Beyond Awareness: Rethinking Explosive Ordnance Risk Education for Real Change

Charlie Valentine
Mar 31
17 min read

Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE) – once known as mine risk education – is meant to save lives and limbs and inform the local population on the land release process. By raising awareness of landmines, unexploded ordnance (UXO), and other explosive threats, EORE sessions aim to equip people with knowledge and skills to stay safe. Yet too often, these sessions fail to translate knowledge into safer behavior on the ground. Practitioners lament that we keep delivering the same messages, but risky behaviors persist and casualties continue to occur. In this article, we take a critical look at why many current EORE sessions are falling short of real behavior change, and how we can do better. We will explore Bloom’s Taxonomy as a tool for designing effective learning objectives, map it to behavioral change models (including those championed by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, GICHD), examine evidence on EORE’s shortcomings, critique common issues in curricula, and propose a practical framework to make EORE more impactful. Our goal is to provide mine action professionals and EORE practitioners worldwide with insights to strengthen their programs – moving beyond awareness-raising into the realm of true behavior change.

Bloom’s Taxonomy – A Foundation for Effective Learning Objectives

Every effective educational program starts with clear learning objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classic framework that helps educators define what learners should know or be able to do after a lesson. Originally published in 1956 and revised in 2001, Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies cognitive learning objectives into a hierarchy of six levels: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. The lower levels (remember, understand) involve recalling facts and basic comprehension, while the higher levels (apply, analyze, evaluate, create) involve deeper cognitive skills like using knowledge in new situations, examining and critiquing information, and producing original solutions. Bloom’s framework emphasizes using action verbs to state clear, observable outcomes – for example, not just “learn about mine safety” (vague), but “identify common warning signs of mines” or “demonstrate safe evacuation routes”. In the context of EORE, this is crucial. The International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) explicitly encourage writing specific and measurable learning objectives inspired by Bloom’s Taxonomy, centered on what participants will be able to do (e.g. list, explain, apply) after an EORE session.

Why does Bloom’s Taxonomy matter for risk education? Simply put, Blooms Taxonomy, pushes us to go beyond superficial knowledge. In many traditional EORE sessions, instructors bombard communities with safety rules and facts, aiming at the “remember” level of Bloom’s taxonomy. Learners might be able to recite the slogan “don’t touch suspicious objects”, but do they truly understand why, and would they apply that knowledge when encountering a tempting piece of metal in the field? Bloom’s Taxonomy reminds us that memorization is only the starting point. To influence behavior, we must design learning activities that reach higher cognitive levels. For example, after teaching the basic facts, we can have participants apply their knowledge by practicing how to mark a danger area or how to report an explosive find. We can prompt them to analyze real incident case studies – what went wrong, what choices did the victims have? We can facilitate discussions where the group evaluates trade-offs (e.g. “Is collecting scrap metal worth the risk?”) and creates their own safety solutions or community action plans. By deliberately “climbing” Bloom’s ladder in our session design, we make learning more engaging and practical – which is essential for changing behavior.

From Knowledge to Action: Connecting Bloom’s Taxonomy to Behavior Change Models

While Bloom’s Taxonomy focuses on types of learning (cognitive processes), behavior change models explain what drives people’s actions. To design EORE curricula that truly influence behavior, we need to connect these two. One model gaining traction in the humanitarian and development community – and supported by GICHD’s social-behaviour change communication approach – is the COM-B framework. COM-B stands for Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior. It posits that for a person to perform a desired behavior (e.g. consistently avoid and report explosive ordnance), they must have the Capability to do it, the Opportunity to do it, and the Motivation to do it. If any of these three components is lacking, the behavior is unlikely to occur or persist.

The COM-B behavior change model outlines three necessary conditions for behavior: Capability (having the knowledge, skills, and ability), Opportunity (having supportive environmental and social factors), and Motivation (having the intent and drive, both conscious and unconscious). EORE programs should assess and address all three to enable safer behaviors.

