HCRI79000

Disaster Preparedness

Risk communication

Original slides by Dr Billy Tusker Haworth;

revised/updated by Dr Nimesh Dhungana
 Risk communication: Defined
In a risk society, the role of communication
is to prevent harm, or protect people from
suffering (Beck, 1992).

Risk communication is based on the

assumption that people make wrong decisions
because they are uninformed about the
consequences of their actions (Mileti, 1999,
p.141)

The ultimate goal of risk communication is

to get someone to take an action to
reduce their risk from hazards (NOAA).
Why do we need risk communication?
• Improve public understanding of risk
• Help people make decisions (risk communication is
not just telling people what to do)
• Gather information and knowledge (risk
communication as not only one-way)
• Counter misinformation and rumours
• Document lessons and innovative solutions
• Accountability to the public
 Risk communication approaches
• Cognitive or/and behavioral approaches:
– Individual audience or recipient of information
understand, view and act on risk on their own.

• Social constructive approaches:

– Individual audience or recipient of information
understand, view and act on risk based on larger
socio-political and cultural context.
Who should we communicate risk to?
• The ‘public’ is everyone.
• Targeting ‘everyone’ is ineffective
• Need to recognize differences in the audience
• Know the audience!
What do we need to communicate?
• Risk communication is more than just sharing
information to raise awareness
• Communication needs to be tailored to address
the purpose and audience – e.g. are you trying to
change long-held social norms, or address
cognitive biases?
 Warnings as risk communication:
characteristics
• Credible message source
• Official message source
• Clear in message content See also:
• Consistent in message content social constructivism
(Heath et al. 2009; Beck 1992)
• Precise in message content
• Repetition
• Confirmed
(Drabek 2000)

7
How are risk communication methods
used to encourage preparedness?
 Mainstream media:
E.g. Television adverts

CFA Community Service Announcement - 1988 NSW Fire ‘I am fire’ – 2015

Watch these two TV ads for bushfire preparation, and think about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlkGfWCURgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LshgwFbpSE
What is different about the approaches? What is their purpose in terms of risk
communication; is it just to raise awareness, or something else/more?
Which one do you think is more effective, in what ways, and why?
 Disaster education in schools
Key considerations (Shaw et al. 2014):
• Should go beyond the school boundary and extend to family and community education
• Should be participatory, action oriented and not only classroom lectures
• Teachers can play role of key change agents; proper teaching training is essential
• No amount of education can help if school buildings themselves are not safe!

Disaster preparedness part of school curriculum (Philippines)

 Risk communication during and before
Covid-19
Civil society-led initiative to combat
misinformation in Nepal

A glimpse of a COVID-19 call centre (1115) agent

capturing rumours, and addressing the general public
Disinformation toolkit to deal with queries, concerns, and complaints, in Nepal. Photo
Credit: WHO Nepal/A.Thapa
risk
Tackling disinfodemic
Examples of risk communication tools
• TV
• Radio
• Flyers
• Social media
• Workshops
• Community meetings
• Friends/family
• Local fairs or events
• Traditional knowledge
• Through other/existing organisations
 Principles of risk communication
• Democratization of risk knowledge
– Risk knowledge is shared among different stakeholders.
– Participation and empowerment of communities to
understand and act on risk.

• De-centring of expertise
– Shifting attention to local and indigenous knowledge
– Social memories of previous disasters

• Translation of risk knowledge

– Attention to the language of community; their
interpretation of risk.

Lajeno et al, 2021

 Risk communication for disaster
preparedness: lessons learnt
• Recalling the disaster cycle, communication in one stage will influence
decisions and behaviours in others. Therefore, a holistic approach to risk
communication, tailored to events and incorporating temporality, is needed
(e.g. not just communicate in response) (Steelman and McCaffrey 2013)
• Partnerships with communities are key to effective crisis communication
(Heath et al. 2009)
• Risk communication should be ongoing for best results (though this requires
resources) (Steelman and McCaffrey 2013)
• Communication strategies should employ a range of different
technologies/approaches, and not a single tool or platform in isolation
(Haworth et al. 2015)
• Even with good theoretical understandings, e.g. of characteristics of best-
practice risk communication, implementation in practice remains a
challenge.
 Key take-aways
• Risk communication is primarily geared at
protecting people from harm.
• Focus should be on both individual and social
interpretation of risk.
• Risk communication involves building
transparency and trust in the system.
• Demands community engagement and attention
to local and indigenous knowledge.
• Channels of evaluation and accountability (What
if risk is miscommunicated?)
 Lecture sources
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London.
• Drabek, T.E. (2000). The social factors that constrain human responses to flood warnings.
In Floods, Vol. 1, Parker, D.J. (ed.). Routledge: London. Pp. 361–376.
• Gaillard, J. C., & Mercer, J. (2013). From knowledge to action: Bridging gaps in disaster risk
reduction. Progress in human geography, 37(1), 93-114.
• Haworth, B., Bruce, E. and Middleton, P. (2015). Emerging technologies for risk reduction:
assessing the potential use of social media and VGI for increasing community
engagement. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 30(3): 36-41.
• Heath, R.L., Bradshaw, J. and Lee, J. (2002). Community relationship building: local
leadership in the risk communication infrastructure. J Pub Relat Res, 14: 317–353.
• Lejano, R. P., Haque, C. E., & Berkes, F. (2021). Co-production of risk knowledge and
improvement of risk communication: A three-legged stool. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 64, 102508.
• Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United
States. Joseph Henry Press.
• NOAA Office for Coastal Management (2016). Quick Reference: Seven Best Practices for
Risk Communication. Available at https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/risk-
communication-best-practices.pdf.
• Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y. and Shiwaku, K. (2014). Chapter 6: Disaster education in schools. In:
Lopez-Cerresi, A., Fordham, M., Wisner, B., Kelman, I. & Gaillard, JC. (eds). Disaster
Management. International lessons in risk reduction, response and recovery. Routledge:
London. Pp. 82-96.
• Steelman, T.A. and McCaffrey, S. (2013). Best practices in risk and crisis communication:
Implications for natural hazards management. Natural Hazards, 65(1): 683-705.