Risk and Emergency Communication

Definition

The entry is intended to define the concepts of risk communication and emergency communication. At the same time, it explains the difference not only from a communication point of view but also from a cultural one. Risk and emergency are two sociologically relevant events, and they are culturally constructed. They are events that bring about a socio-cultural change, which, in turn, is triggered by the population’s responses on the basis of the social perception of the events themselves, also conveyed by the different forms of communication. When communicating risk and emergencies, it is essential to educate people about alert and emergency systems. Above all, what they refer to and what kind of message they contain. The “warning communication” must be specific and refer exclusively to the threat to start the first phase of the communication through which it is possible to understand the type of threat and define the communication plan to be implemented later. The use of social media, which is strongly spread in digital society, allows not only rapid dissemination of information but also rapid communication and message selection (speed and content of the message are equally important). Alert and warning systems are very often linked to risk systems, since the risk from natural disasters (eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) or technological catastrophes (nuclear power plant explosions) follows emergency phases when the phenomenon occurs. The communication processes, in and emergency, must be able to explain, persuade but also confer an assist the political decision-maker and the decision-making process itself through an alert system (especially in the first phase), followed by continuous dissemination through the media that the digital society offers, as well as through the usual systems adopted by government bodies (for example, bulletins and news), specialized research institutions and institutes with information and communication functions. In risk and emergency management, information and communication are to be considered, respectively, a basic element and a means of dissemination and training to educate the population to perceive a risk, to recognise emergencies and the possible impact of the risk. Differences will be expressed and analysed with reference to international examples.

1. Risk and Emergency Communication: Elements, Processes and Phases

Today’s society is permeated by three elements that shape its development: the spread and use of mass media; risk and emergency events; and, finally, uncertainty. The latter is present both within the communication process provided by the media and in risk and emergency events.

Communication and the communication process itself highlight how it is not only the method of transmitting the message that is relevant and central, but also the nature of the message itself and its content. In the communication process, every element is important in order to create a relationship and reach the recipients of the message.

Communication plays a central role in the dynamics of risk and emergency: firstly, because the media are a source of immediate, accurate information; secondly, because it enables the prevention and protection of the population during phenomena; and finally, because it determines the pervasiveness of the subjective experience that individuals have during events [1]. Communication is a source of wealth in the construction of knowledge that allows for the creation of an interpretative space of reality that is experienced with others [2]. Communication, therefore, being the foundation of knowledge, allows people to understand their surroundings with the aim of constructing a representation of the world in order to build their own identity and future. The aim is to inform the whole of civil society, either through communication by an expert or directly with the institutions and the government, about the risk situation that is being experienced.

In this contribution, informing means that the population, being educated through a process of communication and training about the events, their effects, their impacts and the ways in which they manifest themselves, becomes more aware and internalises what it has learned. Education and training on risk and emergency phenomena are essential for bringing about cultural change and creating a praxis [1,3,4]. The educational process with regard to such events must be carried out for all age groups and levels of education. It should start in schools, teaching knowledge about these phenomena and involving all the key social actors for social change, namely families and the various associations present in the area. Communication is complemented by training and educational programmes [5,6].

The analysis of communication processes is important for structuring and determining cultural and social change [7] aimed at creating a culture of communication around alerts and news. Being culturally accustomed to following a communication process means being aware of the processes and management of a risk and an emergency, as can be seen, for example, on the Japan Disaster Prevention Information website (https://www.bousai.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/index.html, accessed on 2 October 2025), where it is possible to download not only guides but also all the information needed to prevent and safeguard life from risk and emergency events. Understanding how risk and emergency communication takes place and what the differences are between the concepts of risk and emergency from a social point of view is fundamental to understanding the concept from a cultural and communicative point of view.

