Critical Gaps and Implications of Risk Communication in International Agreements: 3 Select Case Studies From Urban Areas in the Tropics of South Asia

The cost of urban disasters has been consistently increasing, particularly in the cities of developing countries located across the tropics. Among various challenges of disaster risk management and climate change impacts, it is noted that most residents are poorly informed about their risk exposure and apposite response. The paper is based on the premise that one important cause for this gap is inadequate emphasis on risk communication at different levels of planning and agreements. Accordingly, it highlights some important gaps in the risk communication across international agreements including Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and evaluates their impacts at the local level. It brings three select urban case studies located in the tropical areas of South Asia region that illustrate contradiction and chaos that results from inadequate stress on risk communication at the global level. The ndings are based on secondary data and literature focusing on global agreements, risk communication, and disaster response. The paper argues that even though global strategies address urban risks, the fragmented nature of risk communication results in poor response and contributes to losses that occur in disasters. It suggests a need to address risk communication as a priority for dealing with risks at different scales. There is also a need to redene risk communication that extends beyond warning generation and considers multiple factors inuencing response including interlinked vulnerabilities, and variations emerging from varied geographical, socio-cultural, economic, and political processes.


Gap: Risk communication doesn't emerge as priority due to its limited connotation
Although the three agreements of SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC cover varied intricacies of disasters, development and climate change; however, risk communication doesn't emerge as a priority in any of these. The SFDRR outlines four priorities that include the understanding of risks, strengthening of risk governance, investments, and enhancing disaster preparedness and response in both pre-and post-disaster situations (UNISDR 2015). The document recurrently mentions communication that mainly refers to the communication systems or mechanism i.e. telecommunication, information technology, associated services, and policies. A limited perspective results in inhibited urgency for risk communication particularly in areas where there is no disaster or until a disaster occurs. Similarly, SDGs and UNFCCC though talk about various risks and responses; there is little emphasis on risk communication in policies. While early warnings are emphasized, they often come with a little time to respond and hence trigger fear and reactions among people instead of motivating them for a planned response. A limited connotation of risk communication, often centereed on hazard characteristics and communication system, creates a signi cant gap that can be frequently witnessed in disaster management practices in terms of the intention, outcomes or in the process of risk communication.
Mumbai, located at the latitude of 19 0 .0' N & 72 0 .48' E is one of the most densely populated cities of India with 20.7 million population in 2014 (Norris 11 July 2014). The city attracts a large population not only from various parts of India but also internationally. It is situated on the west coast of India, wherein it faces risks from rising sea level, storm surge, excessive rainfall, recurrent ooding, earthquake, and associated hazards (see map 1). Old buildings and poor urban planning keep the local vulnerability high during monsoon season attributed to blocked drainage, waterlogging, over ow, and building collapse. A study by the United States Trade and Development Agency nds that the city has lost nearly 140 billion INR in oods between 2005 and 2015, and more than 3000 lives have been wasted in rain-related incidents during this time (Moneycontrol News 11 Sep 2019). The city experienced a major disaster in July 2005 when it received its highest recorded 100 years rainfall of 944mm in 24 hours in which nearly one thousand people lost their lives (ibid). The event not only waterlogged a large section of the city but also halted means of communication including transport and telecommunications (Stecko and Barber 2007). The rapidly rising population and a high rent of properties have forced a signi cantly large population to live in urban slums, who become victims of recurrent ooding. Heavy rainfall also causes signi cant damage to old and dilapidated buildings that collapse from time to time. About 1472 incidents of building collapse in Mumbai city and suburbs have been recorded within 5 years from 2015 to 2019 wherein 106 people lost their lives and another 344 suffered injuries (PTI 04 March 2020). Limited housing options and inadequate rent control policies with little or no incentive for building improvement allow the increasingly old and dilapidated buildings to co-exist in the city that enhances its vulnerability to building collapse (Stecko and Barber 2007). Despite an average of 250-350 building collapses per year, the communication of building collapse in the District Disaster Management Plan of Mumbai City and Greater Mumbai mainly focuses on the role of various organisations involved before, during, and after a disaster with the acknowledgment of gaps such as rent control act, legal hurdles and paucity of funds, but gives a little plan to overcome the issues (Narvekar 2018, 31 July 2019PTI 04 March 2020). While these plans make a passing reference of sustainable development and talk about risks from climate change, there is a lack of urgency and clarity around how and when these issues are going to be addressed. Even though vulnerability is identi ed, inadequate communication for public engagement and involvement for vulnerability reduction and participation become important contributors to risks. It is noted that major infrastructure developments in the region rarely pay attention to the disaster vulnerability (Moneycontrol News 11 Sep 2019). The communication of building bylaws and construction of illegal and risky infrastructure including old buildings remains in the legal purview with limited public interactions, awareness, and support. However, the cost of delayed and limited communication is frequently borne by the people who are either unaware of possible solutions, except when they receive legal order, or lack the capacity to make suggested changes. In many cases, the scope of rebuilding remains beyond the scope of inhabitants in the developing world wherein they are provided with a little assistance to support their relocation or rebuilding that may help to reduce the risk. The legal communication of risks occurs more as a threat than an opportunity to save the lives of people who fear where to go and how to deal with sudden evacuation. It is noted that nearly 16000 old buildings in Mumbai are in dilapidated conditions and not fully vacated by the residents in the fear of losing their housing despite notice (Malamulkar 1 September 2017). Besides, the speed of redevelopment and repair is very slow with a complex process, which keeps both vulnerability and risk high for impending disaster(s).
