See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308149889

Influence of Risk Communication on intention to prepare for Flood Hazards in

Informal Settlements

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 402

3 authors:

Matthew Abunyewah Thayaparan Gajendran

University of Newcastle University of Newcastle
10 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    115 PUBLICATIONS   328 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kim Maund
University of Newcastle
12 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANDROID Disaster Resilience Network View project

Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thayaparan Gajendran on 16 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Influence of Risk Communication on intention to prepare for
Flood Hazards in Informal Settlements
Matthew Abunyewah*, Thayaparan Gajendran, and Kim Maund
Faculty of Architecture and Built Environment, University of
Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
*Email of the corresponding author:
Matthew.Abunyewah@uon.edu.au

Abstract
Flood hazards are the most frequent, recurring and destructive
hazard accounting for more than half of all related fatalities and
one-third of economic losses. Informal settlements suffer greatly
from the consequences of flood hazards due to their physical
location on flood plains, high poverty levels, overcrowding, high
population growth and poor quality housing. Though, informal
settlement denotes negative connotations yet their contribution
towards the development of countries cannot be overlooked. This
has prompted several efforts from government agencies and other
development partners to improve vulnerabilities and build resilience
in informal settlements. However, efforts to model informal
settlements to live with flood without harm have failed due to
excessive emphasis on structural measures of mitigation. More so,
the action of installing in informal settlements preparedness
behaviour has received little attention in literature and practice.
Risk communication has gained currency in modern studies in
disaster management; however, its full potential in the area of risk
management has not fully been exploited especially in preparedness
to flood hazards. This paper proposes a framework that informs how
risk communication influences preparation intentions of informal
settlements dwellers. This paper is anchored on extensive literature
review of articles, chapters, archives and books written by well
renowned scholars on disaster hazard preparedness, risk perception
and risk communication. Selection of articles for the study was
based on three major criteria, which included; 1) the article
relevance to the study 2) the article is applied to risk perception,
risk communication and disaster preparedness. 3) Downloaded
document has citations and references of authoritative scholars in
risk perception, risk communication and disaster preparedness.

Keywords: Resilience, Risk Communication, Informal Settlement,

Flood Hazards, Risk Perception, Vulnerabilities

Abunyewah, M., Gajendran T and Maund K. (2016). Influence of Risk

Communication on intention to prepare for Flood Hazards in Informal Settlements.
6th International Conference on Building Resilieance. New Zealand, Meassy
University: Paper No 49.
1. Introduction
Attempts by countries to achieve the vision of sustainable
development have been hindered by several factors especially
disaster hazards. According to Basher (2006), the devastating
impacts posed by disaster hazards present a glaring evidence of
underdevelopment in most developing countries of the world. For
instance, a total of 346 disasters were experienced in 2015, which
killed 22,773 people, affected 98.6 million people and inflicted a
property damage of US$ 66.5 billion (EM-DAT, 2016). Flooding has
been identified as the most frequent, recurring and destructive
natural hazard over the same decade accounting for more than half
of all disaster-related fatalities and one-third of economic loss from
all natural catastrophes (Bradford et al., 2012).

The danger posed by flood hazards on the development of countries

has drawn the attention of international organisations, countries
and researchers towards the investigation of the devastating
impacts from flood hazards. The research has uncovered climate
change (IPCC, 2001; UNISDR, 2010) and increased human
exposure and vulnerability (Douglas et al, 2008) as the major
sources. Pelling (2007) indicates that urban areas especially
informal settlements are areas in the world that mostly suffer from
the disastrous impacts posed by flood hazard. Informal settlements
are fertile grounds for the occurrence of flood due to their
vulnerable locations on flood plains, high poverty levels, high
population density, overcrowding and poor condition of housing (De
Risi et al, 2013). Furthermore, UN-Habitat, (2013) opines that the
negligence of urban planning authorities to provide basic facilities
such as drainage systems has worsened the extent of flood
vulnerability in informal settlements.

