The importance of communicating directly to encourage appropriate response behaviours amongst certain communities

Practitioners also felt that some citizens require direct communication in disaster situations: “In terms of management, I expect a tight community social net in the first [Tor Bella Monica] and third [Via del Vantaggio] setting, while I don’t see it so strong in the high end Rome. The second setting [Viale Parioli] could need a single direct communication to families.” (G1; R2). Practitioners, then, based on their actual experience, identified other neighbourhoods where they felt that they did not get as an effective response: “We made some evacuation simulations in Naples, inside the Vesuvius red zone for eventual eruption. Since people there live in abusive houses, they were not leaving, as they know that if they go they cannot go back in. We made the simulation with no people” (G1; R), “As a former municipal police chief in [Italian locality], I speak from my own experience. In popular areas, there is a higher participation, but the most problems are brought out in areas where people are more indifferent [towards disaster communication]” (G2; R).

Note: See source document for full reference.

Cultural Factors: Communication, Livelihoods

Hazards: Natural hazards, Man-made non-intentional hazards or emergency situations

Disaster Phases: Recovery, Response

Types of Actors Concerned: National civil protection body, Local authorities, Red Cross, NGOs, Military, Law enforcement agencies, Healthcare and emergency services

Recommendations:

• Inform citizens about the risk they may face and about possible actions and measures, they can take to reduce vulnerability and better prepare themselves
• Use cultural factors to improve the effectiveness of disaster communication