94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Commun.
Sec. Disaster Communications
Volume 10 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1537351
This article is part of the Research TopicCross-Boundary Disaster Communication: Building Systems Thinking and Breaking Traditional Divisions in the FieldView all 7 articles
What to do When the Earth Shakes? DCH or Door frames: Evaluating Generalised Risk Minimisation Guidance
Provisionally accepted- 1Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
- 2Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience, Durham University, Durham, England, United Kingdom
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: What are the best, most effective protective action measures for people to take in a given context in order to minimise earthquake risks? Currently, experts and earthquake safety organisations offering risk minimisation communication do so in a generalised, one-size-fits-all approach, which can prove counterproductive. In this paper I address this question on the basis of research I have conducted in Nepal and Aotearoa/New Zealand.Methods: This paper offers a critical discourse analysis of paradigm perspectives, knowledge apparatuses, narratives, and epistemic framings that dictate the trajectory of development and dissemination of Protective Action Measures (PAMs). During my field work in Nepal, I observed and heard through interviews and group discussions with several NGOs and organisations that during the 2015 Gorkha earthquakes, people were confused about what PAMs to take to minimise risks.Results: During my field work in Nepal, I observed and heard through interviews and group discussions with several NGOs and organisations that during the 2015 Gorkha earthquakes, people were confused about what PAMs to take to minimise risks. Not only were people confused about what was the most suitable PAM to take during earthquakes, but were also perplexed about how to apply the guidance offered by organisations. Individuals and their families who tried to follow such guidance found that, as a result, they were faced with increased risks and the loss of more lives. Moreover, thea Google Trends search revealed that in at least two major hazard events, people searched for outdated PAMs and advice, asking Google if this is what they should do.Discussion: Risk communication methods, PAMs and risk minimisation guidance require a closer critical examination and evaluation on a context-by-context basis, rather than the generalised messaging currently adopted. Risk minimisation guidance and PAMs that are not context sensitive have the potential for increasing and creating newer risks rather than effectively minimising existing risks.
Keywords: disaster risk reduction (DRR)1, protective action measures (PAMs)2, risk communication3, Duck, cover and hold (DCH)4, risk minimisation guidance5
Received: 30 Nov 2024; Accepted: 10 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Ramkumar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Sheena Ramkumar, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.