Enhancing risk communication by Kinsthwamba Siani

Kinsthwamba Siani

ENHANCING RISK COMMUNICATION FOR MIGRANTS IN COVENTRY THROUGH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED)

April 2010

TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 6 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 7 LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2: AIM AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 16 2.1. AIM AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 16 2.2. ANTICIPATED RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ............................................................... 16 CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 18 SECTON ONE: RISK ....................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1. RISK/HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY DEFINITIONS………………………. ………18 3.1.1.1. HAZARDS........................................................................................................... 21 3.1.1.2. VULNERABILITY ................................................................................................ 21 3.1.1.3. MIGRATION AND VULNERABILITY................................................................... 23 3.1.1. 4. RISK SOCIETY…………………………………………………………………………23 3.1.2. RISK PERCEPTION……………………………………………………………… ………24 3.1.3. RISK COMMUNICATION…………………………………………………………………25 3.1.4. RISK COMMUNICATION APPROACHES……………………………………………..27 3.1.4.1. TOP-DOWN APPROACH MODEL OF RISK COMMUNICATION ....................... 28 3.1.4.2. PARTICIPATORY APPROACH MODEL OF RISK COMMUNICATION .............. 28 3.1.4.3. CENTRE APPROACH MODEL OF RISK COMMUNICATION ............................ 28 3.1.4.4. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 29 3.1.5. RISK COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE ENHANCEMENT…...29 3.1.5.1. UK CCA ACT 2004 AND RISK COMMUNICATION ............................................ 30 3.1.5.2. THE DUTY OF COMMUNICATING RISK ........................................................... 30 3.1.6. RISK COMMUNICATION ISSUES……………………………………………………...30 3.1.6.1. COMPLEXITY OF THE RISK PERCEPTION ...................................................... 32 3.1.6.2. SUITABILITY OF TOOLS FOR RISK COMMUNICATION .................................. 31 3.1.6.3. MENTAL NOISE RISK COMMUNICATION ........................................................ 32 3.1.6.4. NEGATIVE DOMINANCE OF RISK COMMUNICATION .................................... 32 3.1.6.5. TRUST DETERMINATION OF RISK COMMUNICATION ................................... 32 3.1.6.6. GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY PRIORITIES .............................................. 32 3.1.6.7. LACK OF RESOURCES USE ............................................................................. 33 3.1.6.8. SOCIAL, CULTURAL, GENDER, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL VALUES ........................................................................................................................................ 33 3.1.6.8.1. CULTURE BARRIER ....................................................................................... 33 3.1.6.8.2. LANGUAGE BARRIER .................................................................................... 34 3.1.6.8.3. GENDER BARRIERS ...................................................................................... 34 3.1.6.8.4. EMOTIONAL BARRIERS ................................................................................. 34 3.1.6.9. RISK COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTS ...................................................... 35 2

3.1.6.9.1. PHYSICAL BARRIERS .................................................................................... 35 3.1.6.9.2. LAYOUT BARRIER .......................................................................................... 35 3.1.6.9.3. DISABILITY BARRIER ..................................................................................... 35 3.1.7. RISK COMMUNICATION AND HAZARD CONSTRUCTS…………………………...35 3.1.7.1. POLICY AND HAZARD CONSTRUCTS ............................................................. 36 3.1.7.2. MEDIA, HAZARD CONSTRUCTS AND RISK COMMUNICATION ..................... 36 3.1.7.3. DIGITAL SOCIETY, HAZARD CONSTRUCTS AND RISK COMMUNICATION .. 36 3.1.8. THE RISK OF COMMUNICATING RISK…………………………...…………………..38 3.1.9. COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL…………………………………………………………….38 3.1.9.1. RISKS IN COVENTRY ........................................................................................ 39 3.1.9.2. RISK COMMUNICATION ARRANGEMENT ....................................................... 39 3.1.10. SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………..40 SECTION TWO: MIGRANTS……………………………………………………………………43 3.2. MIGRANTS ............................................................................................................... 41 3.2.1. VULNERABILITY IN MIGRANTS………………………………………………………..41 3.2.1.1. LANGUAGE BARRIER ....................................................................................... 42 3.2.1.2. INCOME ............................................................................................................. 43 3.2.1.3. EDUCATION ....................................................................................................... 44 3.2.2. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 44 SECTION THREE: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) ............................... 45 3.3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) ....................................................... 45 3.3.1. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY…………………………………………………………45 3.3.1.1. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES ................................................ 45 3.3.1.2. IT AND RISK COMMUNICATION ....................................................................... 46 3.3.2. WEB-BASED………………………………………………………………………………48 3.3.2.1. WEB-BASED CONCEPT .................................................................................... 48 3.3.2.2. WEB-BASED CAPABILITIES.............................................................................. 49 3.3.2.3. WEB-BASED AND RISK COMMUNICATION ..................................................... 50 3.3.3. SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………... 51 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 53 4.1. METHODOLOGY DESIGN APPROACH ................................................................... 53 4.2. QUANTITATIVE METHOD........................................................................................ 53 4.2.1.QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD……………………………………………………………..53 4.2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN……………………………………………………..............54 4.2.3. RESPONDENTS SAMPLE……………………………………………………………….54 4.2.4. INTERVIEW LANGUAGE………………………………………………………………...54 4.3. QUALITATIVE METHOD .......................................................................................... 55 4.3.1. FOCUS GROUPS…………………………………………………………………………55 4.3.1.1. PARTICIPANTS SELECTION ............................................................................. 56 4.3.1.2. FOCUS GROUPS LOCATION ............................................................................ 56 4.3.2. CONVERSATIONAL INTERVIEWS……………………………………………………. 56 4.3.3. DESK-BASED METHOD…………………………………………………………………59 4.3.4. SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………59 3

4.4. DATA GATHERING AND TREATMENT .................................................................... 59 4.4.1. MEETING AND DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE/DATES………………………….58 4.4.2. MATERIALS USED FOR DATA GATHERING………………………………………...58 4.5. RESEARCH ETHICS ................................................................................................ 58 4.6. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS........................................................................ 60 5.1. EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RISK COMMUNICATION ....................................... 60 5.2. PERSONAL INTERVIEW SURVEY REPORT EVALUATION .................................... 61 5.2.1. RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION………………………………………..62 5.2.1.1. RISK PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS RESULTS .......................................... 62 5.2.1.2. LANGUAGE BARRIER RESULTS ...................................................................... 63 5.2.1.2. RISK COMMUNICATION SOURCES RESULTS ................................................ 65 5.2.2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) USE………………………………..66 5.2.2.1. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) USE RESULTS ....................... 66 5.2.3. UPCOMING EVENTS ANNOUNCEMENT RESULTS………………………………..68 5.2.4. SUMMARY OF PERSONAL INTERVIEW SURVEY RESULTS……………………..69 5.3. FOCUS GROUPS RESULTS .................................................................................... 69 5.3.1. PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS TO FOCUS GROUPS………………..……………....69 5.3.2. FOCUS GROUP RESULTS……………………………………………………………...70 5.3.2.1. RISK PERCEPTION AND RISK COMMUNICATION AWARENESS ................... 70 5.3.2.2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) USE ........................................ 70 5.3.2.3. INCOME RESULTS ............................................................................................ 70 5.3.2.4. EDUCATION LEVEL RESULTS ......................................................................... 71 5.4. INTERVIEW RESULTS ............................................................................................. 71 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 72 6.1. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 72 6.1.1. FOR GOVERNMENT…………………..…………………………………………………72 6.1.2. FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING…………………………………………………………72 6.1.3. FOR MIGRANTS…………………………………………………………………………..73 6.1.4. FURTHER RESEARCH…………………………………………………………………..73 6.2. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 73 LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 75 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 88 APPENDIX 1: COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL WARDS MAP ............................................. 88 APPENDIX 2: WEST MIDLANDS COMMUNITY RISK REGISTER ................................. 89 APPENDIX 3: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................ 90 3A: SEMI-INTERVIEW WITH AN EMERGENCY PLANNING MANAGER ..................... 90 3B: PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................... 91 3C: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................... 95 APPENDIX 4: PARTICIPANT CONSENT STATEMENT FORM ...................................... 98 APPENDIX 5: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET .................................................... 99

APPENDIX 6: FOCUS PARTICIPANT PROFILE FORM ............................................... 102 APPENDIX 7: MEETING AND DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE/DATES .................... 104 APPENDIX 8: TABLES OF PERSONAL INTERVIEW RESPONSES ............................ 105 APPENDIX 9: CHARTS OF PERSONAL INTERVIEW RESPONSES ........................... 113 APPENDIX 10: FOCUS GROUPS ATTENDEE PROFILE ............................................. 125 APPENDIX 11: INTERVIEW WITH MAMU, COVENTRY............................................... 126

ABSTRACT Information Technology (Web-based) provides capabilities that can not only help Emergency Operators to predict and hold the dynamic realities of a disaster evidently and assist to simulate and generate improved and real-time decision making, networking, keeping track of the risks/ hazards data, but also facilitate risk communication arrangements within communities. With recent industrial booming decades contributing to global warming, political, social, economical problems, internal and external migrations, the world is shifting into a planet village (globalisation) that present a modern trend of highly complex socio-ecological, technological and environmental risks. This paper evaluates how risk is perceived by migrants, what arrangements are in place to communicate risk to the public, and then promote IT (Web-based) as a potential tool to enhance risk communication for migrants, therefore enhance their ability to reduce their disaster risks. Quantitative primary data collection was conducted in Coventry which constitutes the case study for this research. Qualitative data collected through focus groups and interviews was analysed then compared to existing literature review related to risk communication and IT (web-based) capacities. Language barrier, income and education level of migrants are the key elements that were analysed in this research. A summary of rrecommendations for the Government, Emergency Planning and Migrants are presented followed by a further research and a conclusion.

The research does not look at the complexity of IT (We-based) or address the cutoff between investments in IT (Web-based) and other capabilities for risk communication management or make recommendations about the percentage of funding for IT (Web-based) or indeed other emergency management activities within Emergency Planning.

LIST OF TABLES Table1: Risk perception Table 2: Risk awareness Table 3: Knowledge of Risk Communication Sources Table 4: Average time taken to receive risk communication Table 5: Interest to access risk communication Table 6: Preferred Sources of information Table 7: Information understanding level Table 8: Reason(s) for low level understanding Table 9: Type of information required Table 10: Internet Access from home Table 11: IT/Internet use Table 12: Frequency of Internet Use Table 13: Average Hours of Internet Use/Week Table 14: Purposes of Internet use Table 15: City Council Website visit Table 16: Never used Ways of Communication Table 17: Perfect understanding of information from different sources Table 18: Understanding of Radio Communication Table 19: Reason(s) for lower understanding Table 20: Preferred method(s) for ordinarily risk communication Table 21: Preferred method(s) for urgent risk communication Table 22: Best method(s) to announce upcoming events/meetings about risk communication Table 23: Use of alternative language(s) for risk communication Table 24: Best method(s) for alternative language use for risk communication Table 25: Focus Groups Participants Profile 7

LIST OF ACRONYMS BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation BME - Black and Minority Ethnic CNN - Cable News Network CCA - Civil Contingencies Act 2004 CFA – Canadian Food Agency DDA - The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 DM – Disaster Management DRR – Disaster Risk Reduction EPS – Emergency Planning Society ESOL – English for Speakers of Other Languages EMDAT-BE – Emergency Management Database - Belgium EU – European Union EPU – Emergency Planning Unit ECHR - European Convention on Human Rights FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency GDIN - Global Disaster Information Network GMFC - Contribution on Global Wild land Fire Monitoring HE – High Education HIV/AIDS - Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome IDRN - India Disaster Resource Network

IFRC – International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies ITAA – Information Technology Association of America ISDR - International Strategy on Disaster Reduction IT – Information Technology ICT – Information Communication Technology LA – Local Authority NRC – National Research Council NASA - Aviation Safety Reporting System NHS – National Health Service NASS - National Asylum Support Service SMS - Short Message Service or Silent Messaging Service USA – United State of America UK – United Kingdom UNISDR (ISDR) - United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction WMCRR - West Midlands Community Risk Register

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To God Almighty for everything he does for the endurance of my family. I would thank Dr Yung-Fang Chen whose guidance helped me during research and to all those who manifested the desire to guide me in this work. Finally I thank all those people who facilitated and participated in this research: Peter Street, Walton Linda, Bhopinder Basi, and volunteers migrants.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION There is a common view that the growth of communities and multiculturalism in today cities, as the result of massive migration, is linked to: considerable environmental and socio-economical and cultural consequences1, ‘risks’2 that requires from Emergency Operators (public and private), an appropriate use of Information Technology3and networking tools in dealing with risks communication processes, for a sustainable community resilience. Information Technology (Web-based)4, comforts extensive opportunities for socioeconomic advancement by creating contemporary life environments: connecting human resources, industrial and financial businesses development and easy access to globally networking technologies such as: internet, e-mail, video conferencing, chat messaging, distance learning, SMS, data repository, and resources information. Ulrich Beck’s (1992) analysis of post-modern society upholds that it is ‘a risksociety’. The modernisation and global mass migration has predisposed the materialisation of globalisation that is characterised by worldwide integration, connectivity, media networking, and communication structures, resulting to the world becoming a ‘global village’. The above characteristics of the world increase the probability for new risks to emerge at all level: global, national, regional, and even local, in their reach and impact (Ulrich Beck’s, 1992). This constrains Emergency actors to disseminate specific neighborhood risk information. For example some neighborhoods may be in the hazards’ direct path and will be more affected than those neighborhoods outside the hazard’s path (John C. Pine, 2007). 1 As it was the case with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, human caused-hazards can cause substantial losses as well. 2 Here the term ‘risk’ is used simply as a synonym for hazard or danger. 3 Information Technology (IT) is roughly defined as a set including computer, computing and communications technology. IT for risk communication in this research is a set of devices that can be used through different phases of risk communication process. 4 The term Web-Based refers to those applications or services that are resident on a server that is accessible using a Web browser (Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape, etc) and is therefore accessible from anywhere in the world via the Web.

John C. Pine (2007: 8) argues “Web-based resources are used today by public agencies, and non profits agencies in gathering information about disasters. The number of people who rely on Web sites for information is growing every day. At the very least, many people will use the web as one of their preferred sources for information”. Haiti January 2010 earthquake, has prove the capabilities of IT (Web-based). Rescues operators and people were able to communicate among themselves and with family members abroad through social networking sites while all landline telephone and cellular telephone were out service. During hurricane Katrina responders were able to make use of available IT tools provided by voluntarily organisations and individual that proved valuable, and created interoperability and cooperation communications even when

the

communications infrastructures were damaged. In USA, the E-government Act 2002, Section 214 in consultation with the FEMA conducted a research on using IT to enhance disaster management (National Research Council, 2007). The research find that investment in IT research and development for disaster management area have to be stakeholder-driven (NRC, 2007:3). To take advantage of IT opportunities5 in short-term, e.g. during extreme events require emergency responders identifying the available technologies, establishing policies and measures for their use along training users. The UK CCA Act 2004 aims to enhance local and national resilience. Category 1 responders are required to communicate with the public, so that they are made aware of the risks, warned, informed and advised in times of emergency (Cabinet Office, 2004:93). These requirements are based on Government’s conviction that recognises that “a well informed public is better able to respond to an emergency 5 Section 214 of the E-Government Act of 2002: “Recommendation1: Disaster management organisations should take advantage of opportunities for adoption of existing technology or adjustment of policies and procedures that would allow significant short-term enhancement of disaster management”

and to minimise the impact of the emergency on the community” (Cabinet Office, 2004:93). Risk communication in UK does not only entail cities with particular high hazards/risks or emergency/disaster history such as London, Birmingham or Manchester to generate emergency measures, but every EPU at Local Authority echelon within UK borders to move from the ‘top down’ approach to bottom-up approach to engaging communities to participate in preparing for their own risk communication therefore, promote community resilience6 (CCA Act 2004). On top of the above, in UK, community resilience is through local resilience meeting that persuade collaboration and teamwork between responders of Category 1 and 2, local communities and in partnership with multiple Agencies (CCA Act 2004). The benefits of this practice are: 

Joining efforts to improve resilience in communities;



Promoting the design of community plans (e.g. risk communication arrangements);



Organising education training or exercises to prepare communities with skills and resources needed to improve their own resilience.

As we can see; IT (Web-based) provides capabilities that can not only help Emergency operators to forecast the dynamic realities of a disaster clearly and help to simulate and generate improved on real-time decision making, but also keeping track of the hazards/risks data and implementing risk communication arrangements within communities. Even though it might sound irrelevant discussing risk communication for migrants for effective community resilience, in this constantly changing world, it is an essential problem faced by communities. The main questions we might be asking are:  What sort of arrangements and strategies does the Emergency Planning Unit use for risk communication to the public? 6 Resilience is a summation of a continuum of conditions that define physical and social exposure to hazards, disaster resilience, pre-event mitigation or preparedness and post-event response (Cross J.A., 2001).

 Does Emergency Planning Unit exploit the redundancy of IT (Web-based) for risk communication and community diversity criterion to achieve resilience?  Do migrants have a perfect perception of risk and risk communication access, to allow them react accordingly in emergency situation?  Whether the existing ways of risk communication is enough, such that it responds effectively to the need of risk communication for migrants?  What issues or critical success factors need to be considered in that respect?  How can the existing risk communication ways be improved on the basis of community risk communication? As previously stated this paper aims to promoting the use of IT (Web-based) to enhance risk communication for migrants7. To achieve the aim and objectives, the research in it Chapter two addresses the aim and objectives of the research and anticipated research limitations. Chapter three (based on literature review) gives an overview of risk concept, risk society8 and its connection to risk perception and communication9 that links to risk communication issues. Relations are established with hazard theory and factors that influence the creation of risk10. The research identifies individuals who are considered to be migrants in Coventry and risk in this location as listed in the WMCRR that will be linked to vulnerability for migrants, followed by the potential of IT use in the broader human and organisational perspective, and the range and the nature of IT (Web-based) capabilities in risk communication needs11.

