The Community Engagement Model by Douglas Paton was selected by a 2014-17 European Commission-funded research project called ‘Driving Innovation in Crisis Management for European Resilience‘ (DRIVER) as the theoretical framework more appropriate for informing community resilience measurement and intervention. The text below is taken from output report from that research. See further *The development and use of Community Engagement Theory to inform readiness interventions for natural hazard events* (Paton et al., 2024) for more*.*

<aside> <img src="/icons/document_yellow.svg" alt="/icons/document_yellow.svg" width="40px" /> Taken from: Lead, L. P. B., Wendt, D. R. W., & Engelbach (2017). W. D33. 1-Community Resilience Model.

</aside>

Community-resilience-model.pdf

Community Engagement Theory (CET) draws upon some of the psycho-social concepts of community resilience, consistent with emerging community resilience literature that puts "pro-active human agency" at the forefront of community resilience [16], [45], [46], [47].

This is in contrast to the more reactive, "bounce-back" nature of more traditional resilience literature [24], [48]. CET is considered an "all hazards" approach, validated across a range of communities and within different cultures using structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis. Cultural differences include, Australasian eco-zone countries considered similar to Western Europe (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) and also in countries with cultural variances (e.g. Japan, Taiwan). The theory has been therefore been tested in both individualist and collectivist communities, showing valid cross-cultural equivalence, necessary for testing within pan-European contexts. The theory has been validated in both urban individualist (e.g. Christchurch, New Zealand) and rural collectivist (e.g. Taiwan) communities. The theory is a multi-level model, operating on three levels: (i) Individual (outcome expectancy), (ii) Community (community participation, collective efficacy, place attachment) and (iii) Societal (empowerment and trust). It’s community-led and predominantly focuses on the decision-making processes regarding the uncertainty of community resilience and has been developed to examine the factors that influence how people change and adapt to in order to become more resilient. It measures the interpretive processes that occur at the individual, community and societal level of resilience and how they affect a community’s decision-making to become more resilient/increase capacity. For communities to increase their resilience, they must engage in disaster risk reduction and preparedness activities through the development of resilience behaviours such as implementing household emergency plans or collaborating with fellow community members and local agencies to address local problems [16].

Traditional ways to engage communities such as financial assistance provision or resilience information dissemination have shown to have little influence on preparedness [49] CET seeks to address this by considering preparedness as a decision making process where "uncertainty" acts as the variable. It looks specifically at what influences an individual's decision to prepare, taking into account social, personal and cultural aspects. Other theories such as the socio-ecological system approach [50], and The Urban Resilience Framework [30] focus on specific factors of resilience; Community Engagement Theory instead addresses the decision making process of each individual within the community’s response to risk. This universality of the decision making variable provides a cross cultural overlap, operating at the psychosocial level of resilience present in everyone regardless of cultural differences, access to finance, differing resources and organisational capacities. Behaviour typically displayed by resilient communities is described by 7 indicators [16]: -

Outcome expectancy (or response efficacy): is the belief an individual may have in the effectiveness of specific behaviours such as preparing for disaster. This can be further subdivided into positive outcome expectancy and negative outcome expectancy (POE or NOE). Negative outcome expectancy refers to the belief that the disaster or crisis is too "catastrophic" for personal actions to make a difference to safety, while positive outcome expectancy refers to a belief that their actions can make a difference. It's important to note that holding a POE belief system does not mean the individual will know the correct way to prepare: before any action the individual must seek confirmation and guidance; firstly by looking at what other community members say and do [46]

Community participation: interactions with others in regular social contexts. Paton & Buergelt [51] confirm that discussion within a community and sharing information regarding risks helped the community to identify and mitigate risks, and to decide what would be an effective response collectively, based on what additional information was required.

Collective efficacy: community members' ability to assess their capabilities and resources needs and to formulate plans to use resources to meet challenges. Place attachment: identification with a neighbourhood – including attachment to the physical place as well as attachment to its members. Emotional investment from members of the community to the place they live in, could spur the community to take hazard preparedness actions.

Place attachment: identification with a neighbourhood – including attachment to the physical place as well as attachment to its members. Emotional investment from members of the community to the place they live in, could spur the community to take hazard preparedness actions.

Empowerment: belief that the relationship with risk management agencies is fair and empowering When this relationship is not perceived as fair, this can lead to a loss of trust within the agencies.

Trust: Linked with empowerment, trustworthiness in the sources of information influences whether information is used to guide behaviour.

Intentions: the Intention to acquire knowledge on the relevant hazards leads to an increase in actual preparedness and willingness/ confidence to work with other people and agencies in order to develop knowledge and capability.