Risk Communication in Coastal Cities: The Case of Naples, Italy

Abstract

Coastal cities are increasingly exposed to the risks posed by climate change, including rising sea levels, intensified storms, and coastal erosion. In this context, risk communication plays a crucial role, as it can shape public perception, promote preparedness, and influence both emergency responses and long-term mitigation strategies. This study investigated how disaster-related risks are framed in the media, focusing on the case of Naples, Italy, following a severe coastal storm surge that struck the city’s waterfront on December 2020. Using Dynamic Latent Dirichlet Allocation (DLDA), the research analyzed 297 newspaper articles published between 2020 and 2024 to examine the evolution of media narratives over time. The findings reveal four dominant patterns: (1) a prevailing economic discourse centered on financial damages and compensations, with limited references to resilience planning; (2) a temporal framing that presents the storm as a sudden, exceptional event, disconnected from historical precedents or future climate projections; (3) a lack of emphasis on the social experiences and vulnerabilities of local residents; and (4) minimal discussion of tourists’ exposure to risk, despite their presence in high-impact areas. These results highlight key limitations of media-driven risk communication and underscore the need for more inclusive, forward-looking narratives to support urban resilience and climate adaptation in coastal cities. This research offers valuable insights for urban planners, policymakers, journalists, and disaster risk reduction professionals, helping them to better align communication strategies with long-term adaptation goals and the needs of diverse urban populations.

1. Introduction

The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events have increased significantly, heightening global exposure to environmental risks [1]. Catastrophic phenomena such as extreme rainfalls, droughts, heatwaves, storms and tempests are affecting an expanding number of regions worldwide, leading to a substantial loss of life and severe socio-economic consequences [2,3]. Among these events, water hazards are among the most frequent and destructive natural disasters, with their severity, duration, and occurrence rising due to climate change, land-use intensification, and urbanization [4].

Over the past two decades, an average of 163 flooding events per year has been recorded, accounting for approximately 42% of all fatalities associated with natural disasters [5]. While some floods develop gradually, inundating areas over time, others occur suddenly as “flash floods” with little warning [6]. The risks associated with floods are not only related to the increased precipitation but also to human and environmental factors. In fact, these risks are exacerbated by inadequate flood risk assessment and management measures, as well as insufficient land-use planning and flood-resistant infrastructure [7].

As complex ecosystems, urban areas are particularly susceptible to water-related hazards, including floods, storm surges and, in some cases, tsunamis. Predictive models indicate that climate-related risks in urban environments are expected to worsen due to shifting hydrological cycles. These changes are contributing to more intense rainfall and more frequent storm surges. The effects will be particularly pronounced along the coasts of Africa and Asia (high confidence) and to a lesser extent in Europe (medium confidence) [8,9]. In the Mediterranean region, sea levels have risen throughout the 21st century [10], especially during the winter months [11], when storms tend to be more frequent and severe.

The impacts of storm surges on urban coastal areas vary widely. They depend on the morphology of the coastline, the specific characteristics of each storm, and the preventive measures implemented by local authorities. The consequences can range from coastal erosion and vegetation loss to significant damage to property and infrastructure [12].

The increasing urgency of fostering public awareness regarding climate change and disaster-related risks is evident. The shortcomings of existing flood control systems in conditions of uncertainty necessitate a proactive approach to building more resilient communities [13]. Resilience is a concept that social sciences have borrowed from material sciences, where it refers to the ability of materials to withstand shocks and maintain their structure after being subjected to pressure or deformation [14]. In the sociological context, this term refers to the ability of communities to prevent, mitigate, and effectively respond to disasters without experiencing systemic collapse [15]. Regarding storm surges, Mehryar et al. [16] define “flood resilience” as a community’s ability to manage flood-related risks by leveraging knowledge and skills to prepare for, respond to, and recover from such events efficiently. This involves identifying risks and implementing effective strategies to protect lives and minimize all possible damages [17].

Sociological theory suggests that risk is not an objective, fixed reality but a socially constructed phenomenon, shaped by cultural, political, and institutional contexts [18]. This perspective challenges the purely technical or scientific view of risk, which assumes that dangers exist independently of society. Accordingly, risk perception is formed through a continuous process of negotiation and meaning-making involving multiple actors, institutions, and communication channels. It is embedded in social structures, mediated by power dynamics, and influenced by dominant discourses that shape how individuals and communities are aware of and respond to potential threats [19]. This means that perceptions of risk can vary significantly across different societies, social groups, and epochs.

