1.4. Interpretation of Risk

Generally, in the conventional theory, they think that individual's perception of risk matter, how big the hazard is; the exogenous variable. If the hazard is bigger in size in magnitude, then people have greater, higher risk perception but it’s a very conventional idea now, so external risk stimulus is so important in conventional risk perception theories or practices, okay and risk management effort; conventional risk management effort is therefore to prevent the unwanted event and to ameliorate its consequence, to reduce the consequence of an unwanted hazardous event.

The conventional understanding of risk emphasizes that people's perception of risk is largely dependent on the magnitude of the hazard. In simpler terms, if a hazard (like a natural disaster) is perceived to be large and dangerous, individuals will perceive a higher level of risk. This understanding suggests that the external factors (such as the size of the hazard) primarily drive how risk is interpreted, leading to conventional risk management practices aimed at preventing or reducing the consequences of such events.

Imagine a large storm approaching your town. If the storm is categorized as a hurricane, people will perceive a high risk due to its potential to cause destruction. Conversely, if it’s a light rain, the perception of risk is minimal. This reflects how the severity of the hazard shapes our understanding of risk.

Now, in the conventional theory, conventional understanding of disaster risk or any risk is that individuals who are at risk they are the passive recipient of risk that means, they do not manipulate, interpret, construct the meaning of risk. They see what is there so, risk is very objective, what is; it depends on the probability of a particular hazard and the consequence of that hazard, okay that how it would cause human losses, property damage.

According to traditional views, individuals at risk are seen as passive recipients, meaning they simply receive information about risk without actively interpreting or altering its meaning. This perspective reduces the understanding of risk to a mere calculation of probabilities and potential consequences, without considering individual or cultural interpretations that might influence how people perceive risk.

Consider a person who lives near a volcano. The conventional view treats this person as merely waiting to hear official warnings about the volcano's activity, rather than recognizing they might have their own unique insights or beliefs about the risk based on their experiences or cultural background.

And for them, the particular way of communicating risk or risk communications in case of early warning, there is a recipient that is the source, they send the message and through some particular channels like mass media, televisions, radio, newspaper to the audience in order to help them to prepare and to know them the magnitude and the consequence of a particular hazard.

Risk communication involves the transmission of information regarding risk from a source (like a government agency) to the receiver (the public). This process often utilizes various media channels such as television, radio, and newspapers to convey crucial details about the nature of hazards, helping individuals understand the risks they face. Effective communication is vital to prepare communities for potential disasters.

Think of a public service announcement about an approaching hurricane. The news plays a crucial role in informing residents of the storm's strength, potential dangers, and safety measures. This timely communication can help families prepare by securing homes or evacuating before the storm hits.

But people are arguing or from our practices, from the field notes, researchers are reporting from their studies that this is may not be enough, well transforming the information is very important and very critical component of risk communications in order to enhance the resiliency of the local communities but that is not enough that’s simple okay, it is because how people interpret, the meaning of risk it varies from individual to individuals, groups to groups.

Research indicates that merely providing information about risk isn't sufficient. To truly prepare communities for potential hazards, it is crucial to ensure that there’s a shared understanding of the risk among community members. This understanding can differ vastly, varying from person to person and group to group, based on their previous experiences and cultural backgrounds.

For instance, in a community where some people see a particular snake as dangerous while others might perceive it as harmless, effective risk management would require a dialogue that clarifies these different perspectives and fosters a consensus on how to approach encounters with snakes, ensuring the community is on the same page about the risks involved.

So, one group something is risky, for another group of people, it is not that risky so, we need a kind of consensus shared meaning of risk here, you can see the example like a snake when you someone is thinking that snake is dangerous, it is a risky animal, a person is escaping from that place, someone is trying to beat him, kill him, someone is taking picture, someone is praying to the God.

This chunk emphasizes the subjective nature of risk, illustrating that different groups can perceive the same hazard (e.g., a snake) in radically different ways. Such varying perspectives underscore the need for a collective understanding or consensus on risk within a community to effectively manage and respond to it.

Imagine a group of hikers who encounter a bear. Some may view it as a sign of danger and flee, while others might try to take a picture or remain calm. Their differing reactions show how vital it is to establish a common understanding of how to approach such situations, as differing perceptions could lead to potentially dangerous outcomes.

--