How does this tie back to Bloom’s Taxonomy? Bloom’s helps us plan learning objectives and activities – what knowledge and skills we impart – whereas COM-B helps ensure those translate to real-world action. Capability in COM-B has a clear connection to Bloom’s cognitive and skill-based objectives: participants need not only to remember facts but to internalize understanding and build skills (through applying and practicing in training) so they are capable of acting safely. Motivation links to the affective domain of learning – we must engage attitudes, beliefs, and values. Higher-order learning tasks like group analysis and evaluation can tap into personal value judgments (e.g. valuing safety over scrap metal income) and build intrinsic motivation. Additionally, motivation is boosted when learners feel ownership, having them create their own safety messages or village risk reduction plan can instill pride and personal commitment to follow safe behaviors. Opportunity, the more external factor, reminds us that knowledge and motivation alone won’t lead to change if people lack enabling conditions. EORE sessions should therefore be linked with broader risk reduction efforts – for example, coordinating with other humanitarian programs to provide alternatives (safe livelihood options, accessible water sources, etc.) so that communities are not forced by circumstance to take deadly risks. Bloom’s taxonomy shows us how learning can deepen (from knowing to creating), and models like COM-B show us what factors to address (skills, motives, environment) to change behavior. By mapping Bloom’s cognitive levels onto a behavior model, we can design EORE curricula that build both understanding and practical ability and desire to act safely, bridging the gap between classroom knowledge and real-life choices.

It’s worth noting that GICHD’s recent initiatives encourage exactly this integration. The GICHD’s Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) Toolkit for EORE emphasizes moving beyond information delivery to approaches grounded in behavior change theory. Practitioners are urged to incorporate models that address knowledge, attitudes, norms, and behaviors in tandem. In practice, this means designing EORE messages and activities that resonate emotionally, leverage positive social norms, and engage communities in problem-solving, not just rote learning of facts. For example, instead of only warning people what not to do, an SBCC approach might involve community members in developing empathetic, relevant messages and solutions that suit their daily realities. By aligning Bloom’s higher-level learning outcomes with behavior change strategies (like COM-B’s comprehensive look at why people act as they do), EORE programs can better foster the knowledge, skills, motivation, and social support people need to consistently practice safe behavior.

Why Don’t Traditional EORE Sessions Change Behavior?

If EORE has been around for decades and most programs impart similar safety messages, why do risky behaviors continue? Research and field evaluations have pointed to several reasons why conventional EORE sessions often fail to translate awareness into action:

