The APA-lens: a conceptual heuristic for functional integration in European risk and crisis communication Open Access

Human-induced climate change is already affecting people and nature, causing widespread losses and damage (IPCC, 2012, 2014). Global frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (UNDRR, 2015) emphasize prevention, preparedness, and resilience as central principles of risk governance. Both highlight risk and crisis communication (RCC) as key enablers of early warning, informed decision-making, and adaptive capacity.

Recent crises in Europe, including natural hazards, pandemics, and technological disruptions, have highlighted persistent challenges in coordinating RCC across institutions, publics, and media environments (EUC, 2023; EEA, 2024; EUC, 2024). These challenges point to the need for interactional, multi-actor, and culturally embedded communication processes that foster public trust and resilience. European policy frameworks, including the Union Disaster Resilience goals and the Climate Adaptation Progress Report, increasingly emphasise the communicative dimension of resilience governance, calling for anticipatory, inclusive, and cross-border public engagement (EUC, 2023, 2024).

In RCC research, it is essential to distinguish between RCC and RCS. RCC can be defined as the exchange of knowledge, opinions, and information between decision-makers, experts, and affected target groups to address specific risk situations (Höppner et al., 2010; IPCC, 2012, 2014). By contrast, RCS are deliberately designed to provide risk information and promote preparedness among the population. Effective RCS are typically culturally grounded, characterised by a dialogical orientation, cultural sensitivity, and coherence of messaging (Doyle et al., 2022), which complicates standardisation and transferability, especially in heterogeneous regions like Europe.

The scientific debate on RCC is grounded in several established theoretical models (see also Chapter 3), including the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) (Lindell and Perry, 2003, 2012), the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) (Prentice-Dunn and Rogers, 1986; Rogers, 1975), the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model (Reynolds and Seeger, 2005) and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) (Kasperson et al., 1988). While these models offer important insights, they differ in analytical focus and temporal orientation. As a result, systematic comparison across strategies and cumulative interpretation across short-term warning and long-term adaptation contexts remain analytically challenging. Moreover, RCC effectiveness depends not only on model-theoretical mechanisms but also on institutional, cultural, and relational contexts (Scolobig et al., 2022; Höppner et al., 2010). RCC can therefore be conceived as a cross-cutting communicative function linking prevention, preparedness, and adaptation across all stages of risk governance, rather than as a one-dimensional warning tool (Volenzo and Odiyo, 2019).

Against this background, this paper introduces the Aware–Prepare–Act (APA) lens as a conceptual heuristic designed to support systematic comparison and integrative reflection across heterogeneous risk and crisis communication strategies. The APA-lens provides an analytical structure that links communicative purpose (Aware, Prepare, Act) with temporal orientation (short-term warning, long-term adaptation, and hybrid configurations).

This analytical structure enables systematic analysis and comparison of existing RCS as a basis for reflective assessment of coherence and for identifying functional gaps across governance levels. By explicitly linking warning-oriented and adaptation-oriented communication, the APA-lens addresses an analytical gap in RCC research concerning the integration of short- and long-term communicative objectives.

The paper follows a stepwise analytical logic. First, it examines how existing RCS can be systematically classified according to communicative purpose and temporal orientation. Second, it examines how the APA-lens relates to established RCC theories and models. Third, it demonstrates how the lens can be applied as a comparative analytical heuristic to identify functional and temporal patterns across strategies. Finally, the paper discusses implications, limitations, and directions for future research. Figure 1 visualises the conceptual logic and structure of the paper.

This chapter elaborates the conceptual structure and analytical logic of the APA-lens as a heuristic framework for comparative analysis. It introduces the two analytical dimensions of communicative purpose and temporal orientation and explains how these dimensions are used as comparative categories in the subsequent analysis. Figure 2 provides a schematic overview of how these dimensions are related within the heuristic approach.