The media play a fundamental role in the social construction of risk by framing events, shaping narratives, and influencing public perceptions [20]. The language used, the selection of images and the choice of expert opinions all contribute to the construction of specific versions of reality that affect how risks are perceived and acted upon [21,22,23]. Effective risk communication is therefore essential for enhancing disaster preparedness and fostering community resilience [24]. Since the 1980s, its evolution has been driven by the increasing complexity of risks, advances in communication science, the growing diversity of stakeholders, and the rapid expansion of media technologies and accessible information sources [25]. In this context, the role of communication media extends beyond merely reporting disaster-related events. It also serves as a critical component of resilience-building strategies [26], facilitating the exchange of risk-related information among individuals, groups, and institutions [27]. This process helps reduce uncertainty, supports informed decision-making, and enables communities to act appropriately before, during, and after disasters [20,28]. However, the effectiveness of risk communication in fostering resilience depends on several factors. These include the accuracy of reporting—which must eliminate misinformation while providing timely updates—as well as the clarity, credibility, and conciseness of the messages conveyed [29].

This study examines how the interlinked phenomena of climate change and coastal disasters are framed in the media, and how such framing influences public risk perception and preparedness. The analysis focuses on a particularly relevant case study: the media narratives surrounding a severe storm surge that struck the coastal areas of Naples, Italy, on 28 December 2020. This event was triggered by a deep Mediterranean low-pressure system and an advancing cold front from NW to SE. It caused extensive damage to coastal infrastructure, primarily due to the impact of massive waves.

Naples represents an especially compelling case study, since it combines high urban density with significant tourism flows. As of 2024, the capital of the Campania region is home to approximately 915,000 residents within its municipal boundaries, with over 3 million in the greater metropolitan area. Much of Naples’ urban fabric consists of historic neighborhoods with aging infrastructure, narrow streets, and buildings that predate current resilience standards—conditions that increase the exposure to climate-related hazards. The city’s waterfront, located within the First Municipality of Naples, is both a densely populated urban zone and a strategic economic hub, hosting a concentration of restaurants, hotels, cultural landmarks, and recreational spaces. This area also serves as a primary interface between the city and the sea, making it particularly susceptible to storm surges, flooding, and coastal erosion. Furthermore, the spatial configuration of the coastline—including low-lying pedestrian zones, limited natural buffers, and limited access for emergency response vehicles—exacerbates its vulnerability.

By examining how disasters are framed in public discourse, this study provides insights into the broader challenges of risk communication, urban resilience, and climate adaptation in Mediterranean coastal cities facing escalating environmental threats.

2. Study Area

According to the Köppen–Trewartha classification [30], the Gulf of Naples experiences a Mediterranean climate, characterized by dry summers and wet winters, with precipitation levels more than three times higher in the winter months than in summer [31]. During winter, the most intense winds predominantly originate from the NNE and NE directions, while in spring and autumn the prevailing winds shift between NE and SW. In contrast, the summer winds tend to be weaker overall [32]. This general wind regime is influenced by multiple low-pressure systems traversing the Gulf of Naples, frequently leading to storms and strong wind events during autumn and winter. Conversely, in spring and summer, the presence of the Azores and African anticyclones establishes a stable and moderate breeze system [33,34].

The wave patterns in the Gulf of Naples exhibit strong seasonality, with higher waves during autumn and winter and significantly lower wave heights in spring and summer [35]. Based on analyses using HF radar data [36], the average wave heights in the inner sub-basins of the Gulf range from 1.19 to 1.70 m, while offshore areas of the Tyrrhenian Sea display higher values, ranging from 1.77 to 2.38 m, with wave periods generally between 6 and 8 s. Storm events are most frequent in the colder months, often affecting vast areas and persisting for extended durations, leading to the development of large waves. These storms are primarily extratropical. In some cases, Mediterranean low-pressure systems can also generate severe coastal conditions [37]. During extreme events, the wave heights can significantly exceed the recorded averages, often surpassing 3 m. Under such conditions, storm waves impacting Naples’ coastline and infrastructure pose a considerable threat to coastal safety. It is also important to note that the wave height and energy are influenced by local bathymetry. As waves enter shallower coastal waters, shoaling effects cause them to increase in height, thereby amplifying their erosive potential and destructive impact along the shoreline [38].

The extreme storm surge that occurred in the Gulf of Naples on 28 December 2020 originated from an intense system that formed east of Greenland two days earlier and rapidly moved southeast toward the British Isles and Northwestern Europe before reaching the Mediterranean. While the peak wind speed recorded by meteorological monitoring networks was strong, it was not unprecedented, as similar wind intensities typically occur at least once per year. However, the roughness of the sea surface and the extraordinary wave heights generated by the storm were particularly severe. Notably, the wave crests reached exceptional heights—exceeding four meters—due to the storm’s occurrence coinciding with the peak of an astronomical spring tide [39].