Various stakeholders in the field of flood management have raised

concern about finding an ideal approach to prevent and provide a
lasting solution for flood impacts. Efforts towards mitigating flood
hazard impacts have included the use of sophisticated risk
assessment tools by experts and erections of protective structures
to serve as flood defensive barriers (Maidl and Buchecker, 2015).
Over the last two decades, structural form of flood mitigation has
increasingly received consideration and progressed significantly in
practice yet flooding continues to be a major challenge to
sustainable development especially in developing countries (Yamada
et al, 2011). The inadequacy of the structural approach to flood
management requires an additional effort to fortify social capacities
such as flood risk communication in at-risk communities.
Risk communication has gained significant attention over the past
decades in the context of flood resilience. Moreover, influence of
risk communication in informal settlements is very important. The
influence of risk communication on the flood risk hazard awareness
is well discussed in several studies (Covello et al, 2012). However,
the translation of the awareness into motivating people to take up
proactive actions towards flood risk hazard has received little
research attention. Also, with informal settlements being highly
vulnerable to flooding, an approach of flood management that
models informal settlement dwellers to live with flood without harm
is the most ideal. On the basis of this, the study explores how risk
communication influences flood risk preparedness intentions in
informal

2. Research Methodology
This paper is anchored on extensive literature review of articles,
chapters, archives and books written by well renowned scholars on
disaster hazard preparedness, risk perception and risk
communication. In general, a total of 321 articles, books and
chapters were downloaded and collated from high standard
databases in social sciences and arts and humanities such as
Scopus, Science direct, Environment complete, Taylor and Francis
and Wiley Online Library. Selection of articles for the study was
based on three major criteria, which included; 1) the article’s
relevance to the study 2) the article is applied to risk perception,
risk communication and disaster preparedness. 3) Downloaded
document has citations and references of authoritative scholars in
risk perception, risk communication and disaster preparedness.

Downloaded articles, books and chapters were obtained by the

combination of keywords such as disaster hazards, risk perce*, risk
communicat*, disaster prepar*. The use of asterisk enabled articles
that had “risk perception” “perceived risk”, “risk communication”,
“communicating risk”, “risk communicating”, “communicate risk”,
“disaster preparedness”, “disaster preparation”, “preparing for
disaster” etc in their title and abstract to pop up. The word hazard
was also used to search for documents that referred to flood, fire,
earthquake and tsunamis as hazard, natural hazard or
environmental hazard. Downloaded articles were then read to
enable sorting based on the criteria set for the studies. A total of
47 and 28 documents were discarded on the grounds of duplication
in the databases and irrelevance to the study respectively. The use
of the criteria reduced the number of articles for analysis to 245,
which forms the basis of the paper.
3. Informal Settlements: Flood Vulnerability Perspective
Informal settlements, slums, squatter settlements, unplanned
towns and shantytowns are terms that are used interchangeably in
literature. Conversely, the definition of the term informal settlement
is arguable and subject to much academic debate (Hague 1982
cited in Nguluma, 2003; Dovey and King, 2011). Informal
settlements are places built outside land-use scheme developed
without planning permission. They are composed mainly of
makeshift houses that deviate from the standard building
regulations. More so, areas marked as informal settlement have
inadequate access to safe water and sanitation facilities, irregular
supply of electricity and road for emergency access. Similarly, they
have an overcrowded population and an insecure tenure of stay
(Mutisya and Yarime, 2011; UN-Habitat, 2013). These
characteristics coupled with increased frequency and unpredictable
climate has made informal settlement vulnerable to all forms of
environmental related disaster hazards especially flood (De Risi et
al, 2013).

Over the world, the location of informal settlement on hazard risk

areas has been discussed extensively in literature (De Risi et al,
2013). Vulnerability of informal settlements to flood hazard is
categorised into four areas namely: physical, economic,
environmental and social vulnerabilities (Blaike et al, 2014). The
location of informal settlements (flood plains, marshy areas, low-
lying areas and river courses) coupled with increasing population
size, poor planning and quality of housing (Abunyewah et al, 2014)
renders them vulnerable to flood hazards.

Dwellers of informal settlements, mostly in-migrant, have low

economic capabilities (Fakade, 2000) that impact upon their ability
to prepare adequately for an impending flood risk. A high
percentage of in-migrants are low-income earners or unemployed
rendering them incapable of renting a house or room in a properly
laid out residential area. Their economic position pushes them to
rent apartments in informal locations, as they have cheaper
residential opportunities. In addition, the low-income characteristics
of such people inhabit their ability to use structural mitigation
measures to reduce flood impacts (Wang et al, 2010).

