Application of CERC Model in Context of Slums- A study in

Kamrangirchar, Dhaka

Submitted By

Tasrifur Rahman

Roll:20

Course Title: Human Communication

5th Batch, Institute of Disaster Management and Vulnerability Studies

University of Dhaka

1
 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..03

Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………....04

Risk and Crisis Communication………………………………………………………...05

Methodology

Identifying the risks and Communicating the Findings……………………….07

Understanding the Public and Developing Communication Skills……………08

Evaluating students perception of risk communication skills…………………08

Results……………………………………………………………………………………….09

A working model of CERC………………………………………………………………...11

Discussions…………………………………………………………………………………..12

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………….13

References…………………………………………………………………………………...14

2
Introduction

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication is a communication model used in emergency

situations and encompasses the urgency of disaster communication with the need to
communicate risks and benefits to stakeholders and the public. CERC is a communication
model that outlines the five common stages of risk and crisis life cycle, “from risk, to
eruption, to clean up and recovery, and onto evaluation” [ CITATION Rey \l 1033 ]. Crisis and
Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) is an increasingly recognized part of the arsenal of
disaster risk reduction[ CITATION Bre101 \l 1033 ]. All stakeholders involved in risk reduction
need a way to communicate about present, emerging and evolving risks that are
understandable to each other[CITATION Coo12 \l 1033 ]. When there is an effective CERC in
place and all the relevant stakeholders are included in the process, communicating with each
other in a clear, concise and unambiguous manner “allows individuals or an entire
community to make the best possible decisions about their well-being”[CITATION CDS12 \p 7 \l
1033 ]. An effective CERC ensures that the relevant stakeholders are communicating with
each other and that there is a plan and set of principles, which all are aware of and fully
understand, that allow stakeholders to communicate the right message in a timely manner and
in a way that people actually understand and can act upon in a crisis [ CITATION Pal08 \l 1033 ].
CERC personnel often work under impossible time constraints and must both accept and
communicate uncertainty of risk to a wide range of stakeholders, which can very challenging.
The most important component of an effective CERC is well trained personnel [ CITATION
Cov92 \l 1033 ]. However making the best decisions depends largely on experience and
training [ CITATION CDS12 \l 1033 ]. Training helps the individuals to learn about CERC
strategies properly that will help them to prepare for and respond to public emergencies
effectively, including: how to review and disseminate risk information as well as emerging
situations and emergency risk information and how to systematically plan, develop,
implement, monitor and evaluate crisis and emergency risk communication activities.

As such this paper aims to evaluate the development of risk communications skills amongst a
group of students studying Disaster Management at an undergraduate level at the University
of Dhaka, Bangladesh. This paper is supposed to evaluate student’s perception of their
developing CERC skills through a series of exercises, including: how well they familiar with
CERC strategies, how can they apply these strategies effectively in the context of an
emergency crisis in slums area in Dhaka and their perceptions of the limitations of the
techniques used. CERC skills were developed through the use and evaluation of hazard
mapping, risk perception analysis, field and lab presentations, and the development of a
natural hazard management and response exercise using Web 2.0 technology [ CITATION
Yam \l 1033 ].

3
Literature Review

Communication lies at the heart of public health and plays a vital role in facilitating core
public health objectives including disease prevention, health promotion, standard of living
and quality of life. The discipline of health communication has been subsisted since 1970 and
is profound with theories, paradigms, methodologies. Risk communication is one body of
health communication theory, research and practice aimed particularly at communicating the
health risks caused by natural and environmental hazards including epidemics and
pandemics, technological malfunctions (chemical spills) and human activities (terrorism)
amongst individuals, groups and institutions . Effective risk communication is increasingly
seen as crucial to the prevention and cooperative management of health risks; indeed,
communication expertise has been recognized as at least equally essential to outbreak control
as epidemiological training and laboratory analysis.

The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication model has been broadly adopted for
strategic communication in risk and crisis situations. The ultimate aim of CERC model is to
provide the public with accurate, meaningful, simple, relevant and timely information related
to health risks. It provides strategic practices during each stage to the best communicate risks
and reduce uncertainty that can potentially fill the research gap. CERC differs from risk
communication in that a decision must be made within a short time constraint, the decision
may be immutable, the outcome of the decision may be uncertain, and the decision may need
to be made with imperfect or incomplete information.