Risk and emergency [7,8,9,10,11] are two different concepts, despite the fact that in the common view they are two overlapping concepts. Their communication reflects their definition and the representation of this phenomenon. In risk communication, the central element is the dissemination of a principle of education on emergency procedures and the education of the safeguarding dynamics that must be activated. In emergency communication, it is essential to create a rapid alarm system that allows evacuation and safety procedures to be followed. At this stage, the dynamics planned and activated during the risk phase are expressed. Risk and emergency communication are interconnected because the former expresses what must be put into practice in the latter.

Individuals construct social reality within cultural systems through representations that take shape in communication. In digital communication, these representations then find a place to be disseminated. The representation of reality, with respect to events and their manifestation, is fundamental because it establishes the way in which the social system understands communication and the ways in which it responds to events. Knowledge of the phenomenon and its manifestation allows us to understand its modalities, its manifestation and its possible implementations. Furthermore, in the knowledge that events are possible, how to instruct and educate the population and how to communicate such events in order to prevent their effects and future impacts.

Today, the media are the communication system that allows us to acquire all forms of knowledge.

Digital society cannot do without communication systems that perform the main functions of information transmission, not least because the forms of meaningful interaction between individuals within society do not always follow a linear logic.

Communication is an inexhaustible source of wealth for the acquisition and construction of knowledge; it also allows us to construct the interpretative space of the meanings of reality.

Communication processes are the foundation of knowledge that allows individuals to understand their surroundings with the aim of constructing a representation of the world within which to build their identity and plan their life path. This is the context for risk and emergency communication.

These are two types of communication that have different purposes and are distinguished by their content, methods and aims. Risk communication differs from emergency communication in its narrative, methods of information and dissemination. In terms of how communication works, both follow a defined and pre-established communicative approach.

The process of communicating both risk and emergency can be defined as an intentional exchange of scientific information between stakeholders regarding the impacts they have on society. Stakeholders include government agencies, companies, manufacturing firms, associations, the media, scientists, professional organisations, public interest groups and individuals. The information concerns events that produce or potentially produce negative effects on the exposed population, courses of action, decisions taken by institutions, and the management of such events. This form of communication, when well planned and well executed, and fully integrated into every stage of the response to these events, can provide support (both individual and collective) by ensuring full awareness and better management. Through communication, it is possible to provide information about these types of events, but also about their evolution.

Understanding the nature of a risk and/or emergency event can help communicators prevent problems and respond to them effectively. It can also help to anticipate the information needs of the media, stakeholders and citizens. This type of communication aims to inform about the urgency of action, but also about the impacts, progress and benefits of the event. According to communication experts, citizens must be informed about every aspect [11] in order to ensure their protection and awareness. Communication enables knowledge and the dissemination of the phenomenon and its management. The greater the accuracy and propagation of the event, the greater its resonance.

The case studies presented below will attempt to show the importance of the preparation of communication plans and their implementation by governments, institutions and civil society [12].

Knowledge and dissemination of information about events could help to reduce the gap between members of the social system, the so-called “laypeople” and “experts” [13]. This equality is at the heart of the communication process, as it means being able to convey information about events to the entire population using the same linguistic code. Communication involves citizen participation, which not only makes citizens feel involved, but also restores their trust in institutions and experts and focuses on when, by whom, to whom and under what conditions communication should take place. Participation can therefore be guaranteed by the circulation of information, as this allows for its dissemination and awareness of various events (whether risks or emergencies).

According to the analysis, the communication process specifically follows five processes: communicate to; communicate to/with; communicating what; communicate how; communicate when [1]. Five processes that indicate how communication is managed, namely: the communicator (expert, institutions, government); the timing of communication (urgent, unexpected and planned); phases (ex ante, in itinere, ex post); how to communicate (mass media, social media, bulletins, signals, alarms); purpose of the message (the text of the message); method of the message (how the text of the message should be transmitted).

A communication plan designed to create awareness aimed at protecting individuals and creating a culture of prevention and management.