The APA-lens was developed through an iterative conceptual process combining a systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed RCC literature to identify recurring communicative purposes and temporal orientations, with analytical synthesis and interdisciplinary expert consultation. While the review covered global scholarship, a substantial share of the analysed studies focused on European contexts (24%), reflecting the prominence of multilevel governance settings, cross-border hazards, and institutional diversity in the European RCC landscape (Graf et al., 2026). Across the reviewed literature, recurring analytical patterns emerged in how RCS differ with respect to dominant communicative purposes and temporal orientations. These patterns were abstracted into the two-dimensional structure of the APA-lens. Rather than deriving from a single theoretical tradition, the APA-lens integrates complementary behavioural, institutional, and governance-oriented perspectives recurring in the reviewed RCC literature.

The APA-lens is structured along two analytical dimensions (communicative purpose and temporal orientation) that function as comparative categories for analysis. This functional distinction aligns with established RCC scholarship emphasising that communicative intent and timing shape effectiveness, while remaining analytically separable (Höppner et al., 2010; Renn, 2011).

The first analytical dimension of the APA-lens concerns communicative purpose. Rather than conceptualising RCC as a sequence of phases or decision steps, or as a linear progression from awareness to action, it adopts a functional perspective that distinguishes communication according to its dominant RCS purpose. The three purposes represent analytical categories that describe the dominant communicative intention of a given RCS.

Aware: Following Merikle (1984) and Timmermans and Cleeremans (2015), awareness represents a gradual state of conscious information processing that provides the basis for protective behaviour. Within the APA-lens, awareness refers to a communication dimension oriented towards generating risk perception and attention and situating these within social, cultural, and individual contexts.

Prepare: Preparedness entails the knowledge and capacities that enable anticipation and effective response to disasters (UNDRR, 2015, 2016; Sutton and Tierney, 2006). Within APA, Prepare refers to communication that transforms risk awareness into practical competence by strengthening self-efficacy, resource management, and collective coordination (Bubeck et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2023; Lindell and Perry, 2012). Preparedness thus denotes a communication dimension oriented towards strengthening anticipatory skills and practical capacities through translating risk awareness into specific strategies and practices.

Act: The Act dimension refers to communication strategies that support protective behaviour through clear, credible, and action-oriented messages (Cao et al., 2017; Neußner, 2021; Sutton et al., 2024). In crises, these strategies support immediate protective responses, while in broader contexts they support adaptive and preventive actions that sustain preparedness over time. Empirical evidence shows that timely, trustworthy, and comprehensible communication enhances compliance, whereas inconsistent signals undermine protective action (Terpstra and Lindell, 2013; Liu et al., 2020). Within the APA-lens, Act refers to communication oriented towards initiating protective behaviour in both acute emergencies and longer-term adaptive contexts through clear, credible, and action-oriented messaging.

The second analytical dimension of the APA-lens concerns the temporal orientation of RCS. Rather than treating time as a sequence of phases, the APA-lens conceptualises temporal orientation as an analytical category that captures the dominant time horizon a strategy primarily addresses. Based on the scoping review, three temporal orientations are distinguished: short-term warning, long-term adaptation, and hybrid configurations that deliberately combine both in Europe and beyond (Graf et al., 2026). Short-term warning strategies focus on imminent threats and immediate protective action, whereas long-term adaptation-oriented strategies address sustained risk conditions through learning, preparedness, and behavioural change over time. Hybrid strategies intentionally link both horizons, for example, by integrating preparedness learning into warning systems or using crisis events as entry points for longer-term adaptation. Although all three orientations are observable in practice, hybrid configurations are rarely analysed explicitly, as shown in the scoping review. By treating temporal orientation as an independent analytical dimension, the APA-lens enables systematic comparison of how different time horizons are prioritised, combined, or neglected within RCS portfolios, particularly in European contexts where empirical studies document persistent fragmentation and inconsistency in warning communication systems (Weyrich et al., 2019) (Figure 3).

This perspective builds on established insights in RCC and governance research, which emphasise that communication effectiveness depends on functional intent as much as on timing or content (Höppner et al., 2010; Renn, 2011; Doyle et al., 2022).

The APA-lens can be applied ex post to existing strategies (e.g. campaigns, warning products) to make design logics comparable, ex ante as an orienting heuristic to reflect on the coherence of strategy portfolios before implementation (Graf et al., 2026; UNDRR, 2015; Valles et al., 2021). In doing so, the lens (1) structures heterogeneous approaches, (2) identifies possible blind spots or missing links according to the intended purpose, and (3) demonstrates the cross-cutting importance of RCC within DRR by linking short-term warning to longer-term learning and adaptation.

