IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v120y2024i6d10.1007_s11069-024-06441-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating elements of risk communication in risk messaging from officials on Twitter in the 2021 Marshall fire

Author

Listed:
  • Cole Vaughn

    (Global Systems Laboratory)

Abstract

The Marshall fire in Boulder County, Colorado sparked and spread into nearby urban areas in an unusually fast timeframe. Without a widely used warning system to alert the public, officials used social media as one warning information outlet to encourage rapid, large-scale evacuations. Tweets (N = 1316) published by 101 media and government Twitter (now X) accounts on the day of the fire were examined for risk messaging components and coded according to which components were included. The risk messaging components used were derived from the Protective Action Decision Model and the Extended Parallel Process Model. Tweets from the National Weather Service in Boulder were evaluated using recommendations from NOAA’s Hazard Risk Communication guide. The risk messaging components that improved engagement were dependent on the type of account doing the tweeting, typically falling into the expertise or “job” of the entity represented by that account. Overall, the inclusion of environmental cues in raw video from the scene of the fire proved to be powerful in boosting engagement across numerous different types of accounts. The National Weather Service fulfilled the eleven recommendations from NOAA’s HRC guide that was used in this research, and the use of lively language, vivid images, empathy, and the “all-clear” was noted among the well-performing tweets. This study provides helpful information to those posting on social media in an official capacity during a wildfire by examining how risk communication theory and recommendations performed in a real-world scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • Cole Vaughn, 2024. "Evaluating elements of risk communication in risk messaging from officials on Twitter in the 2021 Marshall fire," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(6), pages 5537-5560, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:120:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s11069-024-06441-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-024-06441-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-024-06441-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-024-06441-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Heaney & Laura Hunter & Angus Clulow & Devin Bowles & Sotiris Vardoulakis, 2021. "Efficacy of Communication Techniques and Health Outcomes of Bushfire Smoke Exposure: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    3. Zheye Wang & Xinyue Ye & Ming-Hsiang Tsou, 2016. "Spatial, temporal, and content analysis of Twitter for wildfire hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(1), pages 523-540, August.
    4. Cole Vaughn & Kathleen Sherman-Morris & Philip Poe, 2023. "Factors influencing retweeting of local news media tweets during Hurricane Irma," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 119(1), pages 583-611, October.
    5. Bairong Wang & Jun Zhuang, 2017. "Crisis information distribution on Twitter: a content analysis of tweets during Hurricane Sandy," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 89(1), pages 161-181, October.
    6. Sarah C. Vos & Jeannette Sutton & Yue Yu & Scott Leo Renshaw & Michele K. Olson & C. Ben Gibson & Carter T. Butts, 2018. "Retweeting Risk Communication: The Role of Threat and Efficacy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2580-2598, December.
    7. Joshua D. Eachus & Barry D. Keim, 2020. "Content driving exposure and attention to tweets during local, high-impact weather events," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 2207-2229, September.
    8. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 971-979, August.
    10. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michal Titko & Jozef Ristvej & Zenon Zamiar, 2021. "Population Preparedness for Disasters and Extreme Weather Events as a Predictor of Building a Resilient Society: The Slovak Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    3. Philip Bubeck & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jonas Laudan & Jeroen C.J.H. Aerts & Annegret H. Thieken, 2018. "Insights into Flood‐Coping Appraisals of Protection Motivation Theory: Empirical Evidence from Germany and France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1239-1257, June.
    4. Catherine E. Lambert & Jason R. Holley & Katherine A. McComas & Natalie P. Snider & Grace K. Tucker, 2021. "Eroding Land and Erasing Place: A Qualitative Study of Place Attachment, Risk Perception, and Coastal Land Loss in Southern Louisiana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Jinan N. Allan & Joseph T. Ripberger & Wesley Wehde & Makenzie Krocak & Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 2020. "Geographic Distributions of Extreme Weather Risk Perceptions in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2498-2508, December.
    6. Lois Addo Agyepong & Xin Liang & Patrick Owusu Ansah, 2025. "Behavioral mechanism on flood risk response: a case study in Accra, Ghana," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(6), pages 6499-6523, April.
    7. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.
    8. Laura N. Rickard & Z. Janet Yang & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Gina M. Eosco & Clifford W. Scherer & Ricardo A. Daziano, 2017. "Sizing Up a Superstorm: Exploring the Role of Recalled Experience and Attribution of Responsibility in Judgments of Future Hurricane Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2334-2349, December.
    9. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Abdul‐Akeem Sadiq & John D. Graham, 2016. "Exploring the Predictors of Organizational Preparedness for Natural Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1040-1053, May.
    11. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    12. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    13. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    14. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    15. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Hiroaki Daimon & Ryohei Miyamae & Wenjie Wang, 2023. "A critical review of cognitive and environmental factors of disaster preparedness: research issues and implications from the usage of “awareness (ishiki)” in Japan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(2), pages 1213-1243, June.
    17. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    18. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    19. Liu, Lihua & Kong, Dongmin, 2024. "Epidemic experience, analyst sentiment, and earnings forecasts: Evidence from SARS exposure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6).
    20. Wei Qi & Xiumei Guo & Xia Wu & Dora Marinova & Jin Fan, 2018. "Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2269-2289, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:120:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s11069-024-06441-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.