Knowledge ≠ Behavior: Traditional mine/ERW risk education has been good at increasing awareness, but there is little evidence that it significantly reduces injuries in many contexts. A recent scoping review of MRE programs across multiple countries found that while mine risk education “increases awareness among beneficiary communities, the effect on decreasing landmine injury is still unknown”. So, people may know the “right answers” without actually changing what they do. This was echoed in an assessment by the Center for International Stabilization and Recovery, noting that EORE operators struggle to measure whether their sessions result in positive behavior change at all. Monitoring tends to focus on knowledge gained (e.g. quiz scores, recall of messages) or uses self-reported intentions (“What would you do if...?”), which often overestimate safe behavior. Participants commonly give the answers they know the educators want to hear, especially immediately after a session, but this may not reflect what happens when they later encounter a real threat.
Socio-Economic Realities and “Lack of Choice”: In many contaminated regions, people continue unsafe practices not out of ignorance, but out of necessity. As the ICRC observes, in some post-conflict areas “the dangers of mines and ERW are well known to the victims”, people fully understand the risk, yet “daily needs and financial necessity will, over time, force people to partake in behavior they know to be unsafe”. Poverty, lack of alternatives for income or resources, and ongoing conflict can corner communities into taking risks despite having received EORE messages. For example, a recent evaluation in Senegal’s Casamance region found instances of villagers who deliberately undertook risky actions (like attempting to clear mines from their own farmland) even after being educated about the danger, because they were desperate to resettle their land and no demining assistance was available. In such scenarios, a lecture telling people “don’t touch” or “stay away” is insufficient, without viable alternatives or support, knowledge alone cannot overcome economic survival imperatives. Traditional EORE often fails to address these structural barriers to behavior change.
One-Way, Passive Learning: Many current EORE curricula rely on didactic methods showing posters, flipping through pamphlets, or reciting standardized warnings, treating beneficiaries as passive recipients of information. The result is “messaging fatigue” – sessions that “all feel the same, and behavior rarely changes”. Children and adults might sit through a 45-minute lecture and be able to repeat the safety slogan, but this approach rarely engages them deeply enough to influence their real-life decisions. Hands-on, participatory learning is minimal in these sessions. Not surprisingly, evaluations have found that more interactive methods (such as scenario-based dramas, games, or discussions) are far better received. In Senegal, for instance, communities reported that video dramatizations and plays were the most popular and memorable tools, compared to static lectures. Overreliance on passive learning not only bores the audience, it also fails to build their ability to problem-solve or practice skills – leaving an “awareness–action” gap after the session.
Cultural and Contextual Blind Spots: Another common issue is that EORE materials are often generic and not sufficiently tailored to the local socio-cultural context. A “one size fits all” message might ignore local beliefs, languages, or risk perceptions. It might also overlook who in the community is most at risk and why. For example, programs worldwide tend to focus heavily on schoolchildren, using cartoon posters or classroom sessions. However, in many contexts the most vulnerable group is not children, but adult men (such as young male farmers, shepherds, or scrap metal collectors). If curricula aren’t adapted, crucial messages about, say, safe farming practices or scrap metal dangers may not reach those young men in an effective way. Likewise, messages often emphasize individual behavior (“do not approach suspicious objects”) but pay too little attention to social norms and peer influences that drive behavior. If community heroes are those who dare to tamper with UXO for profit, or if family expectations pressure someone to gather firewood from a mined forest, a standard lesson won’t dent those powerful social drivers. Local context matters – and failure to address it can render EORE messages irrelevant or unconvincing. GICHD’s sector assessments have noted that some EORE campaigns in recent emergencies were perceived as “too generic” by communities, especially when mass media messages flood in without local customization. Truly effective risk education must start by understanding the target community’s culture, language, needs, and influencers – something current curricula often skimp on due to time or resource constraints.
Weak Evaluation and Feedback Loops: Finally, many EORE programs suffer from poor monitoring and evaluation design, meaning they don’t learn and adapt over time. As mentioned, measuring actual behavior change is challenging, but it’s not impossible. Yet historically, a lot of EORE impact evaluation stopped at counting outputs (number of flyers distributed, number of people trained) or at best measuring knowledge gains immediately post-training. Few programs did robust follow-up studies or behavioral observations months later to see if people actually changed practices. The result is a lack of evidence and learning about what works. A UNICEF review bluntly admitted that the “current level of impact and measurement of behavioural change… is entirely unknown” in the evaluated MRE program. The sector recognizes this gap: the 2019 Oslo Action Plan for mine action specifically called for developing strong results frameworks for EORE with an emphasis on measuring behavior change, not just knowledge. Without good evaluation data, ineffective approaches can persist unchallenged. Additionally, when feedback from the community is not gathered, curricula may not evolve to address emerging problems (for example, new threats like improvised devices, or new risky behaviors people adopt). In summary, a lack of rigorous impact monitoring has hampered the sector’s ability to course-correct and prove what methods truly reduce accidents.

In combination, these factors paint a picture of well-meaning EORE efforts that raise awareness but often stop short of influencing behavior. The good news is that the mine action community is increasingly aware of these shortcomings and is seeking to adjust strategies – embracing more behavior-focused, evidence-driven approaches. The next section outlines how we can turn these critiques into constructive changes in our EORE curriculum design.