7 “Migrants are defined as all those who were born outside the UK. A group which make up eight per cent of the total UK population. The foreign-born population is very diverse, including people from elsewhere in the EU (23%) who are not subject to immigration controls, those from the Indian sub-continent (20%), from Africa (19%), and from the Americas (11%) including Canada and the USA”. 8 Common thinking of ‘risk society’ refers to a world which has become more hazardous, and more risky. Giddens (1999: 27) argues that it is “a society increasingly preoccupied with the future (including safety)”. 9 The theory of risk perception is briefly discussed and it will be seen that defining public perception may produce different paradigms. This will set the scene for discussion of risk communication and the benefits and problems it creates. Here discussion will centre on a number of approaches, before providing an overview of the characteristics of each approach (A brief examination of the approach utilised by government within the context of resilience is also performed). 10 It will be argued that whilst undertaking a post-modernist approach to risk communication creates the potential for high levels of conflict, reductionist approaches are more likely to increase levels of vulnerability, produce unsuitable policies and retard the creation of resilience. 11 The research evaluates how Information Technology (Web-based) of Coventry gather data and information related to risk/hazards and disasters and the way Emergency Planning Unit gain access to at risks communities register, disseminate information of potentials risks/hazards/disasters within migrants community, appraise availability of communication channels

Chapter four, through methodology examines arrangements, strategies and IT used by the EPU to provide risks communication to the public in general and to migrants in particular. It will also assess migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; risk perception and risk communication access; and through their experience, verify the relevant issues or critical success factors relating to risks perception and risk communication process. Chapter five analyses and discusses data gathered from focus groups and interviews based on the objectives of this research. Recommendations for the Government, Emergency Planning and Migrants in chapter six, suggest what might be done that could enhance risk communication efforts through IT (Web-based), followed by a conclusion.

to the public in case of emergency, training of end users, networking with migrants community organisations for effective integration of the capabilities of migrants, for speedily risk communication, to prevent disaster impact within a well known community to reduce vulnerability in migrants and in so doing arise resilience in the community.

CHAPTER 2: AIM AND OBJECTIVES 2.1. AIM AND OBJECTIVES The research aim seeks to promote the use of Information Technology (Webbased) to enhance risk communication for migrants in the context of Coventry (West Midland, UK). The objectives of this study: 1) examine arrangements and strategies used by the EPU for risk communication; 2) explore technologies used by the EPU to provide risk communication to the public in general and in particular to the migrants; 3) assess risk perception and communication access for migrants and 4) identify issues or important success factors related to technology use in risk perception and communication process. These will be feasible through a broad literature review related to risk perception and communication, vulnerability in migrants, IT (Web-based)â&#x20AC;&#x2122; capabilities, collection of data followed by an analysis and discussion of results as experienced by migrants in the context of Coventry to advise those with risk communication responsibility to build the resilience of the public in general and migrants in particular, in their community.

2.2. Anticipated research limitations

In order to aggregate data required for completing this research, there is a need to get in contact and speak to targeted person through questionnaire, interviews and focus groups. Carrying out this evaluation will inevitably imply a set of limitations. It is known that individuals have the rights to refuse or withdraw at any time from participating in the research activities. If this occurs, it will be considered as a limitation to the research. The corrective action will be to undertake this step of the 16

project sooner, so that in case of participant(s)â&#x20AC;&#x2122; withdrawing from the research, replacing as soon as possible will ensure that the project progress is not obstructed.

The research report has a submission deadline that require from researcher to undertake a broad literature review related to the topic, data gathering, analysis and discussions, and final report written up. Bearing in mind that volunteer participants to this research have different commitments, it is anticipated that the factor time to comply with the deadline of completion will be a limitation if a suitable scheduling of activities is not done with respect to the timing. We intend to run a semi-structured interview with an Emergency Planning Manager, one-to-one interviews with at least 50 migrants and three focus groups followed by an interview with migrants who might have an interesting history contributing to this research. Language barrier is expected to be a major handicap to surmount for this research; intend to address through a translator facilitator. This means emerging questions during interview/focus groups related to linguistic problem will be translated in another modern language (e.g. French). Due to the time factor, the research could not be extended to all migrants groups. Therefore, it is not able to generalise with authority any findings from the research to migrants groups that were not part of this research.

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW This part is a desk-based theoretical research summarising materials, analysis and discussions

opinions

from

diverse

authors

risk

perception

and

communication, migrants and vulnerability to risk plus the role of Community Risk Register under CCA Act 2004 and IT (Web-based) capabilities. The purpose is the understanding of concepts of that contributes to highlight and discuss research findings.

SECTON ONE: RISK

3.1. RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION Composite community population comes with considerable increase in the figure of multifaceted risks/ hazards such as HIV/AIDS, July 7 2005 London bombings, Swine Flu pandemic in 2009 and much more. From these views, we presume that exposure to risks/hazards originates inside a physical environment (e.g. locality and risky material features), the social environment (disparity, poverty, deficient education, lack of risk awareness, etc) and the inability to mobilise resources (income, accommodation, education level, technology, etc) to tackle emergency. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world, “preparedness, at all levels, for a range of threats is a key aspect of effective emergency management and of public reassurance” (O’Brien G, 2006:63).

3.1.1. Risk/Hazard and Vulnerability Definitions Risks concepts are constantly contested and are subject to disputes and debates over their nature, their control and whom is to blame for their creation” (Tulloch and Lupton, 2003:1). Due to the patterns of globalisation resulting from late modernisation, risks have become more and more difficult to calculate and control, crossing national and socio-economic boundaries. Risks affect both the wealthy and poor alike (Beck, 1992: 36).

Taking a socio-cultural approach to exploring the meanings and significance of risk for ‘non experts’ or ‘lay people’ acknowledges that “the ways in which risk is dealt with and experienced in everyday life, are inevitably developed via membership of cultures and subcultures as well as through personal experience”(Beck, 1992). Risk knowledge, therefore are historical, cultural and local. What might be perceived to be risk in one era, for a culture at a certain location may no longer be viewed so in a later era, in another culture or in a different location12. A research in Australia and Britain about risk perceptions, reveal that Australian were very little concern with Beck’s view of risk. Among the definitions, a 31-year old male IT manager from Coventry defined risk as ” the amount you are willing to gamble in order to- the amount you are willing to lose in order to get a benefit (Tulloch & Lupton, 2003:18). A 33-year old female, company director from Oxford also said “life is full of risk and you shouldn’t complain about it. There is just a level of risk in walking round”. The researcher noted that “uncertainty, insecurity and loss of control over the future were associated with risk, as was the need to try and contain this loss of control through careful consideration of the results of risk-taking” (Tulloch., & Lupton., 2003: 19). According to them “Lay people see risks as affecting not only their physical being but also their economic status, cultural identity, home ‘memory’, relationships with others, social standing or status and emotional or psychological states”( Tulloch & Lupton 2003: 41). 12 The perception of risk is linked to different paradigms. Emergency Agency operators, Environmental Scientists, politics, businesses, communities, have own risk perception. These differences of paradigms focus essentially on what risk communication need to be, for what outcomes and what issues are linked to risk communication activity. A comparison between post-modernist approach to risk communication; that is seen to have a probability of high levels of divergence and the reductionist approach; that is more likely to amplify the levels of vulnerability to people, is considerable. As we can see, different definitions of risk are linked to the location and condition of every individual or community. The risk of damage to a person who misunderstands a terrorist attack threat risk communication message is higher than for someone who receives the alert in real-time time and reacts accordingly to the message.

Taking political and environmentalist views; risk is defined as “the expected damage or loss arising from a function of frequency and severity of hazards and of vulnerability. People are considered at risk when they are unable to cope with hazard” (O’Brien G., 2008: 235). Harding (1998:167) adds “risk is a combination of the probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence: how often is a particular potentially harmful event going to occur, and what are the consequences of this occurrence?” EMDAT-BE (2009) considers “Risk as expected losses of lives, persons injured, property damaged and economic activity disrupted due to a particular hazard for a given area and reference period. For migrants, crossing geographical borders constitutes in itself the greatest risk they had taken in their lives. Eric, a 44-year English descendant, said: “I’ve moved in my early twenties away from South Africa to England and in my forties from England to Australia. Those were the first two biggest risks I’ve ever taken in my life. The feeling of nervousness and trepidation and concern and the unknown were just on one level quite fantastic and on the other very scary. And there were catalysts for change that made things either easier or more difficult depending on which opportunity I looked at. But those were the biggest risks I’ve taken” (Tulloch & Lupton, D., 2003:43). A mathematical expression of the concept risk is considered as the result of the contact linking a hazard (e.g. Swine Flu fever viruses) and the capacity of the community at risk within the described community that is vulnerable to its impact, to react to the instruction given by the Department of health/NHS. R= VxH C

(R = risk, V = vulnerability, H = hazard, C = capacity to resist)

The common factor is that risk is a function of the hazard agent. The exposure of nations, communities or organisations is reduced by their capacity to mitigate and recover from losses.

Keith Smith (2004:36) argues that “risk cannot be eliminated, so it has to be assessed and managed in order to reduce disaster”13. Risk assessment need to be quantitatively and/or qualitatively. Quantitative risk assessment is: Hazard (probability) x Loss (expected) Risk= Preparedness (loss mitigation)

3.1.1.1. Hazards According to Sorensen, J. et al., (2006:11) “hazard is physical phenomena caused either by rapid or slow onset events having atmospheric, geologic and hydrologic origins on global, regional, national and local scales”. The UNISDR, (2009) considers risk as “a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Hazard refers commonly to physical or non-physical phenomenon that might create an emergency to a vulnerable community. For example, earthquake, wild fire, active volcanoes, flooding, chemical terrorism and highly inflammable substances are all hazards.

3.1.1.2. Vulnerability Even though exposure to vulnerability as result of migration is subject of debate, and is not the aim of this research, there is a window of opportunity to briefly look at the meaning of vulnerability. According to the UN/ISDR (2004) “vulnerability is the

conditions

determined

physical,

social,

cultural,

economic,

and

13 Many Cities subsist with volcanoes (e.g. Hilo, Hawaii, San Salvador, El Salvador, Puebla, Mexico, or Kagoshima, Japan). What can be done is containing the risk to protect life, businesses and environment.

environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards. Ben Wisner et al (2003:11) defines “vulnerability as the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard”. David Alexander (2002) argues that “vulnerability has a negative impact on social, economic, political, cultural and environmental”. It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone’s life, livelihood, property and other assets are put to risk by a discrete and identifiable events (or series of ‘cascade’ of such events) in nature and in society (Wisner et al, 2003:11). Cross (2001:66) adds that “Community’s vulnerability is the abstract of a range of circumstances that define environmental and social exposure to hazards”. Wisner et al (2003) in “Access Model”, spots the way vulnerability differently affects individual/communities. “A greater mobility of the population results in greater social disintegration and less family connections and support, therefore community nuisance such as crime, eroding confidence and social organisation” (Pelling, 2003: 56‐58). This therefore increases vulnerability for both local people and new migrants within a location. In developed countries, vulnerability through concentrating people and assets in areas exposed to hazards, mainly migrants’ people who cannot get quick risk information is a factor of vulnerability in itself (Quarantelli, 2003:212). If vulnerability is what it is said to be above, are migrants not vulnerable for being relocated? Does being uninformed, communicating with basic understanding of English language, and lacking substantial resources not make them vulnerable people?

The answers to the above questions are possible with a thorough

analysis of data collected from migrants’ views in this research.

3.1.1.3. Migration and Vulnerability Human beings have moved from places to places since time immemorial. The reasons and duration of these migrations develop stress on individuals and their communities. Such stress may not be related to an increase in mental illness for all conditions or to the same extent across all migrants groups (Bhugra, D. and Jones, P., 2001). A study conducted by Ödegaard reported that “migrant Norwegians to the USA had higher rates of schizophrenia14 (with a peak occurring 10-12 years post-migration)” (Bhugra, D. and Jones, P., 2001). Even though this study demonstrating that every migrant group has elevated rates of schizophrenia has been cited repeatedly; Sashidharan (1993) argues that “this model should not be applied to other ethnic minority groups in the UK without critical evaluation”. But the years 1980s and 1990s studies showed that the rates of schizophrenia were higher among migrant groups to the UK compared to native whites (Bhugra, 2000).

3.1.1. 4. Risk Society Scientists are constantly arguing to assert their views on what can be considered as ‘risk society’. Beck’s (1992) analysis of ‘Post-Modern Society’ is a risk-society, adds that modernisation has predisposed the emergence of globalisation that is characterised by a growing global integration of people and connectivity that is supported by media networks, communication structures that are breaking physical barriers and transforming the world into what can be called a ‘global village’. Beck claims that such factors increase the potential for ‘modern’ risks’ impact to reach local, regional, national and even global level. Lagadec P.,(1993:45) argues that “ major crises no longer occupy the realm of the exotic and rare but are increasing in frequency: becoming structural as large 14“ Schizophrenia is a chronic mental health condition that causes a range of different psychological symptoms. The exact cause of schizophrenia is unknown. However, most experts believe that the condition is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors”. Source NHS, http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schizophrenia/Pages/Introduction.aspx

networks become more complex, more vulnerable, more independent, more frequent and destabilising”. A different view from Giddens (1999:27) is that “the ‘risk society’ might suggest a world which has become more hazardous, but this is not necessarily so. Rather it is a society increasingly preoccupied with the future, safety, generating the notion of risk”.

3.1.2. Risk Perception A reflection developed by Ulrich Beck (2004) highlight that modern societies are defined best by risk rather than by social class. He adds that societies produce their own risks; they are not ‘Acts of God’. New risks15 are emerging and require a modern level of risk perception for Emergency Planners who estimate that with existing measures of risk assessment in place, there is low risk within western societies. Society with no risk is not possible since we are living in industrialised/modernised era; characterised by pollutions, climate changes, massive migration, terrorism threats etc. and in a global environment / village, with our differences (technological, educational, cultural, needs, belief, aspirations), with no perfect scientific and technical knowledge, therefore no confidence over the future (Ulrich Beck, 2004). Public perception of risk is dynamic and influenced by affective thinking as opinions evolve in response to the environment in which we live (CFA, 2005). What might be considered as risk in UK might not be for migrants from different cultural, political, belief or background. E.g. a community of African origin who practices excision to little girls: this practice is risky but they do it as a cultural practice. Therefore understanding public perception and responses to risk forms the basis of developing effective policies (Slovic, 1987).

15 Emerging risks to be considered as: Industrial accident, Community wide, Redundancy, Power loss, Transport accident, Climate change, Terrorism, Bio-terrorism, Heat wave, Drought, Racism, Mass trauma, Social etc…

3.1.3. Risk Communication The increased risks worldwide and improved knowledge of risk has brought countries to establish policies and confer on Emergency Planning at all levels, the responsibility to ensure communities are aware of risk/hazards that have the potential to affect them within their environments, by providing information to the public, what to do in emergency situation to preserve life, property, businesses and environment (CCA Act 2004). Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines communication as “a procedure by which information is exchanged among individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, language or behaviour”. The activity of risk communication is therefore the embodiment of the old adage that says “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure” (Toft, B., and Reynolds, S., 2005:12). The term risk communication was formulated for the first time in 1984 (Gurabardhi Z., et al, 2005) and developed accordingly to risk perception theory to value the growing public concerns, attitudes, reactions and protests in opposition to recent controversial technologies development such as nuclear power. The recent decades has seen emergence of the concept due to the increasing debate related to climate change, air pollution, terrorism threats, crime, Swine flu pandemic etc. According to Plough and Krimsky (1987:4) “risk communication is a relatively new development”. Baruch.F., et al., (2001:4) explained that “Risk communication means communication intended to supply lay people with the information they need to make informed, independent judgments about risks to their health, safety, and the environment”. In opposite for businesses (‘risks creators’)16: “risk communication means persuading the public that the risk from a technology is small and should be ignored” (Baruch, F., et al., 2001:4). In communicating risk, Lupton, D., (2007) reveals how the social and cultural context in which risk is understood and negotiated is neglected.

16 Risk creators are: manufacturers, managers of technologies developer

The UNISDR (Damon P. Coppola, 2006:10 -11) recommends a framework with three strategic goals: ď&#x201A;§

Effective integration of risk/ disaster consideration into sustainable development policies;

ď&#x201A;§

Planning and programming at all levels with emphasis on disaster preparedness and vulnerability reduction;

ď&#x201A;§

Development and strengthening of institutions and capacities at all levels, especially at the community level that contribute to building resilience.

To reduce human and economic losses, the Hyogo Framework for Action 20052015 advocates building the Resilience of Nations and communities to disaster by using knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety within communities through risk communication. Ian Dickinson (EPS, 2009:42)17 argues that information is the lifeblood of effective operational command. Yet time and again we look at post-incident reviews of major incidents to find that decisions were flawed by an inaccurate or incomplete information picture. Perry and Nelson (1991) on household disaster preparedness research questioned samples of Whites-Americans, Africans-Americans and Mexicans-Americans regarding their reliance on different sources of hazard information. The report states that ethnic minority groups receive information on different channels, especially Mexicans-Americans who receive it through their social group. This shows that preparedness for risk communication need to be planned by all and for all the community members. Even if our community had great understanding of risk it is not evident that it would be applied completely to reduce risk. This requires a continuous risk communication through dialogue between Emergency expert and all community members, at local levels.

17 Ian Din Dickinson, former Assistant Chief Constable for Lothian and Borders.

3.1.4. Risk Communication Approaches The idea behind risk communication for community is to guarantee that all community members are aware of risks/hazards within their environment and are concerned in the process of communication18. People today must make decisions about various heaths, safety, social and environmental risks matters. Nuclear power, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, climate change, emerging infectious diseases and redundancy are just some issues that may face them in the news media. In order to make sound choices they need to get good information because their time is limited, that information has to be carefully selected and clearly presented (Baruch F., et al., 2001). Risk communicators sometime face opposition from those invisible to the public group sectors (businesses, politicians) who censure the content or the format of information and perform, through stimulate levels of obsession and taking sides that logically result in the restriction or complete extinction of community risk awareness labors. The Royal Society Report (1992:119,120) quoting Fisher (1991) indicates there are four essential approaches to risk communication. Three of them are discussed in most literature and summarised in this research.

3.1.4.1. Top-down approach model of risk communication This unilateral one-way approach refers to information to be detained and given by expert to the public. It does not involve the public in the design and risk communication process. It is considered as systematic analysis19 that make

18 Communication refers to people involved in duplex interaction (sender / receiver) and is characterised by numerous factors such as: age, gender, dress, culture, physique look, education level, technology use, context, physical/psychological aptitudes, etc. The temper of those involved in communication influences both their actions and reactions to the behaviour of others. All behaviour has message value even when this is not consciously intended and could result to barriers for communication.