In the context of communicable diseases, particularly in the highly tense situations these
diseases engender (for example, outbreak scenarios), effective risk communication is a
complicated and challenging process. All risk communication operates in a process of
uncertainty and in emotionally charged environment facts about the situation or incident may
be unclear and the science base underpinning potential responses may be imperfect. In such
contexts, risk communication specialist Vincent T. Covello, and his colleagues highlight that
the usual rules of communication often ‘fall short or can make the situation worse’. ECDC-
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control serves 30 countries (with different
communication capacities and resources) and various stakeholders in Europe with 25 official
languages spoken. Communicating the scientific content generated by ECDC to meet the
specific needs of the target audiences in a language and format that is adapted to and
comprehensible by each audience is an ongoing challenge for the organization. Thus, risk
communication is further complicated by the complexity of the European region, with its
significant geographic, cultural, economic and linguistic diversity. Despite the many
challenges to effective risk communication, Deborah C. Glik has reached the conclusion that
we face the potential disasters collectively such as pandemic diseases and we are still able to
communicate to the media and public though it was never assured but it can be more closely
determined if basic principles or risk communication practice are followed.

4
Risk and Crisis Communication

Historically, risk and crisis communication were viewed as two separate fields (CDS,
2012). However, in recent years, the two are merged, often from both an academic and
practitioner’s perspective. Risk communication is a mature area of research and practice that
informs many public health campaigns [CITATION Hea94 \p 257 \l 1033 ] s. suggests, “Risk
communication deals with risk elements, whether they are appropriately tolerable, and risk
consequences”. Covello (1992) defines risk communication as ‘‘the exchange of information
among interested parties about the nature, magnitude, significance, or control of a risk’’ (p.
359). [CITATION The89 \p 2 \l 1033 ] describes risk communication as ‘‘an interactive process
of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions’’. Risk
communication, then, is closely associated with threat sensing and assessment. In practice,
risk communication most often involves the production of public messages regarding health
risks and environmental hazards. These messages seek to induce behavioral change by
presenting a threat and describing a behavior or behavioral change that may alleviate the
threat. Risk communication is also grounded in an assumption that the public has a
generalized right to know about hazards and risks. The availability of information allows the
public to make informed choices regarding risk. In this way risk communication facilitates
decision making and risk sharing. Audiences tend to simplify messages. Credibility is
important to the believability and effectiveness of messages. Risk messages should include
some self-efficacy action that can be taken to reduce the risk[ CITATION Egb011 \l 1033 ].
Messages are more effective when they are strategically matched to audience needs, values,
background, culture, and experience[CITATION Mur \l 1033 ]. Risk messages should be clear
and simple, appeal to reason and emotion, and offer solutions to problems (Friemuth et al.,
2000). In essence, risk communication should be about the effective exchange of information
about an adverse and/or potentially adverse event, which helps various stakeholders to make
timely decisions to reduce the negative impacts from such an event, including any potential
loss of lives (Heath & O’Hair, 2010). 

Crisis communication, then, involves the sending and receiving of messages ‘‘to prevent or
lessen the negative outcomes of a crisis and thereby protect the organization, stakeholders,
and/or industry from damage’’ [CITATION Coo12 \p 4 \l 1033 ]. As such, it is part of the larger
crisis management function (Seeger et al., 1998). Crisis communication describes the
communication activities of an organization/agency facing a crisis and/or the need to inform
the public of actions they need to take during an emergency (CDS, 2012, p. 8). Effective risk
communication helps inform and alert the public about an unfolding or potentially hazardous
event and about how the hazard could be controlled or mitigated. Effective crisis
communication focuses on how a hazardous event is being controlled or contained, on
mitigation measures and whether or not the risk management strategy is proving effective
(Coombs, 2010).

5
One of the principal distinctions between crisis communication and risk communication
concerns their origins. Crisis communication typically is associated with PRs (Public
Relations) and is grounded in efforts to strategically manage and frame public perceptions
of an event so that harm is reduced for both the organization and stakeholders.

Risk communication, in contrast, most often is associated with the identification

of risks to the public health and efforts to persuade the public to adopt more healthy,
less risky behaviors[ CITATION Fre00 \l 1033 ]. Thus, public campaigns regarding the
hazards of cigarette smoking are the archetype for risk communication. Risk communication
also involves the dissemination of information about environmental hazards such as those
associated with chemical and toxic contaminates, carcinogens, pathogens and related
environmental hazards [ CITATION Pow97 \l 1033 ].

