1.4. Familiarity and Experience with Disasters

But when we are saying that, that much of casualty happened people are more likely to believe the information, ready to accept that this is risky. Importance of message is also very important, okay. Who is sending these informations to them and how important it is?

This chunk introduces the concept of risk perception. It explains that people are more likely to believe information about disasters if they hear that many casualties occurred. This highlights the importance of the source of information—who is sharing it and how reputable or significant that source is to the audience. Essentially, the message's credibility influences how people perceive risk.

Imagine a news report about a flood. If a respected scientist reports that many people were affected, you may feel it's a credible warning, making you more alert. However, if the source were less credible, you might disregard it, thinking it could be exaggerated.

Another one the catastrophic potentials, how people consider the catastrophic potentials in order to judge the risk. When we are saying high probability, low consequence of disasters like you can say the drought compared to low probability high consequences like the 2011 Japan earthquake and Tsunami.

Here we explore how people evaluate risks based on catastrophic potential. For example, drought occurs often and has minor consequences, thus people view it as a low risk. In contrast, rare events like the 2011 Japan earthquake, which had devastating consequences, are perceived as high risk. This illustrates that people assess risks not just on how often disasters happen but on the severity of their impacts.

Think of a volcano that erupts every few decades and causes immense destruction. Even if it's rare, people may perceive it as a high risk because of its catastrophic consequences. Conversely, if you live in an area prone to minor floods every year, you might consider that a normal occurrence and feel less worried about it.

Also, the context, the risk situation, the perception of dread having personal control, that I can control the risk over the magnitude and probability, so how it will happen or what extended to happen, I have some control or not.

This chunk highlights that people’s risk perception is influenced by their personal control over the situation. If an individual believes they can manage or mitigate a risk, they are less likely to view it as a high risk. Familiarity also plays a role; experiences with disasters can lead to a desensitization toward perceived danger.

Consider someone who regularly prepares for storms—creating an emergency kit and planning routes—will feel they have control. This preparation lowers their anxiety about the storm, making them perceive the risk as manageable compared to someone who has never faced one.

And when it is more easy to blame the reason that why this risk is happening, risk is taking place, disaster is taking place is because of someone’s responsibility people consider this as more higher risk and believe the cause of risk okay, is it unfair, equity, profit of others.

This chunk explains that when risks are attributed to clear sources of blame (e.g., government negligence during a disaster), individuals tend to view those risks as higher. The perception of unfairness and the benefits of particular groups can amplify this view, as people feel more affected when they believe the risk is due to someone's actions.

If a building collapses due to a poorly done construction job, people are likely to blame the builders and see the risk of similar disasters as significant. This blame leads individuals to feel that these occurrences could have been avoided, increasing their perception of risk.

Now, the transmitter of risk information, that how the sender is that the transmitter is collecting the informations from the senders and the perceived seriousness of the risk okay. Now, this mass media public institutions and opinion groups...

This chunk discusses how information about risks is transmitted to the public. It emphasizes that mass media plays a critical role in shaping people's perceptions of risk. The media not only conveys data but also interprets and tilts the information, which subsequently influences how the public perceives the seriousness of the risk involved.

For example, a catastrophic event like an earthquake often leads to intense media coverage, which can amplify public fear and urgency. If a major news outlet covers a story extensively, viewers may perceive the risk associated with earthquakes as urgent and significant, influencing their preparedness actions.

So, factors that determine transmitter attractiveness to pass report risk informations or risk news is, if it is technologically induced hazard then compared to natural hazards they will report more possibility to blame someone...

This chunk examines various factors influencing what the media chooses to cover regarding disasters. Events that allow for easy attribution of blame and those occurring in culturally distant areas or areas currently in conflict often receive more media attention. The nature of the disaster can also define the coverage level.

Consider the news coverage of different disasters like an outbreak of a disease due to human negligence versus a natural disaster like a hurricane. The former might receive more reporting because it's tied to accountability, while the hurricane may be seen as a natural occurrence, leading to priority differences in reporting.

--