Severe storms and flooding are becoming more frequent, and recent events in Australia show just how unprepared many people still are. In New South Wales alone, the State Emergency Service responded to more than 1,600 incidents after weekend storms, while flash floods in Victoria last week swept cars into the sea and forced people to flee with little warning. Even residents who had lived in these areas for years were caught off guard, highlighting the limits of current flood preparedness strategies.
For decades, governments and risk agencies have relied on top-down approaches to prepare communities for floods. These methods usually involve warnings, advertisements and public information campaigns that tell people what to do and expect them to act accordingly. Despite improvements in forecasting and communication technology, these efforts have produced mixed and often disappointing results. Many people still fail to prepare in ways that reduce real risk to their lives and homes.
A new study published in the Journal of Hydrology suggests a different approach works far better. The research involved direct engagement with 641 households in flood-prone parts of Kingston and Darebin in Greater Melbourne. Instead of broadcasting instructions, researchers focused on one-on-one conversations that allowed people to talk openly about their experiences, concerns and understanding of flood risk.
The study used a before-and-after design to track real behaviour change over time. Researchers visited households, conducted detailed survey interviews and discussed local flood risks in a personal and respectful way. Months later, they returned to the same homes to see what had changed. By combining survey responses with recorded conversations, the team was able to see whether people actually took steps to reduce their flood risk.
The findings were clear. People were far more likely to take practical action when they felt listened to and supported rather than instructed. Many participants said the conversations helped them better understand their own situation, especially when researchers shared maps and local resources showing flood risks specific to their neighbourhoods. For some, this revealed that their homes were at greater risk than they had previously believed.
As a result, households began making meaningful changes. Some prepared emergency kits and evacuation plans, thinking through what they would do if floodwaters rose suddenly. Others checked or increased their insurance coverage, ensuring they were protected against flood damage. Several participants reached out to neighbours to exchange contact details, recognising that staying connected could help everyone respond more quickly in an emergency.
Importantly, many people began to see flood risk as a shared problem rather than an individual one. Participants spoke about blocked drains, fallen leaves and poorly maintained infrastructure, realising that personal effort alone was not enough. Some contacted local councils or body corporates to address issues like drainage, concrete repairs and shared spaces that increased flood risk for entire communities.
The researchers found that change did not happen because people were frightened by warnings or persuaded by better messaging. Instead, it emerged through respectful, ongoing engagement that treated people as capable decision-makers. When individuals were given time to reflect, ask questions and relate flood risk to their everyday lives, they felt more confident and willing to act.
Questions about cost remain, especially when one-on-one engagement sounds expensive. However, the researchers argue that continuing with ineffective approaches may be even more costly. The 2022 floods along Australia’s east coast caused an estimated A$7.7 billion in damage in Queensland alone.
Even a modest reduction in losses could save hundreds of millions of dollars. Governments already fund personalised services such as postnatal home visits and aged care assessments, recognising their long-term value. The study suggests disaster risk reduction deserves similar investment.
The research concludes that floods do not unfold in predictable ways, and people cannot rely solely on fixed instructions during emergencies. What they need is the ability to make quick, informed decisions under pressure. Participatory engagement builds this capacity by strengthening confidence, judgement and community connections. As floods become more frequent and severe, the study argues that working with people, rather than simply talking at them, is essential for effective and lasting preparedness.