Before even reading the linked academic piece I'll share my thoughts about trust and disasters. First is the premise that no one likes surprises. When a disaster is catastrophic and people living and working in the region were not aware of how bad it could be or were assured by elected officials of their level of preparedness, it sets up the situation for disappointment and anger. That anger manifests itself in a lack of trust in anything else that government, a private utility or others might say post-disaster about the event.
Then, in the case of the Japan earthquake and tsunami, there were many pronouncements by government about their ability to control the situation at the nuclear power plant and the safety of residents living near the plant, which ended up being false. So, even if they were not deliberate, these governmental pronouncements about what was safe and how long people might be displaced rang hollow on the ears of people impacted by the event.
Now, years later, the ability to provide credible information about the disaster and its aftermath is seriously degraded by past behaviors and the tearing down of trust that takes years to build and only seconds to destroy.
Beware of spin doctors in your communications departments that support you who want to put the "best light" on what is a terrible situation. Call a spade a spade and don't give people false hope. It will be better for you and your long-term relationship with the people you support.