Implications: While cities are consistently growing, particularly in the tropical regions as noted in the case of India, inadequate risk communication may fail the efforts made to address existing risks (Bhagat 2011;Denis et al 2012). One important reason for the risk communication not being considered as a priority is its limited notion and understanding as applied in the local, city, and even global plans for disaster management. Most risk communications and solutions suggested in SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC, though address the urban population with information, technology, warning process, and access, there is a little attention paid to the vulnerability factors, including the vulnerability arising through the systemic process. The focus of risk communication remains concentrated on hazards, which allows vulnerability to grow which is the main factor behind rising urban risks. While collaboration and cooperation are stressed (UNISDR 2015;United Nations, 2015), there is no emphasis for risk communication to be taken as a priority when new risks emerge while treating previous hazards, vulnerabilities, or disasters. As most developing countries lack resources to deal with signi cant risks, the accumulation of risks primarily due to vulnerability signi cantly enhances the possibility for disasters (UNDRR 2009;Cardona et al. 2012). While there are numerous articles on the signi cance and effectiveness of risk communication along with ways to make it right, little attention is paid to prioritizing risk communication (Tinker et al. 2000;Frewer 2004; EPA 2019; Abrams and Greenhawt 2020). Much of the risk communication comes from media as crisis information that gives a little choice for action that can revert the situation. Prioritizing risk communication with a focus on both hazard as well as the vulnerability can be an effective tool in disaster risk reduction. It would not only help the communities to know about the risk but also make them responsible to plan and prioritize their response for imminent hazards or disaster by addressing their vulnerabilities.

Gap: Inadequate Structures to Measure the Extreme Impacts of Risk Communication & Stakeholders Inclusiveness
All the three agreements (SFDRR, SDGs and UNFCCC) view risk communication primarily as the responsibility of the national governments that lead to a top-down approach of dissemination of risk information with a little structure for engagement of varied stakeholders impacted by the risk communication (see UNISDR 2015; United Nations 2015; United Nations 1992). There is an implied emphasis on having communication systems for early warning, response, evacuation, and recovery; however, the agreements don't specify either the structures for engagements of varied stakeholders or measurement of subsequent outcomes of risk communications. In the absence of su cient structures to measure and assess the change or results on the ground level, it is di cult to address various local challenges that are often not clearly articulated at the global scale (Mysiak et al. 2016(Mysiak et al. p.2190. This is also true for risks having global implications, particularly the extreme cases like COVID 19. While long-term risks are communicated, lack of structures to address the short-term implications of risk communication at the global level can have signi cant local impacts that are often not planned, as noted in the case of Malé during COVID 19 in 2020. Case Study: Island City -Malé, Maldives Located on a low-lying archipelago at the latitude of 4 0 .17'N & 73 0 .50'E, the capital of Maldives -Malé is one of the highly vulnerable cities in the world to the impact of climate change. It is susceptible to sea-level rise, water scarcity, tropical storms, storm surge, ooding, and tsunami, many of which pose a direct threat to its survival. It is one of the most densely populated island city in the world with 129,281 population which is nearly 38 percent of the country's population living in an area of two square kilometers (May and Riyaza 13 July 2017). Low scal strength further adds to its vulnerability to cope with the impact and recover from the impact of any natural disaster (Schafer 20 January 2019). Both Malé and the ountry rely heavily on tourism which contributes to 23 percent of its total GDP (UNDRR 2019). COVID 19 had a devastating impact on the only major source of its economy i.e. tourism. Maldives declared the State of Public Health Emergency from 12 March 2020, that included travel restrictions between resorts, safaris, and inhabited islands, banning all excursion activities within the country, suspension of tourist check in to guest houses and city hotels in Greater Malé Region, which was followed by restrictions across the entire country and on all non-essential travel between islands (MMPRC 2020). However, on 15 July 2020 restrictions on resorts, hotels, and liveaboards in uninhabited islands were uplifted, and from 1 August 2020, all hotels and guest houses