Expansion in terms of population and industry in informal

settlements triggers an increase demand for land for both
residential and industrial development reasons (UN-Habitat, 2003).
This in turns results in natural vegetation destruction to
accommodate the rising demand for land, which increases settlers’
susceptibility to flood hazards. Changes in land-use patterns are
another phenomena that arise in the course of urban population
increase. The predominant changes usually occur in agricultural
land-use to residential or industrial land-use (United Nation, 2006).
Features of urban construction such as paving of surfaces reduce
infiltration, and permeability of run-off water through the soil, thus
making informal settlements susceptible to flood hazards.

Inequality among humans, countries and communities give rise to

social vulnerability, which shape the susceptibility of various groups
to flood hazard. The vast differences in susceptibility levels result in
differences in preparation and resilience rate. Informal settlements
are characterised by low access to political power, low levels of
education together with culturally and linguistically diverse minority
groups (Usamah et al, 2014). Low level of education in
communities and among people hinders their capability to decipher
warning information and access to preparatory and recovery
information (Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment, 2000 cited in Cutter et al, 2003). The diverse culture
and ethnic structure of informal settlements may make
communication of risk an arduous task as risk message needs to be
communicated in several languages.

4. Factors Influencing Flood Risk Communication

The timely and accurate relay of information regarding a flood
hazard among stakeholders is a major tool for effective flood
management. Flood risk information given out at the right time and
accurately provides at-risk individuals and communities to employ
measures and structures to mitigate the magnitude of its impacts.
However, risk communication on flood has not been able to achieve
its intended purposes in recent periods and Basher (2006)
attributes its failure to poor and inadequate early warnings.
Furthermore, the perception of people on flood hazard also
influences the status and effectiveness of risk communication (Van-
Djik et al, 2008). Miscommunication, which arises from one or, all
of components of risk communication (communication source,
communication channel and communication message) is also
another factor that leads to failure in risk communication purposes
(Lundgren and McMakin, 2013).

Perceptions about the probability and magnitude of a flood event

happening differ greatly between people and societies. While some
people (fatalists) perceive the non-existence of flood hazard, others
also have low or high perception about the existence of flood
hazard. Wachinger et al (2013) classify all the factors influencing
risk perception into four categories namely: informational factors,
personal factors and contextual factors. Literature has shown that
strong linkages exist between risk perception and risk
communication (Smith, 2013). For instance, individuals and
societies who lack direct experiences of a hazard manifestation
perceive risk based on what they hear and read from the media as
well as what they hear from experts and authorities.

The source of a communication encompasses all people, entities

and institutions that initiate a communication to the public (Lindell
and Perry, 2004; Covollo et al, 2012). It includes government
authorities, flood managers, media personalities, friends, family
members and neighbours. Receivers of flood risk information first
examine the credibility of the source to determine whether or not
flood is likely to happen (Basher, 2006). The credibility or otherwise
of a source of a communication is an indication to ascertain how
readily people will accept risk. Studies have shown that a
communicated risk from an unbelievable source raises questions
and give opportunity for recipients to consult other people for
clarification and confirmation (Spence et al., 2007). Clarification and
confirmation of risk from other sources has a high tendency of
influencing the perceptions of some message recipients negatively,
which implies refusing to take precautionary measures. The
credibility of source varies from one individual to the other. With
respect to these variations Aldoorey and VanDyke (2006) suggest
that communication of flood risk should emanate from a team made
of experts, credible government officials, reputable organis ations
and familiar and respected personalities.

The medium through which a risk is communicated is known as

communication channel. Channels of flood communication are also
as important as the source of communication. Channels of
communication include face-to-face contact, telephone, siren, radio,
newspaper, television and Internet. Each channel of communication
has its strengths and weaknesses, (Coiera, 2013) and that a
combination of the channels is key to ensuring precision in
communication. Wogalter and Mayhorn (2008) challenge the
precision of communication through television or radio, though they
are fast and have wide coverage area. They further elaborate that
receivers of flood risk messages from television and radio sources
include those who are not at risk and may sometimes mistakenly
accept that they are also at risk. Face-to-face contacts and
telephone are precise (Basher, 2006) yet they are the slowest.

