91ɫ��Ƭ

A map built on lived experience

The paper presents a pilot analysis of the HowWeSurvive map database of disaster recovery experiences.

The map compiles a range of publicly available material, including royal commission submissions, news articles and community testimonies, into a single, searchable archive. Rather than focusing on one event, it cuts across decades, locations and disaster types – from bushfires and floods to cyclones and earthquakes – capturing how people experience, respond to and learn from repeated shocks.

At the time of analysis, the dataset included 855 stories, with more than one in five describing multiple disasters. For researchers, this offers a rare large-scale record of lived experience.

“Storytelling is critical,” says Ms Cimilio. “It allows people to share not just what happened, but how they responded, and what they’ve learned.”

Knowledge that builds over time

One of the study’s key findings is that disaster knowledge is not static – it accumulates.

Across the stories, people describe adapting practices over years and generations: adjusting farming methods after cyclones, refining evacuation routines in flood-prone areas, and maintaining fire management strategies over decades.

First Nations Knowledge is central to this picture. Accounts highlight deep connections to Country, says Ms Cimilio, and the role of cultural practices – such as cool burns – in reducing risk and supporting recovery.

“Take cultural burning practices, where communities understand how to work with the land to reduce fire risk,” she says. “In some cases, residents reported being fined for carrying out these practices despite knowing they were necessary to protect their properties.”

This knowledge is practical and place-based, but also relational, shaped by long-standing connections between people, communities and environments.

“Disaster knowledge is relational and cumulative – people, place and institutions are all interconnected, and each shape how communities experience and recover from disasters,” she explains.

When knowledge isn’t used

Despite its depth and value, this knowledge is often sidelined. Across the dataset, contributors describe frustration at being excluded from decision-making processes, even when they hold critical local insight.

“Some recount emergency responses that failed to draw on community expertise. Others point to planning failures, including development in known flood-prone areas,” says Ms Cimilio.

“The consequences are tangible. When local knowledge is overlooked, response efforts can falter, communication can break down, and recovery can stall,” she says.

“Not listening to communities creates more trauma, more disadvantage, and that gap continues to grow,” Ms Cimilio says. “They’re the ones who have to live with the long-term consequences, often while still recovering when the next disaster hits."

A recurring theme emerged: communities are urging to be included in the decision-making process, they want their knowledge to shape outcomes.

The problem of timing specific to place

The research also identifies a critical gap in how information is delivered and used. Ms Cimilio describes this as a failure to integrate “knowledge in time” and “knowledge in place”.

“This means ensuring information reaches communities when they need it, and that it is relevant to the specific context of the place,” she says.

Stories describe warnings that came too late, messages that didn’t reflect local conditions, or communication systems that failed locally. Others noted inconsistencies between disaster responses, making it harder for communities to apply lessons learned from previous events.

“In some cases, local warning signs – such as changes observed by farmers or landholders – were overlooked because they didn’t fit formal data systems, even when they indicated an impending disaster,” says Ms Cimilio.

Better integrating local knowledge could significantly improve both the timing and relevance of disaster responses, the study suggests.