The storm caused extensive damage along the Neapolitan coastline, with the most severe effects observed along the eastward progression of the waterfront (Figure 1). Powerful waves overtopped the sea walls, breaching the pedestrian parapets and forcefully flooding the adjacent roadway. The impact was especially severe between Piazza Vittoria and the former Faculty of Economics at the University of Naples Federico II. In this area, strong waves damaged sidewalk railings. In several locations, seawater flooded the roads, scattered debris on the asphalt, and disrupted traffic. The waterfront’s numerous restaurants and cafés, situated along Via Partenope, sustained significant damage to their external structures due to both wind and wave action. Gazebos, umbrellas, and lightweight furnishings were bent, broken, or displaced—many swept beyond the parapet and scattered across the street or dragged toward the sea. Among the affected landmarks was a small decorative wall near the curve leading to Castel dell’Ovo, commonly known as the “Muretto di Pulcinella.”

In the days following the storm, additional structural losses were reported, including the collapse of the historic Bourbon stone arch (in Italian “Arco borbonico”) located near the waterfront. Originally built in the 18th century as a small docking structure for fishing boats from the nearby Borgo Santa Lucia, the arch later served as a terminal for wastewater disposal in the 19th century.

The spatial distribution of damage was likely influenced by the limited protection offered by the Posillipo promontory to the eastern portion of the coastline, relative to the predominant wave direction (SSW–NNE). The vulnerability of the most affected coastal areas was exacerbated by local amplification effects, driven by geological and structural factors. In particular, the presence of tuffaceous cliffs and both ancient and modern constructions contributed to the wave energy amplification through reflection and diffraction processes. Notably, Castel dell’Ovo and the adjacent tuff rock formations played a key role in intensifying the wave impact, leading to significant localized destruction [40].

3. Materials and Methods

This study analyzed how the mass media framed the storm surge event that impacted Naples on 28 December 2020 by examining online news articles published by major newspapers. The dataset was extracted using Google News API, employing the search query combination “Naples” and “Sea storm” (“Napoli” and “Mareggiata”). Google News was chosen as the main data source because it collects news from a wide range of national and local outlets. While it does not encompass the entirety of journalistic production, it represents the most comprehensive publicly accessible repository available for monitoring media coverage of specific events. Its use as a data source in research on media representation is well documented [41,42,43,44], as it allows for the systematic examination of how different outlets frame the public discourse on disasters and risk communication.

Despite its advantages, the use of Google News as a primary source presents some limitations that must be considered. As a digital-only resource, Google News excludes print and broadcast media unless their content is also published online. Although some print newspapers maintain digital archives of their reporting, others do not, leading to potential gaps in the dataset. Television and radio also play key roles in risk communication but are excluded unless their content appears in online transcripts or summaries. Another limitation involves restricted access due to paywalls or article removal. While Google News provides links to the original sources, some articles were not retrievable due to subscription-based access or because they had been deleted or archived by the publishing outlet. This constraint affects publications that operate on paid subscription models, potentially limiting the diversity of perspectives included in the final dataset. Additionally, the keyword-based nature of the data retrieval presents both false positives and false negatives. Some relevant articles may not have been included if they did not explicitly feature the keywords “Napoli” and “Mareggiata”, while others that were initially retrieved had to be manually excluded due to their lack of direct relevance to the case study. Despite rigorous filtering, it remains possible that some articles containing pertinent discussions were omitted due to variations in the terminology or editorial focus.

To counterbalance these limitations and enhance the robustness of the dataset, a systematic approach was adopted to ensure diversity in the media representation. The selection process accounted for a range of news sources with different editorial orientations to capture a plurality of perspectives. The multi-year analysis from 2020 to 2024 made it possible to track how media narratives changed over time. This approach captured both the immediate crisis coverage and later reflections on consequences, policies, and public risk perceptions.

The dataset underwent both computational and qualitative analysis, allowing for an examination of both the large-scale patterns in risk communication and the nuanced ways in which journalists framed the storm surge event.

The initial query retrieved 433 articles. After a process of refinement that involved filtering out duplicates, irrelevant or too short content, and articles in which the term “Mareggiata” (sea storm) was used in metaphorical or non-meteorological contexts, the final corpus for analysis consisted of 297 articles. Each article was assessed based on its relevance to the case study, ensuring that the dataset was composed exclusively of news coverage that directly addressed the storm surge and its impact on Naples’ coastal area. This process was crucial to minimizing the noise within the corpus and enhancing the reliability of the subsequent analyses.

Using the open-source statistical software R (version 4.4.0), this study employed Dynamic Latent Dirichlet Allocation (DLDA) for the analysis, following a structured workflow (Figure 2). DLDA is a machine-learning technique commonly used for topic modeling and represents an extension of the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model.

