In search of the scoop Media interest in disasters is transient, and

re-porting on disaster causes and impacts can rein-force the perception of disasters as exogenous to development.

The world is changing rapidly as connectivi-ty increases and global television, the Internet and social media become all-pervasive. Images of disasters occurring anywhere in the world are now transmitted and disseminated globally in real time. Similarly, disaster impacts themselves ripple through global supply and value chains. A more global awareness of risk would seem to be emerging that is not necessarily grounded in the

experience of disasters in particular places. This global risk awareness has been strengthened by the threat of catastrophic climate change to the extent that disaster risk has been increasingly portrayed as synonymous with climate change.

However, the global media focuses on major disaster events rather than the underlying pro-cesses and drivers that generate and accumulate disaster risks. Like resources for the disaster risk management sector, media coverage of and inter-est in disasters is transient: it spikes when major events occur, for example following the Indian Ocean tsunamis in 2004 and the East Japanese earthquake in 2011, but it falls silent between events (Box 7.3).

Against this backdrop, while the global media can increase risk awareness, it may tend to reinforce the perception of disasters as exogenous events, thus dissimulating and veiling the drivers through which the development paradigm generates and accumulates risk. In addition, while these drivers do become visible through extensive disasters, the resulting risk awareness is largely limited to the local level.

Box 7.3 Disaster mortality and the media

The space dedicated to mortality in the media is not proportional to the number of deaths that actually occur (Bomlitz and Brezis, 2008). Mortality associated with illicit drugs, motor accidents, toxic agents and homicide are overrepresented (Frost et al., 1997), as are hazards such as SARS and bioterrorism. In contrast, more prev-alent mortality factors such as AIDS, physical inactivity and smoking are under-represented (Bomlitz and Brezis, 2008).

In general, the media tends to overlook creeping changes (Glantz, 1999) even though the threats posed by environmental change such as biodiversity loss, climate change, desertification, stratospheric ozone deple-tion, tropical deforestadeple-tion, mangrove and coral destrucdeple-tion, soil erosion, soil and water polludeple-tion, overfish-ing, invasive species (Meadows et al., 1972; Turner, 2008; Randers, 2008 and Rockström et al., 2009) and other global drivers may increase disaster risk to catastrophic levels. These incremental changes go unnoticed until they pass a threshold and quickly lead to changes in the environment or are revealed by a disaster (Maskrey, 1999). Only then does the media pay attention.

7.5

Risk information is being generated and dissemi-nated on a large scale, but how far it reaches and whether it changes risk perceptions and aware-ness levels is not well understood.

Since the declaration of the IDNDR, there has been explosive growth in the production and dis-semination of information on disaster risks and disaster risk reduction (UNISDR, 2014c). Howev-er, it is unclear to what extent this has contribut-ed to increasing awareness of disaster risk.

As the disaster risk management sector has grown and become structured around differ-ent communities of practice, such as emergen-cy management, community-based disaster risk management, insurance and risk financing,² the volume of information produced and exchanged has increased exponentially, facilitated by the expansion of the Internet since the early 1990s.

PreventionWeb now records 6,587 organiza-tions that have promoted disaster risk reduction through their websites, including 1,093 media and news organizations, mediated regionally and thematically by dedicated information portals and online documentation centres such as CRID in Latin America, PreventionWeb itself, Pacific Disaster Net and others (UNISDR, 2014c).

A large number of formal and informal networks now provide channels for information sharing and dissemination inside the sector. In addition, whereas there were only a handful of specialized training programmes on disaster risk reduction in 1990, there are now over 100 dedicated mas-ter’s programmes servicing the sector across all regions (Holloway, 2014).

Therefore, there is evidence of exponential growth in the production and exchange of infor-mation on disaster risk management. What is unclear, however, is how much of that information

actually seeps and spills out of the sector into other social, economic and political domains.

And it is even less clear how much of this informa-tion has truly generated changes and transfor-mation in development practices. As mentioned in Chapter 1, some of the key activities proposed in the HFA regarding risk information, for exam-ple, “Institutions dealing with urban develop-ment should provide information to the public on disaster reduction options prior to constructions, land purchase or land sale”, were incisive and could have directly influenced and transformed the operation of land markets and valuations of disaster risk. However, there is little evidence that this key activity was ever acted on.