Rewriting the Script: Toward EORE that Fosters Real Behavior Change

How can we design and deliver EORE that actually changes what people do, not just what they know? Below we propose a framework of principles and practices for developing EORE curricula that foster effective learning and durable behavioral change. This framework synthesizes lessons from education science (like Bloom’s Taxonomy), behavior change theory (like COM-B and other SBCC models), and field experience from across the mine action sector:

Craft Clear, Multi-Level Learning Objectives: Start by defining what participants should know, feel, and do by the end of the session and be specific. Use Bloom’s Taxonomy to ensure a range of cognitive levels. For example, an objective for an at-risk farmers’ group might be: “Participants will be able to recognize and name common explosive ordnance (remember), explain the specific dangers of each item (understand), decide on and practice safe actions when encountering a suspect item (apply), and evaluate different real-life scenarios to choose the safest course of action (evaluate).” Notice how this progression moves from knowledge to action. Objectives should also be measurable and realistic. By writing objectives that include higher-order verbs like demonstrate, choose, plan, or assess, we set the stage for a session that goes beyond rote learning.
Integrate Behavior Change Drivers (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation): When planning content and activities, explicitly consider each element of the COM-B behavior model. Ask yourself: Are we building the capability (knowledge and skills) of participants? For instance, include a hands-on component such as letting participants physically walk through marking a danger area or calling an emergency number – to build their procedural memory. Are we addressing motivation? This means framing messages in ways that resonate with people’s values and emotions. Use positive and emotional messaging – e.g. emphasize protecting one’s family and community, share survivor stories that underline why safe behavior matters. Engage participants in discussions about their attitudes and fears, rather than just telling them what to do. Lastly, are we accounting for opportunity? If the target community faces external barriers (like needing to enter dangerous areas for livelihood), an effective curriculum might include a brainstorming of alternatives or involve local authorities to discuss solutions. EORE should not occur in a silo, you should coordinate with other aid programs to help create opportunities for people to stay safe (for example, by providing safe play areas for children away from known hazard zones, or organizing wood deliveries so villagers need not collect firewood in mined forests). Multi-sector integration is key to removing pressure points that lead to unsafe behavior. More concisely, design your EORE intervention not just as an information session, but as one component of a larger behavior change strategy that empowers people with the ability, motivation, and environmental support to act safely.
Make Learning Active and Participatory: Ditch the 45-minute monologue and embrace learner-centered methods. Behavioral change is more likely when learners are actively engaged – this boosts retention, builds confidence, and makes sessions memorable. Use scenarios, simulations, group problem-solving and other interactive exercises to move up Bloom’s hierarchy. For example, after a brief overview of key safety rules (remember/understand), split the audience into small groups with a hypothetical scenario (“You find an unusual metal object while farming – what do you do next?”). Have them discuss and present their plan, then perhaps role-play the correct response. Incorporate local stories or incidents and let participants analyze what happened and how it could be prevented. Encourage questions and adapt your content on the fly to what the group is curious or concerned about. Another powerful technique is to let the community be creators: ask participants to co-create a poster, song, or drama skit that conveys the safety messages, this uses the Create level of Bloom’s taxonomy and gives them ownership of the content. Such participatory learning not only combats boredom and “message fatigue”, it also treats beneficiaries as partners in the learning process rather than passive listeners. This respect and inclusion can improve how messages are received and remembered. We must trust our learners to participate in their own risk reduction education.
Tailor Content to the Audience and Context: Effective EORE must be rooted in local knowledge. Before developing curriculum materials, do your homework on the target community. Conduct (or review) a needs assessment: What explosive threats are present? Who is most at risk (by age, gender, occupation)? What is the local language and literacy level? What cultural beliefs or rumors exist about mines/UXO? Identify key influencers – perhaps mothers, elders, religious leaders, or teachers, who can reinforce messages. Then tailor your approach. If adult men are the primary risk-takers in a community, ensure your session strategies speak to them (maybe through workplace safety trainings, or involving respected male figures to champion safe behavior). Use culturally appropriate messaging – for instance, some communities respond better to positive framing (“keep your children safe by following these steps”) rather than fear-based warnings, or vice versa. GICHD recommends using positive, empathetic messaging that acknowledges people’s challenges and doesn’t shame them. An example might be, instead of scolding people for entering a dangerous area, acknowledge why they felt they had to, and discuss safer alternatives collaboratively. Visual aids should reflect local realities – e.g. if people can’t easily recognize a generic mine illustration, use photos or drawings of the actual devices found in that area (if it can be done safely and appropriately). Also, adapt to context dynamics: in conflict zones where face-to-face access is limited, invest in innovative delivery like radio programs, SMS messages, or engaging social media content – but again, tested with local audiences for comprehension. There is no one-size-fits-all in risk education; customization is the watchword. This extends to language (use local dialect and simple terms) and channels (maybe integrate EORE into existing community events or school curricula for sustainability). By designing curricula that reflect the audience’s world, you make the safety advice relatable and practicable.
Strengthen Evaluation and Adaptation: To truly foster behavioral change, we must learn what works and what doesn’t, and continuously refine our programs. This means building monitoring and evaluation (M&E) into the curriculum from the start. Set specific indicators not just for knowledge uptake, but for behavior outcomes – for example, “% of participants who report and demonstrate correct safe behavior in a follow-up drill one month later” or tracking community accident rates and near-misses over time in areas that received EORE vs. those that didn’t. Whenever possible, use mixed methods: quantitative surveys (‘t’ tests and standard epidemiological methods) and qualitative feedback like focus groups or key interviews to understand deeper changes in attitude and practice. By embracing this, practitioners can advocate for their programs (with evidence of lives saved) and continually improve effectiveness. In essence, treat your EORE curriculum as a living program: monitor, evaluate, and adapt in an iterative cycle. This ensures that over time, the education truly leads to safer communities, not just educated ones.
Embrace Holistic and Innovative Approaches: Finally, be willing to broaden the scope of what “risk education” means. The most progressive thinking in the sector now views EORE as part of a larger risk reduction ecosystem. Approaches like Risk Awareness and Safer Behaviour (RASB) promoted by the Red Cross Movement emphasize that education should go hand-in-hand with efforts to mitigate risks and build community resilience. This could mean incorporating topics like emergency planning, first aid for blast injuries, or engaging communities in marking hazardous areas – empowering them to take local action. It also means collaborating with non-mine-action actors: for example, linking EORE with development projects (so that, say, a livelihood project in an affected area always includes a risk education component and supports safe livelihood alternatives). Innovation is also our ally. Digital tools, from mobile apps that teach kids via games, to VR simulations for high-risk adult groups, can augment traditional methods if used thoughtfully. This point is about seeing the whole picture, the human factors, the environment, the message delivery, and the follow-up and innovating in a responsible and defensible way accordingly.