LDA is a widely used probabilistic approach for topic detection that assumes that each document is composed of multiple topics, and each is characterized by a distinct probability distribution of words [45]. Words that frequently co-occur across documents are grouped into clusters, which can then be viewed as distinct thematic areas. Unlike simpler frequency-based text analysis methods, LDA provides a context-aware representation of textual data, allowing researchers to infer underlying topics that are not explicitly labeled in the text. While traditional LDA has proven effective for static document collections, the need for a temporal dimension in topic modeling has led to the development of dynamic variants, such as the model used in this study. The key advantage of DLDA is its ability to track the topic evolution over time, capturing the emergence, persistence and decline of themes across different periods [46]. This is particularly relevant in the context of media analysis, where the public discourse is fluid and shaped by the newsworthiness. For these features, DLDA appears well suited for also examining the complex and evolving relationship among climate change, coastal hazards, and public discourse. By enabling the identification of themes across a temporal axis, it allows researchers to analyze how narratives about extreme weather events transition from immediate reporting to long-term policy discourse. This is crucial for assessing how the media integrates (or fails to integrate) broader climate change considerations into coverage of coastal disasters.

Despite its advantages, DLDA has some limitations. It is a statistical tool that detects word patterns but cannot fully capture the complexity of communication, especially elements like tone, irony, metaphors, or visual cues. For example, the model cannot evaluate the emotional impact of images, the credibility of the sources cited, or the framing choices made by editors and headline writers. Acknowledging these boundaries helps prevent overgeneralization and ensures that the conclusions drawn remain grounded and context-sensitive.

The input variables for the model consisted of preprocessed textual data from news articles, along with their corresponding publication dates. The text preprocessing pipeline involved several key steps: tokenization, lowercasing, normalization, and lemmatization to reduce words to their base forms. Named entity recognition (NER) was applied to filter out non-informative tokens, such as numbers or special characters, which do not contribute to meaningful topic detection. Standard stopword removal was also performed to exclude highly frequent but semantically weak words (e.g., “the”, “and”, “of”).

After preprocessing, the optimal number of topics to extract was determined. To this end, the model evaluation process followed a coherence-based approach [47], which combines a sliding window with normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI) and cosine similarity to assess the semantic relatedness among the top words within each topic. The model was finalized with four dominant themes. Specifically, the topic coherence analysis showed a peak at K = 4 (Figure 3), indicating that this number of topics provided the best semantic fit, with high internal consistency among the top words in each theme. This result suggests that the keywords within each topic co-occurred with the greatest frequency and thematic cohesion, supporting the analysis and reliability of the selected topic structure.

The processed corpus was then fed into the DLDA model, which aggregated the topics into temporal epochs, allowing for a dynamic representation of how the discourse evolved over time.

4. Results

Most of the articles (46.9%) were published in 2020, even though the event occurred at the very end of December. This peak in coverage reflects the immediate media response and attention to the storm surge. The coverage remained significant in 2021, with 30.2% of the articles published that year. However, interest in the event declined in the following years, with 15.6% of the articles appearing in 2022, 8.3% in 2023 and 4.2% in 2024. The more recent articles primarily focus on updates regarding reconstruction efforts or reference the 2020 storm surge as a comparative benchmark when discussing similar extreme weather events affecting other coastal areas in the Campania region.

The application of DLDA to the dataset identified four dominant patterns in the media narratives. These themes represent the primary discursive dimensions through which the disaster was emphasized and framed in journalistic reporting.

Figure 4 presents the intertopic distance map generated through DLDA, using multidimensional scaling (MDS) to visualize the semantic relationships among the extracted topics. Each circle corresponds to a specific topic, while the axes—labeled PC1 and PC2—represent the first two principal components derived from the MDS projection. These dimensions provide a spatial representation of the semantic distances calculated between the topic distributions in a high-dimensional space. Topics plotted in close proximity are characterized by greater semantic similarity, whereas those further apart display more distinct vocabularies and framing logics. In this projection, Topics 1 and 4 appear in the same quadrant and in close spatial proximity, indicating a partial semantic overlap. This suggests that the discourse surrounding the two different domains in the post-disaster media coverage shares common narrative and lexical features.

The identification of the most frequent and distinctive words within each topic enables the recognition of its semantic domain, also revealing the underlying narrative framework employed by journalists. It is important to note that lexical framing has communicative and ideological implications, since it guides attention toward certain issues while potentially obscuring others [48,49,50].

Table 1. Main themes and associated vocabulary.