In contrast, far more progress has been made in disseminating information through public aware-ness programmes. According to the HFA Monitor, the number of countries with national disaster information systems and mechanisms for pro-active information dissemination has increased over the last two reporting cycles (2009-2013), with important regional differences. In Africa, lack of capacity, funding and Internet connectiv-ity are all cited as barriers, and many countries face issues of sustainability. In Asia, some low-income countries would appear to have more advanced systems than high-income countries.

However, in most countries (UNISDR, 2014c; SCI, 2014) the existence of a web site is often taken as evidence for the existence of a disaster informa-tion system. Increases in the number of websites offering risk information or the number of experts attending regional and international conferences certainly gives the impression of expanding risk awareness, but as indicated in the introduction to this part of the report, this may simply strengthen the hyper-reality of the sector. Little information is available on the extent to which households, busi-nesses and government institutions from outside the sector visit these web sites or whether the information available is actionable.

Many countries have also used media campaigns (print media, radio, television) to raise public awareness. However, the dissemination of infor-mation is generally unidirectional and reflects the agenda and vision of the sector rather than the information needs of those at risk. Top-down media campaigns by definition tend to be simple and generic. They generally focus on awareness of hazards and on disasters as exogenous events rather than on socially constructed processes of risk generation and accumulation. The con-straints and opportunities for risk management, the rights of those at risk, or the responsibility of local and national governments are rarely fea-tured, and the specific needs of women, the elder-ly, people with disabilities, and children have only occasionally been brought into focus. At the same time, a number of governments still consider risk and even disaster loss information sensitive from a national security standpoint, meaning that it is not disseminated or made available to citizens.

This is insufficient to build a culture of preven-tion and resilience given that it does not empow-er risk-prone households and businesses to manage their risks in the face of wider social and economic opportunities and constraints.

In many sectors, opportunities for short-term economic gain often still outweigh longer-term risks. A culture of prevention and resilience will only emerge if the information allows a trans-parent and comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of disaster risk management and if a system of accountability is put in place that offers incentives and encourages compli-ance (OECD, 2014b).

7.6

In Nepal, villages with higher mean years of schooling had fewer families affected by floods and landslides (KC, 2013), and in Thailand, bet-ter-educated communities suffered lower wel-fare impacts, particularly in terms of lost income (Garbero and Muttarak, 2013). The policy implica-tions from these findings are clear: investments in education, and particularly in female educa-tion, have been shown to reduce vulnerability and should therefore be presented as a core stra-tegic investment in disaster risk reduction (Mut-tarak and Lutz, 2014).

While general formal education lays the founda-tions for synoptic brain structure and the accom-panying problem-solving and cognitive skills, it also creates the required literacy and numeri-cal skills and abstract thinking that enables indi-viduals to better understand risk information such as early warning messages and evacua-tion plans (ibid.). More directly, educaevacua-tion facil-itates knowledge acquisition on a broad range of issues directly related to individual and com-munity vulnerability, including health and nutri-tion practices as well as direct knowledge of hazards. In addition, education may enhance the socio-economic status of individuals and fami-lies and thus contribute to improved disaster risk management through increased income, better access to information and stronger social net-works (ibid.).

Recent studies comparing national edu-cation levels with mortality risk show that countries with higher education levels, partic-ularly amongst women and girls, exhibit lower

Note: The graph shows deaths per 1,000 based on 1980 population levels (y-axis) proportional to secondary and higher education among women aged 20-39 (x-axis) for 56 countries with one or more disasters on average per annum.

(Source: Pichler and Striessnig, 2014.)

Figure 7.3 Weather-related disaster mortality and female education in Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti

Box 7.4 Key activities related to education and training in the HFA

(h) Promote the inclusion of disaster risk reduction knowledge in relevant sections of school curricula at all levels and the use of other formal and informal channels to reach youth and children with information; promote the integration of disaster risk reduction as an intrinsic element of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sus-tainable Development (2005–2015).

(i) Promote the implementation of local risk assessment and disaster preparedness programmes in schools and institutions of higher education.

(j) Promote the implementation of programmes and activities in schools for learning how to minimize the effects of hazards.

(k) Develop training and learning programmes in disaster risk reduction targeted at specific sectors (develop-ment planners, emergency managers, local govern(develop-ment officials, etc.).