It should be emphasised that risk situations and emergency situations are very different: in the former, the focus is on precaution and prevention, through information and communication to raise awareness and disseminate news of a possible event; in the latter, on the other hand, the focus is on rescue and immediate safety measures. In fact, there is a shift from a situation of “being ready for”, which corresponds to the risk phase, to “having the readiness and competence to”, which corresponds to the emergency phase. In a risk situation, it is necessary to be able to plan, organise and prepare plans that can be used in an emergency. This is the phase in which multi-level communication plans, guidelines, educational programmes for the population and safeguard plans are implemented and planned. During the risk phase, alert plans and various communication methods are also prepared, as it is communication that determines and modifies the state of emergency [14].

Emergencies and their management depend on communication—understood as a social process of knowledge sharing that involves simplifying reality and the social context—and on different channels of information. Understanding how communication works and what is communicated allows safeguard plans to be put in place. In communication education, it is essential to be able to convey all the steps necessary for the prevention of a phenomenon, so as to prevent any negative consequences and also ensure the protection of the entire population.

Communication and information are necessary elements in making citizens aware of both the imminent and future situations. The aim is not to make all citizens experts, but to make them aware and, above all, informed. To paraphrase Schütz (1946) [15], a “well-informed citizen” is someone who, through information, is able to form and construct their own reasonably founded opinion based on the actual context of the event they are experiencing [16]. In the digital society, especially during risk and emergency events, knowledge no longer comes from a single source but from multiple sources (media and social media), which are often, at the same time, a cause of confusion and unreliability. While the multiplicity of information and communication represents greater dissemination and reach, it also leads to media displacement resulting from the replacement of traditional media (press, television, radio) by more modern and widely used media (web and social networks). This has led to a shift in the communication process and the need to spread a new culture of communication [17].

Risk and emergency communication have not been considered as completely separate fields, so much so that, scientifically, everything falls under risk communication [15,16,17,18,19]. Communication for risk and emergency phenomena is now partly covered by the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model, officially recognised as a communication tool for these types of events. Following 11 September 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, USA, developed this model [20], also considering variables such as space and time (here and now) in which to prepare the analysis of events. They foresee the need for a plan in the first 24/48 h, in which the fundamental values are: Be first. Be right. Be credible [21]. The work seeks to draw attention to the fact that in the risk phase, it is necessary to work on preparing action plans for the emergency phase. These plans include, as mentioned above, communication and its phases. The emergency plans are implemented and learned by the population through information and education processes. The first few hours after an event (which we can classify as an emergency) are crucial because they are chaotic, uncertain and stressful, and it is during these hours that it is necessary to intervene with the safeguarding measures learned during the risk phase. Planning the initial phase is crucial because it can influence the subsequent evolution of these phenomena. Preparing the plan allows events to be organised according to a logical process of division into phases. Consider what happened in Thailand and Burma in March 2025 during the devastating earthquake or in Italy with the earthquake in the city of L’Aquila [1], which led to legal proceedings against scientists and administrators for their alleged failure to communicate the correct level of risk, or the recent communication of the health emergency, which highlights how important the issue of risk and emergency communication is in the management, social organisation and reproduction of a culture of effective communication in dealing with such phenomena [22].

Communication in the case of risk is a process of exchanging information between stakeholders on the nature, extent, importance or control of a risk, regardless of its origin. It should help the various actors (citizens, politicians, scientists) to make timely decisions to reduce the negative impacts of such an event, including the potential loss of human life. At the same time, communication plans should be implemented during the emergency, such as alarms, sounds and specific instructions to follow. These elements must be expressed in educational processes [22,23].

Equally, communicating and communicating well during an emergency means being able to control and manage the social reactions of citizens. Communication methods should be activated that seek to help the population. In fact, communication in emergency situations seeks to immediately inform and reassure the various parties affected by the events, in particular the population, who are frightened and distraught by the grief and loss caused by natural disasters or conflicts. This assistance seeks to be present before the immediate emergency (ex ante), during (in itinere) and after (ex post).