To support the analytical application of communicative purposes, the APA-lens formulates a small set of guiding questions. These questions are not intended as survey instruments or behavioural measures, but as reflective prompts that help clarify the dominant communicative intention of a given RCS.

Aware: “How should information be communicated to help people recognize and evaluate the risk generally and for themselves?”

Prepare: “How should communication be designed so that people know what to learn, practice, and put in place to be prepared to protect themselves and others?”

Act: “How should a message be designed to engage the affected population to take appropriate protective action?”

Building on these guiding questions, the APA-lens provides a structured decision path for analytical classification and comparison of RCS (Figure 4). The decision path consists of five analytical steps: (1) identifying the dominant communicative purpose, (2) determining the primary temporal orientation, (3) examining the relative emphasis of communicative purposes, (4) reflecting on transitions between purposes and time horizons, and (5) reflecting on coherence across the overall communication strategy portfolio. These steps do not imply a causal sequence, linear development, or prescriptive logic. Instead, they provide an analytical structure that supports systematic comparison across heterogeneous strategies and contexts, which is particularly relevant in European multilevel governance settings characterised by cross-border risks and institutional fragmentation. The development of evaluation metrics constitutes a subsequent research step and is therefore illustrated schematically only.

Based on the two dimensions of the APA-lens, it is evident that RCS rarely occur in a one-dimensional manner in practice. To capture this multidimensionality analytically, the APA-lens employs a comparative grid (see Figure 5). The grid provides a conceptual representation that maps relative emphases across communicative purposes without prescribing an evaluative scheme or temporal sequence.

The fixed sequence of Aware, Prepare, Act serves exclusively as an analytical reference grid rather than a temporal or causal sequence. By distinguishing between ● (dominant purpose), ◐ (supporting purpose), and ○ (not addressed), overlaps and complementarities between strategies become analytically visible, allowing their role within broader communication portfolios to be examined.

The APA-lens fulfils three key functions for research and practice. First, it supports conceptual integration by linking insights from psychology, communication studies, and governance research without dissolving the theoretical independence of individual approaches (cf. Höppner et al., 2010; Doyle et al., 2022).

Second, it enables analytical reflection by identifying and discussing potential blind spots. One example is the dominance of short-term, action-oriented strategies over longer-term precautionary approaches (cf. Graf et al., 2026; Bubeck et al., 2024).

Third, the APA-lens functions as a planning heuristic for practice. Institutions and organisations can use it to support reflection on the completeness and balance of their RCS and to consider whether awareness, preparedness, and action are adequately addressed across different time horizons (UNDRR, 2015; Neußner, 2021). This is particularly relevant in European multilevel governance contexts because RCC must operate across multiple languages, administrative cultures, and transnational hazards. The APA-lens can therefore support the harmonisation of national communication mandates and enhance collective resilience to cross-border crises.

Building on the conceptual structure introduced in Chapter 2, this chapter situates established RCC approaches within the broader theoretical landscape of the field. It provides a structured overview of RCC frameworks across psychological, institutional, and societal research traditions. By clarifying how these approaches conceptualise communicative processes across different analytical levels, the chapter establishes the theoretical context for the comparative application of the APA-lens developed in Chapter 4. The following sections, therefore, focus on widely referenced RCC frameworks to illustrate dominant analytical perspectives ^[1].

RCC research encompasses a wide range of theoretical approaches that differ according to hazard type, audience characteristics, and institutional mandates (Kellens et al., 2013; Höppner et al., 2010). This theoretical plurality can be analytically organised using the established micro–meso–macro perspective from the social sciences (Coleman, 1990; Renn et al., 2008; Greve et al., 2009), which is illustrated in Figure 6. Governance models such as the Sendai Framework (UNDRR, 2017, 2015) and Integrated Risk Management (IRM) ^[2] (Marzouqi et al., 2017; BAFU, n.d.) are treated here as overarching management architectures. Within these frameworks, communication functions as a cross-cutting enabling component rather than a stand-alone phase. Against this backdrop, the following sections outline the positioning of prominent RCC models across analytical levels, thereby providing a structured basis for subsequent comparative analysis.

