6.1. Perceptions of Risk

Risk communication, what does it mean when we say risk communication okay. So, one in risk communication or in even in disaster risk communications, I am talking in a more, broader perspective, there should be one sender like local government okay. They want you to evacuate and so there is first in the disaster risk communications, we need one sender okay and what they do, they send message informations okay about the risk and what can be done to people.

Risk communication is a process of exchanging information about risks between two parties: a sender and a receiver. The sender—often a local government or authority—has an important role in asking people to take actions like evacuations or use specific building materials. The sender's messages contain vital information about potential risks and recommended actions, emphasizing the importance of clear communication regarding risks to motivate people to prepare for or respond to potential disasters.

Think of risk communication like a weather alert. When a storm is approaching, the local weather service (the sender) broadcasts warnings (the messages) to the community (the receivers) to urge people to stay indoors or prepare their homes. Just as people rely on this information to protect themselves, individuals must understand the risks communicated during disasters.

So, when the senders passing the information, passing the information to the receivers, there is a motive. Do you know what is this motive? What they want to do? If the sender is sending these informations to the receiver, he has a very particular motive when we are talking about disaster risk communication, the motive is the sender wants to change the mind of receiver okay, change his mind, changed perception and changed behaviour.

The fundamental goal of risk communication is to influence the thoughts and behaviors of the receiver. This means that senders are not just sharing information; they aim to alter how receivers perceive risks and change their attitudes towards taking preventive actions. For instance, if people are warned about an impending flood, the intent is not just to inform them but to persuade them to evacuate or prepare their homes.

Consider a fire drill in a school. The school administration (the sender) informs students (the receivers) about the procedure to follow in case of a fire alarm. The intention isn’t merely to tell them what to do; it’s to prepare them mentally and ensure they act quickly and correctly in the event of a real fire. This is similar to how risk communication works in disaster scenarios.

In risk communication, when we say we are exchanging informations, we are directly or indirectly talking about some particular hazards and risk. It could be a heart problem, it could be arsenic contaminations of groundwater and that’s causing the cancers to the people or it could be flood-related issues or it could be genetically modified food.

Risk communications focus on specific hazards that pose threats to individuals or communities. This might include health risks like diseases, environmental hazards like contaminated water, or natural disasters like floods. The information exchanged helps receivers understand the nature of these risks, enabling them to take appropriate action.

Imagine a community facing the risk of flooding after heavy rains. The local authority shares information about the potential for flooding and advises residents to move valuables to higher ground. This exchange is crucial as it informs residents of specific risks and necessary precautions, just like a health advisory on staying away from contaminated water sources.

When we are saying that you are at risk because of the flood, because of the earthquake in this city, people do not want to believe you. They said that what do you mean that I will be in fact, who is who are I okay, who are you. So, you have to define that who, what extent this and this settlement and these people will be affected.

People have varying perceptions of risk, which influences how they respond to risk communication. Some may feel invulnerable or dismiss warnings, whereas others may be overly anxious. It’s important for senders to clarify who is at risk and to what extent, helping prevent misunderstandings and fostering appropriate responses.

Consider a scenario where parents receive evacuation orders due to a nearby wildfire. Some might think, 'I’m safe because the fire is far away from my home,' while others might panic. Communicators need to address such perceptions by explaining the situation clearly and providing context, similar to a coach who reassures players about their roles in a challenging game situation.

--