Level of access to and utilisation of flood early warning information in Kasese District, Western Uganda

Abstract

Background: Flooding is a recurrent and destructive hazard that disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries. In Kasese District, flood risk has intensified due to climate change, environmental degradation, and the expanding human activities in flood-prone areas. While FEWS are critical for disaster risk reduction, their effectiveness depends on communities’ access to and utilisation of FEWI. Guided by the Protection Motivation and Diffusion of Innovations theories, this study assessed levels of access to and utilisation of FEWI, and the factors influencing their use in Kasese District. Methodology: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design within a cross-sectional framework was applied across 11 flood-prone sub-counties. Quantitative data were collected from 424 households using KoBoCollect and a multistage sampling approach. Analyses in STATA 14 included descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and modified Poisson regression to assess FEWI access and utilisation. Survey results informed a qualitative phase comprising 12 key informant interviews with government officials, NGO representatives, and community leaders. Thematic analyses identified contextual, institutional, and socio-cultural drivers, barriers, and enablers of FEWI utilisation. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings provided deeper insights into FEWI in Kasese District. Results: Of the 424 respondents (99.5%) reached, the mean age was 43.4 years, and SD 14.2, with 47.6% aged 34-55 years. Just over half were male (52.6%); most lived in rural areas (63.4%), were married (77.6%), and farmed (65.8%). Only 4.9% had a tertiary education. Overall, 70.1% (n=297) accessed FEWI, and among these, 74.1% (n=220) utilised compared to 60.1% (n=255) in the total sample. Although Access and utilisation were consistent across groups, Utilisation varied across sub-counties (16.4% in Bugoye to 96.9% in Nyamwamba). Key predictors of utilisation included organised warning systems (74.0%), trusted intermediaries such as traditional leaders (81.6%), local government (79.3%), disaster committees (79.3%), and messages via meetings or barazas (79.3%) or family/neighbour (74.8%). Also, Household preparedness (74.8%) strengthened responsiveness. Conclusion: While FEWI access in Kasese was relatively high, utilisation remains inconsistent, influenced by trust in local actors, preparedness, and institutional barriers. Structural, socio-cultural, and coordination challenges hinder warning effectiveness, especially for rural and vulnerable groups. Community-driven, inclusive, and contextually tailored FEWI strategies that harness traditional knowledge, enhance local communication, and address gender and sub-county disparities are recommended to strengthen flood risk response. Keywords: Flood warning systems; Access to flood early-warning information; Utilisation of flood early-warning information; Disaster risk reduction; Kasese District, Uganda.