Theme	Top 6 Words	Narrative
1.	“danno” (damage), “costo” (cost), “ristoro” (compensation), “fondo” (fund), “euro”, “rimborso” (reimbursement)	Language strongly centered on financial loss and compensation mechanisms.
2.	“improvviso” (sudden), “imprevisto” (unforeseen), “repentino” (abrupt), “shock”, “emergenza” (emergency), “allerta” (alert)	Narrative of the storm as an isolated and unpredictable crisis.
3.	“residente” (resident), “abitante” (inhabitant), “comunità” (community), “quartiere” (neighborhood), “disagio” (disruption), “casa” (house)	Terms that emphasize local, lived impacts and the everyday vulnerabilities of the resident population.
4.	“turismo” (tourism), “visitatore” (visitor), “simbolo” (symbol), “lungomare” (seafront), “viaggio” (travel), “danno” (damage)	The economic discourse is combined with cultural and symbolic references, reflecting the tourism vocation of the waterfront.

provides an overview of the main themes extracted from the dataset, alongside the six most frequent keywords for each and a brief description of the narrative logic they construct. This analysis reinforces how vocabulary is not just a stylistic device but also a central element of the construction of meaning within risk communication.

Additionally, the analysis revealed the distribution of topics over time (Figure 5). The x-axis represents the years covered in the study (2020–2024), while the y-axis indicates the relative proportion (%) of articles associated with each theme per year. This temporal distribution enables the tracking of shifts in the thematic emphasis across the media corpus. The variation highlights which aspects of the storm surge remained salient in the media discourse and which gradually declined, offering insights into the persistence—or erosion—of attention as the event moved from immediate crisis to long-term reflection.

Despite some fluctuations, Theme 1, shown in green in Figure 5, maintained a dominant presence throughout the 2020–2024 period, outpacing all the other thematic categories in both prevalence and continuity. Economic and financial damages were the most prominently covered issues, particularly in the aftermath of the storm in 2020, when coverage peaked at 41.7%. A second notable peak occurred in 2022 (40%), coinciding with public discussions around governmental compensation programs, reconstruction plans, and bureaucratic delays. The vocabulary associated with this theme underscores the focus on financial losses and recovery mechanisms. Frequently recurring terms include “costo” (cost), “danno” (damage), “euro” (euro), and “ristoro” (compensation), indicating that media reports framed the storm surge as a monetary crisis requiring governmental intervention and financial restitution. Alongside these terms, words such as “fondo” (fund), “rimborso” (reimbursement) and “sostegno” (support) further highlight how discussions centered on compensation measures for affected businesses rather than broader structural or regulatory responses. Headlines often referenced the struggle of local entrepreneurs to resume operations, reinforcing a sense of urgency and economic hardship. This vocabulary reveals that the disaster reporting emphasized short-term economic consequences over long-term strategies for prevention, urban resilience, or environmental adaptation.

Theme 2, represented in red in Figure 5, corresponds to the temporal framing of the event. This theme emphasizes the immediate consequences of the disaster and the urgency of institutional responses. It consistently ranked as the second most prevalent topic throughout the observation period, maintaining a relatively stable share of the media attention of between 25% and 29.5% from 2020 to 2023. The highest proportion was recorded in 2023, when the topic peaked at 29.5%, likely in response to renewed extreme weather warnings and retrospective assessments of the 2020 storm. A key linguistic element shaping this framing is the use of adjectives such as “improvviso” (sudden), “imprevisto” (unforeseen) and “repentino” (abrupt). These words suggest that the storm surge was described as an anomalous and shocking event, rather than a foreseeable consequence of ongoing climatic and oceanic changes. This language reinforces a narrative of surprise and unpreparedness, subtly shifting responsibility away from policymakers and urban planners. It frames the disaster as an uncontrollable natural event rather than a foreseeable risk that should have been anticipated. Although the prominence of Theme 2 declined slightly in 2024, it remained one of the most frequently discussed themes. This persistence suggests that the media continued to frame such events primarily in terms of immediate crisis and institutional reaction, rather than situating them within long-term climatic patterns or promoting adaptive strategies.

Despite these media narratives, historical records show that similar events have repeatedly struck Naples in the past [51], often with comparable levels of destruction. For instance, a similar cyclonic event impacted Naples on 4 November 1966, coinciding with the catastrophic flood that devastated Florence. In 1979, a powerful nighttime storm from the southeast battered the Neapolitan coastline, damaging infrastructure and sinking numerous boats. In 1987, a cyclone was even more destructive, devastating multiple ports across the region and causing widespread destruction to restaurants, homes, and commercial structures along the Naples seafront. Notwithstanding these historical precedents, only a small portion of the articles—fewer than 8%—referred to past events. When such references did appear, they primarily served to contextualize the severity of the damage, focusing on monetary losses and infrastructural destruction. There was no critical assessment of whether risk management had improved over time, nor any evaluation of whether previous disasters had led to tangible advancements in preparedness and response mechanisms. This lack of critical reflection suggests that past experiences have not been effectively translated into future-oriented strategies, thereby perpetuating a reactive approach to climate hazards instead of fostering a culture of preparedness and adaptation. Similarly, when the 2020 event was referenced in subsequent years—particularly in the context of new extreme weather events affecting the region—it was primarily used as a point of comparison for financial and infrastructural losses. It was not used as a case study of disaster preparedness or risk reduction. In this sense, the temporal framing contributes to a fragmented collective memory, where each crisis is treated as an isolated incident rather than as part of a broader climate trend that demands coordinated and proactive action.

Theme 3, depicted in yellow in Figure 5, centers on the experiences of residents, who constitute the permanent population chronically exposed to coastal risks. Although this theme is essential for a comprehensive analysis of the disaster impact, it appeared less frequently in the media narratives compared to economic and institutional framing. Coverage increased in 2021, reaching a peak of 23.2%, likely driven by public discourse on urban recovery and social resilience during that period. However, its visibility declined in subsequent years, dropping to 15.8% in 2023, before slightly rising again in 2024 (17.6%). The DLDA analysis found very limited use of terms such as “residente” (resident), “abitante” (inhabitant), or “comunità locale” (local community), indicating the relative invisibility of long-term social impacts in the journalistic coverage. Media reports failed to address how these populations coped with infrastructure disruptions, emotional distress, or long-term recovery challenges. This minimal emphasis reveals a broader bias in disaster reporting: a preference for visible, marketable, or monetizable impacts over social dimensions that are harder to quantify. For instance, no media analysis included how vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly residents, low-income households, or migrants) were affected, nor whether support services were deployed to aid recovery for those beyond the commercial sector. Moreover, the media largely ignored aspects related to civic preparedness and community resilience. Terms such as “prevenzione” (prevention), “informazione pubblica” (public information), “formazione” (training), or “piano di emergenza” (emergency plan) were scarcely mentioned. The result is a vision of disaster communication as a top-down, reactive practice centered on damage reporting and institutional statements, rather than a participatory and forward-looking process involving citizens in risk mitigation. This narrow framing fails to recognize that resilience is not only a technical or infrastructural matter but also a social process that involves communication, education, and participation. The lack of media attention paid to how residents experienced or responded to the event reflects the absence of a broader discourse on empowerment, preparedness, and local capacity-building.

Theme 4, represented in blue in Figure 5, concerns the impact of the storm surge on tourism. This issue was consistently underrepresented in the media coverage throughout most of the 2020–2024 period. Initially, its visibility declined, reaching a low of 12.4% in 2022. However, an increase occurred in 2023 and 2024, with the theme rising to 21.1% and peaking at 24.4%, respectively. This resurgence reflects renewed media interest in tourism-related vulnerabilities as extreme weather events continued to affect coastal destinations. Despite this late increase, the overall marginalization of tourism in the disaster narratives reveals a broader media tendency to overlook the risks faced by transient populations and the role of tourism infrastructure in emergency preparedness. This is particularly concerning in a high-exposure city like Naples, where the seafront not only attracts millions of visitors but also houses a dense network of businesses, services, and iconic landmarks. Naples’ seafront area has undergone a significant transformation over the past decade, becoming one of the city’s most important tourist attractions. In 2011, the introduction of a limited traffic zone along Via Caracciolo and Via Partenope led to a major shift in urban dynamics, reducing vehicular access and creating a pedestrian-friendly space that quickly became a focal point for both national and international visitors. This initiative contributed to the expansion of hospitality businesses, including restaurants, cafés, and hotels, reinforcing the economic centrality of the area for Naples’ tourism sector. The waterfront also became a site for large-scale events, festivals, and cultural activities, further strengthening its role as a key element of the city’s tourist identity. Given this context, one might expect the media coverage of the storm surge to explore not only the economic damage to tourism-related businesses but also the broader implications for the sector, including questions of visitor safety, risk communication, and the need for adaptive measures to protect this highly frequented area. However, the spatial proximity to Theme 1 indicates that the journalistic narrative emphasized the financial impact of the storm surge on hospitality businesses, reporting on damage sustained by waterfront establishments, the loss of income due to forced closures, and the economic hardship faced by business owners. As a result, tourism was rarely discussed in terms of risk exposure, vulnerability, or preparedness. This co-location reinforces the dominance of short-term financial framings over structural or adaptive perspectives in disaster coverage. Beyond the words strictly related to the economic dimension, the other main recurring words associated with Theme 4 were “visitatore” (visitor), “simbolo” (symbol), and “viaggio” (travel). Some media reports devoted attention to the destruction of symbolic elements of the Naples waterfront, particularly those frequented by tourists and widely photographed on social media, such as the “Muretto di Pulcinella”. The media coverage detailed not only its destruction but also its subsequent reconstruction, portraying it as a symbol of heritage preservation. While these narratives underscore the importance of the seafront as a cultural and economic space, they also reflect a limited perspective on the disaster impact, neglecting broader questions of risk management linked to tourist safety. Very few articles mentioned how tourists themselves experienced the disaster, whether they were evacuated, informed about the risk, or exposed to dangerous conditions. There was also little to no discussion of whether the hospitality sector had emergency plans in place or how tourist-oriented communication could be improved in anticipation of future events.

