Rethinking communication in risk interpretation and action

Abstract

Communication is fundamental to the transfer of information between individuals, agencies, and organizations, and therefore, it is crucial to planning and decision-making particularly in cases of uncertainty and risk. This paper brings forth some critical aspects of communication that need to be acknowledged and considered while managing risks. Most of the previous studies and theories on natural hazards and disaster management have limited perspective on communication, and hence its implication is limited to awareness, warnings, and emergency response to some selected events. This paper exposes the role of communication as a moderator of not just risk interpretation and action but also various factors responsible for shaping overall response, such as individual decision-making under uncertainty, heuristics, past experiences, learning, trust, complexity, scale and the social context. It suggests that communication is a process that influences decision-making in multiple ways, and therefore it plays a critical role in shaping local responses to various risks. It opens up the scope for using communication beyond its current use as a tool to manage emergency situations. An in-depth understanding of ongoing communication and its implications can help to plan risk management more effectively over time rather than as a short-term response.

Social Representations of Natural Hazard Risk in Swiss Mountain Regions

“…From this perspective, hazard risks have to be understood in their interaction with other (more) relevant aspects of people's life such as their social belonging, their livelihood or their religion (Eiser et al 2012;Sherry & Curtis, 2017;Escobar & Demeritt, 2012;Jurt, 2009). More emphasis is in this context also attributed to the role of local risk communication, community engagement and related learning processes for risk interpretation (Khan et al, 2017;Lindell & Perry, 2012). Literature on social learning provide evidence that actors' problem or risk perspectives, which are framed by specific interests can be reframed through participatory processes / collective actions towards shared problem or risk understandings (Kolkman et al, 2007;Khan et al, 2017).…”

“…More emphasis is in this context also attributed to the role of local risk communication, community engagement and related learning processes for risk interpretation (Khan et al, 2017;Lindell & Perry, 2012). Literature on social learning provide evidence that actors' problem or risk perspectives, which are framed by specific interests can be reframed through participatory processes / collective actions towards shared problem or risk understandings (Kolkman et al, 2007;Khan et al, 2017). Accordingly, active social communities can be expected to have shared social representations of hazard risks, that is not just through similar experiences, but also through their communication over a long period (Khan et al, 2017).…”

“…Literature on social learning provide evidence that actors' problem or risk perspectives, which are framed by specific interests can be reframed through participatory processes / collective actions towards shared problem or risk understandings (Kolkman et al, 2007;Khan et al, 2017). Accordingly, active social communities can be expected to have shared social representations of hazard risks, that is not just through similar experiences, but also through their communication over a long period (Khan et al, 2017). There is, however, little empirical knowledge on how laypersons make sense of risk and hazard, and how they influence each other in their social and institutional context (Eiser et al, 2012).…”

“…Lindell and Perry (2012) suspect in their discussion of the protective action decision model that people's prevention behavior might be more determined by such group-specific interests than by their risk perception. Recent research provides evidence that two-way communication, in particular in bottomup problem solving processes, enable a convergence of actors' problem perspectives and an increase of locals' trust in experts (Ramsbottom et al, 2018;Khan et al, 2017;de Vente et al, 2016;Höppner et al, 2012;Garmendia and Stagl, 2010). It is, however, unclear to what extent the framing or re-framing of problem perspectives affects local laypersons' general notions of risk, resp.…”

Social Representations of Natural Hazard Risk in Swiss Mountain Regions

“…From this perspective, hazard risks have to be understood in their interaction with other (more) relevant aspects of people's lives, such as their social belonging, their livelihood or their religion [1,10,27,28]. This approach also places more emphasis on the role of local risk communication, community engagement and related learning processes for risk interpretation [29,30]. Furthermore, the literature on social learning provides evidence that actors' problem or risk perspectives, which are framed by specific interests, can be reframed through participatory processes/collective actions towards shared problem or risk understandings [30,31].…”