1.2. Risk Communication Process

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.

Risk communication involves local authorities communicating risk information and instructions to their communities. For example, during a natural disaster, such as a flood, local governments may tell residents to evacuate, manage waste effectively, or prepare emergency kits. The aim is to help people reduce their risk through preparedness and response.

Think of it like a school drill where teachers remind students what to do in case of an emergency. Just as teachers prepare students to stay safe during fire drills or storms, local governments help communities prepare for potential disasters.

We know this is called a simple risk communication process, right but it is not always easy, 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.

While providing information is a key part of risk communication, just sharing information isn’t sufficient to ensure people will act on it. Many people may not feel compelled to take action even when they are informed about the risks, leading to low levels of disaster preparedness.

Imagine a coach who tells players to practice more to win games. Simply telling them to practice isn’t enough; players need motivation and strategies to improve their skills. Similarly, communities need more than just information; they need encouragement and support to prepare for disasters.

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.

Research indicates that regardless of how much effort and money is invested in promoting disaster preparedness, many people still show a low desire or tendency to prepare for disasters. This suggests that merely providing resources does not lead to increased readiness.

Consider a situation where a school arranges safety seminars about bullying. Despite the resources spent, some students may still not feel empowered to stand up against bullying, indicating that information alone does not change behavior—it requires personal conviction and confidence.

Here is a good example; what do you think as risky, people may not think is risky.

Risk perception varies greatly among individuals. For instance, someone may see a situation as not risky at all while an outsider views it as very dangerous. This misinterpretation can lead to lack of preparation, where individuals feel they are safe when they are not.

Imagine a person looking at a stormy sea and thinking swimming in it is safe because they are a good swimmer. To them, the risk is low, but a lifeguard watching knows it's dangerous. This discrepancy in understanding risk illustrates why communication strategies need to address these different perceptions.

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.

Many individuals believe that it is not their personal responsibility to mitigate risks, instead placing that burden on authorities or government bodies. This mindset can lead to further low preparedness levels since individuals do not feel compelled to take proactive measures.

This is similar to a neighborhood expecting its local fire department to be the only safeguard against fire risks, while not taking their own measures, such as having extinguishers or smoke detectors in their homes. When everyone relies solely on others for protection, overall safety decreases.

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.

Current spending trends show that a disproportionate amount of money is allocated to responding to disasters rather than investing in preventive measures. This is concerning as proper investment in preparedness could significantly reduce the impact of disasters.

Think of a farmer who only buys supplies to repair fences after his livestock escapes instead of investing in stronger fencing beforehand. While he might spend a lot on repairs, he would save more in the long run by preventing the issue in the first place, demonstrating the value of proactive investment.

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.

In emergency situations, effective communication becomes crucial. Local governments need to repeatedly emphasize the urgency of evacuation to ensure citizens understand the risk they face and the importance of taking immediate action.

This can be compared to parents calling their children multiple times to come inside during a thunderstorm. The repeated messages ensure the children understand the seriousness of the situation and take action promptly to stay safe.

Then, by the time this person realized, it is no more the 50 kilometre, it is 50 centimetre, he is inundated, his area is inundated.

Often, individuals fail to recognize risks until it is too late, meaning that once they understand the severity of a situation, such as a flooding scenario, they may already be too overwhelmed or affected to take meaningful action. This highlights the importance of proactive awareness.

It’s like ignoring the warnings of a snowstorm until you see snow piling up outside your door. By then, it may be too late to get necessary supplies or evacuate if needed—making early awareness even more critical for safety.

So, in case of risk perception, always there is the question; who, what is risky, what extent is risky, why risky.

Understanding the complexities of risk perception involves recognizing individual beliefs about risk, their knowledge of risks, and their willingness to act on that knowledge. Each person views risk differently based on their experiences and understanding, which makes it essential to tailor communication accordingly.

Think about how different teens perceive the risks of driving fast. Some may see it as thrilling, while others fear accidents. Tailoring safety messages, like reward stickers for safe driving, can better reach those different perceptions and motivate safe behavior across the board.

--