The

Table 1. Risk and emergency communication organisation.

Communication Management	Risk Communication	Emergency Communication
Communicator	Expert, institution, government	Expert, institution, government
Timing	Urgent	Urgent and safeguarding the unexpected situation
Phases	Ex ante In itinere Ex post	Ex ante In itinere Ex post
How to communicate	Mass media Social Signals Bulletins Alerts (in the first phase of the emergency)	Alarms Alerts Mass media Social Signals Bulletins Continuous news
Purpose of the message	Explain, persuade, educate, train and empower decision-making process and competent authorities	Alert, safeguard, advise Explain and empower those who lead actions and decision-making
Method of communication	Simple, credible and consistent Be repeated Come from multiple credible sources Be specific Offer a course of action that can be carried out	Simple, credible and consistent Be repeated Come from the same sources Be specific and clear Offer guidelines for behaviour and action

Source: Author’s elaboration. Some elements taken from the report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [11].

below presents what could be an organisation of risk and emergency communication, examining the various elements that characterise communication management. As can be seen, there are some changes, particularly with regard to: Timing; How to Communicate; Purpose of the Message and Method of the Message. Emergency communication is essential for the safety of people and therefore focuses on urgent and immediate timing; communications are issued in the first phase by alarms, social media and the mass media, and subsequently in the following phases by bulletins and newspapers with continuous news updates. In fact, the purpose of the message is to alert, safeguard, indicate, explain and empower those who lead the actions and the decision-making process. Finally, the message must be simple, credible and consistent; it must be repeated, come from the same sources, be specific and clear, and finally offer guidelines for behaviour and action.

The following paragraphs analyse the two modes of communication compared, as summarised in the table.

1.1. Risk Communication

Risk communication is a process of exchanging scientific information between stakeholders regarding risks to health and the environment [18]. This exchange of information allows the project designed to manage and reduce damage to be disseminated and made visible through the mass media. It informs the whole of civil society, either through communication by an expert or directly with the institutions and government, about the risk situation that is being experienced. The information is conveyed through simple, immediate, clear, consistent and direct messages that aim to explain, persuade and empower policy makers and their decision-making process in the various phases previously observed: ex ante (pre-event), in itinere (during), ex post (after the event).

Communication is urgent and, in the first phase (which very often coincides with the emergency, as the event is unplanned with alerts), uses the mass media and social networks to disseminate information. Communication takes place through a plan that aims to offer a course of action that can be carried out in the three phases of the event.

In the ex ante (pre-event) phase, efforts will be made to prevent, examine and understand the types of threats and define the possible communication plan to be produced. This is so that citizens can be educated and informed about both the event and the procedures that will be used in the event of an emergency. Risk communication serves to predict and prevent the possible effects caused by catastrophic events. In the ongoing phase (during), the management and protection plan is put into practice by constantly informing and training the community on the actions to be taken and the plans in place. Ex post communication (after the event) focuses on showing the impacts of the event and also aims to encourage participation in regeneration and safeguard actions for future events. It also involves building knowledge and training on the event itself and how it was managed: an informed citizen is a safeguarded citizen [1].

Risk communication is characterised by two elements, which are also visible in the sequence of phases: the first is intended to persuade people to accept the technological proposal and the associated risks (fundamentally manipulative and encouraging passive acceptance by the public), while the second proposes ways to avoid or mitigate the risks or provides information to enable people to form their own opinion [24]. These two types can be interpreted through the analysis of the sender and the receiver. In the first case, we are faced with a unilateral, partial information process, focused on passive acceptance. In the second, there is bilateral, open communication, based on feedback between the sender and the receiver through an exchange. As early as 1987, Plough and Krimsky [25] attempted to understand risk communication through two interpretations: one conventional or formal, the other symbolic. The first is linked to risk management and risk perception and focuses on external behaviour, i.e., the phenomenology of an event, neglecting the cultural, motivational, political and symbolic components underlying any intervention [26].