5. Discussion

The analysis of news coverage of the 2020 storm surge in Naples highlights the media’s tendency to frame extreme weather events as sensational crises, often portraying them as unpredictable occurrences rather than as part of a broader, climate-induced pattern. This crisis-driven coverage prioritizes the immediate impact and dramatic imagery over contextualized discussions of long-term risk management and resilience strategies. The failure to integrate climate change discourse into reporting on extreme weather events reinforces a short-term perspective, where coverage focuses on damage and disruption rather than on long-term climate trends. For example, articles could have referenced IPCC projections of rising sea levels in the Mediterranean or cited studies linking sea surface temperature anomalies to storm intensification. Including such data would help readers know that events like the 2020 storm are not isolated but form part of a broader pattern that demands structural adaptation.

While some articles referenced earlier disasters to compare the financial losses, they did not explore whether lessons had been learned or whether coastal management strategies had evolved in response to past crises. A key element reinforcing this short-term framing is the language used in reporting, which suggests a narrative of surprise and inevitability, which downplays the role of human decisions and institutional preparedness in mitigating disaster impacts. The lack of explicit references to climate change in many articles further weakens the public’s awareness of why such events are becoming more frequent and severe. The implications of this framing extend beyond discourse analysis. If a disaster is perceived as an unusual, one-off event, there is little urgency in terms of implementing structural adaptation measures, reviewing coastal management policies, or investing in risk education. This lack of critical engagement with long-term solutions means that Naples remains vulnerable to similar future events, continuing a cycle where disasters are responded to only after they occur, rather than being anticipated and mitigated through forward-thinking policy measures. As a result, the policy responses remain reactive, with a strong focus on rebuilding and compensation rather than structural resilience-building measures.

Another dominant aspect of the media coverage was the economic framing of the disaster, particularly in the immediate aftermath. While this perspective is reasonable given the storm’s severe impact on commercial activities, it shaped the overall risk narrative in a way that prioritized short-term economic recovery over long-term adaptation strategies. The focus on monetary loss reinforced the perception of the storm surge as primarily an economic crisis, rather than a multidimensional environmental and social challenge. The discourse surrounding who would cover the damage and how compensation would be allocated overshadowed more structural discussions, such as the need to adapt commercial buildings to flood risks through elevated designs, water-resistant materials, improved drainage, or protective barriers. Likewise, there was little mention of whether urban planning regulations must be revised to enhance the climate resilience of commercial zones. This omission perpetuates a cycle in which businesses are repeatedly damaged, reimbursed, and rebuilt without addressing their long-term vulnerability.

The proximity of Topic 1 concerning economic loss and Topic 4 concerning tourism in the DLDA-generated semantic space underscores the extent to which tourism-related impacts were consistently framed through an economic lens. Losses to the hospitality and leisure sectors were primarily described in financial terms, rather than as disruptions to the city’s cultural identity and everyday life. In addition, the shared vocabulary on damage, recovery, and compensation obscured critical dimensions of vulnerability, particularly for tourists as a transient population. The absence of media attention to their specific needs and exposures represents one of the most striking omissions in the coverage. The disaster risk literature identifies tourists as a particularly vulnerable group due to their limited awareness of local hazards, emergency protocols, or language barriers [52]. This gap is especially concerning in a city like Naples—one of Europe’s top tourist destinations—where the storm surge impacted a highly frequented seafront that includes extensive pedestrian areas, cycling paths, and major landmarks. None of the articles analyzed addressed these vulnerabilities. This omission reflects a broader issue in disaster communication: tourists are frequently overlooked in emergency planning, despite their significant presence in high-risk coastal areas. In tourism-heavy districts, preparedness remains a low priority in both media discourse and public policy [53]. The role of tourism infrastructure in the emergency response was also ignored. Hotels, tour operators, and visitor-oriented services can play a vital role in informing and protecting tourists during extreme weather events [54], yet the media offered no insight into whether these entities had protocols in place. Similarly, there was no coverage of whether the hospitality sector had updated its risk communication strategies post-storm, such as multilingual alerts, emergency instructions for guests, or integration of preparedness into tourism planning. In high-risk urban destinations like Naples—where the tourism sector is both an economic pillar and a site of vulnerability—ensuring that tourists are informed, and that the tourism infrastructure is resilient, must be considered a core component of urban disaster preparedness strategies [55].

