TXT-tool 4.052-1.2: Landslide Risk Communication

  • Irasema Alcántara-Ayala


Risk communication is a central key for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Risk Management (DRM). While a number of strategies of risk communication are focused on confronting and responding to disaster events, there is an increasing need to establish schemes or initiatives dealing with prevention and disaster risk reduction. In this paper, the significance of effective landslide risk communication is highlighted by looking at four specific elements. On one hand, it is argued that risk perception analysis should be a requirement for any strategy to communicate risk, as awareness, preparedness, knowledge, experience, trust, and other multi-factorial aspects of social, economic, cultural, political and institutional character influence decision-making and behavior at both individual and collective levels. On the other, and in addition to the particular targets specified by each program or initiative, understanding disaster risk should be a baseline for shaping any tactic or approach aiming at communicating risk. Likewise, regardless of the structure, the specific purposes and means selected for risk communication, a critical and intentional line of information exchange and knowledge sharing should be permanently offered to favor a social and institutional behavior on which avoidance of the creation of new risks is an imperative. Finally, the idea of incorporating an observer or advisor into the risk communication process to foresee potential obstacles or requirements associated with the appropriate understanding of disaster risk, and the need to avoid the construction of new risks, in addition to other particular objectives linked to the specific scheme per se, is also pointed out.


Landslides Risk communication Effective Risk perception Risk understanding Avoiding the construction of new risks 



Special thanks are due to CONA-CyT for the financial support kindly provided through the research project 156242.


  1. Alcántara-Ayala I, Altan O, Baker D, Briceño S, Cutter S, Gupta H, Holloway A, Ismail-Zadeh A, Jiménez Díaz V, Johnston D, McBean G, Ogawa Y, Paton D, Porio E, Silbereisen R, Takeuchi K, Valsecchi G, Vogel C, Wu G and Zhai P (2015) Disaster Risks Research and Assessment to Promote Risk Reduction and Management. In: Ismail-Zadeh A, and Cutter S (eds) ICSU-ISSC Ad Hoc Group on Disaster Risk Assessment. ICSU, Paris, March 12, 2015. Available at:
  2. Alcántara-Ayala I (2016) On the multi-dimensions of integrated research on landslide disaster risk. In: Aversa S, Cascini L, Picarelli L, and Scavia C (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes. Experience, theory and practice, CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JA (1987) Communication research: issues and methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Árvai J, Rivers L III (2014) Effective risk communication. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bostrom A, Lofstedt RE (2003) Communicating risk: wireless and hardwired. Risk Anal 23(2):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeVito JA (1986) The communication handbook: a dictionary. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischhoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Supplement 3):14033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haimes Y (2004) Risk modeling, assessment, and management, 2nd revised edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  10. Hernández-Moreno G, Alcántara-Ayala I (online) Landslide risk perception in Mexico: a research gate into public awareness and knowledge. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-016-0683-9 (in press)
  11. Höppner C, Buchecker M, Bründl M (2010) Risk communication and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP5 report. WSL, Birmensdorf. Available via: Accessed 03.06.16
  12. Kasperson RE (2014) Four questions for risk communication. J Risk Res 17(10):1233–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Oliver-Smith A, Alcántara-Ayala I, Burton I, Lavell A (2016) Forensic investigations of disasters (FORIN): a conceptual framework and guide to research. (IRDR FORIN Publication No. 2). Integrated research on disaster risk, ICSU, Beijing, 56 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJ (eds) Communicating risks to the public. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandman PM (2012) Responding to community outrage: strategies for effective risk communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax.
  17. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:623–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. UNISDR (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction.
  19. UNISDR (2016) Working text on terminology. The second session of the open-ended inter-governmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction, Geneva. 10–11 FebGoogle Scholar
  20. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I (2011) Routledge handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of GeographyNational Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)Coyoacán, Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Circuito ExteriorCiudad UniversitariaCoyoacán, Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations