Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 - Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments

Abstract

Scientific communication is one of the most challenging aspects of volcanic risk management because the complexities and uncertainties of volcanic unrest make it difficult for scientists to provide information that is timely, relevant, easily comprehensible and trusted. When poorly handled, scientific communication can cause social, economic and political problems, and undermine community confidence in disaster management regimes. This is the first of two related papers that together investigate the interface between the scientific consideration of volcanic hazards and the governance of volcanic risks. Both papers are principally concerned with issues of risk governance, and their focus is hazard communication by volcanologists at this hazard-risk interface (the interface) during periods of volcanic unrest. In this paper, we argue that the working practices of contextualisation must be more methodical and propose four quality assurance standards that will enhance hazard assessments. To improve hazard communication between volcanologists and risk-mitigation decision-makers (decision-makers), we argue that volcanologists need to adopt a more iterative and structured approach that openly embraces the benefits, and confronts the challenges, of stakeholder-orientated 'contextualisation'. Our analysis of the published literature reveals evidence of a slow paradigm shift from practices based upon strict linear technocratic approaches to more iterative stakeholder participation. The extent of this shift varies in different regions, however, the rules and practices of deliberation often appear ad hoc and unstructured. Since there is currently insufficient guidance for managing the practicalities and standards of contextualisation, we introduce two novel concepts; the 'scrutiny dimension' of risk governance, which is the slow changing governance context that may influence the processes of contextualisation, and the dynamic 'equilibrium of contextualisation', which is the metastable product of regulatory standards, natural and organisational constraints, and stakeholder pressures. We argue that the working practices of contextualisation must be more structured and should strive to be open, transparent and fully articulated. Contextualisation, which meets proposed quality assurance standards of materiality, proximity, comprehensibility and integrity, will enhance hazard assessments and, thereby, the utility of their outputs. In our second paper (Bretton et al, J Appl. Volcanol.

Volcano observatory best practices (VOBP) workshops - a summary of findings and best-practice recommendations

“…Risks posed by volcanic eruptions continue to grow as populations near active volcanoes and air traffic over them continue to increase; however, in recent decades, enhanced technical capability of volcano observatories and their associated scientists to detect and analyze unrest and provide actionable information and eruption forecasts have reduced risk and minimized loss of life and property (Loughlin et al 2015;Auker et al 2013). This capability carries with it the responsibility to construct the best possible practices of monitoring, data interpretation, and hazard communication to support risk-mitigation decisions, such as whether and when to evacuate populations and/or restrict travel and commerce in order to save lives and property (Bazelon 1979;Miller and Jolly 2014;Papale 2017, Bretton et al 2018a.…”

“…In addition to the issue of understanding of the definition of uncertainty, too much emphasis on the uncertainty of forecasts can undermine credibility (Merlhiot et al 2018), yet too little emphasis can lead to overconfidence and over-reaction by civil authorities, which in turn can result in a loss of credibility. Among the many lessons learned after the L' Aquila earthquake that struck central Italy in 2009 is the importance of including even very low-probability events in communications (Jordan 2013;Cocco et al 2015) and the need for standards of practice (Bretton et al 2015(Bretton et al , 2018a. Following established and well-documented communication procedures is simply good-practice, critical for observatories to maintain credibility, and can serve as a legal basis for demonstrating that the institution has operated within the scope of its authority.…”

Reviewing volcano hazard and risk communications in Ecuador: experiences from a fast-format workshop

“…In this work we focus on the effectiveness of communication with the public [e.g. McGuire et al 2009] rather than the "contextualization" problem involving the interface between volcanologists and risk governance decision makers [Bretton et al 2018a]. In an ideal scenario to communicate efficiently, we need to understand and identify people's needs and their Volcanica 4(2): 309 -324. doi: 1 .3 9 9/vol.…”

Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 2 - quality standards for volcanic hazard assessments

“…Balance is achieved when regulatory sources are effective, quality standards are unequivocal and enforced, within natural and operational constraints stakeholder pressures are addressed, and structured contextualisation preserves scientific methodologies and probity. Disequilibrium and imbalance may result when regulatory sources are ineffective, quality standards are equivocal or unenforced, within natural and operational constraints stakeholder pressures are not addressed, and ad hoc contextualisation fails to preserve traditional standards of scientific probity (Reproduced from Bretton et al 2018) relation to risk alert levels. Another (Int.…”