The assessments made by experts and recommended actions for

preparation and evacuation regarding flood constitute message
content. Certainty and clarity of communicated flood message is an
essential tool for influencing the perception of mass audiences
(Lindell and Perry, 2004). As noted by McCallum and Heming
(2006), clarity and specificity of flood communicated message
enhance credibility and acceptance of risk. The content of a risk
message should incorporate the type of hazard, expected time and
the recommended protective actions to prevent or mitigate the
impacts (Houston et al, 2015). This propagates the acceptance of
risk and adherence to recommended actions for preparation and
evacuation.

5. Proposed Theoretical Framework

Communication of risk is pivotal to the effective and smooth
management of flood hazards. It cuts across pre-disaster, disaster
and post disaster phases of disaster hazards management
(Blanchard-Boehm and Cook, 2004). However, efforts to use risk
communication to prepare “at risk” individuals and communities to
take up protective measures has not fully been achieved due to
socio-cultural and psychological factors such as risk perception
(Beecher et al, 2005), lack of trust (Slovic, 2000; Pinto et al, 2005),
ambiguous and unclear risk message content (Twigger-Ross et al.,
2009), inadequacy of risk message contents and interrupted
communication channels (Horner and Walsh, 2000; Pitt, 2008).
Similarly, loose/poor community-authority relationship has also
been identified as another barrier for sound risk communication
(Raaijmakers et al., 2008; Hoppner et al, 2010).

In Figure 1.1, it is posited that message clarity, adequacy of flood

hazard information and source credibility are foundations to
ensuring smooth communication of flood risk. Community
participation serves as a platform to enable a cordial relationship
between community members, which invariably enhances
credibility, and trust building (Andrulis et al, 2007; Klaiman et al,
2010). Continuous engagements encourages community members
to ask questions about hazards uncertainty and protective measure
to meet their needs and expectation. Lion et al (2004) indicate that
regular interaction among key stakeholders clear all doubt and
enhance community empowerment that is a recipe to flood risk
preparedness.

More so, adequacy in flood hazard knowledge, clarity in risk

message content and source credibility built through community
participation does not necessarily translate into flood risk
preparedness. Other factors that predict intentions to prepare
toward flood hazards include: perceived vulnerability and severity,
response efficacy, self- efficacy, hazard anxiety and hazard
experience (Slovic, 2000; Siegrist and Gutscher, 2006). In other
words, the action of people taking up protective action is also
dependent on their perception about flood hazard, self- and
response efficacy as well as the person’s experience of flood
disaster. High correlation exists between positive behavioural
intention and actual preparedness (Terpstra, 2010; Wachinger et al
(2013
 Figure 1.1: Theoretical Framework

Perceived
Message Vulnerability
Clarity
H19
H8
Perceived
Severity
H6
H18
H9
H1
Hazard
Information Anxiety
Sufficiency H10 H17
H5
H2 H20 Intentions
Empowerment
to Prepare
Community
Participation H4 H16
H11 Self-Efficacy

H12 H15

H3
H7 Response
Efficacy H14
H13

Source
Credibility Hazard
Experience
7. Conclusion
Informal settlements are very difficult to eradicate especially in
developing countries where policies to check urban population
growth are inadequate and lacking. Vulnerability of urban areas
especially its peripheral informal settlement surroundings increase
making it a center of attraction to flooding and other forms of
disaster hazards. The increasing negative consequences posited by
natural hazards have fuelled efforts to prepare communities and
people towards disaster risk reduction yet social and economic
impact keep increasing. Risk communication has been indicated to
potentially reducing flood risk yet further studies have not been
conducted to ascertain risk communication potential of preparing
residents towards flood.

The paper proposes a model to show how risk communication

influences intentions of people to prepare towards flood hazards.
The Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Theory of Planned
Behaviour (TPB) are the two major psychological theories that
inform the proposed model.

Appendix

The meaning of the constructs used in the proposed framework are

summarised below

Perceived vulnerability refers to the likelihood of being affected by

flood

Perceived Severity means the seriousness recipients of flood

messages associate to the consequences of flood

Community participation refers to the continuous exchange of flood

information between experts and people at-risk to flood

Information Sufficiency refers to the assessment of additional

information at-risk individual require to cope with flood hazard

Empowerment means equipping people at risk to flood with

adequate and sufficient information about flood hazard to enable
them to prepare towards it.

