Barrier Analysis and Explosive Ordnance Risk Education

Fletcher and McGrath: Barrier Analysis and Explosive Ordnance Risk Education Explosive Ordnance Risk Education By Kim Fletcher and India McGrath [ The HALO Trust ] I n early 2020, The HALO Trust (HALO) in partnership with Al Ghad conducted a "barrier analysis" with youth in Mosul, Iraq to determine the constraints they faced in adopting safer behaviors related to explosive ordnance (EO). Through the barrier analysis, HALO and Al Ghad found that youth with lower perceived self-efficacy, beliefs that an EO accident would not likely result in severe consequences, and friends who encouraged unsafe behaviors were all more likely to engage in less safe behaviors than their counterparts were. The findings enabled HALO and Al Ghad to tailor their EORE messaging to these barriers in an effort to promote safer behaviors and reduce risk taking. This article outlines the process of conducting the barrier analysis survey and analysis of the findings. In addition, lessons are identified for those who may wish to adopt a similar approach in the future. While the intent of explosive ordnance risk education (EORE) is to encourage shifts in behavior, across the mine action sector, there are few practical methods of gathering and analyzing data that helps operators understand why some groups are at greater risk than others and the determinants of behaviors that EORE messaging might be able to affect. This gap is particularly acute in contexts where EO casualty monitoring is not yet systematic or widespread. In those instances, understanding who is at risk and the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that lead to those risks is largely based on anecdotal evidence. This lack of generalizable data then sometimes leads to EORE interventions that are not based on empirical evidence and that rely on generic, less-targeted, and possibly less-applicable messaging, or messaging targeted at those who are perceived to be at the highest risk, while possibly missing groups who actually are at higher risk. Barrier analyses may help mitigate both of these limitations in the current practice. Conducting barrier analyses can help determine what groups are most likely to engage in risky behaviors and can give risk education operators a more complete picture of why each group engages in those behaviors. Conducting Barrier Analyses Barrier analyses are surveys that are designed to improve understanding of the factors that influence particular behaviors. The approach surveys whether respondents do or do not engage in certain behaviors of interest. Respondents are then asked a series of questions about the personal, social, and environmental factors that might affect those behaviors. Finally, the data are analyzed by comparing the personal, social, and environmental factors among the doers with those of the non-doers for the behavior of interest. • • • • • • • • • • • • If the responses between doers and non-doers are similar, then that factor is not considered an influencing factor in the behavior itself. If the responses of doers and non-doers are different, however, then the assumption is that factor influences the behavior in some way. In a complete barrier analysis, questions related to twelve “determinants of behavior”1 are included alongside questions related to the specific behaviors of interest. These determinants were derived from theories of behavior, and they include people’s perceptions of: Self-Efficacy: belief that one has the knowledge and skills to do the behavior Social Norms: the perception that people important to the actor think the actor should do the behavior Positive Consequences: the positive things the person thinks will happen as a result of doing the behavior Negative Consequences: the negative things the person thinks will happen as a result of doing the behavior Access: the availability of needed products or services required for doing the behavior, including barriers related to the cost, distance, and cultural acceptability of products and services Policy: the presence of laws and regulations that may affect whether people are able to do a behavior Culture: the extent to which local history, customs, lifestyles, values, and practices may affect behaviors Cues to Action/Reminders: the presence of reminders that help someone remember to do the behavior Susceptibility: a person’s perception of how likely it is that the negative consequences of a behavior will occur Vulnerability/Severity: the perceived degree of severity of the negative consequences that could occur Action Efficacy: the extent to which a person believes a behavior will lead to the associated positive consequences or avoid the associated negative consequences Divine Will: the extent to which a person believes actions and their consequences are the result of God’s will and therefore out of their control Because the survey questions are designed around each of these twelve determinants, it is possible to discover during the data analysis which of the twelve have the greatest influence on a particular behavior. Photo courtesy of HALO. Published by JMU Scholarly Commons, 2021 THE JOURNAL OF CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION 42 1 The Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction, Vol. 25, Iss. 2 [2021], Art. 8 Applying the Barrier Analysis Approach in Mosul, Iraq HALO in Iraq partnered with a local organization—Al Ghad League for Women and Children—to deliver risk education in Mosul Old City and to design an additional open-ended project aimed at limiting the risk of a target group who was identified by the local community. HALO and Al Ghad, with remote support and consultation from the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD), conducted a series of key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) to ascertain the community’s perceptions of who were the most at-risk groups in Old City, and their proposed solutions for those groups. Overwhelmingly, the key informants and FGD participants identified children and teens as the most at-risk groups. Incidentally, they also overwhelmingly suggested the development of a recreational space to provide alternatives for playing and relaxing in unsafe areas. While the response from the community was largely uniform regarding who to target and the solution proposed, HALO and Al Ghad still wanted to survey the target group to determine what they thought put them at risk, their barriers to safe behaviors, and their proposed solutions and priorities. Due to the specific constraints of the project, HALO and Al Ghad decided to focus their efforts on adolescents (13- to 24-year-olds).2 Survey Design To separate the doers from the non-doers, four behaviors were included in the survey: 1. Whether the target group had touched or moved explosive items in the last year 2. How often the target group enters areas where there is rubble nearby (often, sometimes, or never) 3. How often the target group members go into areas where they have seen explosive (...truncated)