At the micro level, psychological models such as PMT (Rogers, 1975, 1983), and PADM (Lindell and Perry, 2003, 2012) are widely used psychological approaches to explain individual protective behaviour. PMT highlights how messages trigger protective intentions through threat and coping appraisals. According to PMT, RCC is most effective when it conveys both the seriousness of a threat and the feasibility of protective actions (Rogers, 1975, 1983). PADM expands this logic by modelling pre-decisional processes, filtered by credibility and situational cues (Lindell and Perry, 2003, 2012). Both focus on decision-making in response to hazards, emphasising the importance of timely and trustworthy communication. From a temporal perspective, micro-level models primarily address anticipatory and adaptive behaviour associated with preparedness and prevention, while remaining applicable to acute warning contexts when credible signals trigger immediate protective responses. Their analytical focus lies on individual cognition and motivation rather than on institutional coordination or societal meaning-making processes.

At the meso level, RCC extends beyond individual information processing toward the strategic management of communication by organisations and authorities. Meso-level approaches link communication to institutional mandates, governance arrangements, and coordination structures that shape how information is produced, disseminated, and legitimised during crises (Reynolds and Seeger, 2005).

The CERC model (Reynolds and Seeger, 2005) provides an institutional framework for structuring communication across different crisis phases. It emphasises the role of authoritative sources, credibility, empathy, and message clarity in supporting decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and time pressure (Veil et al., 2008; Reynolds and Seeger, 2005).

The IDEA model (Sellnow et al., 2017) similarly focuses on institutional message design and dissemination. Together, CERC and IDEA exemplify meso-level approaches that prioritise the organisation and coordination of communication processes, rather than individual cognition or broader societal meaning-making.

At the macro level, the SARF developed by Kasperson et al. (1988) and further elaborated by Renn (2011) explains how risk information is filtered, transformed, and reinterpreted through media, social networks, and institutions. SARF's focus is on framing, trust, and meaning-making processes that shape risk perception and policy response over time. SARF's core mechanism lies in the transmission of “risk signals” through amplification stations, where information is not only passed on but transformed and emotionally charged. This process explains why risks with similar technological probabilities elicit divergent public responses. It primarily addresses the social construction and persistence of awareness, while preparedness effects emerge indirectly via legitimacy, learning, and institutional feedback; immediate protective action is not its central focus.

The IRM cycle (PLANAT, 2008) is widely applied in practice as a governance architecture for organising prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery in natural hazard management. Within this chapter, IRM is not treated as a communication model, but as an institutional context that structures how communication interfaces with sectoral responsibilities and coordination processes.

Beyond model mechanics, RCC effectiveness depends on legitimacy, governance capacity, trust, and cultural fit (Volenzo and Odiyo, 2019; Höppner et al., 2010; Scolobig et al., 2022). In European multi-level settings, with distributed mandates for member states across the EU, national, regional, and local actors, communication is inherently multivocal; coherence hinges on coordination and inclusivity rather than single-voice control (EUC, 2025). Accordingly, governance frameworks such as Sendai and IRM are treated as contextual enablers that shape how institutional legitimacy, trust, and socio-cultural conditions influence the effectiveness of RCC across analytical levels. Trust in authorities and the credibility of information sources are considered key factors in determining whether RCS leads to awareness, preparation, or action (Höppner et al., 2010; Scolobig et al., 2022). Research also emphasizes multivocality, such as the simultaneous presence of different voices from institutions, media, NGOs and citizens, which can enrich communication processes, but can also lead to confusion if messages are contradictory (Agyepong and Liang, 2023; Volenzo and Odiyo, 2019).

Taken together, the models reviewed in this chapter illustrate how RCC research addresses communicative processes at different analytical levels, each emphasising distinct mechanisms and scopes of influence. The APA-lens builds on this theoretical landscape by providing a common analytical reference that enables systematic comparison across psychological, institutional, and societal approaches along shared dimensions of communicative purpose and temporal orientation. This comparative application is developed explicitly in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4 applies the APA-lens as a comparative-analytical heuristic to established RCC models. Building on the conceptual foundations developed in Chapters 2 and 3, it examines how communicative purposes and temporal orientations are distributed across different frameworks. This comparative application makes recurring patterns, focal emphases, and functional asymmetries visible, thereby providing an analytical basis for the subsequent discussion of patterns of integration and fragmentation in RCC. Table 1 ^[3] summarises the key features, core mechanisms, and illustrative research examples of the models examined, and analyses them with respect to their dominant communicative purpose and temporal orientation as defined by the APA-lens. The comparison is analytical and functional; it does not assess empirical effectiveness or normative adequacy.