19 An approach that consist on questioning expert about what people believes, what information they need to make decisions they face; what they think people should be told;

audience become confused, annoyed and disinterested. Top-down approach20 has been matter of critic for not allowing public participatory, resulting to public doubts and negative reaction; due to the lack of knowledge of risk and attitude to adopt (on how to react) in emergency condition. Failed communications can also contribute inadvertently to controversy and conflict (Baruch, F., et al., 2001:4). “If risk communication omits critical information, then it fails the most obvious responsibility of communicators” (Baruch, F. et al., 2001:4). Irrelevant information wastes recipients’ time and do not attract them to what it is saying.

3.1.4.2. Participatory approach model of risk communication If the risk communicators feel that they have done everything that is expected of them, they may conclude that their audience was responsible for the communication’s failure. If the public is blamed for being stupid, irrational, or hysterical, it is deprived of both information and respect in the future (Baruch, F. et al. 2001: 4). Two-ways

communication

stimulates

interactive

exchange

information.

Communities’ members can express their opinions, concerns, and reactions accordingly to the information they receive (The Royal society, 1992: 119,120). The setting of public debates success should be determined by increased levels of understanding, response activities and satisfaction regarding knowledge and information (NRC, 1989:74). Participatory model is an inclusive, comprehensive and recommended risk communication model. 3.1.4.3. Centre approach model of risk communication This model is considered as the neutral approach characterised by it ambiguity: 20 The top-down approach is fragile in its power to enhance resilience. It does not empower community members to be involved in risk communication. Rather than this approach that may be characterised by very little knowledge of intended audience why not refer to systematic approach also known as participatory approach?

“the lack of communication movement” or “no information provision at all” to the public. This approach is seen as being irresponsible (Beck, 1992).

3.1.4.4. Summary From the above, top-down approach (one-sided approach) need to be replaced by Systematic

approach

that

requires

two-ways

communication,

shared

responsibility, involvement of all stakeholders.

3.1.5. Risk Communication and Community Resilience Enhancement An observation from Wamsler (2006:152) identified a lack of integration between disaster risk reductions (DRR)21 which add to the community’s vulnerability. Government at all levels (federal, state, and local community) has primary responsibility for emergency management to enhance community capacity building and resilience22. Capacity building should operate alongside the development of a realistic understanding of the risks the community face (Graham Marsh, 2008). The resilience of a system is the capabilities to maintain its basic functions and structures in the time of shock and perturbations. Systems under such circumstances are able to adapt, learn, meaning that they can mobilise sufficient self-organisation to maintain essential structures and processes within an adaptation process (Birkmann, J., 2006:15-16). Smith, K. (2004:5-6) argues that “sustainable disaster management measures can only succeed where community participation is solicited”. In emergency planning process resilience include cumulative protective resources (including risk

21 UN/ISDR (2004) define disaster risk reduction as “the conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development” . 22 Resilience is the capacity of an individual or a community to cope with the threats resulting from disaster. A resilient community needs to be strong enough to deal with risk communication and have the appropriate technologies and resources in place to respond to the needs.

communication) available to an individual / a community to assess cumulative risk/ hazards factors that increase vulnerability and generate emergency/disaster approach.

3.1.5.1. UK CCA Act 2004 and Risk Communication Shibutani, T. (1986:269) notes that “if the normative framework does not provide an adequate guide to concerted action, the people involved in the situation must work together to improvise some way of coping with it”. In UK the CCA Act 2004 redefined the key players in emergency planning by giving to the Local Authorities (Category 1 responders) the daily jobs to mitigating and assessing risks, and improving resilience in their local communities, maintaining public awareness and activities to warning people, informing and advising the public, co-operating and sharing information with different public and private agencies.

3.1.5.2. The duty of communicating risk The CCA Act 2004 aims to enhance local and national resilience. Category 1 responders are required to communicate with the public, so that they are be made aware of the risks and “warned, informed and advised in times of emergency” (Cabinet Office, 2004:93). These requirements are based on Government’s belief that, “a well informed public is better able to respond to an emergency and to minimise the impact of the emergency on the community” (Cabinet Office, 2004:93).

3.1.6. Risk Communication Issues Recent social, political, economic, cultural and technological developments are changing the context in which communication is undertaken. To be effective,

senders and receivers need to identify their inadequacies (barriers)23 for communication. There are numerous and various barriers to effective24

risk

communication between individuals, communities or within an organisation, but some of them are considered to be common and are investigated in this research.

3.1.6.1. Complexity of the Risk perception

Risk misperception25 makes risk communicator and receiver in embarrassing situations to make a decision about the nature of / the fear for risk (too high or too low). To surmount this barrier, stakeholders involved in risk communication must develop a common theoretical design of risk to be used by all whilst dealing with risk communication tasks within a community. Also risk communication needs to be addressed to the right people, at right time, with the right message, using the right channel and the right format.

3.1.6.2. Suitability of tools for risk communication With the development of IT we are going deeper and deeper into a Digital Society; era of speedy communication. Different tools of communication are available for risk communication activity such as audio-video streaming, video conferencing, SMS, e-mail, chat room facility, to name a few. It is crucial to choose which tool to use, for which audience and when it is appropriate to use audio streaming, for example, than other tools of communication (e.g. video) and also to identify the ability of the receiver (migrants) to use the tool utilised by the sender (EPU).

23 A barrier is anything that gets in the way of the purpose of communication, or causes people to misunderstand each other. Barriers in communication are aspects or conditions that interfere with effective change of ideas or thought in a community. 24 The effectiveness in communication is a frustrating process; frustrating because it is long life and everyday experiences that reminds us of just how complex and elusive effective communication actually is. 25 The complexity of the risk concept or perception is main factors for risk communication. The coding and decoding activities for the diffusion of messages accounts for several errors and misconceptions conveyed to the final receivers.

3.1.6.3. Mental noise risk communication The mental noise tends to focus interest on the manner individual process information and how the approach used to process information affect communication. Resistance to change criticism: People resist change because of fear of unknown system or changes in general because of ignorance, or the unknown. Reassuring those involved in communication will prevent this barrier.

3.1.6.4. Negative dominance of risk communication Negative dominance looks at the positive and negative aspects of risk communication processing. A greater importance is placed on negative details rather than on positive ones. The tendency to evaluate criticism: human have natural urge to judge, evaluate and approve or disapprove otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competences, skills

and

capacities

(Carl

Rogers

and

Roethlisberger,

2000).

3.1.6.5. Trust determination of risk communication What make some risks/ hazards to be considered more important than others is the importance and the role of the media that inform on risk communication. CNN or BBC will usually be more trusted on risk communication than a community media. Lack of feedback26 criticism: Feedback is like the mirror of communication. Feedback happens in different ways. Feedback may be as delicate as communication. To prevent this barrier, both sender and receiver need to play an active role in using feedback to make risk communication truly two-ways. Prompt feedback is more effective than waiting until the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;right momentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comes to reply to the sender. 3.1.6.6. Government and community priorities Risk communication between individuals with different priorities is not always easy.

26 Feedback is the receiver sending back to the sender to confirm that the message has been received

What is thought to be inacceptable to one might be differently perceived by another. Taking religious believe for example; terrorism act considered acceptable in one religion, as a way of going to heaven could make believers insensitive to receive a other ‘sound of bell’ from people of others religions who consider it inacceptable. Non radical effort is needed to make communication possible in such situation.

3.1.6.7. Lack of resources use Fear of technology: New technologies are not such a big problem; the main issue is changing the behaviour of people who have been working in certain ways for years within the organisation. There is a general fear of using unfamiliar tools or of these tools going wrong. For example, on the camera element of video conferencing, many do not like to see themselves on camera27. A ‘safe’ education environment combined with a reliable support structure should be implemented to give risk communication receivers the confidence to use technology successfully. Training does help this issue.

3.1.6.8. Social, Cultural, Gender, Psychological and political values Social, Cultural, Gender, Psychological and political values factors may be unsympathetic to risk communication where there is no apparent benefit.

3.1.6.8.1. Culture barrier Culture is a mix of different people from different backgrounds; languages, thoughts, manners, food, dress, ways of thinking, ways of seeing, hearing, and interpreting the world, etc. Culture can be a barrier in risk communication because people do not have a similarity in cultures. Thus the same words can mean different things to people from different cultures, even when speaking the same language.

27 People are so paranoid about others watching them in meetings that they sometime put paper over the lenses of cameras.

3.1.6.8.2. Language barrier The inability to converse in a language that is known by both the sender and receiver is a greatest barrier to effective communication. If actors involved in risk communication use inappropriate words while speaking or writing, it could lead to misunderstanding between them28. It is a way of excluding others. Also when using translation to communicate risk in different languages, the potential for misunderstanding increases. It is more challenging for people from different cultures to receive effective risk communication. Overcoming the barrier can involve learning more about acceptable forms of communicating and listening in recipient partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s culture. Those involve in risk communication within a community have to understand those who have tried to learn and understand a foreign language need.

3.1.6.8.3. Gender barriers Gender barriers to risk communication could arise because men and women have a different view of communication within a community and each may feels uncomfortable while talking to the other gender because of the basic differences in communication styles.Taking into account these biological and physiological considerations could make risk communication more effective.

3.1.6.8.4. Emotional barriers One of the key barriers to risk communication is to free emotional barriers (fear, mistrust, suspicion, lack of confidence and nervousness) of what receivers might think of senders. These can inhibit effective communication and ability to built relationships, especially when communicating to diverse community members such as migrants. As a result, people restrain from communicating their thoughts and feelings to others. This can be prevented by giving the freedom of speech to every individual to decrease emotional barriers development among people. 28 Language also is a barrier to risk communication as it is more difficult to understand a foreign accent over a phone or videoconference link than face to face or text display.

3.1.6.9. Risk communication environments 3.1.6.9.1. Physical barriers The modern community is mostly symbolised by physical barriers (e.g. separate areas for people of different background). This separation causes a lack of proximity and generates unsympathetic attitude among people. Proximity could eliminate physical barrier in building interconnected teams.

3.1.6.9.2. Layout barrier This includes a whole range of factors; For example, the layout of furniture can facilitate or inhibit interaction, intrusive noise may be disruptive and heating and lighting can be conductive or uncomfortable to some people. Trying to create an appropriate environment for different people that make them feel comfortable prevent this barrier.

3.1.6.9.3. Disability barrier Disability to some people can be a factor of barrier in risk communication. Disable people might feel more inferior to others. To prevent that, we have to accept people as they are, no matter their physical conditions. What count is that every individual take part in community risk communication process (DDA, 1995).

3.1.7. Risk Communication and Hazard Constructs Hazard constructs approach makes complex situations become selectively simplified on the basis of interest to communicate risk, experience gain in this role, the level of risk perception, the importance of communicating and the apparent relevance of communication. The danger of hazards constructs is that deciding for risk communication activity or inactivity may be objective or subjective.

3.1.7.1. Policy and hazard constructs In today society people with physical, psychological, and emotional differences are mainly considered disable people. “Disabled people are consistently and systematically

left

unconsidered

society”

(Mark

Priestley

and

Laura

Hemmingway, 2006). Such attitude impedes their resilience. This was noticed in 2005 during the USA’s Hurricane Katrina, where “disabled people and people with special needs were seen to suffer disproportionately to any other group” (Megan Tady, 2006). In UK the DSA Act 2005 instructs local authorities to carry out building works to ensure disabled people have easy access to premises. Alternatively, sight impairments29 disable people still have access problem as they need marked concrete surfaces to easily access the buildings.

3.1.7.2. Media, Hazard constructs and Risk Communication The mass media and journalists, based on their professional working rules of valuing news, treat risk events as news once they find them newsworthy (Admassu Tassew, 1995). From this view point the media designs hazard based on past experience of public need of risk perception and communication, and it benefits on doing so30.

3.1.7.3. Digital Society, Hazard constructs and Risk Communication The latest developments in technology have shifted the world into a global village and digital society. The media takes advantageous use of this innovation to

29 The common view of hazard constructs of disability is individual in bound wheelchairs. This perception of disability is erroneous. 30 Such hazard constructs no doubt influences risk communication and the formulae used to cover the incident, predetermine the risk experts to talk to and who to consider as victims and what opinion they will be interested in receiving; the information and the weight of the voice/news.

influence public attitudes toward risk perception and the way it should be communicate. Rather than viewing migrants’ participation in risk communication process as a difficulty, Emergency Planning needs to take the opportunity given by IT (Webbased) and different community members’ capability to contribute in planning risk communication activity.

3.1.8. The Risk of Communicating Risk Risk

society

assumption

suggests

risk

exists

amongst

communities.

“Communicating risk effectively with all sections of the community is a difficult task given the aptitudes, opinions constructs, values, frames of reference, tangible and intangible facts that must be considered. Adding to the complication is the potential for multiple feedback channels and competing messages (some out of control) are available, and where interpretation is dependent upon subtle cultural factors” (Royal Society, 1992:119). Generally, the tendency is the use of underperformance models of risk communication. Such approaches increase the probability of failure and negative response. A greater involvement of all stakeholders and interests determine the success and the impact of the activity on local community resilience plan. Influence of the digital society may also turn risk communication into a risky task.

3.1.9. Coventry City Council The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of providing a place of safety for migrants. It also adheres to the ECHR31 that give secure settlement to genuine refugees and free border crossing to European Citizen to come and work in UK. The result of forced migration and economic reasons has considerably changed

31 (ECHR) European Convention on Human Rights, and free economic zone

the population’s composition; therefore some might be at risk. Coventry City Council; is among the areas where migrants have preference also to settle in UK. Coventry City Council in West Midland, with a total population of nearly 300,848 inhabitants (29 April 2001 Census)32, counts among seven Local Governments of the West Midlands Region. The City of Coventry comprises 18 Wards, considered as local communities (see Wards Map in appendix 1). At least 41,214 (12%) of it population are European migrants, black and ethnic minority (BME) origin, who migrate to UK early in 17 century. The first group to migrate to this area were French refugees fleeing religious persecution; who introduced the weaving trade to Coventry in 1685, which later formed the basis of the city's prosperity, and after the World War II time for diverse reasons; politic, humanitarian, and economic. The latest influx of migration to this City, essentially forced migrants (Asylum seekers, Refugees and Migrants workers), was made possible under the UK Border Agency policy who conventionally settled individual and families33 from Asian, African and East European countries in short-term housing through NASS and on successful completion of asylum resulting to refugee status, gives access to a permanent residence permit and a lasting accommodation (including work permit). The UNISDR recommends that government integrate the protection of the community from disasters through risk communication. The DRR lift up two frameworks guidance: the ISDR, raising awareness and uphold it as a vital element of sustainable development at the global, regional and national level (UN/ISDR); and the Hyogo framework34 in charge of local knowledge. The duty requires

32 29 April 2001 Census in England and Wales. A census is a count of all people and households in the country. It provides population statistics from a national to neighbourhood level for government, local authorities, business and communities. 33 The United Kingdom signed up to the 1951 United Nations Convention which requires it to offer refuge to a person who can demonstrate a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion or nationality or because they are members of a particular social group or have a particular political opinion. 34 Disaster Reduction World Conference (18- 22 January 2005) in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, adopted the Framework for Action 2005-2015: “Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters” (Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015).

trimming

down

hesitation

and

ambiguity

risk

communication.

3.1.9.1. Risks in Coventry The WMCRR lists risks in Coventry City Council that is summarised in appendix 2.

3.1.9.2. Risk Communication Arrangement The UK CCA 2004 recommends that “in performing its duty under section 2(1) (d), a Category 1 responder must have regard to the particular needs of individuals who are present or resident in the area in which the functions of the Category 1 responder are exercisable and whom the Category 1 responder knows or has reason to know are vulnerable”. Looking at risks as described in WMCRR and the above UK CCA 2004 recommendation, we might be tempted to ask if migrants are well provided from risk communication and emergencies measures in their milieu. Also in emergency situation will assistance reach them and will they not render the task more difficult? Risk communication is exclusively in English (see e.g. EPU web link in Coventry City Council’s website35 and printed material: flyers, adverts produced by EPU). Community members whose English is not their first language does not only feel neglected but also the use of one language, manifestly makes of understanding the information difficult. On top of the risk communication is added the aptitude for migrants to communicate in English which is as well a significant limitation for the dissemination and assimilation of risk information. This constitutes the main difficulty for migrants from non English speaking background incoming to the UK. An example is from the UK Fire Service36 who has a highly structured Multilanguage version procedure to pursue, in case of a fire, which is simple to 35 http://www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/policing-and-public-safety/emergency-planning/ 36 http://fireservice.co.uk/safety/index.php

understand. IT (Web-based) render this task more practicable than it was a few years ago (e.g. www.google.com; www.google.fr; www.google.cn). Considering translators to transmit emergency communication to migrants within their communities might work, as EPU refers. “Even where there is assistance in the form of translators and interpreters, communication is not at it best as the quality of work done is always in question” (Dwyer P., and Brown D., 2005:3).

3.1.10. Summary Literature review related to risks and the WMCRR indicate that zero risk in Coventry does not exist. To create resilient communities, the CCA Act 2004 encourages local government to count, analyses, documents the hazards in communities, the probability of them happening, record them in Risk Registers and making them accessible to the public, through risk communication activities. Good risk communication does not just happen it must be designed. Risk communication planning enables flexibility, shared visions and awareness of capacities and facilitates the improvisation needed in a disaster time. Better communication need to be clear, direct, reflective and frequent. Regular meeting to exchange with community members to reassure them they are caring for their safety must become part of the EPU tasks, and working in unison with common objectives to the aim37. Category 1 responders should “avoid alarming the public unnecessarily when publishing plans or ‘making arrangements to warn, inform and advice” (Cabinet Office, 2004:96). Finally, trusts needs to be built to surmount the barriers to effective risk communication. An ambiguous risk communication planning makes responders response inefficient. Then, the government is in the responsibility of such activity.

37 As long as people have their natural differences, stimulating neighbourhood activities trough educational meetings, exposition, recreational, or entertainments events, contribute into risk communication as community members know one another.

