Critical gaps and implications of risk communication in the global agreements—SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC: 3 select case studies from urban areas of tropics in South Asia

Abstract

There has been a consistent rise in urban disasters, particularly in developing countries located in tropical areas. Among various challenges of disaster risk management and climate change impacts, it is noted that most residents are poorly informed about their risk exposure or apposite response. The paper is based on the premise that one important cause for this gap is inadequate emphasis on risk communication at different levels of planning and agreements. Accordingly, it highlights some important gaps in the risk communication across international agreements including Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and evaluates their impacts at the local level. It brings three selected urban case studies located in the tropical areas of the South Asia region that illustrate gaps in risk communication that result in enhanced vulnerability and deviations in response. The findings are based on secondary data and literature focusing on global agreements, risk communication, and disaster response. The paper argues that even though global strategies address urban risks, the fragmented nature of risk communication results in poor response and contributes to losses that occur in disasters. Three critical gaps noted in risk communication include (i) it not prioritized at different levels, (ii) inadequate structures to measure its impacts and stakeholders inclusiveness, and (iii) indifference to cultural diversity and integration. Further, it is suggested that there is a need to redefine risk communication at the global scale that extends beyond warning generation and considers multiple factors influencing response including interlinked vulnerabilities and variations in perceptions emerging from varied geographical, socio-cultural, economic, and political processes.

Fire risk communication in the urban informal sector: Evidence from traditional marketplaces in Accra, Ghana

“…In this way, barriers to disaster preparedness—such as beliefs that fire is God‐induced, under‐preparedness due to infrequent fire disasters, and mistrust of public emergency management agencies—in risk management can be navigated, and any misconceptions dealt with via effective risk communication (Bankoff, 2009; Tasantab et al, 2020; Weintritt, 2009). Furthermore, bidirectional information or knowledge flow in fire risk communication is imperative and can be achieved by the exchange of information among and engagement with a broad set of fire risk stakeholders (Höppner et al, 2012; Khan & Mishra, 2022; Shao, 2017), particularly those at risk, and the provision of accurate and up‐to‐date risk information to the public to inform context‐specific actions. This motivates preparedness initiatives (Abunyewah et al, 2019; Attems et al, 2020; Kopacz et al, 2022) and enables risk communication that informs behavioral changes beyond the awareness of disaster risks (Rohrmann, 1995; Sellnow & Seeger, 2021).…”

“…Historically, risk communication has been a one‐way transfer of information from authorities to the public. However, in recent times, the concept has shifted to an interactive process involving the exchange of information among individuals, groups, and organisations (Höppner et al, 2012; Khan & Mishra, 2022). The one‐way communication approach inhibited agency‐community trust building, leading to the failure of risk communication goals.…”

Enhancing risk governance by addressing key risk communication barriers during the prevention and preparedness phase in South Tyrol (Italy)

“…It encompasses a wide range of activities such as: developing emergency plans and procedures, providing information to the public through various channels, coordinating the response and recovery efforts of various organisations and agencies, facilitating communication between emergency responders and the public, providing training and education, and raising awareness on risk preparedness and response (Alexander, 2014; Árvai, 2014, Link & Stötter, 2014; Pedoth et al, 2021; Renn, 2008). Consequently, risk communication should be recognised neither as a sole phase of risk management (Pedoth et al, 2021) nor as a ‘one‐way information flow for disseminating hazard forecasts, disaster warnings, alarms, risk messages’ (Khan & Mishra, 2022, p. 2562). It is essential throughout the whole risk‐handling cycle (Renn, 2008).…”

“…We assume a social constructionist approach (Lupton 2013) to risk: ‘risk sources are not objective, ‘out there’, rather they are designated as risky through a social act embedded in a network of practices, discourses and representations’ (Carnelli et al, 2020, p. 384). Following this constructivist approach, risk communication can be conceived as all the ‘meaningful interactions in which knowledge, experiences, interpretations, concerns, and perspectives are exchanged’ (Renn et al, 2011, p. 242) to make risk management effective, by facilitating a ‘holistic understanding of risk at different levels’ to include ‘different kinds of risk communications such as risk assessments, risk information generation, and dissemination, risk awareness programs, forecasts, early warning, and crisis communication’ (Khan &, Mishra, 2022, p. 2563). In these terms, any exchange of information relating to framing, understanding, evaluating/assessing, managing and reducing the potential for consequences, or anything that has an impact in the process of attributing value to something ‘at risk’ (Boholm, 2003), must be considered in risk communication.…”

Why Does Risk Communication Matter? Preventive and Excessive Health Behavior among Uninfected People

“…Risk communication here does not only refer to informing the public about their risk exposure or crisis communication through various means of warning generation. Still, it has a broader connotation, which takes into account the local socio-cultural context, scale, uncertainty, causes of disasters, past experiences, lessons learned, trust, and ongoing engagement that influence risk perception and response, and through it the entire risk management process [27].…”