Abstract
The Resilient Villages (RV) project effectively collaborated with communities to enhance and support local, long-term, community-led initiatives, rather than establishing new programs that communities could not sustain post-funding.
Recognising the unique histories and contexts of individuals and each community, RV avoided a one-size-fits-all model for disaster resilience planning. Instead, they adapted community development principles to fit local needs, highlighting the necessity for adaptable guidelines rather than prescriptive templates.
RV’s respectful engagement with small, isolated communities allowed for community-driven decision-making in disaster resilience planning and actions. This approach emphasises the value of building trust and ensuring that community priorities guide interventions, rather than external program mandates.
RV spent significant time researching, talking, and consulting on best practices in community-led approaches across various jurisdictions, including MADRA in Mallacoota (Victoria), Resilient Lismore, and Plan C in NSW Northern Rivers. This research involved academic papers, literature reviews, webinars, and face-to-face consultations with relevant stakeholders to ground RV’s strategies in evidence-based insights and practices.
RV faced challenges with staff and coordination due to part-time roles and resource distribution. To enhance coordination and continuity, it is recommended that future projects consider employing fewer full-time staff instead of more part-time workers.
The development of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with communities proved effective in setting clear, shared expectations. This deliberative process fostered equity and trust between communities and organisations. To maximise impact, RV could have had clearer connections between key project activities and overarching goals.
Balancing individual psychosocial support with community-level initiatives and broader Emergency Management (EM) integration was both a strength and a challenge. The RV experience indicates that an integrated, trauma-informed approach, coupled with community development and coordination with EM agencies, is essential for effective disaster resilience.
Resource limitations and a focus on specific small communities restricted RV’s broader engagement. Future projects might benefit from a broader strategy, allowing interested communities—both geographic and non-geographic—to opt-in.
RV’s recognition of existing local self-organising efforts was key to disaster preparedness. This approach suggests that organisations should prioritise and support local initiatives, moving away from traditional service delivery methods to foster sustainable, community-led resilience.
RV's model suggests a shift from traditional top-down strategies to more flexible, locally informed practices, which could influence frameworks such as the NSW State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 and guide local councils such as the Blue Mountains City Council in their disaster preparedness and response initiatives.
To enhance disaster preparedness, it is recommended that EM agencies and local governments prioritise community engagement and relationship-building as fundamental components of their strategies.
Recognising the unique histories and contexts of individuals and each community, RV avoided a one-size-fits-all model for disaster resilience planning. Instead, they adapted community development principles to fit local needs, highlighting the necessity for adaptable guidelines rather than prescriptive templates.
RV’s respectful engagement with small, isolated communities allowed for community-driven decision-making in disaster resilience planning and actions. This approach emphasises the value of building trust and ensuring that community priorities guide interventions, rather than external program mandates.
RV spent significant time researching, talking, and consulting on best practices in community-led approaches across various jurisdictions, including MADRA in Mallacoota (Victoria), Resilient Lismore, and Plan C in NSW Northern Rivers. This research involved academic papers, literature reviews, webinars, and face-to-face consultations with relevant stakeholders to ground RV’s strategies in evidence-based insights and practices.
RV faced challenges with staff and coordination due to part-time roles and resource distribution. To enhance coordination and continuity, it is recommended that future projects consider employing fewer full-time staff instead of more part-time workers.
The development of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with communities proved effective in setting clear, shared expectations. This deliberative process fostered equity and trust between communities and organisations. To maximise impact, RV could have had clearer connections between key project activities and overarching goals.
Balancing individual psychosocial support with community-level initiatives and broader Emergency Management (EM) integration was both a strength and a challenge. The RV experience indicates that an integrated, trauma-informed approach, coupled with community development and coordination with EM agencies, is essential for effective disaster resilience.
Resource limitations and a focus on specific small communities restricted RV’s broader engagement. Future projects might benefit from a broader strategy, allowing interested communities—both geographic and non-geographic—to opt-in.
RV’s recognition of existing local self-organising efforts was key to disaster preparedness. This approach suggests that organisations should prioritise and support local initiatives, moving away from traditional service delivery methods to foster sustainable, community-led resilience.
RV's model suggests a shift from traditional top-down strategies to more flexible, locally informed practices, which could influence frameworks such as the NSW State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 and guide local councils such as the Blue Mountains City Council in their disaster preparedness and response initiatives.
To enhance disaster preparedness, it is recommended that EM agencies and local governments prioritise community engagement and relationship-building as fundamental components of their strategies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Place of Publication | Bathurst |
| Publisher | Mountains Community Resource Network |
| Commissioning body | Mountains Community Resource Network |
| Number of pages | 61 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9781864674958 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781864674965 |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2025 |