SECTION TWO: MIGRANTS 3.2. MIGRANTS Migrants38 are classified by diverse criteria; legal migrant, forced migrant and economic migrant. The reasons for migration include both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors (Rack, 1982). Factors like language; cultures, communication difficulty social networks, settling down and integration have significant impact in the processes of initial hard time migrant experience. Migrants of these groups; asylum seekers and refugees may have to deal with severe legal procedures which might affect their psychology. Generally the migratory process follows three stages:  Pre-migration stage is when individual/group takes the decision and plans leaving from ordinary life place to another.  Migration stage involves crossing the physical barriers from one place to another, the legal process of migration (involving psychological stress and social steps).  Post-migration stage is confronting the consequences of migration such as language barrier, social exclusion and cultural frameworks of the new society and learning new rules and roles that allow migrant to be better integrated. Children of Migrant born in the new location are not migrants anymore because they might or not experience similar cultural identity differences and stress as their parents.

3.2.1. Vulnerability in Migrants Elements of vulnerability among migrants are various. Since it is not the orientation of the research, we will briefly look at those considered to influence risk 38 According to UK Border Agency, ‘Migrants’38 are all those who were born outside the UK. A group of people from diverse background that make up to 8% of the total UK population (Census 2001). They include 23% of the EU citizen (who are not subject to immigration controls), 20% from the Indian sub-continent, 19% from the Africa continent, and 11% from the continent of Americas including Canada and the USA.

communication; ‘language barrier’, ‘income’, and ‘education’, because education is not possible without income and education is not possible without the language. Risk communication through education and disaster awareness pick up a household’s resilience (IFRC 2004:22). For Socialist economists thinking “material practices transform the natural world, causing ecological conditions and environments that not only enable survival on day-to-day basis, but are also conductive to continued social reproduction, therefore inscribing particular systems of social relations in the environment” (Greg Bankoff, 2004:15). We may be tempted to ask whether the livelihood as experienced by migrants relying on welfare benefits is sustainable. When considering financial resources, it needs to include the saving in a bank account, money in hand, the earnings, mortgages, and credit from a bank. Another key factor of livelihood for an individual comprises education, knowledge and skills, physical and spiritual ability and health. Most of the above characteristics are available to migrants; however, there is a difficulty in exploiting these assets for the following reasons:

3.2.1.1. Language Barrier The language is the key factor that threatens migrants, mostly those who cannot understand or speak a single world before coming to the UK. Even when migrants struggle to learn English for beginners in colleges, the capability for adult; e.g. elder refugees who cannot surmount the ESOL to pick up information correctly and communicate is a nightmare; thus constitute the building block of frustration, psychological stress, life disturbance, health nuisance, therefore vulnerability. It was seen during the Swine Flu campaign that every fliers related to the pandemic was absolutely written in English. This generates the feeling of rejection to migrants because unable to express their ignorance, stress, fears, needs and views.

The execution of the risk communication duty as the CCA Act 2004 recommends is “putting in place arrangements to make information available to the public”. There is a disposition that requires an interpreter to be allocated for such in different services39 but translating from one language to another always is object of poor quality”(Dwyer P., and Brown D., 2005:3).

3.2.1.2. Income The complexity of requirements for employment in UK, especially the nonrecognition of school qualification for non-Commonwealth origin migrants, constrain some high educated to undertake less rewarding jobs. Allowing employers to take advantage of their ignorance on work legislation in UK and pay them less than the official minimum wage This practice pushes migrants to carry out excessive work hours which often end with no increase in payment. Another factor that increases households’ vulnerability is job insecurity due to unwarranted sacking and inexistence of written contract/or ignorance of the content. National evidence shows that disadvantage varies between different ethnic groups. 80% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi households are on low incomes compared to 28% of all households nationally, 35% of Chinese and 40% of Indian households. 21% of Bangladeshi men are unemployed compared to 5% white men and 7% Indian men (Skills and Learning Intelligence Module, 2003). Most migrants in Coventry are from these ethnic groups. The above reasons constraint migrants to rely on welfare benefit. For those who are entitle to they are exposed to survival on small livelihood with no significant money or saving for their retirement or time of redundancy, while those permanently employed on short time contract continue to loose on redundancy. 39 Many services take this situation seriously by implementing translation for their publication in different major spoken languages. NHS for example and Whitefriars Housing Group Association also do the same.

3.2.1.3. Education As said above, the majority of migrants flying far away from their countries of origin are skilled people but they face educational recognition blockage. Amongst this group are aged highly educated people; lawyers, doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers and others skilled individuals who have been trained even in the western countries, others than the UK. Migrants from non Commonwealth countries are constraints to learn the language first, and then retake new studies. Statistics shows that “Black entrants to higher education are older than White entrants or other groups within BME cohorts (Skills and Learning Intelligence Module, 2003). Frustrated by this ‘reality’, most of them decisively rely on welfare benefit, because unable to engage significant energy required to learn the language at a prerequisite level then restart schooling. Also those who do not have overseas qualifications, struggle with ESOL course that last 5 to 15 years or more, just to allow them understand English. This group also loses interest in learning; do not go further with their education, relying on benefit and therefore vulnerable.

3.2.2. Summary According to Tierney (2006:110) “groups are differently vulnerable and differently resilient in the face of an emergency depending on the various factors determining their position in the stratification system of every society”. In an emergency situation if migrants have very little knowledge of risk within their community, it makes the task more demanding and worrying for them to be assisted, evacuated or to be relocated where considered necessary. This is where comes the need for recommending strategy and technology that might renovate the hardship of risk communication for the public in general and in particular for migrants. Information technology (Web-based) seems to be an appropriate tool to support this activity as we will see in details below. 44

SECTION THREE: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) 3.3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (WEB-BASED) 3.3.1. Information Technology ITAA defines Information Technology as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardwareâ&#x20AC;?. Another broad view consider IT as related to the use of computers hardware and computer software to gather, convert, store, process, protect, transmit and retrieve information40 securely. IT is a common word that describes every technology that helps to produce, manipulate, store, communicate, and/or disseminate information. For the purpose of this research IT41 is a set including computer hardware, computer software, computing activities and communications technologies, embedded in Web-Based system.

3.3.1.1. Information Technology Capabilities

Attitude toward IT capabilities diverges. A survey conducted on a sample of 362 respondents (senior business and IT executives) by Bain & Company worldwide on IT contribution to profits growth of business, came up with different views; more than 70% of the participants agreed that IT is essential for business growth, while 60% refused to recognise in IT a feature of business expansion within their companies.

40 The term "information" can usually be replaced by "data" without loss of meaning and IT is sometime referred to by the acronym Information Communication Technology (ICT).

41 In this study IT also refers to digital technology devices used to provide electronic communication opportunities to supplement conventional face-to-face communication mode.

Microsoft Corporation sponsored another research conducted by Marco Lansiti and his team of the Harvard Business School (USA); which established that IT capabilities directly correlate with superior revenue growth. M. Dale Stoel (2009) explains that “IT capabilities' impact on firm resources was contingent on the ''fit'' between the type of IT capability/resource a firm possesses and the demands of the industry in which it competes”. IT capabilities are correlates with the needs of the business. EPU’s needs in this research will be to warehouse resources for risk communication activity.

3.3.1.2. IT and Risk Communication The USA has a long history of natural and man-made disasters that are warehoused (FEMA 2009). Aware of the risks faced by their communities, the FEMA on behalf of the federal government initiated in June 2005 a request to the NRC on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness, response, and management of natural and man-made disasters. The workshop42 ended with the redesign of the Section 214 of the E-Government Act 2002, Public Law 107- 347:”Enhancing crisis management through advanced IT”. During the progress of the workshop, Hurricane Katrina struck in the Gulf Coast of the U.S.A. causing significant landslide and damage to the communications infrastructure43. The tragic events served to draw attention to the value of disaster management and highlighted the role of IT in disaster management. IT is capable to canalise information and the ease of access to communication related to risks/ hazards. Relief Web44 for example use IT to sends alert messages of different events to its subscribers. It publishes information related to the footpath of a cyclone,

42 Safety officials, Emergency management practitioners, experts in DM, IT researchers, and hardware and software vendors were involved to gather input necessary in developing the Act. 43 Information and communication infrastructure damage became major concern by decision makers. The press reported as among the major challenges facing those involved in response and recovery efforts. (FEMA) National Research Council, Summary of a Workshop on Using Information Technology to Enhance Disaster Management, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., September 2005. 44 http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/doc106?OpenForm

storm/hurricane, and the extent of harm caused by a flooding, wildfire, an earthquake or plane crash that occurred minutes ago. Users can also access the latest information on disaster-resistant designs, regions of high and low risk, sources of emergency supplies, preparedness plans and more. Through IT, Emergency responders and the local community can participate in environmental conference about “local people’s perspectives on “climate change” taking place in Hong Kong or elsewhere through audio-video-conference and possibly ask questions without being in the conference room. In India, due to the geography extend and multiplicity of languages/cultures of the country, information synchronisation and sharing was seen as one of the main challenges (IDRN)45. These issues were resolved by using ICT to develop well informed disaster practitioners community. IT has become a critical tool for facilitating communication and information processing activities in managing disasters (NRC, 1999)46. As discussed by the GDIN, a fundamental problem in dealing with disasters is that they do not respect organisational, political, geographical, professional, topical, or sociological boundaries (DITF, 1997). This requires the risk communication to be human-centered,

and

integrate

data

multi-

formats.

A Case study of 3,500 women network who used IT in innovative approach after the 2004 tsunami in Tamil Nadu, southern India, reveal “the continuous sustainability improvement of communities via IT, to promote transfer of knowledge, skills, education, and social change to empower own independence and

development

through

communication”

(Kuppuswamy,

Sunitha

and Rajarathnam, S., 2009).

45 ICT for Disaster Risk Reduction. The Indian Experience , Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs National Disaster Management Division, www.idrn.gov.in 46 “IT enable organisational change, complementary investment in decision making system, staff training, community education, business process, organisational efficiency improvements” (NRC, 2007, 23).

If migrants community’ members have access to IT, this can be a greatest channel for them to have knowledge about risks in their location in a format/ language they can easily understand. They could also use local IT (e.g. local Web-based)47 to share risks knowledge amongst them without being face to face, at same place or same time with people from different background.

3.3.2. Web-Based A significant amount of researches provides informative support that values the Web-based as a way of communication. Thomas Friedman (2005)’s ‘The World is flat’ explained that “the globalised world in the twenty-first century provides a broad indication of how our world came to be globalised as it is now and provides an overview on the role played by the Web-based in the shifting patterns of human relationships in this age of global village”. David Gauntlett’s and Ross Horsley(2004)’s Web studies give a wide debate on the manner the Web has transformed the world’s managerial, political, educational and cultural setting based on the effort of diverse scholars, experts, and established online authors.

3.3.2.1. Web-based Concept The term Web-Based refers to those applications or services that are resident on a server and are accessible using a Web browser (internet explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape, etc) and therefore accessible from anywhere in the world via the internet. “The dream behind World Wide Web is common information space in which individual or groups of people communicate by sharing information”( Ellie Quigley and Marko Gargenta., 2006). Berness-Lee developed the Web for the first time in 1989. He organised the documents on his hard drive by linking them together, which culminated in a 47 To implement IT (Web-based) in risk communication planning process, the community needs to dedicate significant savings to a continuing research program. Inter-agency networking of the entire community should play a key role in development and implementation. The problem related to little community engagement, weak synchronisation among actors and involvement; need to be considered as the starting point of implementation.

hypertext language to link and distribute related documents, on his computer and on the networks of computers. He developed the HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol), known as HTML, to describe the layout of the text in the documents. The Web is firstly designed as an online library, where individual/community freely read/access information that is available around the world. Dynamic Web requires the use of a data repertory (sites information, scripting language that retrieves information from the database). Google is one of the Web-based search engines that customise pages based on a key word or phrase. Web-based providers negotiates agreements that guarantee cost-effectiveness and reliable links, supporting the needs of the community and communication channels such as internet service provider (IP), allocating the broadband with a high bandwidth that can support: text and images downloading, audio-video streaming multimedia, SMS, E-mail, internet telephone(Skype), etc.

3.3.2.2. Web-based capabilities No technological development has reshaped human interaction as the information revolution. The power of this technological development is actually credited for the restructuring not only of global politics but also of â&#x20AC;&#x153;rules, roles, and relationsâ&#x20AC;? from the macro level of nations down to the individual level (Friedman,T., 2006). With the Web, information sharing has changed in incredible ways since the mid-1980s. Web-based (Web 2.0) support applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centred design and collaborative communication. EPU and local communities may take advantage in social networking, audio-video sharing, wikis, blogs, allowing users to interact with other communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; members to exchange risk communication experience or to change the content in formats appropriate to them. A Web-based community can be an inventory data warehouse system that lists vital risk communication, resources for emergency response by type and by the functions it performs, gives the contact details, location, telephone numbers of the 49

officer with responsibility of the assumed resources so that the resources can be mobilised in real-time in emergency situation. An example comes from the IDRN48. A similar application will allow EPU and Migrants Representatives to share their knowledge, advice their respective community members about their risks efficiently. Migrants can also have access to the disposition taken by EPU related to resources available to them in case of emergency situation. With the abundance of risk information that can be generated in this information age, it becomes critical to distinguish what information is useful or what is simply ‘irrelevant’. Web-based may be an effective means of risk communication based on the quality and requirements of relationships that emerge between EPU and the public (including migrants) communities based on the quantity and format of information it offers. Rather, the voluminous information it contains create a sense of confusion that makes risk communication more complicated.

3.3.2.3. Web-based and Risk Communication

Migrants’ communities are more vulnerable (language barrier, income, education level, etc…) to potential hazards/risks threats, e.g., terrorism act, etc. With a better use of well designed Web-based, they can reduce their vulnerability through public education and free risk communication access and sharing, consequently resilience improvement of migrants, thus community enhancement. Taking the example of the Mekong flood plains in Vietnam (An Giang – Tan Chau et.al, 2007), tells us that the annual floods data system has the responsibility for keeping the communities aware of the flood risks at all times so that people will be able to respond to any flooding event therefore minimise the damages to lives, properties, businesses and environment.

48 IDRN has been initiated by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in collaboration with United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to systematically build the disaster resource inventory as an organized information system for collection and transmission of information about specific equipments, human expertise and critical supplies database from District level to State level to provide availability resources for disaster response, so that disaster managers can mobilise the required resources within least response time. www.idrn.gov.in

The program emphasises on the development of public education, information and risk communication materials designated for children and participatory formulation of awareness rising and flood risk reduction activities in schools and communities. Children from migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; family have faster integration and understanding of the English language than their parents and elder relatives. Even though they are considered to be more vulnerable, they can play key role as risk communicators, who in their turn help to disseminate information to the remaining of family members within their communities. Using a Web-based to display information that could reach different school children and allow them participates in live audiovideo-conference debates related to risks communication in communities, will do the job. FrontlineSMS49 free software for example, is used to allow fast and easy alert to people, using text messaging (SMS) to wireless Mobile phones. Similar software could serve to communicate risk to the public in extra languages. There is a real profit for communities to develop and implement a Web-based system for efficient and strategic risk communication especially when emergency struck to disseminate risk information within their environment. EPU can make information available to all communities in different format and supplement languages barrier through internet via their Web-based.

3.3.3. Summary Information Technology has been a major contributor for the progress of communication that has been made in global human relationship. Today, the internet supporting Web-based50 system with it embedded technologies (text, audio-video streaming facility, e-mail feature, SMS and e-learning tool, etc) are increasingly popular, therefore valuable sources of data storage, information display and sharing.

49 http://www.frontlinesms.com/ 50 IT(Web-based) is used in this research to mean embedded set of technologies for the provision of communication.

Cultural factors appear to influence Emergency Planningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of the capabilities and applicability of IT in risk communication and their viewpoint on the transferability of risk knowledge. To be effective the proposal IT (Web-based) must be used to the unique settings and cultures of the local communities. A network of expertise,

technical

capacities,

and

knowledge

social,

environmental,

economical and political of the community is essential. Although IT (Web-based) technology capabilities permit access to and the dissemination of massive amounts of information in various formats with unprecedented speed and efficiency, barriers rooted in the diverse professional and cultures could still delay the sharing of risk communication. Knowing these barriers, will certainly allow risk communication effort through IT (Web-based) to be strategically organised and succeed.

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY This chapter describes and justifies the paradigms and methods used in promoting IT (Web-based) to enhance risk communication for migrants.

4.1. METHODOLOGY DESIGN APPROACH To evaluate risk perception, risk communication strategies and technologies use issues within a community such as our research group (migrants), different literature suggests different methodologies. One that has the benefit of being close to our aspiration is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;participatory approach (Baruch, F. et al., 2001:20-21). The advantage with this approach is that it can be used in; interviews, survey and focus groups.

4.2. QUANTITATIVE METHOD 4.2.1. Questionnaire Method Questionnaire method is the most frequently used method of gathering information in research (Walonick, 2004). It is used for structured interviews51 and surveys. If the information gathered from the use of the questionnaire is accurate, it increases the chance of making high-quality judgment. Questionnaire for face-to-face personal interviews was adopted for some of its advantages; researcher can explore fully for responses and clarify any ambiguities to assist Interviewee. The disadvantages are that interviews can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is the potential for interviewer bias, especially if interpreters are used (Ann Bowling, 2006:261). This can be reduced by a training of interviewer on how to establish rapport with interviewees, how to put interviewees at ease, how to be

51 Interviews involve the collection of data through talking to respondents (interviewees) and recording their responses faceto-face or by telephone.

neutral, how to build good listener skills, how to have a clear voice, how to be friendly, etc.

4.2.2. Questionnaire design Designed with respondents in mind, we find that the number 26 of question is enough to cover different themes for this research and to avoid consuming unnecessary participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s precious time or feel annoying. A structured set of 24 closed-ended questions for ease of imputing and computation and 2 open-ended ones to allow the respondents to add further information and opinions (see appendix 3) were drawn up for personal interview survey52, targeted at information that will help to determine the perception of risk for migrants, the level of risk awareness, the strategies and technologies that are being used by professionals to disseminate risk information. The questionnaire was printed on double pages white A4 paper format.

4.2.3. Respondents Sample It is not possible to interview every single individual of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; population. We find that interviewing a smaller sub-group of 50 people, considered as our sample from migrants communities (asylum seekers, refugees and migrant workers), we met in houses, public places, shops, barbers shops, non governmental centre and faith communities, within Coventry City Council will be enough for this research.