Risk and crisis communication have much in common and intersect at a variety of points. In
fact, some suggest that crisis communication is a more limited form of risk
communication[ CITATION Lun94 \l 1033 ]. Both forms of communication involve the
production of public messages designed to create specific responses by the public. In both
cases, the messages largely are mediated through mass communication channels, although
they also have public communication and group communication dimensions. Risk
communication and crisis communication each rely on credibility as a fundamental
persuasive attribute, although they manifest in different ways. Both share an essential purpose
of seeking to limit, contain, mitigate, and reduce public harm. Beyond these fundamental
commonalties, risk and crisis communication diverge in important ways. These differences
are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Distinct Features of Risk and Crisis Communication

Risk Communication Crisis Communication

Messages regarding known Messages regarding current state or
probabilities of negative conditions regarding a specific
consequences and how they event; magnitude, immediacy
may be reduced; addressing duration and control=remediation;
technical understandings cause, blame, consequences.
(hazards) and cultural beliefs
(outrage)

Principally persuasive, i.e., Principally informative, i.e., news

advertising and public disseminated through media or
education campaigns broadcast through warning system

Frequent/routine Infrequent/non routine

Sender/message centered Receiver/situation centered
Based on what is currently Based on what is known and
known, i.e., scientific projections what is not known
Long-term (precrisis) Message Short-term (crisis) Less preparation,
preparation, i.e., campaign, technical expert, i.e., responsive, Authority
scientist figures=emergency manager,
technical experts
6
Personal scope Personal, community, or regional scope
Mediated; commercials, ads Mediated; press conferences, press releases,
brochures, pamphlets speeches, websites
Controlled and structured Spontaneous and reactive

Methodology

In this study cross sectional survey was performed among the slum dwellers of Kamrangir
Char addressed by the students of Disaster Management, University of Dhaka. A total of 35
questionnaires were developed and distributed among the slum dwellers for data collection.
Consequently 20 questions were included in the questionnaire including personal
information, demographic questions, questions related to risk perception of the slum people,
disaster information related questions etc.

The demographic data of respondents gathered included gender, monthly income, education
level. Education level were categorized into 1) did not study, 2) not up to SSC,
3)SSC/equivalent, 4)HSC/equivalent, 5)Honors/equivalent, 6)Post graduation/equivalent.

Data was taken in MS Excel. Responses were analyzed using SPSS software(version 22).
Descriptive and total statistics were used for the study. Descriptive measures presented
include percentages and frequencies of numerical data. Categorical variables are presented by
using graphs.

The general methodology adopted has two components. First, a range of techniques is

explored to encourage the development of the students’ risk communications skills. Second,
the students’ perception of their risk communication skills is evaluated by means of
questionnaires and a focus group.

Identifying the risks and Communicating The Findings

Risk identification, the first crucial stage in disaster risk reduction, involves the systematic
mapping and understanding of physical risk factors (Rowan et al., 2010). To carry out this
survey, students engaged in a range of risk identification and evaluation activities that
included fieldwork and the use of remote sensing data. The findings were explained and
presented graphically on SPSS. Feedback from slum dwellers was collected by the students
themselves .It helped the students to understand how effective they were in communicating
the information and how to improve their risk communication skills.

The tasks performed by students included exploring how to:

 Use of technology to identify and map natural hazards

 Undertake field surveys , interview a range of people lived in the selected area, both
qualitatively and quantitatively through statistical analysis, so developing the correct
message to be co
 Speak to and evaluate the public perception of risk, explore the barriers to effective
communication and, in so doing, to develop a comprehension of the public

7
 understanding of risk that will enable us to better adapt our message to the intended
target audience.

Understanding the Public and Developing Communication Skills

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communications (CERC) often fail when the communicator
lacks understanding of their audience (Morgan et al., 2002). To be effective, it is imperative
that the communicator understands how the public perceives the potential risk and those
factors that may influence their responses in a crisis. The key is to ensure that the CERC
message is properly tailored and targeted and that the stakeholders are both prepared and able
to take action to protect themselves.[CITATION Fis \l 1033 ][ CITATION Ada00 \l 1033 ].