The second is linked to the role played by risk communication in social policy discourse and aims to clarify the characteristics of the context of reference, since risk is a social product that emerges from interaction between actors and establishes responsibility, reliability, acceptability and willingness to take risks. Keeney and von Winterfeldt [21] already proposed a typology of the objectives that risk communication should have, through six specific objectives: 1. educating the public about risks, risk analysis and risk management; 2. informing the public about specific risks and actions to contain them; 3. encouraging personal risk reduction and control measures; 4. improving understanding of public values and interests; 5. increasing trust in and credibility of institutions; 6. resolving conflicts and disputes [19].

The first and second objectives include the idea that there are no “zero risk” solutions and that uncertainty cannot be eliminated. The third and fourth objectives call on experts who must be able to communicate the event and give guidance. Points five and six aim to increase trust in and towards institutions. The objective of communication should be to provide the tools, resources and knowledge to discern between being informed and being manipulated, and between being educated and being instructed. According to Mays and Poumadère [26], there are three models of risk communication [27,28]: the first model concerns the partial provision of information in order to obtain consensus; the second is based on risk assessment and control, focusing on technical and scientific aspects, with communication as a tool for informing about the tolerability of a risk and recommendations for behaviour in the event of an accident; the third model combines engineering risk analysis with research into the social value associated with different perceptions, which aims to actively involve individuals and groups and makes collective learning the central strategy for implementing prevention policies. Finally, three areas of application of risk communication can be distinguished [25]. The first, care communication, motivates people exposed to a risk to change behaviours considered dangerous and harmful by proposing a possible solution. Risk prevention is its main field of action through, for example, health promotion campaigns and natural disaster prevention campaigns. The second, crisis communication, seeks to raise awareness among people to encourage responsible behaviour for self-protection and safeguarding their safety. The crisis is the scope of intervention of such communication, but it is not intended to reassure the public. Risk communication during a crisis or emergency, in order to be effective, i.e., to save lives, must satisfy the principles of timeliness, transparency, clarity, consistency, listening, empathy and involvement. It also includes communication strategies to remedy a reputational crisis of a public institution or private company. Finally, the third type is consensus communication, which encourages dialogue between parties in a risk dispute in order to reach decisions that are as widely shared and participated in as possible [26].

Risk communication has been extensively studied and analysed and has several aspects that can be applied to the context of emergencies. This is precisely because in everyday language these topics tend to overlap and are not differentiated [29].

1.2. Emergency Communication

Emergency communication, unlike risk communication, should be timely, immediate and accurate, while at the same time reassuring and comforting: it should convey safety, awareness and precision. During an emergency, people experience panic, which must be controlled. At the same time, efforts must be made to support citizens and comfort them by providing accurate and reliable information about events and how they are being managed. Experts and the mass media have a central role to play, as it is necessary to communicate warnings [30]. Communication is needed that conveys confidence to citizens about the work being conducted. This is why it is important that there is an aspect of content and relationship in the message that is developed [31], and the relationship between institutions and the mass media must lead to constructive dialogue [32]. The message must be simple, credible, consistent, repeated, and specific; it must come from multiple credible sources; it must offer a course of action that can be carried out [21]. For this reason, it is essential that there be continuous dialogue between institutions, the media, and citizens. The message conveyed must explain, persuade, but also inform and assist policymakers and the decision-making process itself.

