A &amp;quot;mental models&amp;quot; approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazards

Gibson, Hazel; Stewart, Iain S.; Pahl, Sabine; Stokes, Alison

doi:10.5194/hess-20-1737-2016

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If geoscientists are going to be effective contributors to sustainability issues then we are going to have to learn to better communicate what we know and why it is important.Geology's communication problem arises in part because ordinary people afford little attention to or interest in to the geological realm(Stewart & Nield 2013). Few have anything but a vague and often misconceived sense of the subsurface, an alien environment which lies hidden and out of bounds(Gibson et al 2016). Moreover, most struggle to grasp the cumulative impact of slow, gradual changes over periods that exceed human timespans, or appreciate the feedbacks and tipping points lurking within complex natural systems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social geology — integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences

Stewart

Gill²

2017

Proceedings of the Geologists' Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most geologists would argue that geoscientific knowledge, experience, and guidance is critical for addressing many of society's most acute environmental challenges, yet few geologists are directly engaged in current discourses around sustainable development. That is surprising given that several attributes make modern geoscience well placed to make critical contributions to contemporary sustainability thinking. Here, we argue that if geoscientists are to make our know-how relevant to sustainability science, two aspects seem clear. Firstly, the geoscience community needs to substantially broaden its constituency, not only forging interdisciplinary links with other environmental disciplines but also drawing from the human and behavioural sciences. Secondly, the principles and practices of 'sustainability' need to be explicitly integrated into geoscience education, training and continued professional development. Dear Editor Many thanks for the opportunity to revise this manuscript based on the two reviews provided. As you noted, the review by Mark Maslin was especially constructive, and we have attempted to weave in most of his broader points. We have also included a specific statement about the extent to which 'sustainability'exists in UK university geoscience departments, although a wider systematic examination of this issue, with real data is beyond the sope of the present article. We have followed your advice and retained the images, although we acknowledge Maslin's comment that they are not essential to the paper. There is some restructuring of the argument to reflect the changes made, and a couple of references have been added, including those indicated by Maslin. Overall we feel that the argument has been sharpened up, though we take heart from the positive endorsements by both referees. I hope you like the new improved version. regards, Iain

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social geology — integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences

Stewart

Gill²

2017

Proceedings of the Geologists' Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, most mental model studies focus merely on cognitive components (e.g. Gibson et al, 2016;Goel, 2007;Johnson-Laird, 2010, 2013Shipton et al, 2019) or on the cognitive superiority of geoscientists over non-geoscientists (Libarkin et al, 2003;Vosniadou and Brewer, 1992). Here, we argue that mental models should also incorporate subjective and affective representations of a phenomenon for both geoscientists and non-geoscientists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Compared with the number of studies focusing on nonexperts or publics, fewer studies have used mental models to compare experts' and non-experts' perceptions. For example, Gibson et al (2016) identified mismatches in perceptions of subsurface hydrology and geohazards between experts and non-experts. In a study comparing experts' and non-experts' mental models of nuclear waste, Skarlatidou et al (2012) described non-experts' negative perceptions of nuclear waste as co-existing with a positive attitude towards nuclear energy, as well as lack of knowledge and familiarity, and discussed implications for risk communication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geoscientists and non-geoscientists often struggle to communicate with each other. In this paper we aim to understand how geoscientists and non-geoscientists perceive geological concepts and activities, that is, how they think (cognitive responses) and feel (affective responses) about them. To this effect, using a mixed-methods approach, we compare mental models – people's representation of a phenomenon – of the subsurface, mining/quarrying, and drilling, between geoscientists (n=24) and non-geoscientists (n=38) recruited in Ireland. We identify four dominant themes which underlie their mental models: (1) degree of knowledge and familiarity, (2) presence of humans, (3) affective beliefs, and (4) beliefs about perceived impact of the activities. While the mental models of the non-geoscientists focused more on the perceived negative environmental and economic impacts of geoscience, as well as providing evidence of lay expertise, those of the geoscientists focused more on human interactions. We argue that mental models of geoscientists and non-geoscientists are the result of beliefs, including both cognitive and affective components, and that both components need to be acknowledged for effective dialogue between the two groups to take place.

show abstract

“…The publisher-authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.3197/096327119X15579936382482 deep geological formations) (Sharp et al, 2009). In contrast to mental models research on nonexpert perceptions that found strong disassociation between subsurface and surface environments (Gibson et al, 2016), two influential sets of values have been identified in views on CCS: (i) the notion of an ecosystem network linking seemingly disparate environmental entities, where disturbance in one part has effects elsewhere (Gough et al, 2002) and, relatedly, (ii) the idea of 'interference with nature' (L'Orange Seigo et al, 2014). US studies of CCS have highlighted concerns that 'interference' might cause earthquakes or water contamination (Palmgren et al, 2004).…”

Section: Energy Initiatives and 'Tampering With The Underground'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disturbed Earth: Conceptions of the Deep Underground in Shale Extraction Deliberations in the US and UK

Partridge¹,

Thomas²,

Pidgeon³

et al. 2019

Environmental Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') has enabled the recovery of previously inaccessible resources and rendered new areas of the underground 'productive'. While a number of studies in the US and UK have examined public attitudes toward fracking and its various impacts, how people conceptualise the deep underground itself has received less attention. We argue that views on resources, risk and the deep underground raise important questions about how people perceive the desirability and viability of subterranean interventions. We conducted day-long deliberation workshops (two in each country), facilitating discussions among diverse groups of people on prospective shale extraction in the US and UK. Themes that emerged in these conversations include seeing the Earth as a foundation; natural limits (a greater burden than the subsurface can withstand versus simply overuse of natural resources); and ideas about the fragility, instability and opacity of the deep underground. We find that concerns in both countries were not limited to specific, localised impacts but also addressed ecosystem links between surface and subsurface environments and broader questions about the use, identification and value of natural resources.

show abstract

A "mental models" approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazards

Cited by 26 publications

References 44 publications

Social geology — integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences

Social geology — integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

Disturbed Earth: Conceptions of the Deep Underground in Shale Extraction Deliberations in the US and UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About