4.2.4. Interview Language English was the language of interview. Participants were asked to complete by themselves the sheet without researcher interference, except if clarification was needed. At least all were able to understand the task to do, even though the level 52 Personal interview survey is a type of survey methodology used to deliver data results of the survey. Advantages include: use to measure attitudinal behaviour, longer interviews tolerated.

of understanding the language varied. Being bilingual contributed to assist migrants with relatively low level of language to overcome difficulties.

4.3. QUALITATIVE METHOD Qualitative methods in this research were used for focus groups53 and interview. Undertaking qualitative research in sensitive issues that involves ‘powerless’ populations of the society are subject of fear for most socio-researchers. A number of studies relating to vulnerable groups of people (e.g. asylum seekers, refugees, drug users, victims of crime, etc); indicate that conducting research with these populations is the same as with any other. Apart from that, the research needs to be ethically and safely conducted than normal, to avoid frustration and irritation to both risk communicators (EPU) and recipients (Migrants) in this case.

4.3.1. Focus Groups Focus group is based on a free and deep discussion involving participants’ views (Conradson 2005:129,131). Focus groups can also make risk communication more effective by helping communicators listen to consumers of risk message (Vincent Kerry Smith, 1996: 441- 442). This method was used to evaluate risk perception and communication, IT (Web-based) use issues within migrants’ community. The focus groups have six to ten recruited participants for each session. The number of participants gives everyone the opportunity to express diverse opinions. It should not be composed of people who are familiar with one another (e.g. friends, family); in order to evaluate their understanding related to risk perception, communication and technology use issues. The choice of this method for this research comes from the advantages than the disadvantages. Half to one hour time session is enough to complete the task. It is 53 A focus group is “a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research” (Power et al. 1996, cited by Conradson 2005:129).

socially oriented research procedure. The format allows the moderator flexibility to explore unanticipated issues in addition to high face-to-face validity; relatively lowcost; relatively fast results unlike structured interviews; and the sample size requires minimal time and resource investment.

4.3.1.1. Participants Selection Due to time limitation, the personal interview with individual migrant helped us to seek the consent (see participant consent form in appendix 4) and recruit a sample of participants for the focus groups. Three focus groups sessions were considered with migrants (asylum seekers, refugees and migrants workers) from all race, gender and range of age (18-25, 26-35, 36-50, 50 and over), living in Coventry, who can read, speak and write in English and use IT/computer.

4.3.1.2. Focus Groups Location The Coventry Refugee Centre was an initial location to carry out focus groups, for being one of the voluntary organisations providing remarkable assistance to asylum seekers, refugees, and migrant workers in Coventry. Since most volunteer participants to the research expressed their concern about day time commitments, organising the focus groups after 5pm was more suitable. Afterward we then choose Coventry Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Jaguar Building lunch room as facility for focus groups.

4.3.2. Conversational Interviews The interview allows the interviewer â&#x20AC;&#x153;goes with the flowâ&#x20AC;? (Valenzuela and Shrivastava, 2008). This is a way to get comprehensive and in-depth information. It involves a one-on-one contact with one person asking the other person questions aimed at getting detailed information. This method has been adopted for this

research to explore experiences, opinions, aspiration, feelings and issues raised in the focus groups. Due to time restriction, one participant from the focus groups who experienced a problem that might contribute to the research was selected for a deep analysis of the case during a one-to-one interview. We also used semi-interview to spot strategies and technologies used by Emergency Planning to disseminate risk communication to the publc.

4.3.3. Desk-based method The desk-based method for this research was adopted to ensure that parts of the study objectives are achieved. These are parts requiring broad literature review using books, journals and e-resources.

4.3.4. Summary Other methods of research like experimental could also have been used to test the level of IT(Web-based) use of migrants, but due to lack of time, funding and infrastructure, the research is being narrowed to these methods mentioned above.

4.4. DATA GATHERING AND TREATMENT Data gathering was the most expensive in term of time and money for this research. Initial personal interview followed by focus groups and interview were conducted with migrants in Coventry. The aim and details of the research were explained face to face (see participant information sheet in appendix 5) to every single individual. The average time for each personal interview was 25 minutes and 45 minutes for focus group. Due to the constraints stated above we were only able to interview 44 migrants out of 50 (initial number) who consented to take part in this research, 57

followed by an invitation to participate in the focus groups. The name of volunteer was shortlisted for a further physical, e-mail or phone call reminder for the focus group date. From the focus groups, one interviewee was selected for having a typical narration related to this research. Data were collected and compiled based on the key themes of the research; risk perception, risk communication awareness, income, language barrier, method of communication and education/IT literacy use level. Results from data compilation were summarised and represented in tables and graphs for clarity to readers.

4.4.1. Meeting and Data Collection schedule/dates To gather data for this research a scheduled calendar of meeting and data collection schedule/dates was adopted and kept (see appendix 6).

4.4.2. Materials used for data gathering ID card, letter of introduction about the study, non-response sheets, pen, printed forms/questionnaire copies, time sheets.

4.5. RESEARCH ETHICS For this research the following ethical considerations were considered: 

Safeguard of the security and rights of participants involved in the research to withdraw at any step of the research;



Respect of the law requirements on human rights and data protection (UK Act 1998);



Providing information sheet about the research for participants;



Providing informed consent form for participants;



Develop the highest possible standards of research practices including in research design, data collection, storage, analysis, interpretation and reporting; 58

ď&#x201A;§

Considering the consequences of the work or its misuse for those involved in the study and other interested parties;

ď&#x201A;§

Ensuring an appropriate signed ethical approval is granted, and exhibited to participants;

ď&#x201A;§

Ensuring a signed low risk assessment document has been prepared before the research.

4.6. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS The field research was to gather data from migrants (asylum seeker, refugees and migrant workers) for this research; subsequently there might have some bias due to low rate of participant from one sub-group. Members from asylum seeker subgroup apparently were worried and reticent to take part to the research; attitude that might be due to their immigration status and psychological anxiety which preoccupy them more than other aspects of life on top of language difficulty. This bias has no significant effect in this research since their low participation did not stop refugees and migrants workers sub-groups who were more relax to participate and speak with ease. Also the gender bias present to this research is only partial since the rate of participation for female gender exceeds 20% of the participants, which is not negligible but encouraging.

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The research aims to promote IT (Web-based) to enhance risk communication for migrants for a resilient community, through the evaluation of risk perception and communication awareness and issues, and IT use level and issues. Initial personal interview, focus groups discussions and one-to-one interview were used to help us understand the issues relating to the enhancement of risk communication for migrants through IT (Web-based) and grasp on research aim. Results are presented in two separated sections. The personal interview and focus groups finding based on risk perception, risk awareness and technology use issues are summarised in sub-section one, two, whilst the individual interview constitute a separate section three. Finding from the above activities reveals issues linked to the perception of risk, awareness of risk and the use of technologies for an appropriate risk communication for migrants in our research context. Key issues formulated by migrants during interview and focus groups are: risk perception, risk awareness, risk communication method(s) and technologies that are summarised in different tables and charts. A highlight on how these affect migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability to reduce their risk in emergency is analysed and discussed.

5.1. EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RISK COMMUNICATION A semi-interview with one Emergency Planning Manager and his team in West Midlands on 26 January 2010 indicates that the EPU effectively works hard to communicate risk to the public. They are also doing necessary effort to improve the public safety. The EPU use BBC local, Local News papers, leaflets, and organise meetings with different communities to ensure that they comply with the UK CCA Act 2004 recommendations.

The EPU has a plan to train volunteers, people to serve as intermediate for risk communication, especially for groups which require language translation within different communities. A project is underway to launch an online presence Web-based system that will be used as the main portal to communicate risk to the public and exchange between community members, if the budget follows. Mind Perry and Nelson (1991) on household disaster preparedness research discovered that Mexicans-Americans refer to community as sources of information. Involve all communities’ stakeholders in design.

5.2. PERSONAL INTERVIEW SURVEY REPORT EVALUATION In conducting this research, an initial 50 copies of the questionnaire were printed and used for a face-to-face personal interview. 44 individual were willing to take part to the research, representing 88% of the initial sample, enough to be considered for this research. Personal Interview with migrants was designed: 

To reveal the perception of the risk for migrants people;



To appreciate their awareness for risk communication sources;



To appreciate the use of IT and issues linked to it use;



To appreciate the level of risk communication understanding; and



To reveal the appropriate method(s) for risk communication for migrants.

The summary of responses gathered from the personal interviews with 44 volunteer migrants is compiled and represented in 24 tables (see appendix 8) and graphically with pie charts (see appendix 9), then used to analyses and discuss our finding.

5.2.1. Risk Perception and Communication 5.2.1.1. Risk Perception and Awareness Results From the chart 1 the results reveal that only 60% (26 out of 44 respondents) of this group agree to have a perception of what can be considered to be a risk. It can also be seen from the chart that quite a number of individuals that make up 19% (18 out of 44 respondents) of the migrants group disagree or strongly disagree to have a perception of risk. 21% are undecided. On top of this, the chart 2 indicates only 23% of migrants population is aware of risk within their milieu. 54% of interviewees are not aware of risk in their community. It is worrying to see from chart 3 that up to 54% of respondents do not have access to risk awareness sources as recorded in West Midlands Community Risk Register. The worry is because the percentage of the entire population of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; people which this figure represents is too substantial to be ignored. When seeking to determine if or not migrants are willing to be involved in risk communication process, the chart 5 indicates that 41% of migrants are willing to take part onto risk communication process, and 59% said they do not have interest. This confirms the rising value of the risk communication for this community, if the EPU organises such events/meetings. The Emergency Planning can take advantage of this significant percentage of migrants (41%) into the process of risk communication. Migrants refer generally to their group members to get information (Perry and Nelson, 1991). Through informal chat within their community and families, the remaining (59%) are likely to become aware of any shared risk communication provided to the 41% who manifest the interest on risk communication process, therefore overcoming one major risk communication barrier (language barrier).

5.2.1.2. Language Barrier Results From the chart 7, 36% of migrants strongly or simply agree to have an understanding of information disseminated from risk communication operators. 25% strongly or simply disagree to have such understanding of information and 39% of this group did not express their view. In order for us to investigate the level of information understanding and verify why 39% could not express an opinion, a consideration was made on different sources (ways) of communication that disseminate information to the public. According to the chart 17: 44% claim they have an understanding of information from different sources, 24% consider they do not understand information disseminate from different sources and 22% could not express their level of understanding from different sources. As we can notice this group has been reduced to half. A specific consideration was on the use of radio (e.g. BBC Local) as a current source of information, to confirm or not the understanding level of communication through the radio. This source was investigated separately, because of being one of the main ways used by the Emergency Planning to divulgate risk communication. The chart 18 for the radio communication indicates that 45% of migrants have a high level understanding of information from radio. It is worrying to see that the chart reveals up to 48% of migrants have medium radio communication understanding and 7% of respondents do not have radio communication understanding at all. The worry is because the percentage of the entire population of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; people which this figure represents is too reasonable to be ignored. This confirms the growing importance of finding appropriate channel that can be used for risk communication for this community. From this point, finding out why the rate of misunderstanding of radio communication is high within this group become a concern. Interviewed migrants expressed in chart 8, diverse reasons: 28% estimated no communities meetings 63

was the cause, 22% said no Internet access was the cause, 22% argue the lack of time to improve communication skills, 16% said the language barrier was the reason, 9% said not having interest to what is said from different sources of communication and 3% said the income does not allow them to improve their communication skills. In-deep and narrowed investigation of the reason(s) for not understanding communication revealed in the chart 19 that 53% (23 out of the 44 respondents) migrants that were interviewed are confronted by the language barrier. This can justify the poor understanding level of communication from different sources of information, including risk communication sources. It also implies that this percentage of migrants living in our community are exposed to the possible high threats of disaster impact which if not taken as a concern are likely to see migrants marginalised in emergency situation or unable to follow in a proper manner instruction from the Emergency Planning/or others reliefs operators on how to react in emergency situation. What if risk communication can be provided in different format? To answer to this question, migrants express their view as shown in the chart 23; considering alternative languages could be a short term solution to allow migrants assimilate risk communication, in the same time they assimilate English language progressively without stressing them. From this view 64% would recommend the use of alternative languages mainly in risk communication process. What this means when checked against the percentage of the entire population of interviewed migrants it represents is that a significant number of individuals of this community are at risk of high threats and might render rescue response operations harder in an emergency circumstance. This confirms the growing meaning of finding appropriate format/languages that can be used as alternative for risk communication for this group of the community. Another aspect of this research looks at the types of risk communication (ordinarily or urgent) that migrants might be interested in. The chart 9 indicates migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 64

opinions on the types of risk communication they are interested. 71% (31out of 44 respondents) of interviewees are expecting to receive both types of risk communication (ordinarily as well as urgent). In opposite 24% recommend urgent risk communication, and 6% would like to receive ordinarily risk communication only from the Emergency Planning operators.

5.2.1.2. Risk Communication Sources Results At least all respondents (82%) had experienced the use of different sources of risk communication in the form of BBC Local, Local News paper, Leaflet, City Council Website, E-mail, SMS, or other Communities meetings/Churches as shown in the chart 6. However, it is alarming to see from the chart that 18% (around 8 out of the 44 respondents) are not aware of the risk communication sources that the Emergency Planning use to disseminate risk communication to the public. It is even more disturbing to see that none of those have ever seen the need to seek risk communication sources in their milieu. This is because not a lot of migrants (36 out of 44 respondents) are aware of the existence of such sources and their rights under the law to be provided with risk communication as a duty for Emergency Planning (CCA Act 2004). This further shows the need for this research. If the activities of risk communication to the community groups are to be limited due to funding, then the level of awareness amongst individual migrants about risk communication sources needs to be increased and diversify. From this prospect, in chart 15; 51% of migrants recognised visiting the City Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Website to seek information, whilst 49% said no. In chart 16 migrants indicate the ways of communication they never use to access information. From this chart a significant number of migrants who never use these ways of communication, mainly those used by Emergency Planning: BBC Local

(16%), Local News Paper (11%), Leaflet (13%) and Community meetings (24%); might be left aside in the process of risk communication. Those who refer to the above sources state receiving risk communication in different periods of time. The Chart 4 shows the average time for such communication to reach them. As we can see: 43% (19 out of the 44 respondents) take one week to be aware of risk communication. It is troubling to see from the chart that 27% (12 out of the 44 respondents) are not aware of the risk communication within one month period of time. Additionally if the activities of risk communication to the community are to be limited to emergency events, due to funding, then the level of risk awareness amongst migrants will have devastating impact in case of speedy widespread of a virus that endanger the community. This is because not a lot of migrants (19 out of 44 respondents) are aware of the existence of risk communication within one week of it diffusion. The results suggest involving migrants to identify their preferred sources of communication

that

could

used

emergency

disseminate

risk

communication becomes a requirement. This research clearly indicates that migrants have different opinion on their preferred sources of communication that is shown in chart 6. From this chart at least 91% of migrants refer to embedded IT to access communication. But it also shows that 10% (4 out of the 44 of respondents) prefer communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; meetings/churches for communication. What might be the reasons? Knowing them could improve their resilience. Here come the needs to investigate IT literacy level within migrants . 5.2.2. Information Technology (Web-Based) Use 5.2.2.1. Information Technology (Web-based) use Results The result reveals that 95% (42 out of 44 respondents) have Internet access from home; only 5% do not have access as shown on chart 11. From the chart 17, 98% 66

make use of the Internet. This implies that a growing number of migrants make use of the IT (Web-based) as a way of communication. Only 2% (1 out of the 44 respondents) do not use the Internet. The 95% of respondents who have Internet access at home shows that a growing number of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes have Internet access. It can also be seen from the chart 12 that quite a number of migrants, 86% (38 out of the 44 respondents) make daily use of the Internet either at home, in the work place or other public places. 12% make weekly use and 2% monthly use. This confirms the growing importance of the Information Technology (Web-based). The research tried to appraise the average time spend online, which is shown on chart 13. The results on the chart indicate that 55% (24 out of 44 respondents) make use of the Internet on average of 1 to 10 hours per week. The chart 14 shows that 30% of migrants use internets to search for information, 34% use it to communicate through e-mail, 19% use it to social network and 9% to communicate through SMS. This implies that a growing number of migrants make weekly use of the IT (Web-based), as a way of communication; adequate for risk communication to attend a big number of migrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; audience within a week. Although at least all the respondents had experienced communication through IT (Web-based) in the form of e-mail, SMS, Social networking site or information search data warehouse; respondents also use diverse sources of communication (radio, news paper, leaflet, etc). However the results indicate that only 46% strongly agree to have a good perception of risk, 8% strongly agree to be aware of risk in their milieu and only 12% (5 out of the 44 respondents) are aware that the Emergency Planning provides risk communication to the public. It is even more disturbing to see from this research that only 29% of participants have a perfect understanding of communication from different sources and none of those who have not have a good understanding of communication has ever seen the need to seek ways to report. This is because not a lot of them 18% (8 out of 44 respondents) are aware of the existence of risk communication sources on one 67

hand and on the other hand the existence of the CCA Act 2004 and their rights under this Act. This additionally justifies the need for this research.

5.2.3. Upcoming Events Announcement Results In order for us to explore the preferred communication channels to announce upcoming events/communities meetings, communication understanding level was considered as the key element, and the channel of communication were also categorised in two: embedded and none embedded media. According to the chart 20, ordinarily risk communication needs to be disseminating through leaflet (22%), local news paper (21%), city council website (11%), SMS (11%), e-mail (6%), and BBC local (19%). Only 10% recommended the communities meetings. In emergency risk communication, all embedded media have been chose. From the chart 21: 26% of respondents suggest BBC Local as the first media, followed by Local News paper (18%), SMS (15%), Leaflet (13%), E-mail (10%) and City Council Website 8%. Communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; meetings/Churches that represent 10% of respondents are not among the speedy ways of urgent risk communication. To announce upcoming events/communities meetings about risk communication the chart 22 reveals the use of leaflet (20) in first position, followed by BBC Local (18%), SMS (15%), Local News paper (14%), E-mail (13%) and City Council website (7%). Only 13% of respondents suggest Communities meetings/churches as a way of such announcement. Also the alternative language use expressed by 64% (28 out of 44 respondents) of migrants summarised in chart 23, needs to be considered in risk communication process. The results on the chart 24 indicate: BBC Local (23%), Leaflet (21%), SMS (14%), Local news paper (13%), City Council website (10%) and E-mail (7%) as ways of alternative language use in risk communication process. Only 13 % recommend Communities meetings/Churches.

