to have installed a smoke alarm (64% of ADF incidents recording the presence/absence of an alarm system noted a lack of alarm system).
Household members of these types were more likely to be long term residents (11 years or more), living in owner-occupied detached or semi-detached housing. Adults in Types A01 and D13 were more likely to be middle aged whereas those in A02 and B05 households were more likely to be retired; few households of any of these Types had children. Mosaic analysis of Injury ADFs suggests that lone householders from Types A01, B05 and D13 were the most vulnerable, though the number of incidents was relatively low (24).
Notes
1. In the United Kingdom, a lower layer super output area (LSOA) is a geographic area designated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for generating community-level statistics. By definition, an LSOA has 1000–3000 residents, and 400–1200 households.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Gina Yannitell Reinhardt
Gina Yannitell Reinhardt is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government at the University of Essex, where she leads the ImpacTeam, a research unit devoted to helping local authorities evaluate programmes and their impact. She founded the Global South Research Network and the Disaster and Emergency Research Network to increase the visibility of scholars in developing countries and disaster researchers. Her research focuses on disaster resilience, foreign aid, and trust.
Kakia Chatsiou
Kakia Chatsiou is a Senior Research Officer in the Department of Government at the University of Essex, where she works on the ImpacTeam, a research unit devoted to helping local authorities evaluate programmes and their impact. Her research focuses on disaster resilience, sustainability and programme evaluation.