Enduring Lessons from a Mitigation Pioneer

On January 31, 2021, our nation and our profession lost a legend. Dennis Mileti, a world-renowned expert on risk communication, was professor emeritus of sociology and former director of one of ASFPM’s long standing partners, the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. Tragically and ironically, Dennis succumbed to complications from COVID-19 just two days before he was scheduled to get his first vaccine. 

Dennis was a leader in the field of hazards and disaster research and gained national prominence with the publication of Disasters by Design, a comprehensive assessment of natural hazards research that established a framework for sustainable hazard mitigation in the United States.  But to me, Dennis carried on a legacy that was first championed by his predecessor at the Natural Hazards Center, Gilbert White, which was to focus on research that made a difference to the practitioner. I didn’t know Dennis well, but I saw him present on many occasions and enjoyed several conversations with him in years past.  Somehow, though, his passing felt like a gut punch, a light extinguished too early and an extraordinary person taken by the pandemic that has touched all of our lives. 

What I am about to say next is neither hyperbole nor is it the emotional reaction to losing Dennis, but a certain presentation Dennis gave still ranks among the top two in terms of having such a profound impact on my career that it significantly changed my approach as a practitioner in doing floodplain management and mitigation work.

Let me set the stage. At the 2010 Gilbert F. White ASFPM Foundation Forum, Dennis gave a presentation to discuss the findings of a major study he was involved with which he called the “Manhattan Project” of public preparedness and mitigation. The presentation, “Behavior Factors/How to Effect Change in Flood Mitigation,” can be found on the 2010 ASFPM Foundation Forum YouTube Channel here.

The wide-ranging presentation looked at how to motivate people to prepare for and mitigate from disasters and provided practitioners a toolkit for increasing public preparedness and mitigation based on scientific findings. Up until that time, research in social and behavioral science lacked findings about what worked and what didn’t. Moreover, Dennis explained, we certainly didn’t yet understand how information about mitigation was converted into actual behavior change. He continued, though, to show how the study yielded breakthrough results that were consistent across the nation. The findings were strong, they were scientific, and they could help to transform our mitigation practice.

Drum roll please… here are the findings:

There are two key factors that motivate Americans to prepare and mitigate. The first is information, but it has to be a particular kind — not all kinds of information are effective. The best information is that which is received from multiple sources over multiple communication channels about what preparedness/mitigation actions to take and how those actions cut losses.  The second factor is behavioral cues, or seeing other people take action. Dennis liked to call this “milling,” where people would talk to one another before making a decision on how to act — whether in the face of a disaster or in making longer-term mitigation decisions. Surprisingly, the study found that an individual’s perceived risk or understanding of event probabilities have little influence over whether they will act. 

Based on these findings, Dennis outlined 10 steps to engaging the public to take mitigation actions:

1. Use evidence based approaches. In other words, STOP MAKING THINGS UP. Make recommendations based on science! Use research-based evidence to make campaigns effective.
2. Stop doing things that don’t work. Don’t try to motivate the public with increased probabilities (especially confusing ones like the 100-year flood versus the 1,000-year flood, which most people misinterpret anyway)! People certainly need to be aware of hazards, but increasing the perceived risk does not lead to mitigation action taking. 
3. Use multiple information sources, regardless of who you are. You alone cannot provide effective public information. The more partners, the more success. Different people trust different sources of information and consume information in different ways.
4. Brand the message, not the messenger. It is about your audience, not you! Work with other information providers so that you’re all telling the public the same things.
5. Use multiple information channels. People do more when they get the same information in different ways. 
6. Communicate over the long haul. People are prone to stronger, sustained action after repeatedly receiving a consistent message over a long period of time.
7. Focus information on actions. The most effective thing to say to motivate people to prepare and mitigate is to tell them what to do to prepare and mitigate. Unfortunately, too much communication still focuses on scaring people or throwing facts at them. Instead, throw options for action!
8. Explain consequence reduction.  It is not about understanding risks and excessive probabilities. People are more likely to take action if information explains how the specific actions cut their losses of both material goods as well as those irreplaceable items in the event something happens.
9. Position cues for people to see.  Get mitigation out of the closet and into the streets.  Keeping up with the Joneses can apply to mitigation, too.  Dennis used to say that “If people drive down streets in their neighborhood and see a house being elevated, they can now visualize what that looks like for their house.” This is important to remember.
10. Target talking. Encourage people to talk about mitigation with others, even for a fleeting moment. Enroll those who have mitigated as your partners to talk about the benefits of mitigation. 

Finally, to be effective, you should evaluate, evaluate, evaluate your program.  

Friends, I cannot overstate how important Dennis’ presentation was to me personally as a practitioner.  Granted, I do have a bias when it comes to the presentation of research findings and the joy I take in being challenged to make those findings relevant to practitioners. That day, Dennis made me question everything when it came to how I talked about mitigation and how I could improve on those efforts. 

I think Dennis’ presentation at the 2010 Gilbert White ASFPM Foundation Forum should be required watching for any practitioner in flood risk management and mitigation. So, to honor Dennis and his life’s work, please watch the YouTube videos of this presentation and appreciate not just the insights shared, but the wit and wisdom of his conversational style. Let’s all recommit to these 10 steps in the hopes that the legacy that Dennis leaves us is carried on and that someday, we will become a nation resilient to flooding.  Thank you, Dennis, for your important contributions to this field and RIP my friend.