Communication must take place through a national alert system, especially in the initial phase, followed by continuous dissemination through the mass media and social networks such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), WhatsApp, Instagram, followed by text messages, emails, bulletins and news from government bodies, institutions and specialised research institutes tasked with this responsibility. This communication also follows, or should follow, the three phases that characterise a state of emergency in this case: ex ante (pre-event); in itinere (during); ex post (post-event). These three phases are clearly defined and precise during emergency events. During the first phase (pre-event), attempts are made to define how to respond to the event, taking into account its scale and type (technological, health-related, natural). In this phase, emergency directives and management procedures are communicated, with specific safeguards put in place depending on the event. In this first phase, communication is direct, precise and, above all, reassuring. This phase lays the foundations for alert, safeguard and prevention procedures. Communication during the ongoing phase aims to disseminate information about the situation the community is experiencing. Citizens must be kept constantly informed so that they can be reassured, safeguarded and kept safe, enabling the community and the social system to plan a recovery to be implemented in the ex post phase. Ex post communication of an emergency event allows people to learn about and participate in actions for the development of emergency policies, the establishment of training and knowledge of the event itself. The communication processes of an emergency must take into account the different positions of the various senders and receivers of the message, as well as the different contexts and situations in which communication actually takes place, known as framing.

Communication and information processes run parallel to the evolution of the emergency situation, which makes it possible to trace the different phases of the emergency narrative so that the same forms and methods of information and communication that have proven effective can be implemented.

2. The Digital Systems of Warning Communication: Some Case Studies

The alert communication must be specific and refer exclusively to the threat in order to initiate the first phase of communication, which makes it possible to understand the type of threat and define the communication plan to be implemented subsequently. The use of social media, and social networks in particular, allows not only for the rapid dissemination of information but also for rapid communication and selection of the message. As stated above, emergency communication follows very specific phases, which very often overlap with risk communication. Alert and warning systems are, in fact, very often linked to risk systems, since the risk of natural disasters (eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) or technological disasters (nuclear power plant explosions) follows emergency phases when the phenomenon occurs.

Risk communication serves to prevent and minimise the vulnerability of individuals, while emergency communication aims to save lives. It can be argued that, in the risk phase, the aim is to “predict in order to prevent”, so that an alert and preparedness plan can be created for future emergencies, which, on the other hand, becomes “salvation for protection”.

The alert is triggered by ad hoc computer systems capable of sounding the alarm when a phenomenon occurs or is about to occur. Preparing the alert is important not only for the management plan by decision-makers (communication, information and training on the systems), but also to enable people to prepare a survival kit tailored to the type of emergency.

At both international and national levels, digital alert systems have been set up to warn the population of an imminent emergency situation through messaging and sound. However, this message must be followed by the provisions previously provided to the population according to the type of emergency reported (e.g., assembly points, shelters, survival kits, food supplies).

Japan is currently one of the countries best prepared to deal with emergency situations, as it is a territory at high risk of natural disasters and has already managed several emergency situations in the past, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as nuclear accidents and missile attacks.

An early form of warning system was tested and used in the city of Kobe in 1995 during the earthquake. Afterwards, Japan developed a new communication plan with the use and distribution of manuals for each level of education and age group, in order to provide accurate information on procedures.

In 2007, the Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) launched J-Alert (Japan Alert), a satellite system that allows local authorities to transmit alarm messages directly to local media and citizens via a loudspeaker system.

This early warning system transmits instant emergency information about threats such as earthquakes, tsunamis and ballistic missiles via sirens. Japan is an example of constantly evolving risk and emergency communication. In fact, the government regularly allocates funds to upgrade technological and communication systems based on current events and technological developments. The Japanese idea is to create and spread a culture of emergency by providing official information and involving all institutional areas in the preparation of emergency guidelines.

The Japanese case highlights how risk and emergency communication differs depending on the government and the political decision to adopt warning systems that are feasible and lead to the protection of the population.

