Bapon Fakhruddin, Jassodra Kuizon and Craig Glover
Hazard risk communication has arguably been a challenge, especially in communities which are susceptible to multiple hazards. Orewa was specially chosen for this research in order…
Abstract
Hazard risk communication has arguably been a challenge, especially in communities which are susceptible to multiple hazards. Orewa was specially chosen for this research in order to provide a complete assessment of the effectiveness of communicating New Zealand's early warning strategy in a multi-hazard area. Two categories of surveys were undertaken; experts and academics in emergency management and disaster risk resilience and the Orewa community. A semi-qualitative indicator-based analysis was conducted with the normalization of index values which resulted in four (4) categories; risk perception, risk awareness, risk governance and uncertainty, trust and credibility. The resulting vulnerability index indicated that risk perception and uncertainty, trust and credibility ranked the highest, followed by risk awareness and risk governance. Risk perception had stark differences between what the community perceives as being most at risk from to what the experts deem to be the highest risk for Orewa. This has implications for policy directives as well as funding for risk reduction. Uncertainty, trust and credibility was another area which indicated conflicting sentiments between the community and experts. The community generally trusts decision-makers but the experts think they don't. This shows that the community is aware of their risks, but may not necessarily believe that the experts are providing enough efforts in what is of importance to them. Risk governance is not a vulnerable area to the experts as they have been actively engaging in hazards that they deem Orewa was most at risk from. Any breakdown in communication can have detrimental effects if multiple hazards were to occur at once in the case of Orewa.
Details
Keywords
Dell D. Saulnier, Helen K. Green, Rohaida Ismail, Chhea Chhorvann, Norlen Bin Mohamed, Thomas D. Waite and Virginia Murray
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 calls for a reduction in disaster mortality, yet measuring mortality remains a challenge due to varying definitions of…
Abstract
Purpose
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 calls for a reduction in disaster mortality, yet measuring mortality remains a challenge due to varying definitions of disaster mortality, the quality, availability and diversity of data sources, generating mortality estimates, and how mortality data are interpreted.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper uses five case studies to provide details around some of the complexities involved with measuring disaster mortality and to demonstrate the clear need for accurate disaster mortality data.
Findings
The findings highlight the benefits of combining multiple data sources for accurate mortality estimates, access to interoperable and readily available global, national, regional and local data sets, and creating standardized definitions for direct and indirect mortality for easier attribution of causes of death.
Originality/value
Countries should find a method of measuring mortality that works for them and their resources, and for the hazards they face. Combining accurate mortality data and estimates and leadership at all levels can inform policy and actions to reduce disaster mortality, and ultimately strengthen disaster risk reduction in countries for all citizens.