Research Trends in Risk Communication for Earthquake Disaster Preparedness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54849/monas.v8i1.334Keywords:
bibliometric analysisAbstract
Earthquakes are among the most destructive natural hazards, with significant impacts on social, economic, environmental, and infrastructural systems. In this context, risk communication plays a strategic role as an instrument for conveying information about hazards, potential consequences, and mitigation measures to communities and stakeholders. Despite the growing body of research in disaster risk communication, existing studies remain largely fragmented and tend to focus on specific local contexts or particular empirical approaches. This study aims to map and analyze the development of research on risk communication in the context of earthquake preparedness using a bibliometric approach based on scientific publications indexed in Scopus during the period 2016–2025. The method employed is bibliometric analysis following the PRISMA protocol to ensure a systematic and transparent data selection process. Data were analyzed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny to generate network visualizations, keyword clusters, and thematic evolution. The novelty of this study lies in its comprehensive, data-driven mapping of the intellectual structure and research dynamics of risk communication in earthquake preparedness, an area that remains relatively underexplored. The findings are expected to provide a more holistic understanding of research trends, identify existing gaps, and serve as a basis for developing more effective and evidence-based risk communication strategies to enhance community preparedness and resilience to earthquake disasters.
References
Aitsi-Selmi, A., Egawa, S., Sasaki, H., Wannous, C., & Murray, V. (2015). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Renewing the Global Commitment to People’s Resilience, Health, and Well-being. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Bilham, R. (2009). The seismic future of cities. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7(4), 839–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9147-0
Bird, D. K., Gísladóttir, G., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2011). Different communities, different perspectives: Issues affecting residents’ response to a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland. Bulletin of Volcanology, 73(9), 1209–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-011-0464-1
Bodas, M., Siman-Tov, M., Kreitler, S., & Peleg, K. (2017). Psychological correlates of civilian preparedness for conflicts. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 11(4), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2016.163
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H., Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell, M. R., Turner Mcgowen, S. E., Davis, R., Vaid, S., Mcelderry, J. A., & Griffith, S. A. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092
Irina Dallo, Caroline Orchiston, & Laure Fallou. (2024). Editorial: Dynamic earthquake hazard and risk communication. Frontiers (Frontiers in Communication). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1496432
Kiani, U. B. N., Najam, F. A., & Rana, I. A. (2022). The impact of risk perception on earthquake preparedness: An empirical study from Rawalakot, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102989
Kuhlicke, C., Seebauer, S., Hudson, P., Begg, C., Bubeck, P., Dittmer, C., Grothmann, T., Heidenreich, A., Kreibich, H., Lorenz, D. F., Masson, T., Reiter, J., Thaler, T., Thieken, A. H., & Bamberg, S. (2020). The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/WAT2.1418
Levy, L., & Bodas, M. (2025). Risk messaging style and its effect on public preparedness for earthquakes: longitudinal intervention-based study. Journal of Public Health Policy, 46(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-024-00534-w
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., & Lazo, J. K. (2008). Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: A survey of the U.S. public. Weather and Forecasting, 23(5), 974–991. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008WAF2007088.1
Nemeth, N., Johnson, M. S., Mocatta, G., & Hawley, E. (2024). Communicational responses for compound natural hazards: A systematic review. In International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (Vol. 115). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.105041
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. In BMJ (Vol. 372). BMJ Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Paton, D. (2003). Disaster Prevention and Management (Vol. 12).
Renn, O. (2015). Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0037-6
Reuter, C., & Kaufhold, M. A. (2018). Fifteen years of social media in emergencies: A retrospective review and future directions for crisis Informatics. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12196
Reuter, C., Kaufhold, M. A., Biselli, T., & Pleil, H. (2023). Increasing adoption despite perceived limitations of social media in emergencies: Representative insights on German citizens’ perception and trends from 2017 to 2021. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103880
Rizal, E., Winoto, Y., Sugito, T., Nugroho, C., & Septian, F. I. (2025). Disaster communication in the digital age: a community-based case study of media, education, and local knowledge in Pangandaran, Indonesia. Frontiers in Communication, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1632436
Sutton, J., & Tierney, K. (2006). Disaster Preparedness: Concepts, Guidance, and Research. https://www.colorado.edu/hazards
Terpstra, T., & Lindell, M. K. (2013). Citizens’ Perceptions of Flood Hazard Adjustments: An Application of the Protective Action Decision Model. Environment and Behavior, 45(8), 993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512452427
UNDRR. (2019). Making Cities Resilient Report 2019 : A snapshot of how local governments progress in reducing disaster risks in alignment with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Contribution from the Action on “Making Cities Sustainable and Resilient: Implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 at the Local Level.”
UNDRR, N. O. for D. R. R. U. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030.
van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A Work-In-Process Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2011.00639.x
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
Wang, H. (2022). To Critique Crisis Communication as a Social Practice: An Integrated Framework. In Frontiers in Communication (Vol. 7). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.874833
Watanabe, M., & Fujimi, T. (2025). Causal effects of time-sensitive risk communication on disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105598
Zheng, G., Pan, C., Wang, Z., Zhang, S., & Zhong, S. (2025). How risk communication impacts public psychology and behaviors during compound disasters: Data from flooding and COVID-19 disasters in China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105312
Župič, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Elmina Furi, Fatmah Fatmah, Evi Frimawaty
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The journal allows the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