Conclusion

EORE has a vital mission: to prevent accidents and save lives amidst the lurking dangers of mines, IEDs, and unexploded ordnance. To fulfill this mission, however, we must candidly acknowledge when our traditional approaches are not hitting the mark. Many current EORE sessions remain stuck at the lowest rungs of Bloom’s Taxonomy, focusing on knowledge transfer and simple awareness and fail to engage the higher-order learning and the complex behavior drivers that actually influence whether someone stays safe. The result is a troubling disconnect: communities may recall the safety messages, yet casualties continue because knowledge alone isn’t changing behavior. By leveraging educational best practices and robust behavior change models, we can bridge this gap.

In this article, we highlighted the importance of designing EORE curricula with clear, action-oriented learning objectives and using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide to ensure depth. We mapped these educational goals to behavioral change frameworks like COM-B, underscoring that true safety comes when people not only know the risks, but also have the ability, motivation, and opportunity to act differently. We examined evidence and expert insights that explain why EORE often falls short, from socioeconomic constraints that force risk-taking, to passive teaching methods that fail to inspire, to lack of cultural tailoring and weak evaluations. These are challenges, not verdicts of failure. The EORE sector is already adapting: embracing social and behavior change communication, integrating EORE into broader risk reduction efforts, and calling for better measurement of outcomes.