in inhabited islands opened for all (ibid). The severe impact on the economy, made the city and the nation to pull out all the rules and implement one of the most open border policies in the world (Rasheed 7 October 2020). It occurred mainly due to the unsustainability of lockdown attributed to the small size of the nation and economy that rely heavily on tourism, which was not the case in major countries of the region including India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, which kept several restrictions on travel to control the spread. Contrary to other places, visitors in the city of Malé did not need to have negative COVID tests but had to follow quarantine rules, however, despite such rules, the drop in the tourists has been signi cant i.e. nearly 87% due to travel restrictions in other countries (ibid). Travel advisories to drop non-essential travel in Europe and America also added to the drop in the overall number of tourists to Malé. Apart from the fear of COVID 19, the fact that insurance companies would not cover the recovery expense also added to this drop in tourists ow. On the one hand, where it is deemed as an essential step to reduce COVID 19 spread in larger countries, on the other hand, for a small city and islands like Malé, the impact of such communication is found wrecking by making more people vulnerable to disaster with little or no income, which led to a very different response from the government. Such situation could be avoided by ensuring engagement of varied stakeholders in global risk communication.
Implications: Despite an acknowledgment of the diversity of population composition at different scales, there is inadequate structure to accommodate the extreme impacts of risk communication at the global or local level. COVID 19 presented an exemplary situation when a common risk communication of the pandemic by the WHO led countries to take a variety of approaches. While Hungry opted for complete control and rule by decree, Malé opted for open borders policy, and other countries chose partial or full lockdowns for variable times (Baume and Bayer 2020; Dunford et al. 7 April 2020; Rasheed 7 October 2020). Although the inclusiveness of the vulnerable groups has been emphasized in planning in most global agreements in general, they often remain only on the receiving end in terms of risk communication. Studies note that disasters bear the potential to not just wipe out human lives but may also disrupt the economy of a city or even an entire nation (Swiss Re 2013). Inadequate structures to assess and measure the outcome of the risk communication at the local level keep the local plans disconnected without much accountability at the local or global scale. Therefore, it is essential to not just inform but also account for such losses attributed to poor risk communication so that they can be planned to avoid the worst-case scenario. Jerneck (2013) notes that in the face of varied risks, particularly as in the case of climate change, it is essential that the narratives have a direction (toward sustainability), distribution (global inclusiveness), and diversity (multiple approaches, methods, and solutions). Global inclusivity is not only essential to involve effective participation in dealing with threats like COVID19 but also to avoid secondary hazards such as poverty or extreme control.

Gap: Missing Cultural Links and Differentiation in Risk Communication
The three global agreements also talk of risk communication from a technical point of view, where the information given to the society is informed by science and data available on a particular hazard or its likely impacts. A little emphasis is placed on its local socio-cultural relevance and association that signi cantly affect the disaster response and produce variations over space and time (Cannon 2015;Khan 2012). The review of the 2030 agenda for SDGs emphasizes the inclusion of culture as an integral component of the future (Yildirin et al. 2019). However, it has yet to be linked with the risk communication aspects. Within a society, people may understand various terms differently, which is not limited to the technical terms such as risks, vulnerability, or resilience but also the severity of risk as perceived and framed by the local people which is often deep-seated in a society (Cardona et al 2012;Sandell et al 2013). With an excessive emphasis on top-town risk communication in the form of the early warning system, technological support, and cooperation, the social framing of risk and the outcome of risk communications are frequently overlooked. This results in deviation from the prescribed top-down response either because of inapplicability or due to negative impacts of the suggested response. An essential need for locally and socio-culturally informed risk communication is noted recurrently during the exposure to COVID 19 in different parts of the world. The cultural megalopolis of Bengal presents one good example from the urban tropics.