Source credibility encompasses the trust and believe flood message

recipients have on message communicator

Message clarity involves the clear articulation of content of flood

messages (severity of flood, expected time and the recommended
protective actions to prevent or mitigate the impacts) in simple and
plain language to audiences

Response-Efficacy denotes the degree to which receivers of flood

messages believe that the recommended actions will prevent or
mitigate the impending flood impacts

Self-Efficacy means the extent to which receivers of flood message

have the ability to perform the recommended protective actions

Hazard anxiety refers to the fears and worries perceived or

associated to flood consequence by message receivers

Hazard experience involves either direct or indirect encounter with

flood hazard by message receivers

Preparation intention means the likelihood of receivers of flood

message taking up actions to prepare towards flood hazard

Reference:
Abunyewah, M. Ackuayi, E. D., and Nana, O. A. (2014). The
Economic Dimensions of Slums in the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(20), 68-81.

Aldoory, L., Van Dyke, M.A., (2006). The roles of perceived

‘‘shared’’ involvement and information overload in understanding
how audiences make meaning of news about bioterrorism.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 83 (2), 346–361.

Andrulis, D.P., Siddiqui, N.J., Gantner, J.L., (2007). Preparing

racially and ethnically diverse communities for public health
emergencies. Health Affairs 26 (5), 1269–1279.

Basher, R. (2006). Global early warning systems for natural

hazards: systematic and people-centred. Philosophical transactions
of the royal society a: mathematical, physical and engineering
sciences, 364(1845), 2167-2182.

Beecher, N., Harrison, E., Goldstein, N., McDaniel, M., Field, P., &
Susskind, L. (2005). Risk perception, risk communication, and
stakeholder involvement for biosolids management and research.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1), 122-128.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2014). At risk:
natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters . Routledge.
Blanchard-Boehm, R. D., & Cook, M. K. (2004). Risk communication
and public education in Edmonton, Aiberta, Canada on the 10 th
anniversary of the ‘Black Friday’ Tornado. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 13(1), 38-5

Bradford, R. A., O'Sullivan, J. J., Van der Craats, I. M., Krywkow, J.,
Rotko, P., Aaltonen, J., ... & Schelfaut, K. (2012). Risk perception–
issues for flood management in Europe. Natural hazards and earth
system sciences, 12(7), 2299-2309.

Coiera, E. (2013). Social networks, social media, and social

diseases. BMJ, 346.

Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. T. (Eds.). (2012).

Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of
government and nongovernment organizations (Vol. 4). Springer
Science & Business Media.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., and Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social

vulnerability to environmental hazards*. Social science quarterly,
84(2), 242-261.

De Risi, R., Jalayer, F., De Paola, F., Iervolino, I., Giugni, M., Topa,
M. E., and Gasparini, P. (2013). Flood risk assessment for informal
settlements. Natural hazards, 69(1), 1003-1032.

Douglas, I., Alam, K., Maghenda, M., Mcdonnell, Y., Mclean, L., &
Campbell J. (2008). Unjust waters: climate change, flooding and
the urban poor in Africa. Environ Urban. 20:187–205

Dovey, K., & King, R. (2011). Forms of informality: Morphology and

visibility of informal settlements. Built Environment, 37(1), 11-29.

EM-DAT (2016). The OFDA/CRED - International Disaster Database

Université catholique de Louvain Brussels -Belgium

Fekade, W. (2000). Deficits of formal urban land management and

informal responses under rapid urban growth, an international
perspective. Habitat International, 24(2), 127-150

Höppner, C., Buchecker, M., & Bründl, M. (2010). Risk

communication and natural hazards. CapHaz project. Birmensdorf,
Switzerland.

Horner, M. W., & Walsh, P. D. (2000). Easter 1998 floods. Water

and Environment Journal, 14(6), 415-418.
Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H.,
Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell, M. R., ... & Griffith, S. A. (2015).
Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media
use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1),
1-22.

IPCC (2001). Third assessment report (AR3). Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge

Klaiman, T., Knorr, D., Fitzgerald, S., DeMara, P., Thomas, C.,
Heake, G., & Hausman, A., (2010). Locating and communicating
with at-risk populations about emergency preparedness: the
vulnerable populations outreach model. Disaster Medicine and
Public Health Preparedness 4 (3), 246–251.