The proposed framework for effective EORE boils down to this: teach smarter and listen better. Teach smarter by engaging learners actively, appealing to their hearts and minds, and equipping them with skills not just facts. Listen better by understanding the community’s needs and feedback, and by coordinating with others to address the root causes of unsafe behavior. If we do this, EORE sessions will no longer be just a ritual of reciting warnings, but will become dynamic learning experiences that empower people to make safe choices in real life. In a village in Afghanistan, a farmer might recall not only the image of a warning sign from an EORE poster, but also the lively group debate he had with neighbors about whether to clear his field or wait for deminers and the collective decision they reached to choose safety.

Ultimately, the measure of success for EORE is behavior change. By grounding our curricula in sound learning design and behavioral science, and by relentlessly focusing on what actually helps people stay safe, we can ensure that EORE truly delivers on its promise. As practitioners and professionals dedicated to humanitarian mine action, we have the tools and knowledge to make EORE not just informational, but transformational. It’s time to put that into practice, and turn awareness into action.

Charles Valentine is Co-Founder of Mine Action News and Founder of EODynamics AB, a company specializing in augmented and virtual reality training solutions for Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA). A former U.S. Marine Corps veteran with extensive experience in explosive ordnance and operational environments, His work focuses on delivering immersive, cost-effective training tools deployed globally to enhance safety and operational readiness.

Sources

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. (Referenced in IMAS guidelines for training objectives)
IMAS 06.10, Management of Training, Ed.2 – Guidance on setting learning objectives with action verbs (inspired by Bloom’s Taxonomy)
Charlie V., “How does Bloom’s taxonomy help us design better learning and reduce EORE session fatigue?” – EORE Series post, LinkedIn (2025). Insight on most EORE being at lowest Bloom’s levels and need to engage higher levels for behavior change.
Charlie V., “Connecting Bloom’s taxonomy to behaviour change models (using the COM-B framework)” – EORE Series post, LinkedIn (2025). Discussion on integrating learning process with behavior drivers in EORE.
GICHD, Social and Behaviour Change Communication Toolkit – Overview (2025). Defines SBCC as promoting changes in knowledge, attitudes, norms, beliefs, and behaviour; urges intentional use of behavior change models in EORE.
GICHD, Behaviour Change Communications for EORE – Key Takeaways (2023). Emphasizes grounding EORE in SBCC theories and using positive, interactive, emotional, and context-relevant messaging.
Nazar P. Shabila et al. “Evaluation of landmine risk education programs: a scoping review.” Medicine, Conflict and Survival 41(1), 2025. – Finds MRE increases awareness, but effect on reducing injuries is unproven; calls for more rigorous studies on behavior change.
CISR (JMU), “Measuring behavior change resulting from EORE…” (2020). Highlights limitations of typical M&E (KAP surveys, self-reported intentions, accident rates) and notes EORE impact on actual behavior often unverified; also notes conflict and poverty constrain safe behavior choices.
Louis G. Maresca (ICRC), “Moving beyond mine risk education to risk awareness and safer behaviour.” Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog, Nov 2019. – Critiques traditional MRE for not addressing reasons for unsafe behavior or barriers to change; advocates holistic approaches (RASB) and multi-sector coordination.
UNICEF Evaluation of MRE Programme in Casamance, Senegal (2011). – Reports that despite good awareness, people still engaged in risky behaviors (e.g. self-demining) due to desperation; notes lack of targeted messaging for certain high-risk groups and very limited resources for MRE.
GICHD, Review of New Technologies and Methodologies for EORE (2020). – Executive summary underscores need for behavior-change approaches in EORE to tackle social norms and barriers; recommends integrating EORE with broader risk reduction and adopting participatory, multi-faceted communication strategies.
EORE Advisory Group side-event report (NDM-UN, 2020): “Risk Education in the Oslo Action Plan: from vision to reality.” – Stresses developing strong impact monitoring frameworks for EORE with emphasis on measuring behavior change (not just outputs).