Floods Loom: Effective Prep Strategies Highlighted
Weekend storms and flooding in New South Wales led to the NSW State Emergency Service responding to more than 1,600 incidents across the state.
This follows last week’s flash floods in Victoria, where cars were swept to sea and people raced to escape. Many affected were holidaymakers but even locals were caught unprepared.
Previous flood-preparedness approaches have proved insufficient. Government and risk agencies have relied on top-down approaches that broadcast information to people and then expect them to act on it.
Despite decades of increasingly sophisticated warnings and campaigns, attempting to tell people what to do has delivered uneven and often limited results.
So what actually works?
This question was at the heart of our new paper, published in the Journal of Hydrology , which involved engaging with 641 households in flood-prone areas of Kingston and Darebin in the Greater Melbourne area.
We found a more participatory one-on-one approach leads to behaviour changes that actually reduce risk to people and property. That means really listening to people about what they know and how they feel about flood risk.
The study used a real-world, before-and-after research design to understand how households decide to reduce flood risk. We used a methodology called Community Engagement for Disaster Risk Reduction , conceived by one of us (Brian Cook) but implemented by an extensive team, which prioritises meaningful human engagement over simply spreading awareness or telling people what to do.
Our researchers worked with households in flood-prone areas, holding one-on-one conversations.
Each household completed an initial survey-interview about their experiences, perceptions, and past actions.
Researchers returned months later to repeat the process and record changes.
By combining survey data with recorded conversations, our study tracked what people actually did over time.
Our research found people made practical changes to reduce flood risk after these engagements.
What mattered was not being told something, but having the space to talk through their own situation, receive follow-up material, and feel supported in making decisions relevant to them.
One participant reflected:
Others described how seeing their home in context helped:
For some, the engagement helped them think through
Several participants described small but meaningful steps, such as:
The conversations also shaped people’s connections with others. One said they:
Another said:
One explained:
Importantly, participants often framed flood risk as something shared and ongoing, not a problem solved by individual vigilance. One reflected:
Another said:
Change emerged through feeling supported, being taken seriously, and acting within everyday constraints.
In our study, change didn’t occur because people were instructed, persuaded, or repeatedly told what to do.
Nor was it the result of improved messaging, scarier warnings, or more information.
What mattered was participatory learning over time: people being invited into respectful conversations, treated as capable decision-makers, and supported to work through risk in ways that made sense within their own lives.
When people are engaged as partners rather than passive recipients, learning becomes relational, actions feel legitimate, and responsibility is shared across households, neighbours, and institutions.
Well, continuing on the current, ineffective path might well be even costlier in the long-term. Governments spend vast amounts on each advertisement campaign, with underwhelming results.
The 2022 floods along Australia’s east coast cost around A$7.7 billion in Queensland alone. If you reduced the damages by 10% you’d have more than $700 million in savings.
Engaging one-on-one with each household in high risk flood zones sounds expensive, but so too are many other tailored services provided by governments in Australia. Think, for instance, of home visits by a midwife or child health nurse after a person gives birth, or an in-home assessment provided by My Aged Care. As a society, we’ve decided those one-on-one engagements, while costly, are worth it.
Our research suggests it’s time we consider a similar approach with disaster risk reduction.
Disaster preparedness has for too long persisted with approaches that seek to persuade, instruct, or direct.
But as recent events confirm, disasters do not unfold in neat or predictable ways.
Floods demand judgement, improvisation, and quick decisions made under extreme stress. What’s required isn’t simple compliance with predetermined instructions, but learning that can be adapted and adjusted in the moment.
Crucially, nearly all participants reported enjoying or appreciating the engagements, which helped spread the word and support further community connections.
When people are engaged in conversations that take their circumstances seriously, they build confidence and capacity to respond to unpredictable situations.
This is why participatory engagement and collaboration sit at the heart of the durable risk reduction we will need in an increasingly dangerous future.
Brian Robert Cook receives funding from Melbourne Water. He is the current president of the Institute of Australian Geographers.
Nicholas Harrigan receives funding from Australian Research Council, Hort Australia, and ACIAR. He is Macquarie University Branch President of the National Tertiary Education Union.
Peter Kamstra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.