Linking social capacities and risk communication in Europe: a gap between theory and practice?

Abstract

Although both improved risk communication and the building of social capacities have been advocated as vital ways to increase societies' resilience towards natural hazards across the world, the literature has rarely examined the ways in which these two concepts may integrate in theory and practice. This paper is an attempt to address this gap in a European context. It begins with a conceptual discussion that unites the literature on risk communication with the literature on social capacity building. We then use the insights from this discussion as a basis to conduct a review of 60 risk communication practices from across Europe. This review indicates a gap between theory and practice because, whilst the literature highlights the importance of integrated and coordinated communication campaigns featuring both a one-way transfer and a two-way dialogue between the public, stakeholders and decision-makers, the majority of the communication practices reviewed here appear to be relatively disparate initiatives that rely on one-way forms of communication. On the basis of these findings, we conclude by making some recommendations for the way in which such practices could be improved in order to be more supportive of social capacities across Europe. Keywords Risk communication Á Capacity building Á Participation Á Warning Á PreventionElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article

Raising risk preparedness by flood risk communication

“…The importance of understanding emotions was also highlighted in a comparative empirical study on communication strategies focusing on residents' responses to flood warnings in four European countries . In line with the findings of Höppner et al (2012), they found that one-way risk communication had limited effects, because it failed to address the multi-dimensional determinants of people's behaviour, including attitudes and affect.…”

“…This rationale is still common in risk communication. In a review of risk communication strategies in Europe, Höppner et al (2012) revealed a gap between practice, which tends to follow traditional approaches, and recent research, which recommends two-way communication and more deliberative approaches tailored to the needs of the population (Renn, 2008;Martens et al, 2009). However, the effort required by dialogue-based strategies often seems very high to practitioners.…”

The importance of threat, strategy, and resource appraisals for long-term proactive risk management among forest owners in Sweden

“…The management of natural hazards requires not only immediate measures in response to hazardous events, but also long-term proactive risk management (Fuhrer et al 2006;Höppner et al 2012). A key to successful management is understanding what motivates people to deal with these hazards.…”

Zielgruppenspezifische Darstellung von Hochwassergefahren und -risiko

“…Gefahren-und Risikokarten können dazu beitragen, dass diese Nutzergruppe informiert und Bewusstsein für Hochwasser aufgebaut und verstärkt wird. Gefahren-und Risikokarten können dafür genutzt werden, um Eigenverantwortung anstelle von Sicherheitinsbesondere in Bereichen mit Restrisiko -zu kommunizieren (Höppner et al 2012).…”

“…Diese lebhaften Reize kön-nen die Akzeptanz der Inhalte erhö-hen und gleichzeitig zu einer aktiveren Haltung und situativen Anpassung führen (Blondé und Girandola 2016). Die emotionale Ebene und der Unterhaltungswert bei der Informationsvermittlung an die breite Bevölkerungen steht somit stärker im Fokus als bei anderen Zielgruppen (Höppner et al 2012). Den Aussagen muss vor und im Zuge der Präsentation Bedeutung verliehen werden (Prior und Herzog 2015 …”