(l) Promote community-based training initiatives, considering the role of volunteers, as appropriate, to enhance local capacities to mitigate and cope with disasters.

(m) Ensure equal access to appropriate training and educational opportunities for women and vulnerable con-stituencies; promote gender and cultural sensitivity training as integral components of education and training for disaster risk reduction.

mortality from disasters (KC, 2013; Striessnig et al., 2013). For example, education levels and mortality rates were shown to be highly corre-lated in the case of weather-recorre-lated disaster risk in 56 countries with an average of one or more disasters per annum (Figure 7.3).

While education in itself is critical to disaster risk reduction, the HFA proposed a number of key activities under Priority for Action 3 which relate specifically to the inclusion of disaster risk reduc-tion in educareduc-tion and training (Box 7.4).

Since 2005, an abundance of educational mate-rials in the form of guidelines, teacher’s guides and curriculum reform guides have been pro-duced in various languages.³ However, the con-tent and quality of educational materials on disaster risk reduction has not been seriously reviewed, and the uptake of the available materi-als by educational institutions is not monitored.

As a result, it is difficult to assess what progress has been made, to what extent efforts in reform-ing curricula to include risk considerations have been successful, or where and why they may have failed.

The nature of curriculum development in itself makes it difficult for a framework like the HFA to exert strong influence on the decision-making process. On the one hand, curricula are reviewed and adapted in 5 to 10-year cycles, which may not

correspond to the short cycles of projects aimed at raising risk awareness in schools. On the other hand, the generic and global guidance in the HFA is often difficult to align to the sub-national con-texts where curricula are often developed.

However, about 72 per cent of countries report-ing through the HFA Monitor indicate that disas-ter risk reduction is included in some way in the national educational curriculum, with coverage in primary school curricula slightly higher than in secondary and university or professional pro-grammes. Only about a third were able to report on the inclusion of disaster risk reduction in cur-ricula at all education levels as well as in pro-fessional education programmes (UNICEF and UNESCO, 2014).

While there is little systematic research on chang-ing perceptions, anecdotal evidence shows that preparedness drills and simulation activities in schools (Box 7.5) may make an important contri-bution to risk awareness, particularly amongst children and youths.

Children’s engagement in school disaster man-agement, including risk assessment and active problem-solving, lays the foundation for critical thinking and promotes an increasing willingness to take on other challenges. Engaging students and families in planning for educational conti-nuity may also be a factor in reducing school drop-out rates when disasters occur (UNICEF and UNESCO, 2014).

Rather than promoting disaster risk reduction as a stand-alone curricular subject, there are obvious synergies in combining it with related subjects, such as climate change. For example, Cambodia is promoting a combined disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation curric-ulum that reduces the pressure on what is seen as an already overcrowded school curriculum. There are other examples where disaster risk reduc-tion has been linked with topics like conflict and peace-building, sustainable development, oth-er common localized risks, and with the undoth-erly- underly-ing social, economic and political drivers of risk.

Unfortunately the silo-like nature of the disaster risk management sector and institutional rival-ries with other sectors such as climate change may be obstacles to this sort of integration.

Box 7.5 The role of children in strengthening preparedness

The United States and Australia have developed educational materials that foster leadership among school children in disaster preparedness and teach them how to share this information with others. Looking at chil-dren as active agents of change instead of objects that need to be protected can broaden the scope of educa-tion and its future impact. Several programmes have been developed in order to develop children’s awareness of and capacities for DRR, such as Save the Children’s school safety programmes or the Children’s Charter for Disaster Risk Reduction (Children in a Changing Climate Coalition, 2011).

In France, The Memo’Risks initiative has been operating in the Loire River catchment area since 2004 and brings together local governments and schools to survey local disaster risk awareness (UNISDR et al., 2010).

Students are rallied by local mayors to investigate and map risks and to survey the preparedness and risk knowledge of the local population. The survey results then become a valuable data resource on perceptions of risk and levels of risk knowledge in the local population. The process of collecting, presenting and publiciz-ing the results is used by local government to raise disaster awareness through the media, to increase com-munity participation in disaster risk reduction, and to form the basis of targeted disaster risk information campaigns (ibid.).⁴

7.7