If the first media category can be speedily embedded in an IT (Web-based) system in different format: text, audio-video streaming, e-mail, SMS, including language translation, the other category will require more expenses and time to organise and to reunite a big audience of migrants.

5.2.4. Summary of personal interview survey results If the activities of organising risk communication are to be community-centered, then the level of awareness amongst migrants about risk perception and communication needs to be increased. Also the suitability of the technology of communicating with them need to be based on considering migrants experience as summarised in above results.

5.3. FOCUS GROUPS RESULTS For time limitation reasons, two focus groups were organised. Participants were requested to fill in a participant consent form (see appendix 4) and a participant profile form (see appendix 6) used to quantify the profile of participants. The key issues as listed during focus groups from participants are related to the research themes: risk perception and risk communication awareness, language barrier, IT (Web-based) use issues, and their impact on migrants’ ability to reduce their disaster risk. The analysis of migrants ‘experience is summarised below.

5.3.1. Profile of participants to focus groups Asylum seeker, refugees and migrant workers were present during focus groups. A low rate of participant from the sub-group ‘asylum seeker’ is outlined. Also there is an unequal rate of gender participation. Female gender to the focus groups exceeds 20% of the participants, which is not negligible. Table 25 (see appendix 10) summarises the profile of participants to the two focus groups sessions.

5.3.2. Focus Group Results 5.3.2.1. Risk perception and risk communication awareness The two focus groups sessions results are summarised together. Results from the focus groups highlight vague perception of risk, uncertain of risk communication awareness sources, English language barrier, therefore apparent communication difficulties. However, there have different appreciations as to whether or not they perceive risk as state in academic views. The knowledge of risk communication sources available from the Emergency Planning as well as the format of such information pose also problem to most of participants. Almost all argue that they use IT daily and frequently but none of them use it essentially to seek risk communication. The above confirm Tierney (2006:110)â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view â&#x20AC;&#x153;groups are differently vulnerable and differently resilient in the face of an emergency depending on the various factors determining their position in the stratification system of every societyâ&#x20AC;?.

5.3.2.2. Information Technology (Web-based) use At least 86% (12 out of 14 participants) of participants said they are IT literate and aware of the capabilities of IT. However, there have diverging views as to whether or not they use it to search information, communicate or entertainment. Nearly all argue that they use IT daily and frequently but none of them use it essentially to seek risk communication. 14% (2 out of 14 participants) said they are not IT literate. This justifies the need of education for this group, to ensure that using IT (Web-based) as a way of risk communication is accessible by all (digital society era oblige). All migrants noted that such proposal from Emergency planning would necessitate being stakeholder-centered for a durable impact.

5.3.2.3. Income Results At least 53% (8 out of 14 participants) of migrants work in formal sector (health, 70

education, sales, etc.) to earn income, 23% are unemployed and 13% rely on welfare benefit. Asylum seekers do not undertake earning activities. Most women appeared to rely totally on Income Support welfare, and few are working in less rewarded jobs. Although these categories receive some support, they are not allowed to undertake studies to gain IT skills, improve language communication ability or employment skills. Such participants appeared to be much less integrated in community life therefore likely not to have perfect risk perception and awareness. This also confirms what National evidence shows that disadvantage varies between different ethnic groups (Skills and Learning Intelligence Module, 2003).

5.3.2.4. Education Level Results Even though migrants seemed to be permanently living in a ‘ghetto’, close to their community members and they can not afford the language barrier, they are concerned and enthusiastic to seek ways of getting out and undertake appropriate education

that

can

contributes

improve

their

communication.

5.4. INTERVIEW RESULTS An interviewee, a matured woman (50 +), new qualified Nurse, who just graduated, was dismissed from job after one month for CRB reason, find herself in real social risk whilst she discovered 4 years later that she was given a ‘caution’ document to sign by the Police officer during an interview she attended at a police station, without knowing what it was and the upcoming implications afterward (see details appendix 11).

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. RECOMMENDATIONS This research topic touches on a real problem which has the tendency to affect every one, either as individuals or as members of the larger community. Risk perception and communication is a social problem. However, not much had been said or heard about it even though it has always been there. Conducting the personal interview and focus groups, we realised the low level of risk perception amongst migrants and of the lack of awareness on the existence of risk communication, their sources and attitude to adopt. The results of the interview in chapter five also reveal this.

6.1.1. For Government An unambiguous legal framework guaranteeing migrants’ rights in community would sustain proper integration. Hold efforts to develop social and educational capital in migrants’ communities with lower language understanding so that they can best manage their disaster resilience through risk communication via IT (Webbased) using representatives.

6.1.2. For Emergency Planning Planning and organising efficient risk communication strategies and technologies use, require an understanding of interested or affected communities. It is essential to consider their perception(s) of risk and their expected level (s) of concern(s) (e.g. fear, stress, hostility, anxiety, worry, etc). Even though migrants’ communities perceive risk differently, the reality is that communities with lower or no knowledge of risk at all are affected most, as the result of not having satisfactory risk communication measures and considerable level of technologies use. “If we think [migrants] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion” (Paul Slovic, 2000:183). 72

“To effectively manage risk communication, we must seek new ways to involve the migrants in the process. Information Technology (Web-based) that has capabilities that cannot be disregard is an infrastructure being the most complete to communicate risks in different format, that can be understood by all and able to satisfy a wide range of community components. Migrants need to become involved early, and they need to be informed if their participation is to be meaningful” (Ruckelshaus, 1983: 1028).

6.1.3. For Migrants An adequate job of communicating means finding comprehensive ways of presenting complex technical material that is difficult to understand. Awareness of the difficulties should enhance the chances of designing successful informational programs (Paul Slovic, 2000:182). Migrants’ communities’ representatives need to consider their communities members with communications difficulties and seek appropriate ways to get them integrate into UK community and involved on the process of risk communication that the UK Government has already put in place to protect everyone in UK.

6.1.4. Further research To enhance risk communication through IT (web-based), more research need to be done on this topic and include other methods of investigation like experimental. Extending this research to the whole community (including English born, migrants, and people with no IT skills at all) might be considered as a further research to verify the information gathered from migrants sample in this research.

6.2. CONCLUSION A group of researchers consider that risk communication logically leads to debates 73

regarding the elements of risk perception to be considered when managing risk communication activity (Royal Society, 1992:118). Even though ordinary Migrants lack risk perception, at least they have some pertinent beliefs they might use in interpreting risk perception. This require for educated and trained representatives. Failure to meet this requirement, especially in controversial risk debates may lead to risk communication initiatives being wrongly perceived. Investment in listing risks, but not sufficient effort in supplying risk communication might result for instance that a portion of community in desperate situation can feel abandoned or marginalised in emergency situation. The global opportunities with internet and IT (Web-based) that support text, audiovideo streaming, e-mail, video conferencing, SMS and the networking have become universal. EPU actors and communities in Coventry could take the chance given to the world communities and find out how each particular IT system they have can be interconnected to a Web-based system, contact details data repertory, to contribute into risk communication activities for migrants.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adger, W. N., and Brooks, N. (2003) Does Global Environmental Change Cause Vulnerability to Disaster? Natural disasters and development in a globalising world Edited by Pelling, M., Routledge 19 â&#x20AC;? 42, London Admassu Tassew, (1995) AIDS News as Risk Communication. [Online] Available from <http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol8/winter/tassew.htm> [10/11/2009] (Unpublished Ph. D) Alexander D., (2000) Scenario methodology for teaching principles of emergency Management: Disaster prevention and Management Vo. 9 No. 2, 89-97 Alexander D., (2002) Principle of Emergency Planning and Management Oxford University Press. Ann Bowling (2006) Research Methods in Health: Investigating health and health services, 2ed, McGraw-Hill Education, Open University Press. Angel L., & Lowe A., (2008) Building Community Resilience: Who is My Neighbour? West Midlands Resilience Discussion Paper West Midlands Strategic Partnership for Refugee and Asylum Seeker (2000-2009) A regional strategy for the Social Inclusion of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the West Midlands Bankoff, G. (2003) Cultures of disaster: society and natural hazard in the Philippines. London, Routledge, Curzon Bain and Company [Online] Available from <http://www.bain.com/bainweb/consulting_expertise/it_practice_interactive_survey.a sp> [08 November 2009] Barry A. Turner (1978) Organisational Learning from Disaster: Key Readings in Crises Management System and Structures for prevention and Recovery. Routledge. London and New York

Bart Johnson (Sep 24, 2009) DHS intell office to realign IT Capabilities, [Online] Available from < http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/09/24/Web-DHS-I-and-A-refocus.aspx> [02/08/2009] Baruch F., Morgan, M. Granger, Cynthia, J. Atman, Ann Bostrom, (2001) Risk Communication: A mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, [Online] Available from <http://site.ebrary.com/lib/coventry/docDetail. action?docID=10070222 > [08 November 2009] Board on Natural Disasters, National Research Council (1999) Reducing Disaster Losses through Better Information. National Academic Press 500 Fifth Street, Washington, D.C., [Online] Available from <www.nap. edu.> Beck, Ulrich (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London, Sage [Online] Available from <http://sociology.wetpaint.com/page/Ulrich+Beck> [20/11/2009] Ben Wisner, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon & Ian Davis, (2004) At Risk - Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters. Second Edition, Routledge , London and New York Birkmann J., (2006) Measuring Vulnerability to Promote Disaster Resilient Societies: Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions, in Measuring Vulnerability to natural Hazards:Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Edited by Jorn Birkmann. United Nations University Press Bhugra, D., (2000) Migration and Schizophrenia: Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Supplementum, 102, 68 - 73. Borodzicz, E. P. (2005) Risk, Crisis and Security Management. West Sussex: John Wiley & Son Ltd. Borodzicz, E. P. (1997) Risky Business: Crisis Simulations Examined in the Context of the Safety People. PhD Thesis, Birkbeck College, University of London. Bolin B. (2007) Race, Class, Ethnicity and Disaster Vulnerability: in Handbook in Disaster Research. Havidan Rodriguez, Enrico L. Quarantelli and Russell R. Dynes, Springer.

Brian Toft and Simon Reynolds (2005) Learning from disasters: A Management approach, 3rd Ed, Palgrave Macmillan, Hound mills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG2 16XS. Buckle P., (1998) Redefining Community and Vulnerability in the Context of Emergency Management. Presented at Disaster Management: Crisis and opportunity: Hazard Management and Disaster Preparedness in and Australia the pacific Region Conference: James Cook University, Centre for Disaster Studies .Cairns, Australia, Queensland. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2000) Risk Communication and government: Theory and Application for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Canadian Food Inspection Agency Public and Regulatory Affairs Branch CFA (2005) Canadian Food Inspection Agency [Online] Available from < http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/toce.shtml> [9/12/2009] Cabinet Office (2004) [Online] Available from <http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ ukresilience/nscwip.aspx> [10/11/2009] Carl Rogers and Roethlisberger (2000) Barriers and gateways to communication, [Online] Available from <http://anh2duc.booksaigon.com/Books%2011/ Harvard%20Business%20Review%20%20Barriers%20and%20Gateways%20To% 20Communication.pdf> [12/12/2009] Chertoff (2005) Katrina scenario did not exist. However, experts for years had warned of threat to New Orleans [Online] Available from <http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/> [12/10/2009] Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Conradson, D., (2005) Focus Groups: In Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project. Ed. by Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D., 2nd ed., Harlow: Prentice Hall: 128-143 Coventry City Council [Online] Available from < http://www.coventry.gov.uk/theme/ loop/ccm/navigation/policing-and-public-safety/emergency-planning/> [1November 2009]

Cross, J. A., (2001) Megacities and Small Towns: Different Perspectives on Hazard Vulnerability, Environmental Hazards, 3 (2001), 63-80 Community Risk Register (2007) [Online] Available from < http://www.westmidlandsprepared.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/26-S/p-/wmc-rfcommunity-risk-register-2007.pdf > [06/11/2009] David Alexander, (2002) Natural Disasters, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. David Alexander (2004), Natural Disaster. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. David Alexander (2001), Natural Disasters. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Dan O’hair; Gustav W Friedrich, Lynda Dee Dion, (2002) Communication in Business and Professional, 4th Ed., Boston, Houghton Mifflin David Gauntlett’s and Ross Horsley (2004) Web studies, 2nd Ed, Edited by David Gauntlett and Ross Horsley, Published by Arnold, [Online] Available from < http://www.theory.org.uk/david/book6.htm > [24/09/09] David Shpilberg [Online] Available from <http://www.bain.com/bainweb/popup_ viewpoint.asp?vp_ID=350> [24-10-09] Deborah Lupton., (2007) Risk. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York De Albuquerque, K., Van Riel, W., and Taylor, J. (1980) Uncontrolled Urbanisation in the Developing World: A Jamaican Case Study.The Journal of Developing Areas, 14 (1980), 361‐386 Dinesh Bhugra and Peter Jones, (2001) Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, vol. 7, pp. 216–223 DSA [Online] Available from <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/Rights AndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068?CID=DWP&TYPE=Sponsoredsearc 78

h&CRE=DisbilityDiscriminationAct> [18/9/2009] Dwyer, P., and Brown, D., (2005) Meeting Basic Needs? Forced Migrants and Welfare, Social Policy and Society, Cambridge University Press. James Lewis (1999) Development in Disaster Prone Places: Studies of Vulnerability. Intermediate Technology Publications James K.Mitchell (1996) The long road to recovery: Community responses to industrial disaster. United Nations University Press, 53-70, Jingumae 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;chrome, Shibuyaku, Tokyo 150, Japan James A. Gordon (2002) Comprehensive Emergency Management for Local Governments: Demystifying Emergency Planning. Rosthstein Associates Inc, Brookfield, Connecticut USA Jan Sorensen, Trond Vedeld, and Marit Haug, (2006) Natural Hazards and Disasters: Drawing on the international experience from disaster reduction in developing countries. Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR) Jeanne X.Kasperson & Roger E.Kasperson (2005) The Social Contours of Risk. Vol 2: Risk Analysis, Corporations and the Globalisation of Risk. EarthScan, 8-12 Camden High Street, London, NW1 0JH, UK Joann Keyton, (2005) Communication and Organisational Culture: A Key to Understanding Work Experiences. Sage Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California 91320 John Tullochm & Deborah Lupton, (2003) Risk and Everyday Life, Sage Publications Ltd. 1 Oliverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP John C. Pine (2007) Technology in Emergency Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, www.wiley.com Jorn Birkman, (2006) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societie. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris Ellie Quigley & Marko Gargenta, (2006) PHP and MySQL., Ed. Printice Hall, Pearson Education

EM-DAT-BE: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database www.emdat.be - UniversitĂŠ Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium". [Online] Available from <http://www.emdat.be/glossary> [7 July 2009] Harding, R. (1998) Environmental Decision - Making: The Roles of Scientists, Engineers, and the Public. Sydney. The Federation Press Hilhorst D. and Bankoff G. (2004) Introduction in Mapping Vulnerability: Disaster, Development and People. Ed. by Bankoff G., Frerks G. and Hilhorst D. Earthscan: London.Sterling, VA, 1-9 IDRN, ICT for Disaster Risk Reduction: The Indian Experience. Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs National Disaster Management Division, [Online] Available from <www.idrn.gov.in> [11/11/2009] IFRC (2005) World Disasters Report: Focus on Information in Disasters. 17, Chemin des Cretes, P.O. Box 372, CH-1211 Geneva 19, Switzerland Ian Dickinson, (2009) Journal of Emergency Planning Society. [Online] Available from < www.the-eps.org> [26/11/2009] IFRC (2004a) From Risk to Resilience: Helping Communities Cope with Crisis.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; In World Disasters Report, ed. by Walker, J. Geneva: International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 11-35 FEMA 500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472 Disaster Assistance: (800) 621FEMA (800) 621-FEMA, TTY (800) 462-7585 Giddens, Anthony (1999) Runaway World: How Globalization is reshaping our lives. London. Profile Books. [Online] Available from <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KPMtVIsNowC&dq=Run+Away+World:+How+Globalization+is +Reshaping+Our+Lives&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei= FC2zS4zBCJL20gTO-uWmBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum= 4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false > [23/10/2009]

Gibney, M. J., (2000) Outside the Protection of the Law: The Situation of Irregular Migrants in Europe. Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford Greg Bankoff., (2004) Mapping Vulnerability. Earth scan, London. 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166 - 2012, USA. Greg Bankoff, (2003) Cultures of Disaster: Society and Natural Hazards in Philippines. Routledge, Curzon, London Greg Bankoff, Georg Frerks & Dorothea Hilhorst., (2004) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan. UK, USA Gordon A. James, (2000) Risk assessment and management in local government emergency planning, Part 1: Basic concepts. Canadian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 2 Gurabardhi Z., Gutteling J.M., Kuttschreuter M., (2005) An Empirical Analysis of Communication Flow, Strategy and Stakeholders' Participation in the Risk Communication Literature. 1988-2000 Journal of Risk Research 499-511, [Online] Available from <http://dccps.nci.nih.gov/cgi-bin/risk_result.asp?ID_NUMBER=912> [04.10.09] Karl E. Wieck., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe., David Obstfeld., (2005) Organising and the Process of Sense Making. Organisation Science, Vol. 16. No.4, July- August: Informs. Kitchin R., & Tate N.J., (2000) Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice. Pearson Prentice Hall Keith Smith., (2004) Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disasters. 4th Ed., Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York Koser, K., (2005) Irregular Migration: State Security and Human Security. University College London, Global Commission on International Migration. Krueger, R. A. (1994) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 2nd Ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuppuswamy, Sunitha; Rajarathnam, S., (2009) Women, Information Technology and Disaster Management: Tsunami affected districts of Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Volume 4; [Online] Available from < http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ ind/ijisd/2009/00000004/F0020002/art00010> [10/10/2009] Mark Priestley and Laura Hemingwa., (2006) Disability and Disaster Recovery, Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 1536-7118, Volume 5, Issue 3, 200 [Online] Available from <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1300/J198v05n03 _02> [23 October 2009] McEntire D. A., (2005) Why Vulnerability Matters: Exploring The Merit of an Inclusive Disaster Reduction Concept. Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 14, No. 2. Emerald Group Publishing Ld. McDonald, Sean M. & Sinha, Ranu, (2008) Information Communication Technology: Reform of Organisational Crisis Management during Natural Disasters. International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 3, No 2, 131-149 (19), Publisher: Inderscience Publishers M. Dale Stoel, Waleed A. Muhanna, (2009) IT Capabilities and firm Performance: A contingency Analysis of the Role of Industry and IT Capability Type. Information and Management archive, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. Amsterdam, Vol.46, Issue 3, The Netherlands, [Online] Available from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1519855 [19/10/2009] Micheal, K. Lindell et.al (2004) Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in United States Merriam Webster, Online dictionary. [Online] Available from <http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/communication< [12/12/2009] MeganTady, (2006) Disabled People 'Left Behind' in Emergency Planning, [Online] Available from <http://newstandardnews.net/content/index. cfm/items/3537> [23 October 2009] National Academy of Science (1989) Improving Risk Communication: Report of the Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. NRC Washington D.C., National Academy Press. 82

