Introduction

Disaster risk management can be thought of as consisting of four phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Communication – exchanging of messages and interpersonal meaning making – plays an essential role in each phase. Communication concerning the first two phases is called risk communication and it involves messaging aimed at shaping people’s understanding of the causes and possible consequences of hazards – their risk awareness – as well as decisions and actions taken to mitigate or prepare for the future impact of hazards. Communication concerning the latter two phases is called emergency or crisis communication and the aim of it is to minimise casualties and loss during a particular crisis event and support swift recovery after the event. Understanding what risk, emergency and crisis communication practices best serve these aims is particularly relevant at a time when the plurality of technological means and channels of communication has skyrocketed, yet reaching various audiences remains a challenge and people are often exposed to harmful false information.
European Union Disaster Resilience Goal 2 stipulates that ’Member States should further develop risk awareness raising strategies and step-up risk awareness-raising actions to ensure that the level of risk awareness of regional and key national risks increases amongst the population’ (European Commission, 2023). In this flash report, which aims to further develop the analysis started in ROADMAP project (Tagliacozzo et al., 2022), we explore and exemplify how the civil protection authorities at national level have improved their practices to increase accessibility to risk and crisis information, understandability of the provided information, and overcome the barriers to acting adequately upon information about hazards, thereby mitigating people’s communication-related vulnerability to disasters (Hansson et al., 2020). The report is guided by the following questions:
• What are the new or reviewed practices in risk or crisis communication following the lessons learned from various crises?
• Are there any new practices that improve the accessibility of risk and crisis information to individuals with various needs and preferences?
• Which novel practices help to improve the understandability of risk or crisis information and mitigate the harm caused by people’s exposure to misinformation or disinformation?
• Which practices help to overcome the barriers to reacting adequately to risk or crisis information, such as distrust towards official information sources?

The report follows the methodology for identifying and assessing good practices in disaster risk management set forth in the ROADMAP2 deliverable D3.1. In this context, good practices are defined as activities that substantially reduce disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods, health, and assets. Practices that help to minimise the detrimental effects of various barriers to risk and crisis communication were considered as the key areas of relevance. Firstly, the search for good practices was conducted across academic databases Web of Science and Google Scholar using search terms such as “risk communication”, “crisis communication”, “emergency communication”, “crisis information” and “preparedness communication”. Secondly, examples of communication practices were collected via a survey among the ROADMAP2 partners representing different countries and organisations. Seven hour-long expert interviews were carried out with crisis managers at national and local levels in Estonia, and official websites were consulted for additional information on risk and crisis communication initiatives. Additionally, a webinar was organised that featured presentations on good practices in risk and crisis communication by academics and practitioners (see the recording on ROADMAP2 website). Practices for the report were selected if these
• covered the disaster risk management cycle (e.g., had been realised in prevention, preparedness, response and/or recovery phases),
• adhered to priorities and targets of the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction,
• adhered to the European Union Disaster Resilience Goals,
• considered a multi-risk perspective,
• through research and/or practice, had been applied and worked in a real context in achieving outcomes and results (evidence), and
• involved different types of stakeholders (international, national, local, but also different professions).