Length: 2000 words +/- 10% (excluding references)
For this assessment, you must choose eight sources (academic readings and policy documents) as the basis of your Research and Policy Review. You must choose your set of sources from the ‘REFERENCES MENU’ on the moodle site, noting the minimum number of sources required to support each section of the assessment.
Assessment task: Write a research and policy review that:
1) examines the extent to which disasters are experienced unevenly by different social groups;
2) identifies how social diversity has been incorporated into key disaster resilience and risk reduction policies;
3) synthesises key assessments and critiques of existing diversity-based disaster policies and practices;
4) shares key recommendations from these assessments as the basis of inclusive disaster resilient policy and practice; and
5) assesses the extent to which the policies in 2) meet or fall short of the recommendations in 4).
Format:
Your research and policy review should follow the following structure. Please note, word counts are approximate- you may vary these as needed.

1. Title: Research and Policy Review: please add a subtitle that captures the focus of your review, your name, your degree and the subject number and name. Choose an image that captures the focus of your report and add this to your front page (50 words)
2. Background: use this section discuss how social vulnerability shapes people’s experiences of disasters (175 words)
3. Methods: use this section to identify the number of papers and policies reviewed, flagging the two key policies that your review focuses on. Explain the method of ‘thematic analysis’ that you will use to analyse research and policies. (200 words)
4. Findings
   a. How disasters can be experienced unevenly by different social groups (400 words)
   b. How social diversity has been incorporated into key disaster resilience and risk reduction policies and practices (300 words)
   c. Assessment and critique of diversity-based policy and practice (350 words)
   d. Key recommendations as the basis of disaster resilience policy and practice (350 words)
5. Conclusion: In your conclusion reflect on the extent to which the two key policies that you reviewed in 4(b) meet or fall short of the recommendations in 4(d). (150 words)

Referencing Requirements
Your Research and Policy Review should include a reference list and in-text referencing throughout to support its points.
Please use Harvard referencing and consult the referencing guide on the moodle tab which provides protocols for every type of reference. Alternately you may use referencing software such as Endnote, provided you select the built-in Harvard referencing style. Please note that all direct quotations from papers must include quotation marks and an in-text reference that includes the author, year and page number. For example:
As Davoudi (2012: 314) points out, “xxxx yyyyy”.
OR
This is a matter of “xxx yyy” (Davoudi, 2012: 314)
In contrast, when you sum up someone else’s key argument in your own words, you must include an in-text reference, but won’t need quotation marks or a page number. For example:
Increasingly resilience is seen as depoliticised (Davoudi 2012).
Please consult the UOW plagiarism website if you are unsure. You may also post to the discussion board, or drop in to ask Nicole for help on Thursday mornings (9-11am every Thursday in building 29, Room 335) (or feel free to email for an appointment at another time).

Formatting
Please ensure your work is double-spaced.

Submission:
Please submit your work to the moodle site (see ‘RESEARCH AND POLICY BULLETIN SUBMISSION’ tab).

END

References menu

Choose eight sources from the list below to develop your response. Please note the minimum number of references for each section. Please also note, some readings may be relevant to more than one section. For instance, Cannon (2017) relates to how disasters are experienced by different social groups but also assesses policy and practice. This is ok. You can use references to support different sections but you can still only count it once in terms of your eight sources.

Section of Review
Limits/References

1. Background
   Choose one out of:

Tierney, K 2014, Social Roots of Risk Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto. [Chapter 3: A Different Perspective: The Social Production of Risk pages 31-49]

Blaikie P. Cannon T. Davis I and Wisner B. 2014. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters (2nd Edition) Routledge: London. [Chapter 1: The Challenge of Disasters and Our Approach pages 3-42]

Smith, N. 2006. “There is No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster” Understanding Katrina, Social Science Research Council Accessed online: https://items.ssrc.org/understanding-katrina/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster/ Accessed: 31 July 2022

2. Method
   Choose one:

Braun V and Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77-101

3. Findings

3.1 How disasters are experienced by different social groups
Choose three:

Akter, S and Quentin Grafton R. 2021 “Do fires discriminate? Socio-economic disadvantage, wildfire hazard exposure and the Australian 2019–20 ‘Black Summer’ fires.” Climatic Change 165 (3-4) 1-21https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03064-6

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2022. “COVID-19 Mortality in Australia, Deaths Registered to 31 January 2022” Accessed online: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-until-31-may-2022 Date Accessed: 7 August 2022. [PDF here]

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2021. The first year of COVID-19 in Australia: direct and indirect health effects. Canberra: AIHW.

Bambra, C, Riordan, R, Ford, J & Matthews, F (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities, J Epidemiol Community Health, vol. 74, no. 11, pp. 964–968.

Bower, M. et al. 2021. ‘Trapped’, ‘anxious’ and ‘traumatised’: COVID-19 intensified the impact of housing inequality on Australians’ mental health, International Journal of Housing Policy, DOI: 10.1080/19491247.2021.1940686

Connon, ILC & Hall, E 2021, ‘“It’s not about having a back-up plan; it’s always being in back-up mode”: Rethinking the relationship between disability and vulnerability to extreme weather’, Geoforum, vol. 126, pp. 277–289.

Connon, ILC 2017, ‘Extreme weather, complex spaces and diverse rural places: An intra-community scale analysis of responses to storm events in rural Scotland, UK’, Journal of rural studies, vol. 54, pp. 111–125.

Gatrell, T 2020, ‘The COVID-19 pandemic: geography matters’, Teaching geography, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 97–100.

Haworth, BT, McKinnon, S & Eriksen, C 2022, ‘Advancing disaster geographies: From marginalisation to inclusion of gender and sexual minorities’, Geography compass, vol. 16, no. 11.

Iveson, K & Sisson, A 2023, ‘Transmission and Territory: Urban Bordering During COVID-19’, Political Geography, vol. 104, pp. 102910–102910.

Kawlra, G & Sakamoto, K 2023, ‘Spatialising urban health vulnerability: An analysis of NYC’s critical infrastructure during COVID-19’, Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1629–1649.

Luna, KC. and Hilhorst, D. 2022. “Gendered experiences of disaster: Women’s account of evacuation, relief and recovery in Nepal.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 72: 1-10

Marlowe, J, Jehan, F, Udahemuka, M, Mizero, A, Jaduram, R, Rotstein, J, Alam, ZZ, Nkessah, Z, Osman, M, Aung, S & Jwaied, SA 2022, ‘Disaster communications with resettled refugees: Six principles of engagement’, International journal of disaster risk redu

Mamalipurath, JM & Notley, T 2022, ‘Muslim Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Western Sydney: Understanding the Role of Community-Specific Communication Infrastructure’, Journal of intercultural studies, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 740–757.

Mengesha, Z, Alloun, E, Weber, D, Smith, M & Harris, P 2022, ‘“Lived the Pandemic Twice”: A Scoping Review of the Unequal Impact of the COVID‐19 Pandemic on Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants’, International journal of environmental research and pub

Rolfe, MI. 2020. “Social Vulnerability in a high-risk flood-affected rural region of NSW, Australia.” Natural Hazards 1010: 631-650

Sultana, F (2021) Climate change, COVID-19, and the co-production of injustices: a feminist reading of overlapping crises, Social & Cultural Geography, 22:4, 447-460

Sultana, F 2010, ‘Living in hazardous waterscapes: Gendered vulnerabilities and experiences of floods and disasters’, Environmental hazards, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 43–53.

3.2 Social diversity in policy and practice

Choose one:

Australian Institute of Disaster Resilience (2019) Health and Disaster Management. Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. [POLICY DOCUMENT]

United Nations (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction. [POLICY DOCUMENT]

3.3 Policy and practice: assessment and critique AND 3.4 Key recommendations for socially diverse resilient policy and practice
Choose two:

Chandonnet A 2021. Emergency Resilience in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities: Challenges and Opportunities. Red Cross

Duckworth, M. 2022. ‘Just add trust: implementing diversity and inclusion in emergency management.’ Australian Journal for Emergency Management.

Committee on Community Services (NSW Government) 2023. Improving Crisis Communications to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Community Report No. 3/57. NSW Parliament.

Fan, Y, Orford, S & Hubbard, P 2023, ‘Urban public health emergencies and the COVID-19 pandemic. Part 2: Infrastructures, urban governance and civil society’, Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1535–1547.

Haigh F, Alloun E, Standen C, Olliek M, Page J, Wise M. (2023) An equity-focused health impact assessment of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sydney Local Health District. Technical Report. Sydney, SLHD and UNSW.

Painter, MA, Shah, SH, Damestoit, GC, Khalid, F, Prudencio, W, Chisty, MA, Tormos-Aponte, F & Wilhelmi, O 2024, ‘A systematic scoping review of the Social Vulnerability Index as applied to natural hazards’, Natural hazards (Dordrecht), vol. 120, no. 8, pp

Marlowe, J, Neef, A, Tevaga, CR & Tevaga, C 2018, ‘A New Guiding Framework for Engaging Diverse Populations in Disaster Risk Reduction: Reach, Relevance, Receptiveness, and Relationships’, International journal of disaster risk science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.

Tanaka, Y.; Ishiwatari, M. et al. Disaster recovery from a gender and diversity perspective: Cases following megadisasters in Japan and Asian countries. Contributing Paper to GAR 2019

Victorian Council of Social Service. Communities at the Centre: Insights from the Multicultural Resilience Project. Melbourne: Victoria.

Get expert help for Assessment 2: Research and Policy Reviewand many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!

The post Assessment 2: Research and Policy Review appeared first on Universal Assignment.