Communicating Seismic Risk: the Geoethical Challenges of a People-Centred, Participatory Approach

Abstract

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) encourages scientists to participate in bottom-up risk communication approaches that directly engage hazard-prone populations. Effective communication of seismic risks not only has economic impacts in terms of hazard mitigation but also provides social value in potentially empowering the marginalized populations that disproportionately live in high-risk areas. This emphasis on community-focused disaster preparedness, however, presents a novel set of communication challenges for geoscientists. Few scientists have training in or experience of translating their science for lay publics, and conveying complex risk information is especially difficult in circumstances where scientific issues are socially contested and politically charged. Recognising that disaster threats can create troublesome information battlegrounds, this paper explores the ethical and practical aspects of seismic risk communication, motivated by an early-career earth scientists' workshop in Istanbul that voiced the concerns of young geoscientists confronted firsthand by at-risk publics. Those concerns form the basis of a wider review of the risk communication issues that are likely to be encountered if community-centred participatory DRR approaches are to be adopted by earthquake science researchers.

Rise and reduction of induced earthquakes in the Groningen gas field, 1991–2018: statistical trends, social impacts, and policy change

“…One basic government failure underlying strong negative public feelings is the lack of appropriate seismic hazard and risk communication outside the professional world of geophysicists, technologists and economic analysts. To quote Stewart et al (2017):…”

Risk communication successes and limits during sismo-volcanic crisis: the example of Mayotte, France

“…The signatory countries reckon that, in order to reduce efficiently the risk of disasters, "there is a need for the public and private sectors and civil society organizations, as well as academia and scientific and research institutions, to work more closely together and to create opportunities for collaboration […]" (Sendai framework page 7 -UNISDR, 2015). Following Ismail-Zadeh et al (2017), Stewart, Ickert and Lacassin (2018) emphasize that the willingness for greater integration defines a "new social contract between hazard scientists and the wider public [...] that encourages the scientific community to endeavour, alongside their existing technical expertise, to '... support action by local communities and authorities; and support the interface between policy and science for decisionmaking' (Sendai framework page 22 -UNISDR, 2015)". As shown in this paper, this change of expectations creates new challenges for scientists, notably on the issue of communication.…”

A Simulation‐Based Framework for Earthquake Risk‐Informed and People‐Centered Decision Making on Future Urban Planning

“…This means that they quantify earthquake risk in terms of traditional metrics like physical asset losses and casualties, which are narrow dimensions of impact (Walsh & Hallegatte, 2020) that do not account for the disproportionate consequences of disasters on vulnerable, low‐income groups, for instance (e.g., Adnan et al., 2020; Markhvida et al., 2020; Verschuur et al., 2020). These studies are consequently missing a people‐centered (ideally participatory) approach to future earthquake risk assessment (e.g., Scolobig et al., 2015; I. S. Stewart et al., 2017), which is actively encouraged by forward‐looking international agreements on disaster risk management like the 2015–2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Aitsi‐Selmi et al., 2016). Shortcomings of existing future earthquake risk assessment approaches stem from the general lack of a commonly agreed framework for modeling tomorrow's risks from natural hazards.…”