The APA-based comparison (Table 1) shows that introduced RCC models operate across multiple communicative purposes and temporal orientation, indicating a general trend towards hybridization in RCC research (Lindell and Perry, 2012; Reynolds and Seeger, 2005; Sellnow et al., 2017).

The comparison indicates that institutional frameworks such as CERC and IDEA place stronger analytical emphasis on short-term, action-oriented mechanisms, whereas long-term preparedness and adaptive learning are less embedded in practice (CDC, 2018; Doyle et al., 2022). Behavioural models such as PMT and PADM provide a stronger theoretical foundation for preparedness and preventive behaviour, but lack institutional mechanisms for sustained engagement and trust building (Prentice-Dunn and Rogers, 1986; Lindell and Perry, 2012).

Across most frameworks, awareness appears primarily as a precondition rather than an explicit communication goal, except in the IDEA model, which integrates awareness through internalisation by linking message relevance and comprehension to behavioural readiness (Sellnow et al., 2017). This imbalance mirrors European RCC practice, where early warning and crisis response dominate attention and resources, while adaptive and community-based communication remain less systematically implemented (EEA, 2024; EUC, 2023; Scolobig et al., 2022).

The APA-lens renders functional and temporal asymmetries in RCC analytically visible, thereby supporting reflection on the coherence and balance of communication strategies across governance levels (Graf et al., 2026; Höppner et al., 2010). It enables the identification of weak or missing transitions between awareness, preparedness, and action in multilevel governance contexts (EUC, 2023). It thus serves a primarily diagnostic and orienting function for long-term resilience planning, without prescribing specific communication solutions.

This chapter discusses what the analytical patterns identified through the APA-lens imply for research integration and governance practice. It clarifies how the APA-lens can be used to interpret existing approaches and support more coherent RCC across governance levels.

European RCC operates across diverse scientific and institutional contexts, complicating comparison and transfer (Höppner et al., 2010; Scolobig et al., 2022; Harrison et al., 2024). Fragmented mandates and weak interfaces often hinder coordination across governance levels and linguistic boundaries (Carnelli and Pedoth, 2024; Harrison et al., 2024). In this context, the APA-lens does not replace existing theories, but enables their systematic comparison and cumulative interpretation across European RCC research. Taken together, these studies indicate that European RCC research and practice remain fragmented and lack a shared analytical framework for cross-case comparison. The APA-lens addresses this gap by offering a common heuristic that enables comparison of strategies across countries and governance levels, thereby supporting conceptual integration and cumulative learning within the European RCC landscape. Practically, APA enables a “crosswalk” between national guidelines and research approaches. By mapping existing communication measures into the APA grid, agencies can visualise purpose–time imbalances (for example, strong Act/short-term but weak Prepare/long-term components) and design more balanced, multivocal portfolios. Such alignment supports the comparative evaluation of RCS across Europe and facilitates institutional learning beyond technical or linguistic boundaries.

The APA-lens can support the strategic coherence of European RCC as a planning heuristic. It facilitates the analytical alignment of communication processes across governance levels within European civil protection system, from supranational mechanisms such as the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Zwęgliński and Smolarkiewicz, 2023), the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (Andreassen et al., 2020), and rescEU (Faulkner et al., 2024) to regional and municipal structures.

Through its three communicative purposes and temporal orientations, the APA-lens provides an analytical grid for examining whether existing RCS coherently address different phases of risk management. This responds to well-documented challenges in integrating RCC across preparedness, response, and recovery phases (Jha et al., 2018; EUC, 2023). The relevance of such alignment becomes particularly evident in cross-border crises, where information flows, legitimacy, and coordination challenges intersect across jurisdictions (Faulkner et al., 2024).

