Search Results

Humankind is becoming increasingly dependent on timely flood warnings. Dependence is being driven by an increasing frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events, a growing number of disruptive and damaging floods, and rising sea levels associated with climate change. At the same time, the population living in flood-risk areas and the value of urban and rural assets exposed to floods are growing rapidly. Flood warnings are an important means of adapting to growing flood risk and learning to live with it by avoiding damage, loss of life, and injury. Such warnings are increasingly being employed in combination with other flood-risk management measures, including large-scale mobile flood barriers and property-level protection measures. Given that lives may well depend on effective flood warnings and appropriate warning responses, it is crucial that the warnings perform satisfactorily, particularly by being accurate, reliable, and timely. A sufficiently long warning lead time to allow precautions to be taken and property and people to be moved out of harm’s way is particularly important. However, flood warnings are heavily dependent on the other components of flood forecasting, warning, and response systems of which they are a central part. These other components—flood detection, flood forecasting, warning communication, and warning response—form a system that is characterized as a chain, each link of which depends on the other links for effective outcomes. Inherent weaknesses exist in chainlike processes and are often the basis of warning underperformance when it occurs. A number of key issues confront those seeking to create and successfully operate flood warning systems, including (1) translating technical flood forecasts into warnings that are readily understandable by the public; (2) taking legal responsibility for warnings and their dissemination; (3) raising flood-risk awareness; (4) designing effective flood warning messages; (5) knowing how best and when to communicate warnings; and (6) addressing uncertainties surrounding flood warnings. Flood warning science brings together a large body of research findings from a particularly wide range of disciplines ranging from hydrometeorological science to social psychology. In recent decades, major advances have been made in forecasting fluvial and coastal floods. Accurately forecasting pluvial events that cause surface-water floods is at the research frontier, with significant progress being made. Over the same time period, impressive advances in a variety of rapid, personalized communication means has transformed the process of flood warning dissemination. Much is now known about the factors that constrain and aid appropriate flood warning responses both at the individual and at organized, flood emergency response levels, and a range of innovations are being applied to improve response effectiveness. Although the uniqueness of each flood and the inherent unpredictability involved in flood events means that sometimes flood warnings may not perform as expected, flood warning science is helping to minimize these occurrences.

Risk communication and information disclosure regarding chemical accidents entail the provision of relevant information to communities potentially affected by such incidents. This enables communities to comprehend the hazards and risks associated with nearby hazardous installations and to take appropriate actions during emergencies. This aspect of community preparedness is crucial in the context of technological accidents caused by natural hazards, often involving the release of hazardous materials. Such Natech risks have garnered considerable attention from both researchers and practitioners in the field of risk communication. Over the years, there has been a concerted effort by disaster risk researchers and practitioners to foster a cooperative environment between institutions and communities based on principles of transparency and effective communication. The turn of the century witnessed an increasing focus on Natech risks, with high-profile events such as the Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey (1999), Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the United States (2004), and the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami coupled with the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident (2011). These events heightened academic interest in Natech risks and spurred research efforts into their identification, assessment, and management. As the systemic challenges, uncertainties, and complexities of managing Natech accident risks became apparent, the academic field of risk communication expanded its focus. Research evolved from examining risk perception, household evacuation behavior, and disaster preparedness to encompass broader topics such as risk-informed decision-making through transparency and community engagement. Despite the establishment of regulatory frameworks like the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in the United States and the Seveso Directives in the European Union, international organizations emphasize the need for further advancements in chemical accident risk information disclosure. Initiatives advocating for the right to know highlight the importance of community preparedness and empowerment in addressing chemical accidents. Analysis of regulatory frameworks governing chemical and Natech risk management and communication can provide valuable insights into global practices. Issues concerning citizen participation and entitlement to information have become increasingly important in disaster risk management studies. Going forward, there is a need for additional research to understand the perspectives of stakeholders involved in Natech risk and to assess the impact of their interactions on perceptions and behaviors. A nuanced understanding of how individuals seek and exchange information regarding Natech risk, as well as the effects of different communication channels on disaster preparedness behavior, is essential. Moreover, there is still much to explore in terms of community perceptions and communication strategies concerning Natech risks. The disclosure of chemical and Natech risk information raises significant ethical considerations regarding community preparedness, warranting rigorous academic scrutiny. By adopting a multifaceted approach encompassing scholarly inquiry, ethical deliberation, and practical engagement, the discourse on Natech risk communication can significantly advance societal resilience against emergent threats.

The study of risk communication has been explored in several diverse contexts, from a range of disciplinary perspectives, including psychology, health, media studies, visualization studies, the public understanding of science, and social science. Such diversity creates a puzzle of recommendations to address the many challenges of communicating risk before, during, and after a natural hazard event and disasters. The history and evolution of risk communication across these diverse contexts is reviewed, followed by a discussion of risk communication particular to natural hazards and disasters. Example models of risk communication in the disaster and natural hazard context are outlined, followed by examples of studies into disaster risk communication from Aotearoa New Zealand, and key best practice principles for communicating risk in these contexts. Considerations are also provided on how science and risk communication can work together more effectively in future in the natural hazard and disaster space. Such considerations include the importance of scientists, risk managers, and officials communicating to meet a diversity of decision-makers’ needs and understanding the evolution of those needs in a crisis across time demands and forecast horizons. To acquire a better understanding of such needs, participatory approaches to risk assessment and communication present the greatest potential in developing risk communication that is useful, useable, and used. Through partnerships forged at the problem formulation stage, risk assessors and communicators can gain an understanding of the science that needs to be developed to meet decision-needs, while communities and decision-makers can develop a greater understanding of the limitations of the science and risk assessment, leading to stronger and more trusting relationships. It is critically important to evaluate these partnership programs due to the challenges that can arise (such as resourcing and trust), particularly given risk communication can often occur in an environment subject to power imbalances due to social structures and sociopolitical landscape. There is also often not enough attention paid to the evaluation of the risk communication products themselves, which is problematic because what we think is being communicated may unintentionally mislead due to formatting and display choices. By working in partnership with affected communities to develop decision-relevant communication products using evidence-based product design, work can be done toward communicating risk in the most effective, and ethical, way.