Role of Graphics in Disaster Communication: Practitioner Perspectives on Use, Challenges, and Inclusivity

Information graphics, such as hazard maps, evacuation diagrams, and pictorial action guides, are widely used in disaster risk communication. These visuals are important because they convey hazard information quickly, reduce reliance on lengthy text, and support decision-making in time-critical situations. However, despite their importance, disaster information graphics do not work equally well for all audiences. In practice, many graphics remain difficult to interpret, and their accessibility for vulnerable populations is still uneven and underexplored. Despite their central role, there has been little empirical work examining how graphics shape disaster communication, what challenges practitioners face in using them, and, most importantly, how inclusive current disaster graphics are in real-world settings. To address this gap, we examine how information graphics are currently produced and used in disaster communication, what issues emerge in practice, and how inclusivity is addressed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with disaster communication practitioners and researchers to examine the role of graphics across preparedness, warning, and response contexts, as well as the barriers experienced by vulnerable communities. Our findings show that graphics are widely expected and heavily relied upon, yet significant accessibility gaps persist for groups such as people with vision impairments, older adults, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Participants also highlighted that inclusive adaptations are difficult to achieve during unfolding emergencies due to operational constraints, limited guidance, and resource barriers. Based on these findings, we outline recommendations for disaster management agencies and graphic designers and identify research directions for technological and adaptive support to make disaster graphics more inclusive at scale.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates the role, challenges, and inclusivity of information graphics—such as hazard maps, evacuation diagrams, and icon‑based alerts—in disaster risk communication from the perspective of practitioners. The authors note that the increasing frequency and intensity of natural hazards worldwide demand rapid, clear, and accessible communication to enable communities to understand risks and take protective actions. Visual communication is especially valuable in time‑critical warning situations because graphics can compress complex information, reduce cognitive load, and improve recall compared with text‑heavy messages.

Despite these advantages, the authors argue that disaster graphics are often assumed to be universally understood, an assumption that does not hold in practice. Vulnerable groups—including people with colour‑vision deficiencies, visual impairments, older adults, culturally and linguistically diverse (LiD) communities, and those with low digital literacy—frequently encounter barriers when interpreting graphics that are dense, colour‑dependent, or culturally specific.

To address this gap, the study poses three research questions: (RQ1) What is the role of information graphics in disaster communication? (RQ2) What issues arise in current graphic use? (RQ3) How inclusive are these graphics for vulnerable populations? The authors conducted semi‑structured interviews with five disaster communication practitioners and researchers from Australian agencies and academia, covering the preparedness, warning, and response phases.

Key findings reveal that graphics are considered “expected” and “essential” across all phases. Hazard maps provide situational awareness; colour‑coded icons convey urgency; step‑by‑step diagrams guide protective actions. However, several systemic problems emerged: (1) information overload and visual complexity make it difficult for non‑experts to extract critical messages; (2) inconsistent iconography and colour palettes lead to misinterpretation, especially for colour‑blind users; (3) a lack of high‑contrast or alternative‑text versions excludes people with visual impairments; (4) cultural symbols are not always adapted for LiD audiences, causing confusion; and (5) digital delivery channels sometimes reproduce graphics in low‑resolution formats that further degrade accessibility.

Operational constraints exacerbate these issues. During unfolding emergencies, there is little time to redesign or adapt graphics; agencies lack comprehensive, evidence‑based guidelines for inclusive design; and limited budgets and staffing restrict collaboration with professional designers or accessibility experts. Consequently, inclusive adaptations—such as high‑contrast versions, audio descriptions, tactile overlays, or multilingual captions—are rarely produced in real time.

The paper contributes four main insights: (C1) it provides one of the first practitioner‑focused accounts of graphic use across the disaster lifecycle; (C2) it identifies specific design and deployment challenges that undermine effectiveness; (C3) it documents concrete inclusivity gaps affecting a range of vulnerable groups; and (C4) it offers actionable recommendations for agencies, designers, and researchers. Recommendations include developing a “graphic inclusivity checklist,” establishing standard colour‑blind‑friendly palettes and icon sets, integrating automated contrast‑checking tools into graphic production pipelines, pre‑creating multilingual and audio‑description assets, and fostering cross‑sector partnerships between emergency management bodies and design/technology firms.

Future research directions suggested are: (i) AI‑driven automated assessment of graphic accessibility (e.g., colour‑contrast, alt‑text generation); (ii) interactive, multimodal interfaces that combine visual, auditory, and haptic feedback for diverse users; (iii) longitudinal field studies measuring how inclusive graphics affect actual protective behaviour during real events; and (iv) development of international standards and metrics for evaluating the inclusivity of disaster communication graphics.

Overall, the study underscores that while graphics are a powerful conduit for disaster information, their effectiveness hinges on careful, user‑centred design that accounts for visual, cultural, linguistic, and technological diversity. By addressing the identified barriers and implementing the proposed strategies, disaster communication can become truly inclusive, ensuring that all members of society can perceive, understand, and act upon risk messages when it matters most.