Case Study: Cross-Border Cultural Megalopolis Region of Bengal
The Bay of Bengal region, mainly spread across India and Bangladesh, is known for its rich cultural identity. Cities located in the low-laying tropical areas of this region are exposed to multiple climate and health hazards including tropical cyclones, ooding, sea-level rise, storm surge, erosion, salinization, and tsunami. Many of these hazards are likely to be intensi ed by climate change, and in the presence of tremendous challenges of urban development, resource scarcity, and cross-border migration, they bear the potential to cause disasters if not  (Danda 2020). In contrast to Malé, the Bengal megalopolis region shares a rich traditional and cultural heritage with the neighboring cities that spread across two nations, and hence it would be limiting to see a city in isolation. The impact of ignoring the cultural ties was noted in the separation of Bangladesh from India in 1947 and then from Pakistan in 1971 (Debova 2014). The cross-border migration between India and Bangladesh has remained an ongoing activity ever since the creation of the country attributed to shared history, ethnicity, religious, linguistic, and cultural ties (Joseph and Narendran 2013). Policies underpinning these socio-cultural factors not only disrupt the development process but also lead to unrest as noted in the case of CAA act in 2019 that led to con ict, unrest and destruction not just in Kolkata but also in other parts of India (Debova 2014; Canton 4 March 2020).
While both India and Bangladesh went for a complete lockdown in the late March, several differences were noted in the risk communication across the two nations. At the one hand, India adopted a tougher approach of 1-day curfew leading to nationwide lockdown for 21 days, on the other hand, Bangladesh adopted a relatively soft approach with ten days of public holidays with relatively a greater emphasis on community engagement and awareness (Chauhan 25 March 2020;Mamun 23 March 2020). Although the language, measures, and strictness of risk communication varied signi cantly across the two nations with varied socio-cultural interpretations of the risk by the central governments, many similarities were noted in the local response to COVID 19 across borders in the Bay of Bengal region. The concept of social distancing couldn't be applied to thousands of densely populated slums with millions of residents in Kolkata, Dhaka, and Chittagram (Mahmud 20 Mar 2020;Ray 15 Apr 2020). The situation became further critical with the arrival of migrant population in the densely populated risk areas, who not only became the carriers of the disease but also enhanced the local vulnerability with reduced income and heightened exposure to cyclone Amphan (PTI 27 March 2020; DhakaTribune 20 April 2020). In Kolkata, nearly 84 people lost their lives, another 3 million had to evacuate and suffer signi cant damage during the cyclone Amphan, wherein migrants suffered more who had lost both home and source of earning (Ellis-Petersen and Rahman 21 May 2020). Similarly, in Bangladesh 2.5 million people had to be evacuated, nearly 10 million people were affected and 500,000 lost their homes (ibid). Apart from the disaster response, commonalities were also observed in the celebration of various cultural festivities during COVID 19 in the Bengal region of India and Bangladesh (Banerjee and Samaddar n.d; Paul 29 November 2020). While risk communication at the national level totally ignored the local cultural diversity, a greater sensitivity could be used to generate support and effective response to common risk communication. While local governments play an important role in bridging this gap, however, reduced emphasis on the role of culture in risk communication at the global scale brings a little support for its modi cation at the local level.
Implications: The generic guidelines of WHO are followed by different nations based on their institutional framework, capacities, and resources with a little contextualization of the local socio-cultural variations and hazards exposures. Subsequently, several aberrations were noted in the global response to COVID19 due to the local socio-cultural conditions. For examples, WHO and most governments promoted frequent hand washes to control the spread of Coronavirus, however, it was di cult for the places suffering water scarcity and slums with limited water supply as noted in Nairobi, India, and many other parts of the world (Natarajan 18 March 2020). People also faced double jeopardy due to the occurrence of two or more hazards in many other tropical areas including Philippines due to Tropical Cyclone Vongfong and in Fiji due to Cyclone Harold in the COVID situation that made both evacuation complex and created a challenge of livelihood for the one displaced (IRFC 2020). It is noted that countries with loose or rule braking culture (e.g. Mexico 150,000 deaths) were affected signi cantly more by COVID 19 than those which followed rules (e.g. Japan's 5000 deaths) even with a nearly identical population (Gelfand 1 February 2021) [67]. Many of the disaster responses are interconnected with cultural practices, and risk communication without accounting for local cultural beliefs and practices not only makes people feel alienated but also a culprit of not following laws. Various religious gatherings occurred across different nations and became the source of infection spread e.g. Church gathering in South Korea and Kuching, Sarawak, and Tabligh gathering in Malaysia, Brunei, India, and Indonesia (BBC News 2 March 2020;Supramaniam and Ghazali 11 April 2020;Aubrey 9 April 2020) . Such incidents not only create fear and erode trust but may also result in stress and discrimination within societies having diverse cultural orientations as noted in India and many other countries (Sayeed 29 March 2020;Paul November 2020). In contrast, cultural integration is also the cause of local resilience that has governed socio-economic ties and migrations across nations. In this case, a deeper understanding of cultural connotation of risk and response can support the risk communication to achieve better results.

