Promoting trust and science in disaster risk reduction
In recent years, the convergence of populism and post-truth politics has posed significant challenges to disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts. This intersection undermines evidence-based decision-making, weakens institutional trust, and disproportionately affects marginalised communities. DRR relies on scientific research, risk assessments, and coordinated policy responses to effectively prevent, mitigate, and respond to disasters. However, in the context of rising populist narratives and widespread misinformation, the ability to implement proactive, inclusive, and long-term DRR measures is increasingly threatened.
Populist leaders and movements often frame disasters through a political lens, using crises to reinforce ideological positions rather than prioritising risk reduction strategies based on scientific consensus. This can manifest in several ways: dismissing climate change as a risk driver of certain disasters, vilifying specific groups as scapegoats for disaster impacts, or promoting simplistic, short-term solutions that overlook systemic vulnerabilities. Such narratives hinder effective policy making and create divisions within communities, making coordinated disaster preparedness and response more difficult.
The rejection of evidence
A key issue is the rejection or politicisation of climate science. Many populist leaders downplay the role of human-induced climate change in driving extreme weather events, instead attributing disasters to natural cycles or even conspiracy theories. This rejection of scientific consensus leads to policy paralysis, preventing necessary investments in climate adaptation, resilient infrastructure, and land-use planning. Furthermore, it enables unsustainable practices, such as deforestation and unregulated urban expansion, which increase disaster risks.
Eroding trust in institutions
The erosion of trust in scientific expertise is another critical issue. Public confidence in early warning systems, climate projections, and disaster response agencies is undermined when populist rhetoric casts doubt on the legitimacy of these institutions. This can lead to , lower uptake of disaster preparedness measures, and increased resistance to necessary policy interventions such as land-use planning and environmental regulations. This particularly affects marginalised groups, who may already experience barriers to accessing official warnings or preparedness information due to language, digital divides, or legal status.
Truth versus fiction
The Los Angeles wildfires of January 2025 are a pertinent case study, illustrating how misinformation and political narratives can exacerbate disaster impacts. These fires, driven by extreme drought conditions and strong Santa Ana winds, resulted in widespread destruction and loss of life. Yet, competing narratives emerged instead of focused evidence-based explanations and coordinated responses, undermining efforts to address underlying causes and long-term solutions.
Misinformation further complicates disaster communication and response efforts. During crises, the rapid spread of false or misleading information through social media, political discourse, or alternative news sources can distort public perceptions of risk and delay emergency responses. In some cases, misinformation fuels distrust in humanitarian actors or local authorities, discouraging people from seeking assistance and increasing their vulnerability.
Reframing the narrative
To counter misinformation and depoliticise DRR, we can look to the . This movement challenges the widely held belief that disasters are inevitable, reinforcing the fact that while natural hazards occur, the extent of devastation is shaped by human choices in governance, infrastructure planning, and social inequalities.
n the face of misinformation and populist rhetoric, the #NoNaturalDisasters approach becomes even more critical. If people are led to believe that disasters are unavoidable acts of nature, they may be less inclined to hold governments accountable for risk mitigation failures. This plays into the hands of populist leaders who deflect responsibility and avoid difficult conversations about climate change, urban planning, and investment in resilience. By reinforcing the idea that disaster risk is socially created, the campaign helps counter misleading narratives and fosters greater public demand for sustainable, risk-informed policies.
Truth, trust and inclusion
To counter misinformation in DRR, it is essential to strengthen institutional credibility, improve public communication strategies, and ensure disaster governance remains inclusive and evidence-based. Without addressing the influence of misinformation and politicisation, efforts to build resilience and reduce disaster risks will continue to face significant barriers, leaving vulnerable communities at heightened risk.
Building a future where disasters cause less harm requires us to promote evidence-based narratives, ensure marginalised voices are heard in disaster policy, and dismantle the misinformation that fuels inaction. Only then can we truly work towards a world where disasters are not seen as inevitable tragedies but as preventable failures of governance and preparedness.
Kevin Blanchard MSc FRGS (he/him) is an experienced policymaker, trainer and advocate focused on helping to ensure the inclusion, visibility and empowerment of marginalised and hyper-marginalised groups in disaster risk reduction (DRR). Kevin works internationally alongside grassroots organisations, educational institutions, national governments, UN organisations and charities to develop inclusive policy, training & practical guidance.
In his spare time, Kevin sits on the Editorial Board of the , runs a number of disaster-related social media accounts and hosts the series of seminars and webinars on inclusive DRR.