Another notable limitation of the media coverage is the absence of discussion of the social impacts and vulnerabilities of the local population in the face of catastrophic events. For example, no articles explored whether residents received adequate warnings, whether evacuation plans were known, or whether low-income or elderly populations were disproportionately affected. Including first-hand accounts, even brief ones, would personalize the event and reveal inequalities in risk exposure. In addition, there is little to no reporting on how residents and workers experience and respond to such disasters. The level of risk awareness among the population, their capacity for resilience, and the existence (or lack) of training programs to prepare for future extreme weather events are largely absent from media narratives. This lack of coverage reflects once again a business-centric perspective, where the primary concern is the economic survival of commercial enterprises rather than the broader social capacity to withstand and recover from disasters. Additionally, the role of institutions in fostering disaster preparedness through information campaigns, emergency drills, and resilience-building programs remains largely unexplored.

6. Conclusions

The analysis of how the 2020 storm surge in Naples has been portrayed in the media reveals a fundamental limitation of the disaster-related public discourse. While the news coverage effectively captures the immediate impact of the storm and, in some cases, references past occurrences, it largely fails to incorporate forward-looking discussions on mitigation strategies and climate adaptation. The use of language that emphasizes surprise and unpredictability reinforces the false perception that the storm surge was an isolated and exceptional event, rather than a recurring consequence of broader climatic patterns. This narrative of “exceptionalism” may unintentionally transfer responsibility away from institutions and urban planners, implying that such disasters are unforeseeable and not manageable through anticipatory governance. By neglecting to connect past experiences with future risks, media narratives limit public awareness and policy engagement, perpetuating a reactive rather than proactive approach to disaster management. This raises important ethical considerations in terms of risk communication, particularly regarding the media’s responsibility to frame hazards in ways that empower, rather than paralyze, the public. To improve both public understanding and policy responses, it is crucial for the media discourse to adopt a more comprehensive perspective—one that links historical precedents with future preparedness, fostering a long-term view on coastal risk and resilience. Additionally, incorporating climate change projections, sea-level rise data, and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events would shift the narratives of surprise to those of resilience-building.

The economic impact of the storm surge was a central theme in the media coverage, while the absence of discussions of climate adaptation, structural resilience, and community preparedness reflects a short-sighted approach to disaster risk management. A more holistic approach to disaster risk communication must integrate economic concerns with a broader discussion on resilience-building. Rather than merely quantifying damages and compensation needs, media narratives must emphasize the necessity of adaptive infrastructure, regulatory improvements, and community-based preparedness measures. By contextualizing extreme weather events within broader patterns of climate change, the media discourse can help shift the focus from reactive crisis management to proactive risk reduction.

It is also essential for the media to highlight how business owners and policymakers can implement concrete resilience-building measures. This includes referencing effective solutions adopted in other locations with similar geographic and socioeconomic characteristics, thereby promoting knowledge transfer and encouraging proactive adaptation. Examples of good practices can include the installation of flood barriers and water-resistant fixtures in commercial spaces, the adoption of insurance schemes tailored to climate risks, and the development of early-warning protocols coordinated with municipal emergency services.

Additionally, policymakers can be held accountable for updating coastal zoning regulations to prevent new construction in high-risk areas, or for launching public awareness campaigns aimed at educating both residents and tourists on emergency procedures. The absence of such examples in the media coverage means there was no reflection on how emergency alerts, evacuation protocols or risk communication strategies can be strengthened, limiting the public’s awareness of what resilience looks like in practice. Furthermore, coordinated efforts between businesses, local authorities, and emergency services can play a crucial role in improving preparedness—yet these potential partnerships were entirely absent from the media discourse.

The narrow framing of tourism-related issues in the media narratives also reflects a missed opportunity to integrate disaster risk awareness into tourism planning. Naples, like many other coastal cities, is projected to experience more frequent and severe extreme weather events due to climate change [56]. Ensuring that tourists are adequately informed about these risks is a fundamental component of long-term disaster preparedness efforts. Incorporating visitor-focused risk communication not only enhances tourist safety but also strengths Naples’ overall ability to respond effectively to future coastal hazards. A more comprehensive approach to disaster risk management in the tourism sector can involve several key measures [57,58,59]. First, hotels, tour operators, and other visitor-oriented businesses can develop action plans tailored specifically to tourist populations. This includes training hospitality staff on disaster responses, establishing clear evacuation procedures, and ensuring that emergency information is available in multiple languages. Additionally, city authorities can implement pre-arrival risk education initiatives, such as informational brochures, digital alerts, or tourism websites that provide safety guidelines on extreme weather preparedness. Finally, media narratives can highlight the importance of integrating tourists into disaster risk assessments, ensuring that they are not overlooked in future crisis management strategies. The media discourse has the potential to illuminate these gaps and catalyze preparedness efforts by amplifying successful models and exposing areas of neglect.

In conclusion, responsible disaster reporting demands a balance between immediate coverage and long-term foresight. This includes not only framing events within their climatic and urban context but also acknowledging the ethical implications of how risks are portrayed. A shift toward critical, future-oriented narratives can foster more informed publics, responsive institutions, and resilient cities in the face of escalating environmental threats.