National Research Council, (2007) Improving Disaster management. National Academic Press 500 Fifth Street, Washington, D.C., [Online] Available from <www.nap.edu > [08 August 2009] National Research Council, (2005) Summary of a Workshop on Using Information Technology to Enhance Disaster Management. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., September 2005. [Online] Available from <http://sites.nationalacademies.org/NRC/index.htm> [09 August 2009] NRC, (2007) Improving Disaster Management: The role of IT in Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. [Online] Available from < http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11824.html> [08 August 2009] O’Brien G., (2006) UK Emergency Preparedness: A Step in the Right Direction. Journal of International Affairs - Spring/Summer 2006. Vol. 59, No 2, Columbia University, New York O’Brien G., (2008) UK Emergency Preparedness: A Holistic Response. Disaster Prevention and Management Ödegaard, O., (1932) Emigration and Insanity: Acta Psychiatrica et Neurologica (suppl. 4), 1 - 206. Patrick Lagadec, (1993) Preventing Chaos in a Crisis: Strategies for Prevention, Control and Damage Limitation. McGraw Hill Europe, [Online] Available from <http://www.patricklagadec.net/fr/pdf/Preventing_Chaos.pdf> [20/11/2009] Paul Slovic (2000) The perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications Ltd, 120 Pentonville Road, London, N1 9JN, UK Pelling, M., (2003) Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalising World. London, Routledge. Pelling, M. (2003) The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London, Earthscan

Perry R. W and Lindell M.K (2003) Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guideline for the Emergency Planning Process: Overseas Development Institute, Blackwell Publishing Peter Hartley and Clive G Brukmann, (2002) Business Communication. London, Rutledge Communication in business, 2nd Ed., N Stanton 1986. Pan Peter Taylor-Gooby & Jens Zinn., (2006) Risk In Social Science, Oxford University Press Inc, New York. Pidgeon N., et al (1992) "Risk perception" in Royal Society Study Group Risk: Analysis Perception and Management. Royal Society, London Plough, A. and Krimsky, S. (1987) The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context, Science, Technology and Human Values, 12 (3-4), 4-10 Probart C., (2002) Risk communication in food-safety decision-making. FAO Corporate Document Repository, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Quarantelli, E. L. (2003) Urban Vulnerability to Disasters in Developing Countries: Managing Risks in Building Safer Cities â&#x20AC;? The Future of Disaster Risk. Edited by Kreimer, A., Arnold, M. and Carlin, A. Washington D.C., World Bank: 211â&#x20AC;?231 Rack, P., (1982) Race, Culture and Mental Disorder. London, Tavistock Ruckelshaus, (1983) Science, Risk, and Public Policy. Science, 221, 1026-1028 Ronald W. Perry and Lisa Nelson (1991) Ethnicity and Hazard Information Dissemination, [Online] Available from < http://www.springerlink.com/ content/j656854775158151/fulltext.pdf> and <http://www.diversity preparedness.org/Topic/Subtopic/RecordDetail/18/communityId__9790/resourceId __16117/> [3/11/2009] Ronald W. Perry, Michael, K. Lindell et al (2004) Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington D.C Royal Society [Online] Available from < http://royalsocietypublishing.org/journals>

Rudy Puryear [Online] Available from http://www.bain.com/bainweb/popup_viewpoint.asp?vp_ID=349 [24-10-09] Sashidharan., (1993) Afro-Caribbeans and schizophrenia. International Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 5, 129â&#x20AC;&#x201C;144. Shibutani, T. (1986) Social Processes: An Introduction to Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Simon Bell and Stephen Morse, (2003) Measuring Sustainability: Learning by Doing. Earthscan Publications Ltd. 8-12 Camden High Street, London NW1 0JH. Slovic, P., (1987) Perception of risk, Science, 236, 280 - 285. Skills and Learning Intelligence Module, (2003) [Online] Available from <http://www.swslim.org.uk/> [13/01/2009] Stewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P. N., (1990) Focus groups: Theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jan Sorensen, Trond Vedeld, and Marit Haug., (2006) Natural Hazards and Disasters: Drawing on the international experience from disaster reduction in developing countries. Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR) Tierney K. (2006) Social Inequality, Hazards and Disasters: in On Risk and Disasters Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Edited by Ronald, J. Daniels & Co, University of Pennsylvania Press (DDA, 1995) The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, [Online] Available from <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights /DG_4001068?CID=DWP&TYPE=Sponsoredsearch&CRE=DisbilityDiscriminationA ct> [23 October 2009] Thomas Friedmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2005) The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux Hardcover Toft, B and Reynolds S., (1997) Learning from disaster: A Management Approach, 2nd ed, Perpetuity Press UK Government, (2004) Emergency Preparedness: Guidance on Part1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Ulrich Beck,et al.,( 2004 )The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory [Online] Available from <http://books.google.com/books?id= XnYEvw_KukC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ulrich+Beck&source=gbs_similarbooks_ r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false> [6 November 2009] UNU (United Nations University); [Online] Available from < http://mediastudio.unu. edu/en/category/climate-change/> [12/December/2009] UN/ISDR (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005‐2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Geneva: UN/ISDR. [Online] Available from <http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official‐doc/L‐ docs/Hyogo‐framework‐for‐action‐english.pdf> [2 September 2009] UN/ISDR (2009) Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction [Online] Available from <http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng.htm> [04/05/2009] Valenzuela, D. and Shrivastava, P., (2008) Interview as a method for Qualitative Research. [Online] Available from < http://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/ www500/Interview%20Fri.pdf>[03/01/ 2010] Vincent. Kerry Smith, (1996) Focus group and Risk Communication: The “Science” of listening to data, Risk Analysis, Vol. 8, No 4: 1988. WMCRR (2007) West Midlands Community Risk Register, [Online] Available from < http://www.westmidlandsprepared.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/26-S/p-/wmc-rfcommunity-risk-register-2007.pdf > [06 November 2009] Walonick, D., (2004) Excerpts from: Survival statistics. StatPac, Inc., 8609 Lyndale Ave. S. #209A, Bloomington, MN 55420 [Online] Available from < http://www.statpac.com/surveys/surveys.doc> [1/2/2010] Wamsler, C. (2006) Mainstreaming Risk Reduction in Urban Planning and Housing: A Challenge for International Aid Organisations. Disasters, 30 (2), 151 ‐ 177 Wisner, B. (2003) Managing Risk Reduction in Megacities: Making the Most of Human and Social Capital in Building Safer Cities ‐ The Future of Disaster Risk. Edited by Kreimer, A., Arnold, M. and Carlin, A. Washington D.C.: World Bank: 181‐196 86

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd Ed, London, Routledge Whitefriars Housing Group Association [Online] Available from < http://www.whitefriarshousing.co.uk/> [1November 2009] Wieck K.E., Sutcliffe K. M., and Obstfeld, D., (2005) Organising and the Process of Sense Making. Organisation Science, Vol. 16. No.4, July-August: Informs WHO (1999) Emergency Preparedness: A manual for Managers and Policy Makers. WHO Library, Cataloguing in Publication Data [Online] Available from <http://medipe.psu.ac.th/security&safety/resource /WHO/Community%20emergancy%20preparedness.pdf> [12/10/2009] Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon,T., & Davis, I., (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters, 2nd ed., London, Routledge William H. Desvousges and V. Kerry Smith (1988) Focus Groups and Risk Communication: The “Science” of listening to data, Risk Analysis. 8(4):478.8. [Online] Available from <http://books.google.co.uk/ books?hl=en&lr=&id=raRnDa9i-UkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA441&dq= risk+communication+focus+group&ots=QjSc9Z4FCl&sig=9kf9LtpqGd5TBETjfSgFoPJIdg#v=onepage&q=risk%20 communication%20focus%20group&f=false> [3 February 2010] UN/ISDR, (2004) Land Use, Disaster Risk & Rewards: A School’s Guide UN/ISDR (2004) Africa Educational Series, Volume 1, Issue 4, September 2004.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Coventry City Council Wards Map

Coventry City Council Wards Map Source: http://www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council--government-anddemocracy/councillors/?WT.svl=Navi_body [08 April 2010]

Appendix 2: West Midlands Community Risk Register

Appendix 3: Research Questionnaire 3a: Semi-Interview with an Emergency Planning Manager Research Topic: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants in Coventry through Information Technology (Web-Based) 1) What arrangements and strategies the Emergency Planning Unit use for risk communication to the public? 2) Does Emergency Planning Unit exploit the redundancy of IT (Web-based) for risk communication and community diversity criterion to achieve resilience? 3) Do migrants have a perfect perception of risk and risk communication access, to allow them react accordingly in emergency situation? 4) Whether the existing IT (Web-based) is robust enough, such that it responds effectively to the need of risk communication for migrants in the context of Coventry City Council? 5) What issues or critical success factors need to be considered in that respect? 6) How can the existing IT be improved on the basis of community risk

communication?

3b: Personal Interview Questionnaire Research Topic: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants in Coventry through Information Technology (Web-Based) SUMMARY We are living in a world which is in permanent risk (danger). This can provoke emergencies at anytime and in any location and form. The UK Civil Contingency Act (CCA 2004) define “emergency” as a situation which puts human safety in danger, causes damage to the environment/location in which it occurs or puts the security of the location at risk (in UK). Emergency Planning is the service that is in charge to communicate the danger/risk to the public to reduce the shock of an emergency if it happens. Researches indicate that migrants (asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers) are more likely to be more vulnerable than UK born citizens in case of an emergency situation across the United Kingdom. This research composed of 20 questions, and easy to answer, seeks to collect information data from migrants of the above groups, to understand what risk/danger is to them and what will be the best method(s) of risk/danger communication to help prepare them in emergency situation. Your personal details will not be used to identify you personally after the interview. We thank you for agreeing to take part in this research. RISK (DANGER) COMMUNICATION In a scale of 1 – 5, Please rate your understanding (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 undecided, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree) 1) How much do you understand the word risk/hazard/danger? 1[ ] 2[] 3[ ] 4[ ] 5[ ] 2) How much are you aware of risk/hazard/danger that exists in your location as recorded in West Midlands Community Risk Register? 1[ ]

2[ ]

3[ ]

4[ ]

5[ ]

Please tick to select your response 3) The Emergency Planning Unit delivers risk/hazard (danger) information to the public. Do you know about it? Yes[ ]

No[ ]

4) How long does it take you to receive risk information from an EPU after an event occurring? (Choose as many as you can)

After one day [ ]

After one week [ ]

After two weeks []

After one month []

After one month plus [ ]

5) Do you take time to access such information to allow you be ready and react correctly in emergency situation? Yes[ ] No[ ] 6) If your response is YES, what is your preferred choice of receiving such information? In a scale of 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5, Please rate your understanding (Choose as many as you can) Radio []

Local News Paper [ ]

Leaflet []

City Council Web-site [ ]

Community Meetings/Churches [ ]

E-mail []

SMS []

In a scale of 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5, Please rate your understanding (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 undecided, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree) 7) If YES, do you understand easily all communications published from these sources? 1[ ]

2[ ]

3[ ]

4[ ]

5[ ]

Please tick to select your response 8) If your response is NO, what is (are) the reason (s) for not looking for emergency information? (Choose as many as you can) Language barrier [ ]

No Internet access [ ]

Time []

Income []

No Community Meetings [ ]

No interest []

9) What types of emergency information do you prefer to be communicated to you? Ordinary information [ ]

Urgent information [ ]

Both [ ]

IT(COMPUTER/INTERNET USE) Please tick to select your response 10) Do you have access to Internet from home?

Yes[ ]

No[ ]

If YES, please answer question 11 through 15, if no, please proceed to questions 16 through 20. 11) Do you use the internet? Yes[ ]

No[ ]

12) How often do you use the internet? Daily[ ]

Weekly[ ]

Monthly[ ] 92

13) How many hours per week do you use the internet? 1-10h[ ]

10-15h[ ]

16-20h[ ]

21-30h[ ]

30h+[ ]

14) What do you use the internet for?(please tick as many as apply) E-mail[ ] Social networking [ ]

Information search [ ]

SMS[ ]

Other[ ]

15) Do you look through City Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Website? Yes[ ]

No[ ]

16) There are different ways that Emergency Planning Unit can use to deliver emergency information to the public. Which one do you never use? (Choose as many as you can) BBC Local radio [ ]

Local News Paper [ ]

Leaflet []

City Council Web-site[ ]

Communities Meetings[ ]

E-mail []

SMS []

In a scale of 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5, Please rate your understanding 17) How much do you understand communications from Local radio, local news paper, local Web-site, leaflet? 1[ ] 2[ ] 3[ ] 4[] 5[ ] Please tick to select your response 18) How much is your understanding when listening to the radio? Low [ ]

Medium [ ]

High [ ]

19) If your understanding is lower, what is the main reason? (Choose as many as you can) Language barrier [ ]

Information Content [ ]

Translation []

Use of IT level []

20) What methods of communication would you prefer the Emergency Planning to use for notifying you about ordinary risk information? BBC Local [ ]

Local News Paper [ ]

Leaflet []

City Council Web-site [ ]

Communities Meetings/ Churches [ ]

SMS []

E-mail []

21) What methods of communication would you prefer the Emergency planning to use for notifying you about urgent danger (for example fire, chemical attack, terrorist attack, earthquake)?

BBC Local [ ]

Local News Paper[ ]

Leaflet []

City Council Web-site[ ]

Communities Meetings/Churches [ ]

SMS []

E-mail []

22) If Emergency Planning Unit would like to inform you about upcoming risk/hazard/danger communication events, meetings and other general occasions. Which of these method (s) is (are) best for you? BBC Local radio [ ]

Local News Paper [ ]

Leaflet []

City Council Web-site [ ]

Communities Meetings/Churches[ ]

SMS []

E-mail []

23) Would you agree to have an alternative language use to communicate emergency information to the public? (Please select) Yes [ ]

No [ ]

Please tick to select your response 24) If YES which of these is a best method to communicate a large number of information to a large public? (Choose as many as you can) BBC Local radio[ ]

Local News Paper[ ]

Leaflet []

City Council Web-site [ ]

Communities Meetings/Churches [ ]

SMS []

E-mail []

25) What are your experiences and expectations about the time it takes to find out about risk information from Emergency Planning Unit? 26) Have you any other feedback, positive or negative about different types of risk/hazard/danger communications from Emergency Planning Unit?

3c: Focus Group Questionnaire Research Topic: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants in Coventry through Information Technology (Web-Based) SUMMARY We are living in a world which is in permanent risk (danger). This can provoke emergencies at anytime and in any location and form. The UK Civil Contingency Act (CCA 2004) define â&#x20AC;&#x153;emergencyâ&#x20AC;? as a situation which puts human safety in danger, causes damage to the environment/location in which it occurs or puts the security of the location at risk (in UK). Emergency Planning is the service that is in charge to communicate the danger/risk to the public to reduce the shock of an emergency if it happens. Researches indicate that migrants (asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers) are more likely to be more vulnerable than UK born citizens in case of an emergency situation across the United Kingdom. This research composed of 20 questions, easy to answer, seeks to collect information data from migrants of the above groups, to understand what risk/danger is to them and what will be the best method(s) of risk/danger communication to help prepare them in emergency situation. We thank you for agreeing to take part in this research. Your personal details will not be used to identify you personally. ABOUT RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION 1) How much do you understand the word risk/hazard/danger? 2) How much are you aware of risk/hazard/danger that exists in your location as recorded in West Midlands Community Risk Register? 3) The Emergency Planning Unit delivers risk/hazard (danger) information to the public. Do you know about it? 4) How long does it take you to receive information from an EPU after an event occurring? 5) Do you take time to access such information to allow you be ready and react correctly in emergency situation? -

If your response is YES, what is your preferred choice of receiving such information?

If YES, do you understand easily all communications published from these sources?

If your response is NO, what is (are) the reason (s) for not looking for emergency information?

6) What types of emergency information do you prefer to be communicated to you? ABOUT IT (COMPUTER, INTERNET USE) 7) Do you have access to Internet from home? - Do you use the internet? - How often do you use the internet? -

How many hours on average do you use the internet per week?

What do you use the internet for?(please tick as many as apply)

- Do you look through City Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Website? 8) There are different ways that Emergency Planning Unit can use to deliver emergency information to the public. Which one do you never use? 9) How much do you understand communications from Local radio, local news paper, local Web-site, leaflet? 10) How much is your understanding when listening to the radio? -

If your understanding is lower, what is the main reason?

11) What methods of communication would you prefer the Emergency Planning to use for notifying you about: -

Ordinary risk information?

Urgent risk (for example fire, chemical attack, terrorist attack, earthquake)?

12) If Emergency Planning Unit would like to inform you about upcoming risk/hazard/danger communication events, meetings and other general occasions. Which method (s) is (are) best for you? 13) Would you agree to have an alternative language use to communicate emergency information to the public? - If YES what is a best method to communicate a large number of information to a large public?

14) What are your experiences and expectations about the time it takes to find out about risk information from Emergency Planning Unit? 15) Have you any other feedback, positive or negative about different types of risk/hazard/danger communications from Emergency Planning Unit?