To better understand the public perception of risk and so evaluate their messages effectively
through mass media, we first prepared questionnaires to evaluate the public’s perception of
the risk in their case study area. This was done in for a number of natural hazards including
floods, fires, earthquakes, infectious diseases. Once designed, the questionnaires were
administered ‘face to face’ and the survey results evaluated. By administering the
questionnaire, face to face with ‘the public’, we the students were better able to interact with
our target audience and hopefully, to get a better sense of the challenges involved in engaging
a diverse group. The lessons learnt were used to develop a message for communication to a
larger audience via the media such as Television and also Miking in Masjid etc.

Figure 1: Students undertaking survey in the field

Evaluating students perception of risk communication skills

Questionnaires and a focus group were used to evaluate the perception of how well our risk
communication skills had developed. The questionnaires explored how our perception on

8
CERC skills before and after the survey. The first section of the questionnaire explored how
slum dwellers perceived their existing risk and vulnerabilities. Most questions explored the
perceived level of risks before, during and after each page of a disaster. Finally the
questionnaires inquired if their local logistics is enough to get risk messages as well as to
cope with the aftermath of disasters. It also explored the information of savings among each
individual.

An independent researcher (non-teaching staff) then conducted a focus group meeting with
student volunteers. The use of an outsider to conduct the focus group helped ensure that
students felt free to express their views without the perceived influence of tutors and those
directly involved in the simulation exercise and its assessment. The focus group explored key
themes identified from the questionnaires and provided qualitative data about how the CERC
tasks influenced their development of risk communication skills. 

Results- Evaluation of learning and confidence in communicating risks

As the aim of this paper was to formulate risk messages for slum dwellers as well as to
evaluate the development of CERC skills amongst a group of students studying Disaster
Management at an undergraduate level, analysis was undertaken to determine engagement
with tasks, level of perceived improvement and the impact on learning.

Perception of risks among slum dwellers

First dwellers were asked: “Are you aware of different disaster risks in this area?” By
questioning this question students explored an idea on the perceived risks of these people.
Around 37% of dwellers are not aware of the existing risks in their respective areas.

Question 5: Are you aware of the different disaster risks in this area?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

valid No 13 37.1 37.1 37.1

Yes 22 62.9 62.9 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

Percentage of experienced disasters previously

More than half of the people (54.3%) haven’t experienced a disasters in the past. And a total
of 51.4% dwellers didn’t receive any warning messages that lead them to a potential threat.
This gives the students an overview of preparedness levels of these slum dwellers.

Figure 2

9
 Question 8: Do you receive preventive/warning messages regarding
different disasters?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid No 18 51.4 51.4 51.4

Yes 17 48.6 48.6 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

Perception of water stagnant during rainy season

A total of 65.7% respondents put their opinion on the table that the area are not flooded by
heavy rainfalls during rainy season.

Question 13: During the rainy season, does water become stagnant
around your living area?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid No 23 65.7 65.7 65.7

Yes 12 34.3 34.3 100.0

Total 35 100.0 100.0

Perceptions of risk at different seasons

Figure 3 describes the perception of risks among respondents at different seasons in a year.
Most of the people think that they find themselves at great risks specifically during the rainy
season.

Figure 3

10
A Working Model of CERC
The blended form of crisis and risk communication, then, incorporates principles of effective
risk communication and crisis communication throughout the evolution of a risk factor into a
crisis event and on through the clean-up and recovery phase. A preliminary model of this
process is presented in Table 2. The five-stage CERC model assumes that crises will develop
in largely predictable and systematic ways: from risk, to eruption, to clean-up and recovery
on into evaluation. One important value to this systematic approach is that it reduces
uncertainty and allows crisis managers to look ahead and anticipate subsequent
communication needs and problems. Some potential crises and emergencies may not follow
this sequence due to a variety of factors including effective risk during the early stages, the
emergence of secondary shocks, or unanticipated interactions.