Unfinished Alarm Systems: What Effects

Another example, different from that of Japan, is the Thai state, which was hit by a 7.7 magnitude earthquake on 28 March 2025 in Sagaing, Burma. This earthquake caused extensive damage and casualties, partly due to a management problem caused by institutional mismanagement. Since the 2004 tsunami, Thai governments have promised to launch a mobile phone alert system, which was never actually implemented. In 2024, the Thai Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, together with related public and private agencies, began developing a mobile device-based emergency alert system, or Cell Broadcast Service. This alert system is a tool for rapid and efficient communication of emergency information (violent incidents and natural disasters), whose purpose is to send a message (in five languages, including Thai, English, Chinese, Japanese and Russian) to anyone in an emergency area via their mobile phones, without the need for registration. At the time of the March 2025 earthquake, the system was not yet ready. In May 2025, the third and final test of the new mobile phone emergency alert system was conducted. The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) carried out the test in five provinces—Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Udon Thani, Ayutthaya and Nakhon Si Thammarat—sending the message ‘National Alert now. This is a test message from the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM). No action required’, accompanied by an eight-second alert sound. In addition, the Earthquake Thailand Alert website was launched subsequently in response to the violent earthquake that struck Bangkok on 28 March 2025. The site aims to provide real-time updates and notifications to keep residents and visitors informed about seismic activity in Thailand.

A final case to be analysed is emergency communication in Europe, particularly in Italy. The Italian government recently activated an alert service called IT-alert (Italy Alert), as required by EU Directive 2018/1972. This system underwent a trial phase from June to October 2023. This tool should be used to inform areas affected by a possible emergency event, in coordination with the Department of Civil Protection.

IT-Alert provides for messages to be sent to mobile phones in the area affected by an event and is intended to promote timely information. It can be sent within a group of telephone cells that are geographically close to that of the event. Finally, IT-Alert messages are not enough to be informed about the types of risks and emergencies in the area, but it is necessary to know and be informed about the risks and the future cause of the emergency.

IT-Alert is a system that, after two years of testing, is still not active and operational. This alarm system is still being used in test mode, and the various emergency situations that occur in Italy (floods, earthquakes, weather events) are used as test events to fine-tune the system and understand not only its use and practical application, but also as a way to educate the population about the system.

3. Conclusions: Creation of a Culture of Risk and Emergency

The communication process allows cultural change to be achieved through different stages. Communication is a cultural process that evolves alongside society, and in the digital society, communication styles and methods have changed, leading to the development of a different communication process for risk and emergency events. Therefore, understanding the difference between risk and emergency allows for the creation of precise and well-defined communication plans.

The risk phase is constant and requires continuous work, involving a cultural change aimed at raising awareness of communication and risk and, consequently, preparing for emergency communication during this phase. In emergencies, digital media can be used to communicate quickly, rapidly and interactively, which can also assist political decision-making, support and guide communities towards awareness of the actions to be taken in the event of emergencies and safeguard the lives of individuals on different occasions.

The warning system works when the communication plan is based on the construction of an emergency culture that schematically defines the steps to be followed with precise and detailed information. Communicating an emergency situation means building a communication pathway that is available to the entire population and outlines the management of the emergency. Risk communication is essential because it educates the population, informs them about the management of an emergency event and ensures the protection of the population. When a catastrophic event occurs and an emergency arises, it is at that moment that it is possible to see whether the plans have been well prepared and implemented. It cannot be taken for granted that the population is accustomed to alarms and emergency sounds; in fact, the response to an alert only occurs if people are educated about that type of communication and are able to respond. Risk communication involves creating a culture of emergency mechanisms and basic communication for prevention and protection.

The communication system must be a political choice, as demonstrated in the case of Japan, and must be made available to all individuals, without exception, thus safeguarding everyone, even the most vulnerable [33,34]. The Thai case demonstrates how important it is to be able to communicate an emergency situation quickly and accurately. Above all, it is essential that the various social partners, including politicians, are aware of what an event is and what communication systems need to be activated [35]. The Italian example highlights how much work still needs to be conducted to build a proper emergency communication system. Working on risk situations means being able to develop communication tools that protect the population from exposure to the event. This process prepares the population for emergency management itself through awareness of emergency communication [36].

The objective of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction is to promote a culture of communication in the event of disasters and emergencies that is widespread and adopted by the governments of different countries [37]. The communication process enables cultural change through a training process determined by increased knowledge of situations that can occur with negative effects on individuals [38].