Appendix 4 Focus Groups Participant Consent Statement Form Research Topic: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants In Coventry through Information Technology (Web-Based) Please complete and sign both sections and retain the bottom section, hand the top section of the form to the Focus Groups Facilitator before you leave today. Participant Reference Code: [

]

I have read and understand the attached participant information sheet and by signing below I consent to participate in this study. I understand that I have the right to withdraw 2 weeks after my participation from the study without giving a reason at any time during the study itself. I understand that I also have the right to change my mind about participating in the study for a short period after the study has concluded (insert deadline here). Print Name:............................................................................................ Signed:............................ Witnessed by (Print Name):....................................................................Signed:........................... Researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Signature:...............................................................Date:.........../........./2010 If you have any inquiries about the research or if you wish to withdraw your participation, please contact me on my e-mail: sianip@coventry.ac.uk

Focus Groups Participant Consent Statement Form Research Topic: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants In Coventry Through Information Technology (Web-Based) Please complete and sign both sections and retain the bottom section, hand the top section of the form to the Focus Groups Facilitator before you leave today. Participant Reference Code: [

]

I have read and understand the attached participant information sheet and by signing below I consent to participate in this study. I understand that I have the right to withdraw 2 weeks after my participation from the study without giving a reason at any time during the study itself. I understand that I also have the right to change my mind about participating in the study for a short period after the study has concluded (insert deadline here). Print Name:............................................................................................ Signed:............................ Witnessed by (Print Name):.....................................................................Signed:........................... Researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Signature:...........................................................................Date:.........../........./2010 If you have any inquiries about the research or if you wish to withdraw your participation, please contact me on my e-mail: sianip@coventry.ac.uk

Appendix 5: Participant Information Sheet Study title: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants in Coventry through Information Technology (Web-Based) What is the purpose of the study? The study seeks to promote the use of Information Technology (Web-based) to enhance risk communication for migrants in the context of Coventry (West Midland, UK). -

Examine arrangements and strategies for risk communication used by the Emergency Planning Unit;

Explore Technology used to provide risk communication to the public in general and in particular to the migrants;

Assess risk perception for migrants and risk communication access of migrants;

Identify issues or important success factors relating to risk perception and risk communication process.

Why have I been approached? For the purposes of the study I need to recruit a large number of migrants participants (asylum seekers, refugees, migrantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worker) from both gender, race, and age group (1825, 26-35, 36-50, 50 and over ) living in Coventry areas and who can read, speak and write in English. These are the only criteria that I have for recruiting people to the study, although I will also be interested to know if you experience communication problem or if English is not your first language. However, these factors will not prevent you from taking part in the study. Do I have to take part? No. Participation is entirely voluntary. If you change your mind about taking part in the study you can withdraw at any point during the first session and at any time in the two weeks following that session. You can withdraw by contacting me on email and providing me with your participant information number. If you decide to withdraw all your data will be destroyed and will not be used in the study. There are no consequences to deciding that you no longer wish to participate in the study. What will happen to me if I take part?

You will be asked to come along once to take part in short (45 - 60 minute) focus group session (maximum 10 participants) during which you will be asked to complete no more than two tasks in a given session, and each task is quite short. Further to focus group you might be selected to participate to one-to-one (20 minutes) interview. During these activities, we use recording facilities. This is for transcribing/research only, not published. Participants ID cannot be identified. You will be provided with refreshment and bus transport charge refund. What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? There is no challenging task to perform. This is deliberate informal conversation. One disadvantage is that you will need to attend one separate occasion for one- to-one interview, which may be difficult if you have to make special arrangements. I do appreciate your time. What are the possible benefits of taking part? As a migrant, by taking part in this study you will gain an insight into risk that might degenerate to disaster within your local community. How risk communication can be communicated to the public and what technologies are available and which is most suitable for your understanding of the risk communication from you Local Authority. How a social research project is conducted and what it is like to be a participant in such a study. If you are a student this information could be used to shape and inform how you choose to design and conduct your own final year dissertation. What if something goes wrong? If we have to cancel a session I will attempt to contact you as soon as possible using the method indicated by you on the consent form. If you change your mind about taking part in the study you can withdraw at any point during the sessions and at any time in the two weeks following that session by contacting me using the email address stated below: E-mail: sianip@coventry.ac.uk If you decide to withdraw all your data will be destroyed and will not be used in the study. Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential? 100

Yes. Your details are used just to get in first contact with you. All the consent forms will be anonymous. You will only be identified on the score sheet by your participant code number. I will only retain the data from the project until my final mark for my dissertation has been release. They will then be destroyed. When the data has been entered into a computer file, your scores will only be associated with your code number. What will happen to the results of the research study? The results will be written up and presented as part of my final year postgraduate dissertation. If the results are novel, it may also be presented at academic conferences and / or written up for publication in peer reviewed academic journals. Who is organising and funding the research? The research is organised by: Mr KINSTHWAMBA SIANI, who is a final year postgraduate student at Coventry University; Faculty of Business Environment and Society; Department of Geography Environment and Disaster Management. This research is not externally funded. Who has reviewed the study? The Department of Geography Environment and Disaster Managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Postgraduate Ethics Committee (via research supervisor) has reviewed and approved this study.

Contact for Further Information Names: Kinsthwamba Siani E-mail Address: sianip@coventry.ac.uk Telephone/Mobil: 02476441876 - 07944901149

101

Appendix 6: Focus Participant Profile Form Please hand the completed form to the Focus Group Facilitator before you leaves today. Research title: Enhancing Risk Communication for Migrants in Coventry through Information Technology (Web-Based) Purpose of the research: To collect the views of a wide range of Migrants about risk perception, their awareness about risk in their milieu, sources of risk communication they use and the effectiveness of different communication methods and systems currently in use. To gather migrants’ opinions on preferred methods of communication for conveying different types of risk information, particularly technology supported and issues to it use. To analyse the results and produce a report on the findings. Please complete any of the boxes below that apply to you Participant Reference Code: [ ………] About your status

Current Status

Asylum seeker [ ]

Refugee [ ]

Migrant worker [ ]

(Please tick)

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

English language (Please tick)

First language

Second language

(Please tick) IT literate (Use of Computer/Internet)

[]

English language communication

Excellent

Good

Average

Low

(Please tick)

[]

102

About you Gender (Please tick)

Female [ ]

Male [ ]

Your Background

European

(Please tick)

[]

Age group

Under 20

(Please tick)

Asian [ ]

African [ ]

Chinese

Other [ ]

[] 20 - 30 [ ]

31 - 39 [ ]

[]

40 - 49 []

Home location

Coventry

(Please tick)

City Centre

area [ ]

50 or over []

Other [ ]

[] Source of income (Please tick)

On welfare benefit [ ] Working [ ]

Not working

NAS [ ]

[]

Other [ ]

103

Appendix 7: Meeting and Data Collection Schedule/Dates

Date Friday 22/01/2010 Tuesday 26/01/2010 Monday 08/02/2010 Tuesday 09/02/2010

Activity

Location

Coventry Refugee Centre Executive Manager

Coventry Refugee Centre

Coventry City Council Emergency Planning Manager

Coventry City Council House

Meeting with CRC clients migrants

Coventry Refugee Centre

Meeting with migrants

Gosford street area

Meeting with CRC clients migrants

Coventry Refugee Centre

Meeting with migrants

Gosford street area

Meeting with CRC clients migrants

Coventry Refugee Centre

Meeting with migrants

Foleshill road area

Meeting with migrants

Stoke Aldermoor area

Meeting with migrants

Hildfield area

Contact with migrants

Henley area

Focus groups session1, 2 with shortlisted participants

Jaguar Building, Lunch room Coventry University

Interview with person having interesting case to research

Jaguar Building, Lunch room Coventry University

Focus groups session 3 with shortlisted participants

Jaguar Building, Lunch room Coventry University

Friday 12/02/2010 Saturday 13/02/2010 Friday 19/02/2010 Saturday 20/02/2010 Monday 22/02/2010 Friday 26/02/2010 Saturday 27/02/2010 Friday 26/03/2010 Monday 29/03/2010 Friday 02/04/2010

104

Appendix 8: Tables of Personal Interview Responses Table1: Risk perception

Option

Number of Responses

Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree

2 6 9 6 20

Table 2: Risk awareness Option

Number of Responses

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly agree

Table 3: Knowledge of Risk Communication Sources Option

Number of Responses

Yes No

8 37

105

Table 4: Average time taken to receive risk communication Average Time

Number of responses

One day One week Two weeks One month

6 14 1 3

One month plus

Table 5: Interest to access risk communication Option

Number of responses

Yes No

18 26

Table 6: Preferred Sources of information Sources

Number of responses

Radio News Paper Leaflet City Council Website Communities meetings/Churches E-mail SMS

9 13 13 6 6 6 5

Table 7: Information understanding level UnderOpinion

Number of Responses

Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree

6 2 12 4 7

106

Table 8: Reason(s) for low level understanding Reasons

Number of responses

Language barrier

No Internet access

Lack of Time

Income

No Communities meetings

No interest

Table 9: Type of information required Types of risk information

Number of responses

Ordinary Risk information

Urgent risk information

Both risk information

Table 10: Internet Access from home Home Option

Number of responses

Yes

107

Table 11: IT/Internet use IT/Internet use

Number of responses

Yes

Table 12: Frequency of Internet Use Frequency

Number of responses

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Table 13: Average Hours of Internet Use/Week Hours/Week

Number of responses

01 - 10 hours

11 - 15 hours

16 - 20 hours

21 - 30 hours

30 hours plus

108

Table 14: Purposes of Internet use Internet use

Number of responses

E-mail Social Networking Information Search SMS Other

38 21 34 10 9

Table 15: City Council Website visit Option

Number of responses

Yes

Table 16: Never used Ways of Communication Ways of communication

Number of responses

BBC Local

Local News paper

Leaflet

City Council Website

Communities meetings/Churches

E-mail

SMS

109

Table 17: Perfect understanding of information from different sources Option

Number of responses

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly agree

Table 18: Understanding of Radio Communication Understanding

Number of responses

Low

Medium

High

Table 19: Reason(s) for lower understanding Reason

Number of responses

Language barrier

Information content

Translation

Use of IT level

110

Table 20: Preferred method(s) for ordinarily risk communication Method

Number of responses

BBC Local

Local News paper

Leaflet

City Council Website

Communities meetings/Churches

SMS

E-mail

Table 21: Preferred method(s) for urgent risk communication Method(s)

Number of responses

BBC Local Local News paper Leaflet City Council Website Communities meetings/Churches SMS E-mail

29 20 14 9 11 17 11

Table 22: Best method(s) to announce upcoming events/meetings about risk communication Method(s)

Number of responses

BBC Local Local News paper Leaflet City Council Website Communities meetings/Churches SMS E-mail

20 15 22 8 14 16 14

111

Table 23: Use of alternative language(s) for risk communication Option

Number of responses

Yes No

27 15

Table 24: Best method(s) for alternative language use for risk communication Method(s)

Number of responses

BBC Local

Local News paper

Leaflet

City Council Website

Communities meetings/Churches

SMS

E-mail

112

Appendix 9: Charts of Personal Interview Responses

Chart 1: Perfect Risk Perception Strongly disagree 5%

Disagree 14%

Strongly agree 46%

Undecided 21%

Agree 14%

Chart 2 : Risk awareness Strongly agree 8%

Agree 15%

Strongly disagree 40%

Undecided 23%

Disagree 14%

113

Chart 3: Knowing Risk communication sources

Yes 18%

No 82%

Chart 4: Average time to receive risk communication

One month plus 27%

One day 18%

One month 9%

One week 43%

Two weeks 3%

114

Chart 5: Interest to access risk communication

Yes 41% No 59%

Chart 6: Prefered sources of information

E-mail 10%

SMS 9%

Radio 16%

Communites meetings/ Churches 10%

City Council Website 10%

News Paper 23%

Leaflet 22%

115

Chart 7: Information Understanding level

Strongly disagree 19%

Strongly agree 23%

Disagree 6% Agree 13%

Undecided 39%

Chart 8: Reason(s) for low level understanding

No interest 9%

Language barrier 16%

No Communities meetings 28%

Income 3%

No Internet access 22%

Lack of Time 22%

116

Chart 9: Type of information required Ordinary Risk information 5%

Urgent risk information 24%

Both risk information 71%

Chart 10: Home Internet access

Yes 95%

117

No 5%

Chart 11: IT/internet Use No 2%

Yes 98%

Monthly 2%

Chart 12: Frequency of Internet Use

Weekly 12%

Daily 86%

118

Chart 13: Average hours of internet use per week

30 hours plus 14% 21 - 30 hours 7% 16 - 20 hours 5%

01 - 10 hours 55% 11 - 15 hours 19%

Chart 14: Purposes of Internet use

Other 8% SMS 9% E-mail 34% Information Search 30% Social Networking 19%

119

Chart 15: City Council Website Visit

No 49%

Yes 51%

Chart 16: Never used Ways of Communication

SMS 15%

BBC Local 16%

E-mail 10%

Local News paper 11%

Communities meetings/ Churches 24%

Leaflet 13%

City Council Website 11%

120

Chart 17: Perfect understanding of information from different sources Strongly disagree 7%

Disagree 17%

Strongly agree 29%

Undecided 22% Agree 25%

Chart 18: Understanding of Radio Communication

Low 7%

High 45% Midium 48%

121

Chart 19: Reason(s) for lower understanding Use of IT level 6% Translation 12% Language barrier 53%

Information content 29%

Chart 20: Preferred method(s) for ordinarily risk communication

E-mail 6% SMS 11%

BBC Local 19%

Communities meetings/ Churches 10% Local News paper 21%

City Council Website 11% Leaflet 22%

122

Chart 21: Preferred method(s) for urgent risk communication

E-mail 10% BBC Local 26%

SMS 15%

Communities meetings/ Churches 10%

City Council Website 8%

Local News paper 18% Leaflet 13%

Chart 22: Best method(s) to announce upcoming events/meetings about risk communication

E-mail 13%

BBC Local 18%

SMS 15%

Local News paper 14%

Communities meetings/ Churches 13%

Leaflet 20%

City Council Website 7%

123

Chart 23: Use of alternative language(s) for risk communication

No 36% Yes 64%

Chart 24: Best method(s) for alternative language use for risk communication

E-mail 7% BBC Local 22%

SMS 14%

Communities meetings/ Churches 13%

Local News paper 13%

City Council Website 10%

Leaflet 21%

124

Appendix 10: Focus Groups Attendee Profile Table 25: Focus groups participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; profile

Status

Asylum seeker Refugee Migrant worker

2 6 6

14% 43% 43%

IT literacy

Yes No

12 2

86% 14%

Native English language speaker

First language Second language

0 14

0% 100%

Excellent Good Average Low

3 3 5 3

22% 21% 36% 21%

Female Male

5 9

36% 64%

European Asian African Chinese Other

3 3 8 0 0

22% 21% 57% 0% 0%

Under 20 20 - 30 31 - 39 40 - 49 50 or over

0 6 4 3 1

0% 43% 29% 21% 7%

2 12 0

14% 86% 0%

8 3 2 1 1

53% 20% 13% 7% 7%

English communication level

Gender

Background

Age group

Home location

Coventry City Centre Coventry Area Other

Source of income

Working Not working Welfare benefit NAS Other

125

Appendix 11: Interview with Mamu, Coventry Mamu is a 50 year old mother and has lived in UK for nearly 8 years now. After a long carrier oversea in teaching, she was obliged to fly from her country to UK. After being granted refugee status, finding a job as a teacher was not possible, simply because her degree was not from Commonwealth Community countries and her education was not from an English speaking country. She was finally taken into a deep consternation and started going to the college to learn the language, besides doing part-time cleaning job. She lived with her family members, background relative and communities/friends she met in the country, with whom she had a nice relationship. Then she started volunteering for a local church school, teaching French to under 12 years old children. At 4am every day she would get up and walk for 2 miles at work, poorly covered, and go to the school at 10am to teach, then to the college at 1pm to learn the language and IT. The teaching job was not paid but she was given some of the opportunity to meet people who were able to guide her to a care job with elderly people. She got a job in a nursing care home for elderly people, and worked for one year. Her husband and her three children came to join her later on. She became sick and was constraint to stop her job. She received medical visit through the system she was entitle to but nothing was planned to get her out of illness. She borrowed and received some money from friends with which she tried to get treatment in private abroad. Going to Brussels and being treated inspired her to undertake nursing studies whilst back to UK. The dream has not been easy for Mamu as English was not her first language. She then had to take evening Nursing access course to another college outside of an English morning college. She feels frustrated when few weeks after a psychology 126

teacher asked her to leave the room (the language accent did not pleased the teacher as she said) whilst she was comfortable with all the modules she was studying for that program. This action was interpreted as a plunge in her status that caused trauma. There are a lot of opportunities for nurse vacancies that could help her better integrate in this new country. However, she could not have an offer to undertake her studies. Mamu feels that people in the area tend to be well friendly, but that they can be unkind to help new arrivals in the City. She feels there is too much pressure to conform and decided to move to Coventry. The husband agreed with Mamu to enroll at the University that he will encourage her and raise her in the study. Prior to this she had visited the enrolment service, but the doors were not something easy which Mamu could open. It is not clear if such attitude will continue once the enrolment is completed and the course starts. Her household income was insufficient, and was subsequently due to their move from the previous area to Coventry. Compensation for the income was not approaching. Her house never had a washing machine or wardrobe and there was not enough money to buy one, so Mamu and family now lives with Jobseeker allowance benefits. Mamu decided to find a job to move out of her familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s condition. She feels working as a school support worker, despite it being so hard to assisting student with learning disability will not be easy but having worked in teaching for years will make her afford. The City Council recruitment advertisement for support worker in residential home with care opened the door for her to reintegrate care job. Mamu took advantage of this work experience to find a way to enroll for nursing degree and she undertook the course whilst working as carer until she graduated with honors three years later at her 49.

127

She feels proud of her achievements and is not afraid to continue in a new carrier as a nurse to contribute to the economic life of the country amongst tax payer. She had also been involved in social family dispute with her teenager daughter for a behaviour that was not tolerated in family. Active in to advice migrants need to follow for better integration. When a disclosure was done for her first job as a nurse, she discovered that a caution was given to her to sign by the police four years ago without knowing what it was and the further implications. When she was dismissed from her job, followed by three other opportunities, it is a whole effort that collapsed due to poor language understanding, as a consequence of her migrating, therefore her vulnerability (it may also have been built on cultural differences). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Attentionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in French (her first language), caution in English means be careful without any further action, whilst in English it could stop someone from working as it is the case with Mamu. Mamu sees risk communication as more important than language hegemony and media preference to communicate risk to the public as it will help to protect the public in Coventry, including migrants.

128