Discussion
The frequent occurrence of disaster in urban tropics is not just signi cant but also consistently rising with population growth and climate change as many such cities are located in developing countries where they lack adequate resources and funding to manage increasing risks (OECD 2015). In such cases, a better preparedness of the local population becomes an important way to avoid disasters. This requires the population to be well informed about various risks, their vulnerability and their response. However, most of the risk communication is centered on the hazard occurrence and emergency response rather than addressing the root of disaster that lay in social, economic and political vulnerability (Wisner et al. 2012;Southard 2017). The social and cultural construction of risk has been repeatedly highlighted in literature but hardly addressed through risk communication for its overall resolution (Johnson and Covello 1987;Beck 1992;Austen 2009). Although risk communication has gained signi cance and evolved in studies focusing on the disaster and climate change risks, its applications in the global agreements primarily centered on hazards with emphasis on warning generation and coordination for response. As delineated in Case Study 1, with limited risk communication, vulnerability continues to prevail and causes recurrent disasters. While SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC talk about various risks and responses, risk communication is primarily understood as a top-down approach of risk information dissemination focusing on early warning and technological interventions. In contrast, disasters may not necessarily follow the sequence of hazards characteristics but they do recurrently and disproportionately affect the most vulnerable population (Hallegatte et al. 2020). It is also noted that in many cases where risk communications address speci c vulnerabilities e.g. COVID-19, fail to pay attention to interlinked vulnerabilities arising from systemic processes where short term solutions of lockdown, social distancing, and excessive fear of disease bear the risk to be counterproductive in long-term (Alcántara-Ayala 2020). There is, therefore, a need of having a broader perspective of risk communication that acknowledges not just various types and factors of vulnerability but also interlinked vulnerabilities and apposite response to overcome them.
A limited focus is also the reason for not having risk communication as a priority in most development and planning processes. The culture of risk communication as a priority has a potential to reduce the disaster cost with shared accountability leading to effective risk governance (Ahren and Rudolph 2006; Amaratunga et al. 2019). The need for more proactive risk communication is consistently increasing with changing risk scenarios in the face of climate change. It is noted that many emerging issues are not addressed or identi ed as key areas in three global agreements wherein urban areas are particularly identi ed to be vulnerable. A pro-active risk communication may not only make people risk-informed but would also create a context of shared responsibility for bringing change when they are aware and be involved.
COVID19 brought forth an opportunity to view the varied impact of common risk communication in different context of the selected case studies (see gure 2). IFRC (2020) notes that multiple crises overwhelmed both local as well as global capacities to deal and provide assistance in time that resulted in constrained international solidarity with dwindling economic situations. It is essential that the guidelines for global risk communication consider the local implications particularly in the areas of extreme impacts. As many countries may require support to deal with such a complex situation, therefore, it is vital that the global agreements take account of risk communications and implications at various levels by creating structures for engagement and measurement of outcomes.
The integration is not just essential at the global but also at the local scale. Extant literature recurrently notes that the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and response to warning system depends not just on the ethnic and socio-economic population composition but also on the shared culture of response and adaptation to warnings (Perry 1987;Aguirre 1988;Vaughan 1995;Khan 2012a, SAMHSA 2017. Many of these differences also have spatial expressions, however, little attention is paid to changing spatial patterns of disaster risk for risk communication (Khan et al 2012).
The population growth in cities has been seen largely as a demographic phenomenon and similar measures are suggested across countries despite diverse socio-cultural differences (Khan 2012b). The role of culture is rather protruding in disaster response as it in uences risk interpretation and choices that people make during a disaster (Schipper 2014). However, often it is ignored at the global and local level of planning of DRR and risk communication leading to a signi cant gap in response. The cultural differences need attention from the perspective of both risk communication and response. The acknowledgment of varied impacts of disasters and risk communication has become an essential need in the age of information. In the current era of social media and fake news, a misinterpretation often travels faster than accurate information or data (Lewandowsky et al 2019). In such case addressing risk communication in a coherent manner is essential