In some disasters, channels of public communication are compromised, requiring that risks
and warnings be disseminated in alternative ways. Important crisis management personnel
may be injured or unavailable. Crises are inherently equivocal situations, and crisis managers
should avoid approaching these events or communicating about them in unequivocal ways.
Regardless of these limitations, the CERC model offers a comprehensive approach within
which risk and warning messages and crisis communication activities can be connected into a
more encompassing communication form.
Table 2: Working Model of CERC
Pre-crisis (Risk Messages; Warnings; Preparations)
Communication and education campaigns targeted to both the public and
the response community to facilitate:
. Monitoring and recognition of emerging risks

11
. General public understanding of risk
. Public preparation for the possibility of an adverse event
. Changes in behavior to reduce the likelihood of harm (self-efficacy)
. Specific warning messages regarding some eminent threat
. Alliances and cooperation with agencies, organizations, and groups
. Development of consensual recommendations by experts and first
responders
. Message development and testing for subsequent stages

Initial Event (Uncertainty Reduction; Self-efficacy; Reassurance)

Rapid communication to the general public and to affected groups seeking
to establish:
. Empathy, reassurance, and reduction in emotional turmoil
. Designated crisis/agency spokespersons and formal channels and
methods of communication
. General and broad-based understanding of the crisis circumstances,
consequences, and anticipated outcomes based on available
information
. Reduction of crisis-related uncertainty
. Specific understanding of emergency management and medical
community responses
. Understanding of self-efficacy and personal response activities
(how/where to get more information)
Evaluation (Discussions of Adequacy of Response; Consensus About Lessons
and New Understandings of Risks)
Communication directed toward agencies and the response community to:
. Evaluate and assess responses, including communication effectiveness
. Document, formalize, and communicate lessons learned
. Determine specific actions to improve crisis communication and crisis
response capability
. Create linkages to pre-crisis activities

12
Discussions
It is important that students working in risk management develop effective CERC skills to
better equip them for the work place. CERC exercises involve risk mapping and
communication, hazard perception assessment and crisis communication during a simulation
exercise.
In general, we perceived that the range of activities provided by this CERC exercises
enhanced and motivated our learning. In particular we found this exercises to be more
realistic and widely relevant to hazard management. However, to better quantify the progress
with these peoples of slum, a variety of assessment tasks are needed including written, verbal,
visual and practical to cater for different learning styles. We the students also require a
balance between CERC exercises and the study of hazard processes; it is important to get the
balance right. This study states that perception level of risks among various individuals are
needed to generate and formulate risk messages.

 We believe our risk perception skills improved overall. However, these skills were
more developed for tasks linked to risk mapping and risk perception but less so for
crisis communication
 One significant finding was that, generally, we placed ourselves in two mutually
exclusive categories of CERC communicator: communicator of scientific information
(e.g. mapping) and Pre/During Crisis communicator.
 Overall, the risk communication exercises played an important role in increasing
learners’ confidence in their CERC skills and they gained a more in-depth
understanding of the requirements of effective and timely communications should
they need to develop a CERC strategy during a crisis.

Conclusion
Changes in the nature and scope of crises and emergencies, in the levels and kinds of threats
faced by the public and in the ubiquitous nature of media coverage require more
comprehensive approaches to communication. The CERC model integrates many existing
activities into more comprehensive systems of communication and grounded in recognition
of the broad developmental features of crisis. This approach also acknowledges that effective
communication regarding crises and emergencies must begin long before an event erupts and
continue after the immediate threat has allayed. In many ways, then, CERC is an

13
acknowledgment that risks are ubiquitous and that emergencies and crises that threaten the
public health and well-being are likely to be increasingly common.

References

The National Research Council. (1989). Freimuth et al. (2000).

(2002). Retrieved from American Red Cross: htttp://www.Redcross,org

(2012). CDS. Adam, V. L. (2000). al, R. e. (2010).

Brewer, & Palenchar. (2011;2010). Coombs. (1999).

Coombs, W. (1995). The development of guidelines for the selection of the "appropriate crisis
response strategies". Management Communication Quarterly, 447-476.

Covello. (1992). Covello, V. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication
research . Communnication Yearbook.

Egbert, N. &. (2001). Self-efficacy and rural women’s performance of breast and cervicat cancer
detection practices. Journal of Health Communication.

Egbert, P. (2001) . Fischhoff. (1995). Heath. (1994).

Heide, A. D. (1989). Disaster respons: Principles of preparation and coordination. Portland: OR: Book
News.

Leiss, P. &. (1997). Lundgren. (1994). Murray Johnson, W. L. (n.d.).

Palenchar. (2008).

Reynolds, S. (n.d.). M.W crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model.

Yammer. (n.d.).

14
15