Models of best practice in flood risk communication and management

Demeritt, David; Nobert, Sébastien

doi:10.1080/17477891.2014.924897

Cited by 99 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section we explore the fundamental research that underpins risk communication and examine why this might be the case. Callon (1999) and Demeritt and Norbert (2014) have both proposed models for how risk is communicated, considering the direction of communication, the roles of the communicator and the receiver, and the purpose of the communication (Table 2).…”

Section: Risk Communication Approaches and The Adoption Of Resilient mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking flood risk communication

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flooding is a serious hazard across Europe, with over 200 major floods documented in the last two decades. Over this period, flood management has evolved, with a greater responsibility now placed on at-risk communities to understand their risk and take protective action to develop flood resilience. Consequently, communicating flood risk has become an increasingly central part of developing flood resilience. However, research suggests that current risk communications have not resulted in the intended increase in awareness, or behavioural change. This paper explores how current risk communications are used by those at risk, what information users desire and how best this should be presented. We explore these questions through a multi-method participatory experiment, working together with a competency group of local participants in the town of Corbridge, Northumberland, the UK. Our research demonstrates that current risk communications fail to meet user needs for information in the period before a flood event, leaving users unsure of what will happen, or how best to respond. We show that participants want information on when and how a flooding may occur (flood dynamics), so that they can understand their risk and feel in control of their decisions on how to respond. We also present four prototypes which translate these information needs into new approaches to communicating flood risk. Developed by the research participants, these proposals meet their information needs, increase their flood literacy and develop their response capacity. The findings of the research have implications for how we design and develop future flood communications, but also for how we envisage the role of flood communications in developing resilience at a community level.

show abstract

Section: Risk Communication Approaches and The Adoption Of Resilient mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking flood risk communication

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While flood mapping methods and data continue to improve, additional criteria must also be addressed to provide decision-makers and citizens with actionable information. To be actionable, map information must help decision-makers (1) understand vulnerability of properties from flooding and (2) select actions that mitigate or reduce this vulnerability (Demeritt and Nobert, 2014;McNutt, 2016;Feldman et al, 2008). By fully utilizing flood modeling technologies and developing innovative communication strategies, flood hazard maps can more effectively support first responders, natural resource managers, and local residents with the information necessary to manage and respond to flood hazards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Reviewer 1

Anonymous

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are, in fact, ways of modelling flood risk communication. One useful approach is that of Demeritt and Norbert (), who, following Wardman (), describe four models mapped on a vertical axis showing the underlying rationale of communication (from normative to instrumental) and a horizontal axis showing engaged, two‐way communication at one extreme and less engaged, one‐way communication at the other. The model illustrated in each quadrant is described as an ‘ideal type'.…”

Section: Risk Communication Risk Perception and Warningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk communication and risk perception: lessons from the 2011 floods in Brisbane, Australia

Kammerbauer

Minnery

2018

Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk communication and risk perception are critical factors in disaster management. Governments at all levels play a part in communicating risk, whereas the perception of risk entails active roles by community participants, including potential and actual victims of disasters. This paper discusses these matters in relation to the floods in Brisbane, Australia, in 2011. The findings are based on interviews with representatives of households whose dwellings or business premises were fully or partially inundated by the waters. The research shows how important it is to recognise the problems of institutional fragmentation in terms of communication and the active engagement of recipients in understanding and interpreting flood risk information (especially for slow-onset riverine flooding, such as that suffered by Brisbane). Locally targeted information on risk is of vital importance in avoiding the misinterpretation of warning information in relation to environmental cues and in promoting adequate responses. The paper concludes with some recommendations. Risk communication, risk perception, and warningRisk communication and risk perception are central to disaster planning and management, but, as will be shown, both are increasingly being recognised as complex phenomena. Most commonly, risk communication is seen as a process initiated by government or other official agencies, the purpose of which is to enable a community to respond appropriately, but actual perception of risk may lead to varying results, and in fact to results that are not intended (Wildavsky and Dake, 1990;Rahm and Reddick, 2011;Twigg, 2013). In the context of natural hazards, it is crucial that accurate and reliable information on risk is made available and conveyed to those who require it. Yet, it is also critical that the information is meaningful to and understood by those receiving it. The purpose of such risk communication is to help actors from civil society and the government to respond appropriately. Different actors understand hazard and disaster risk differently, and there may be considerable disparity between those explaining the risk and those for whom the explanation is intended, such as emergency planners, engineers, land developers, local governments, and residents (Green, Tunstall, and Fordham, 1991;Godber, 2005b). Hence, the communication of risk is considered to be 'a complex area of study and practice [. . .] where risk perception, attitude and behaviour can be attenuated or amplified by a range of cognitive, social, cultural and institutional factors' (Shepherd and van Vuuren, 2014, p. 471).Risk communication and risk perception can be better understood in the context of warning as an overarching field of activity and research. Warning is characterised by interrelated psychological and sociological dimensions and is described as a process that is produced by social organisation (Perry, 1979, p. 441; Dash and Gladwin,

show abstract

Models of best practice in flood risk communication and management

Cited by 99 publications

References 90 publications

Rethinking flood risk communication

Rethinking flood risk communication

Response to Reviewer 1

Risk communication and risk perception: lessons from the 2011 floods in Brisbane, Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About