Catastrophic events can function as “windows of opportunity” for institutional learning and reform (Birkland, 2008). In European civil protection contexts, such moments have enabled structural adjustments, including the harmonisation of warning systems, developing joint training formats (e.g. Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System (GDACS, 2025) and the Emergency Response Coordination Centre, 2025), or establishing transnational resource pools (e.g. Interreg VI-A Österreich–Bayern, 2023 funded cross-border projects such as RisKLIM), reflecting broader trends of European disaster risk management integration and institutional coordination (Faulkner et al., 2024). From this perspective, RCC is understood as a continuous governance function that must be institutionally anchored across all phases of the risk cycle (Renn, 2011).

According to the CERC model (Reynolds and Seeger, 2005), pre-crisis communication corresponds primarily to Aware–Prepare, initial and maintenance phases align most closely with Act, while resolution and evaluation phases support renewed Prepare processes.

However, the effectiveness of such integrative approaches depends on contextual conditions. Three factors are particularly central for Europe. First, multivocality and trust require communication to involve various actors (EU institutions, national authorities, local emergency services, media) without generating contradictory signals. Trust in EU institutions can act as a resource for legitimacy in this regard (Golding, 2022). Second, cultural and linguistic diversity is highly relevant, as effective RCC must be culturally embedded and sensitive to different community contexts, values, and risk cultures (Renn et al., 2018). Third, the inclusion of vulnerable groups, as demonstrated by the VULKANO project (Essl et al., n.d.), shows that participatory RCS that specifically involve older people, migrants, or socially disadvantaged groups are crucial for resilience and social cohesion.

Overall, APA's contribution at the governance level lies in providing a common analytical language for reflection and alignment across Europe's diverse RCC landscape. By structuring communication according to awareness-building, preparedness-oriented, and action-focused purposes, the APA-lens enables institutions to identify where continuity, participation, and trust-building may require strengthening to support long-term resilience.

This section outlines the theoretical principles underpinning the APA-lens as a heuristic for analysing coherence and fragmentation in complex communication systems.

Research shows that RCC effectiveness depends on the interaction between message diversity, social reach, and institutional learning (Rosa, 2025; Renn, 2011; Höppner et al., 2010). In Europe, RCC unfolds in multivocal governance environments where institutions, experts, media, and citizens communicate in parallel across linguistic and cultural boundaries. The central challenge is therefore not message standardisation, but the alignment of diverse communicative voices toward shared protection goals (Höppner et al., 2010).

The APA-lens builds on insights from systems and communication theory (Luhmann, 1975; Leydesdorff, 2000; Habermas, 1987), resilience research (Renn, 2011, 2017; Renn et al., 2018), and transdisciplinary research (Renner et al., 2013; Evers et al., 2025); understanding communication as a constitutive process in which meaning, trust, and legitimacy are co-produced. From this perspective, three interrelated principles are particularly relevant for understanding APA as a coherence-oriented heuristic: multivocality, reflexivity, and ethical coherence. Multivocality refers to the coexistence of multiple legitimate voices (scientific, institutional, and local). It reflects democratic plurality and epistemic diversity. Effective RCC must create translation spaces in which different cultural interpretations of risk and safety can be meaningfully connected (Harrison et al., 2024; Höppner et al., 2010). In the European context, where risk meanings are linguistically and culturally mediated, coherence does not imply uniformity, but the capacity to maintain accessibility and relevance of protective messages across different cultural registers (Renner and Mayr-Veselinović, 2025). Reflexivity describes the ability of communication systems to recognize their own assumptions, effects, and limitations. In European RCC, this means establishing institutional learning and feedback processes that do not conceal mistakes and misunderstandings but rather make them productive. Reflexive communication integrates feedback, promotes social learning processes, and strengthens trust through transparent self-observation (Renn et al., 2018). Reflexivity also requires acknowledging that risk and protection are culturally coded fields of meaning (Weyrich et al., 2019; Höppner et al., 2010). Ethical coherence adds a normative dimension: communication should be fair, transparent, and inclusive across linguistic and cultural communities (Höppner et al., 2010). Coherence here means translatability, the capacity to render key protective information comprehensible and actionable for all publics. Without such access, awareness remains symbolic, preparedness aspirational, and action fragmented.

