RISK COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH- AND UKRAINIAN-LANGUAGE EORE MATERIALS: A DISCURSIVE AND MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/folium/2026.9.31Keywords:
risk communication, Explosive Ordnance Risk Education, critical discourse analysis, multimodality, humanitarian communication, behavioural regulation, inclusive communicationAbstract
The large-scale contamination of Ukrainian territories with landmines, unexploded ordnance, and other remnants of war has significantly increased the importance of Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE) as a component of humanitarian mine action. While EORE has been widely studied from technical and operational perspectives, its linguistic and communicative dimensions remain insufficiently explored. This paper examines discursive and multimodal strategies employed in English- and Ukrainian-language EORE materials produced by international and national organizations, governmental institutions, and humanitarian actors. The study draws upon Critical Discourse Analysis, pragmatic analysis, and multimodal discourse analysis to investigate how risk is communicated and how safe behaviour is promoted among affected populations. The findings indicate that EORE discourse represents a specialized form of institutional risk communication characterized by a strong behavioural orientation. Three major communicative dimensions are identified: danger construction and behavioural regulation, risk minimization and personalization, and inclusion-oriented multimodal communication. The analysis demonstrates that multimodal resources, including colour coding, warning symbols, photographs, and infographics, play a crucial role in enhancing message effectiveness. Particular attention is devoted to the growing emphasis on accessibility and inclusive communication in EORE campaigns. The study contributes to discourse studies and humanitarian communication research by demonstrating how linguistic and visual resources interact to influence risk perception, support behavioural change, and ensure equitable access to life-saving information.
References
Agbozo, G. E. (2023). Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis for Technical Communication Research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 32(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2022.2144950
Baaser, S., Laurenge, H., Filippino, E. (2009). Mine-risk Education in Mine Action: How is it Effective?. The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 13(1), Article 18. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol13/iss1/18
Boyd, A.T., Becknell, K., Russell, S. (2018). Risk factors for unsafe behaviors toward grenades among rural populations affected by explosive devices in Colombia. Confl Health, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-018-0141-5
Boyd, H., Kasack, S., Nielsen, N. F. (2020). Measuring Behavior Change Resulting from EORE and the Need for Complementary Risk Reduction Activities. The Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction, 24(1), Article 6. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol24/iss1/6
European Disability Forum. (2022, April 28). Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies. https://www.edf-feph.org/situations-of-risk-and-humanitarian-emergencies/
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining [GICHD]. (2020). International Mine Action Standard (IMAS) 12.10: Explosive ordnance risk education (EORE) (2nd ed., Amend. 3). International Mine Action Standards. https://www.mineactionstandards.org/standards/12-10/
Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144123
Khan, S., Mishra, J. L., Lin, K.-H. E., & Doyle, E. E. H. (2017). Rethinking communication in risk interpretation and action. Nat Hazards, 88, 1709–1726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2942-z
Kristensen, K. K. (2021). Report on Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) Survey for Explosive Ordnance Risk Education. UNDP Ukraine.
Li, M., Gibbons, J., & Pham, Q. N. (2023). Re-exploring writer-reader interaction: Analyzing metadiscourse in EAP students’ infographics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 66, 101303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101303
Melnyk, I., Datsko, Y., & Devitska, A. (2026). Discourse strategies and linguistic identity in British lifestyle blogs: a multimodal analysis of digital self-presentation. Folium, (8), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.32782/folium/2026.8.15
National Research Council. (1989). Recommendations for improving risk communication. In Improving risk communication (pp. 143–182). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1189
Pham, T. Q. (2024). A Synopsis of the three most influential approaches of critical discourse analysis. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 40(3), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5217
Rickard, L.N. (2021), Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research. Risk Analysis, 41, 466-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13415
Shabila, N.P., Saleh, A.M. (2025). Evaluation of landmine risk education programs: a scoping review. Med Confl Surviv, 41(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13623699.2024.2437820
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). (2023). Building resilience for the future: Lessons from Ukraine. MSB. https://www.msb.se/siteassets/dokument/publikationer/english-publications/building-resilience-for-the-future – lessons-from-ukraine.pdf
Sydoriv, S. and Sydoriv, L. (2025). Applying National Identity Narratives in Training Inclusive Teachers. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 12(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.15330/jpnu.12.1.119-134
UNICEF. (2024, June 6). 53% of Ukrainian teenagers engage in risky behaviour despite being well informed about mine risks. https://www.unicef.org/ukraine/en/press-releases/53-ukrainian-teenagers-engage-risky-behaviour-despite-being-well-informed-about
UNIDR. (2024). How do gender and diversity relate to mine action? Gender and Disarmament Programme and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. https://unidir.org/publication/how-do-gender-and-diversity-relate-to-mine-action/
United Nations. (2025, April). Ukraine: Mine contamination is lethal legacy of Russia’s invasion. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1161956
Van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (eds D. Tannen, H.E. Hamilton and D. Schiffrin). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch21
Vovk, N. (2024). Emergency Explosive Ordnance Risk Education: Lessons Learned from Ukraine. The Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction, 28(1), Article 5. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol28/iss1/5
WHO. (2017). Communicating risk in public health emergencies: A WHO guideline for emergency risk communication policy and practice. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550208
Zinn, J. O., & Müller, M. (2022). Understanding discourse and language of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 25(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.2020883