Lindell, M.K. and Perry, R.W. (2004) Communicating Environmental

Risk in Multiethnic Communities, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA

Lion, R., Meertens, R. M., & Bot, I. (2002). Priorities in information

desire about unknown risks. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 765-776.

Lundgren, R. E., & McMakin, A. H. (2013). Risk communication: A

handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health
risks. John Wiley & Sons.

Maidl, E., & Buchecker, M. (2015). Raising risk preparedness by

flood risk communication. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Science, 15(7), 1577-1595.

McCallum, E., & Heming, J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: an

environmental perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, 364(1845), 2099-2115.

Mutisya, E., & Yarime, M. (2011). Understanding the grassroots

dynamics of slums in Nairobi: the dilemma of Kibera informal
settlements. Int Trans J Eng Manag Appl Sci Technol, 2(2), 197-
213.

Nguluma, H. (2003) Housing Themselves: Transformations,

Modernization and Spatial Qualities in Informal Settlements in Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania. Doctoral Dissertation, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm.
KTH/Infrastruktur/Samhällsbyggnad/Bebyggelseanalys
Pelling, M. (2007). Urbanization and disaster risk. In Panel
Contribution to the Population− Environment Research Network
Cyber Seminar on Population and Natural Hazards.

Pinto, A., Saeed, M., El Sakka, H., Rashford, A., Colombo, A.,
Valenciano, M., & Sabatinelli, G., (2005). Setting up an early
warning system for epidemic-prone diseases in Darfur: a
participative approach. Disasters 29 (4), 310–322.
Pitt, M. (2008). Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods: An
Independent Review by Sir Michael Pitt. Final report. Cabinet Office,
London.

Raaijmakers, R., Krywkow, J. R., and van der Veen, A,. (2008).
Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: An
exploratory research for hazard mitigation, Nat.Hazards, 46, 307–
322.

Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of

lay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland.
Risk Analysis, 26(4), 971-979.

Slovic, P., 2000. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. In: T.

Connolly, R.H. Arkes, and K.R. Hammond, eds. Judgment and
decision making: An inter- disciplinary reader. 2nd ed. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 500–513.

Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards: assessing risk and

reducing disaster. Routledge.

Spence, P.R., Lachlan, K.A. and Griffin, D.R. (2007), “Crisis

communication, race, and natural disasters”, Journal of Black
Studies, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 539-554

Terpstra, T. (2010). Flood preparedness: thoughts, feelings and

intentions of the Dutch public. University of Twente.

Twigger-Ross, C. (2009). Improving flood warnings: Final report.

Bristol: Environment Agency.

U. N. Habitat, (2013). State of the world's cities 2012/2013:

Prosperity of cities. Routledge.

UN Habitat (2003), The Challenge of Slums. Global Human

Settlements Report, United Nations Human Settlement Program,
Earthscan, London.
 UNISDR (2010). Contributing to the implementation of the Hyogo
framework for action. UNISDR, Geneva

United Nations (2006). World Urbanization Prospects: the 2005

Revision, United Nations Population Division, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, CD-ROM Edition – data in digital form
(POP/DB/WUP/Rev.2005), United Nations, New York

Usamah, M., Handmer, J., Mitchell, D., and Ahmed, I. (2014). Can
the vulnerable be resilient? Co-existence of vulnerability and
disaster resilience: Informal settlements in the Philippines.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 178-189.

Van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., van der Lans, I., Rowe, G.
& Frewer, L. (2008) Consumer responses to communication about
food risk management. Appetite. 50 (2-3), pp. 340–352.

Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk
perception paradox—implications for governance and
communication of natural hazards. Risk analysis, 33(6), 1049-1065.

Wang, Y. P., Wang, Y., & Wu, J. (2010). Housing migrant workers in
rapidly urbanizing regions: a study of the Chinese model in
Shenzhen. Housing studies, 25(1), 83-100.
Wogalter, M.S., Mayhorn, C.B., (2008). Trusting the internet: cues
affecting perceived credibility. International Journal of Technology
and Human Interaction 4 (1), 76–94.

Yamada, F., Kakimoto, R., Yamamoto, M., Fujimi, T., & Tanaka, N.
(2011). Implementation of community flood risk communication in
Kumamoto, Japan. Journal of advanced transportation, 45(2), 117-
12

View publication stats