Risk communication and risk perception: lessons from the 2011 floods in Brisbane, Australia

Abstract

Risk communication and risk perception are critical factors in disaster management. Governments at all levels play a part in communicating risk, whereas the perception of risk entails active roles by community participants, including potential and actual victims of disasters. This paper discusses these matters in relation to the floods in Brisbane, Australia, in 2011. The findings are based on interviews with representatives of households whose dwellings or business premises were fully or partially inundated by the waters. The research shows how important it is to recognise the problems of institutional fragmentation in terms of communication and the active engagement of recipients in understanding and interpreting flood risk information (especially for slow-onset riverine flooding, such as that suffered by Brisbane). Locally targeted information on risk is of vital importance in avoiding the misinterpretation of warning information in relation to environmental cues and in promoting adequate responses. The paper concludes with some recommendations. Risk communication, risk perception, and warningRisk communication and risk perception are central to disaster planning and management, but, as will be shown, both are increasingly being recognised as complex phenomena. Most commonly, risk communication is seen as a process initiated by government or other official agencies, the purpose of which is to enable a community to respond appropriately, but actual perception of risk may lead to varying results, and in fact to results that are not intended (Wildavsky and Dake, 1990;Rahm and Reddick, 2011;Twigg, 2013). In the context of natural hazards, it is crucial that accurate and reliable information on risk is made available and conveyed to those who require it. Yet, it is also critical that the information is meaningful to and understood by those receiving it. The purpose of such risk communication is to help actors from civil society and the government to respond appropriately. Different actors understand hazard and disaster risk differently, and there may be considerable disparity between those explaining the risk and those for whom the explanation is intended, such as emergency planners, engineers, land developers, local governments, and residents (Green, Tunstall, and Fordham, 1991;Godber, 2005b). Hence, the communication of risk is considered to be 'a complex area of study and practice [. . .] where risk perception, attitude and behaviour can be attenuated or amplified by a range of cognitive, social, cultural and institutional factors' (Shepherd and van Vuuren, 2014, p. 471).Risk communication and risk perception can be better understood in the context of warning as an overarching field of activity and research. Warning is characterised by interrelated psychological and sociological dimensions and is described as a process that is produced by social organisation (Perry, 1979, p. 441; Dash and Gladwin,

Contribution of Risk Perception and Communication in Aviation Safety Events

“…Risk perception will influence what will be communicated, and, reciprocally, risk communication informs and influences risk perception ( 52 ). Ineffective or inadequate risk communication may lead to ambiguities in risk perception with reference to the clues to be considered by the involved personnel or examined during investigations ( 53 ). Furthermore, although the application of crew resource management (CRM) principles may facilitate an adequate flow of information by mandating explicit verbal communication, the question remains as to how many of the problems CRM solves are created from incomplete risk perception ( 54 ).…”

A Model for Calculating the Spatial Coverage of Audible Disaster Warnings Using GTFS Realtime Data

“…The 2011 floods highlighted the need for an adequate warning dissemination system in Brisbane [23]. During these floods, information was mainly gathered through television, radio, and the internet [24], but the need for broadcasting at the local level is apparent [25]. The effectiveness of using sirens for flood warning dissemination has been identified [26], and the installation of sirens is being considered in the Brisbane area [27].…”

Social Amplification and Attenuation of Flood Risk Perception by Broadcast Media Risk Messages During the 2022 Floods in Selected Southern States in Nigeria

“…This rationale will enable facilitators to feedback on the insights from the communities and citizens to the government and relevant agencies , and help to ultimately redefine risk communication. Other rationales cited in the literature include the instrumental rationales which see risk communication as a way to influence the attitudes and behavior of others in ways desired by those sending the message (Leiss & Larkin, 2019), and the substantive rationales which highlight its potential to improve the quality of risk assessment, the processes of risk management, and/or the outcomes that result for all those involved (Leiss & Larkin, 2019;Kammerbauer & Minnery, 2019).…”