Thus, the APA-lens serves as a critical heuristic linking empirical RCC models with normative governance principles of transparency, participation, and legitimacy. It provides a theoretically grounded foundation for future operationalisation through indicators of coherence, reflexivity, and inclusion in Europe's linguistically and institutionally diverse context.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the APA-lens is a conceptual and heuristic framework, not an empirically validated model. It does not aim to explain individual behaviour, predict compliance, or replace established psychological, institutional, or governance theories. Instead, it provides a meta-analytic heuristic framework for comparing communicative purposes and temporal orientations across RCS. Its analytical usefulness, therefore, depends on the quality and contextual appropriateness of the empirical material to which it is applied.

Second, the effectiveness of RCC is shaped by governance arrangements, legitimacy, and socio-cultural context. Persistent inconsistencies in practice, such as differences in alert levels, colour codes, or message formats, can reduce comprehensibility and undermine protective behaviour (Neußner, 2021). While the APA-lens helps to make such inconsistencies visible, addressing them requires institutional coordination and political commitment beyond the scope of an analytical framework. RCC should thus be understood not as a linear transfer of information, but as a socially embedded process shaped by institutional structures and cultural contexts (Höppner et al., 2010; Scolobig et al., 2022; Volenzo and Odiyo, 2019).

Third, although international policy frameworks such as the Sendai Framework and disaster risk reduction cycles conceptualise communication as a cross-cutting function linking prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery (IPCC, 2012, 2014; UNDRR, 2015; Valles et al., 2021), they do not provide analytical tools for systematically comparing communicative purposes or temporal orientations. The APA-lens addresses this gap at a conceptual level; its operationalisation and empirical validation lie beyond the scope of this paper. Accordingly, the scope of this study is limited to a conceptual comparison of established RCC models and frameworks, complemented by an initial interdisciplinary expert consultation. While these sources support conceptual coherence, systematic empirical testing across hazards, governance levels, and cultural contexts is required to assess the robustness, applicability, and limits of the APA-lens in practice.

The APA-lens provides a conceptual foundation for this evolution by shifting the analytical focus from reactive, single-voice messaging toward proactive, multivocal governance. By linking communicative purpose with temporal orientation, it reveals structural imbalances and guides resilience-oriented planning across institutions and publics.

Ongoing research focuses on the empirical operationalisation of the APA-lens. A Delphi-based expert evaluation, complemented by interdisciplinary workshops and subsequent quantitative analyses, will be used to assess the relative salience, coherence, and interaction of APA dimensions across short-term warning and long-term adaptation contexts. These steps aim to develop transparent dominance coding, qualitative indicators, and reliability measures that translate the heuristic structure into an evaluative research tool.

Future studies should further test the APA-lens through comparative case studies across European regions and hazard types, as well as participatory evaluations involving practitioners and affected communities. Integrating APA with social media analysis, participatory scenario workshops, and intercultural communication research may also enhance its relevance for contemporary, digitally mediated RCC environments.

Taken together, these research directions position the APA-lens as a cumulative framework: conceptually established in this paper, empirically refined in subsequent work, and adaptable to diverse governance and cultural contexts beyond Europe.

This study did not involve human participants, experiments, or sensitive data. It is based solely on secondary literature, theoretical synthesis, and conceptual analysis. No ethical approval was required according to institutional or national guidelines.

Generative artificial intelligence tools (OpenAI ChatGPT/GPT-5.2, 2025; Grammarly; DeepL) were used exclusively for language editing, grammar improvement, and structural refinement under the supervision of the corresponding author. No AI system was used to generate conceptual content, ideas, or data analyses. All intellectual content and interpretations remain the sole responsibility of the authors.

The authors thank the interdisciplinary expert group for their constructive feedback during the conceptual refinement of the APA-lens and the reviewers for their valuable comments.

APA …

Aware-Prepare-Act

CERC …

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication

IDEA …

Internalisation-Distribution-Explanation-Action

IPCC …

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRM …

Integrated Risk Management

PMT …

Protective Motivation Theory

PADM …

Protective Action Decision Model

RCC …

Risk and Crisis Communication

RCS …

Risk and Crisis Communication Strategies

SARF …

Social Amplification of Risk Framework

SFDRR …

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction