4.1. Effective Messaging During Emergencies

So, what do we do for the local government? let us say, municipal authority, they ask people to follow something like you have to evacuate during certain time or you have to manage your solid waste, you have to follow building bye-laws, you have to store food during emergency, or you have to keep survival kit, or contingency kit like that. Now, this process that a local government is telling something to the people at risk to reduce their risk and to install and adopt some disaster preparedness technology. We know this is called a simple risk communication process, right but it is not always easy.

Risk communication is a key aspect of disaster management where local governments convey important information to communities to help them prepare for potential risks. This can include directives such as evacuating areas at risk, managing waste, and preparing emergency kits. However, just providing this information is not enough; effective messaging requires engagement and understanding from the community, as they might not follow instructions without understanding their importance.

Think of risk communication like giving directions to someone lost in a city. Simply telling them to go north may not be helpful unless they understand why it’s important to get to the safe area—a metaphorical 'north'. They need to grasp the bigger picture of the threat they face.

The conventional risk preparedness mechanism or system, they think that only providing information to the people is enough, if I ask people to evacuate during emergency that is enough but that is not always enough. People from the field, from various research across the globe is showing that after putting a lot of money, running a lot of projects, spending a lot of time, the inclination; the tendency of the people to prepare against disaster is elusive, it is really low.

Despite significant investments in disaster preparedness, many individuals do not take the necessary actions to protect themselves. This indicates that simply informing people is insufficient. It suggests that deeper understanding, trust, and motivation are needed to change behavior, as many people remain unaware of their vulnerability or feel an exaggerated sense of readiness.

Imagine spending weeks preparing a lecture, sharing all materials with a class, but only a few students show up to learn—it’s frustrating. Similarly, governments can spend significantly on preparedness efforts only to find that people do not engage or take action.

Why; why people are not preparing? Here is a good example; what do you think as risky, people may not think is risky. Like this one, I told maybe many times that this other person on the other side of the boat is considered that he is not at risk because this boat is sinking but he is in other side, he is not going to die.

Individuals often misinterpret or underestimate risk due to their personal experiences and perceptions. For example, someone may believe they are safe from a disaster because they have not experienced one before. This false sense of security can lead to complacency, making it hard for emergency managers to convey urgency and the need for preparedness.

A student who rarely studies for tests might feel overly confident and believe they will pass without preparation. This highlights how personal beliefs and experiences can cloud one’s perception of risk and readiness.

People think okay, I know about disaster, I know my area very well so, when the flood will come, tsunami will come, I can easily escape, do not underestimate me. Actually, people overestimate their knowledge that they know all, or people estimate that they are prepared enough that even flood will can earthquake will happen I will be safe because I am not that vulnerable, I am prepared enough, my house is good, my house is three storied, no flood can affect me.

Many people feel they are sufficiently prepared or knowledgeable about disasters, leading to overconfidence. They may believe specific structural features of their homes or their familiarity with their surroundings will protect them from risks, which can be dangerous if a disaster strikes unexpectedly.

Consider someone who never wears a seatbelt because they feel competent driving. Their belief in their ability overcomes any perceived need for precaution. This can have dire consequences when faced with the unpredictability of accidents.

Or maybe people think that okay, it is also the responsibility of others like, people often blame the municipal authority for getting flood, they said that flood is an issue of the local government, it is not my duty to protect myself against flood risk.

Individuals may relinquish personal responsibility during disasters, believing it is solely the government's duty to protect them. This perspective can reduce personal accountability, leading to a lack of preparation and reliance on external agencies during crises.

It’s like a child waiting for a parent to cook dinner instead of helping out. If everyone thinks someone else will handle their safety, they may remain unprepared and face greater risks.

Here are some data we can see that, actually, ideally we should have more money should be invested on prevention and preparedness. But if you look into the current situation, it is totally opposite, we are spending more money in emergency response and very less money in prevention and preparedness, right.

Current funding patterns show a significant imbalance where emergency responses receive more financial resources than preventative measures. This creates a cycle where communities may not be adequately prepared for disasters since less emphasis is placed on proactive measures.

Consider a homeowner who only buys fire extinguishers after experiencing a fire; they might prevent further disasters better if they invest in fire prevention measures, such as proper wiring and smoke alarms, rather than solely focusing on response.

So, these risk communications like local government to the community, how we can manage this one? Let us imagine that a flood is coming and local government is trying to say to the people that flood is coming so, you are at risk so, your family is at risk so, please, please, please evacuate, do not take the risk, but please evacuate to a safer place that we told you.

Effectively communicating the urgency and importance of risk to the public is challenging. Governments may struggle to convince individuals to evacuate despite clear warnings, often due to disbelief or misunderstanding about the actual threat.

Imagine a teacher trying to persuade students to study for an exam where they know half the class does not believe they will do poorly. No matter how clearly the information is presented, it may still fall on deaf ears if the audience does not perceive the risk as significant.

What people think what is risky their knowledge, sometimes sudden, sometimes they agree that okay we are at risk but many times they do not agree is very uncertain. Also, if they find that, I am really at risk what can be done? Sometimes, it is very agreed, people agreed that okay, if I evacuate I can protect myself from flood, I can mitigate, reduce the disaster risk. But sometimes people challenge the mitigation measures or preparedness measures itself, will it work; will it work for me so, knowledge is what is risk and how it can be solved that is the consent is always challenged.

Risk perception is often complex and varies from person to person. Individuals may agree on the need for preparation but still question its effectiveness for their specific situation. This uncertainty can lead to inaction when faced with potential disasters.

It’s similar to deciding whether to buy insurance; people may know they should, but they question if it will truly help them in their unique situations. This hesitation can lead them to postpone or avoid taking necessary actions.

--