The sciences of science communication

Fischhoff, Baruch

doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110

Cited by 355 publications

(284 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

278

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While marine ecosystems and sciences are complex, decisionmakers and the public are drawn to simple scientific communication Hilário et al, 2015;Tulloch et al, 2016), and sound and informed choices in conservation require effective communication that reaches the multiple audiences involved in the planning process (Fischhoff, 2013;Wright, 2016). We have a responsibility as scientists to make our results and recommendations understandable for the stakeholders and to fit their needs (Groffman et al, 2010;Duarte, 2014;Broderick, 2015;Mea et al, 2016).…”

Section: Impediments To a Successful Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation planning and management typically require accurate and spatially explicit data at scales that are relevant for conservation objectives. In marine conservation, these data are often combined with spatial analytical techniques to produce marine habitat maps. While marine habitat mapping is increasingly used to inform conservation efforts, this field is still relatively young and its methods are rapidly evolving. Because conservation efforts do not always specify standards or guidelines for the production of habitat maps, results can vary dramatically. As representations of real environmental characteristics, habitat maps are highly sensitive to how they are produced. In this review paper, I present four concepts that are known to cause variation in spatial representation and prediction of habitats: the methodology used, the quality and scale of the data, and the choice of variables in regards to fitness for use. I then discuss the potential antinomy associated with the use of habitat maps in conservation: while habitat maps have become an invaluable tool to inform and assist decision-making, maps of the same area built using different methods and data may provide dissimilar representations, thus providing different information and possibly leading to different decisions. Exploring the theories and methods that have proved effective in terrestrial conservation and the spatial sciences, and how they can be integrated in marine habitat mapping practices, could help improve maps used to support marine conservation efforts and result in more reliable products to inform conservation decisions. Having a strong, consistent, transparent, repeatable, and science-based protocol for data collection and mapping is essential for effectively supporting decision-makers in developing conservation and management plans. The development of user-friendly tools to assist in the application of such protocol is crucial to a widespread improvement in practices. I discuss the potential to use interactive and collaborative Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to encourage the conservation and management community, from data collectors and mapmakers to decision-makers, to move toward a digital resilience and to develop such science-based protocol. Until standards and protocols are developed, habitat maps should always be interpreted with care, and the methods and metadata associated with their production should always be explicitly stated.

show abstract

Section: Impediments To a Successful Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the key characteristics of this framework is that it addresses the functioning and interactions of physical and social systems and, as a consequence, it also accounts for the knowledge and expertise required to analyse them. Moreover science-policy communication is central: two-way communication and effective strategies to deal with scientific uncertainty are at the heart of effective multi-risk governance [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. In the following sections we describe each single phase with a focus on the specific features of multi-risk governance and highlight some critical points that have to be addressed for future empirical testing and/or implementation.…”

Section: Multi-risk Governance Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-risk environments are characterized by domino effects that often amplify the overall risk. Those include chains of hazardous events and increasing vulnerability, among other types of correlations within the risk process. The recently developed methods for multi-hazard and risk assessment integrate interactions between different risks by using harmonized procedures based on common metrics. While the products of these assessments, such as multi-hazard and -risk indexes, maps, cascade scenarios, or warning systems provide innovative and effective information, they also pose specific challenges to policy makers and practitioners due to their novel cross-disciplinary aspects. In this paper we discuss the institutional barriers to the adoption of multi-risk approaches, summarizing the results of the fieldwork conducted in Italy and Guadeloupe and of workshops with disaster risk reduction practitioners from eleven European countries. Results show the need for a clear identification of responsibilities for the implementation of multi-risk approaches, as institutional frameworks for risk reduction remain to this day primarily single-risk centered. Authorities are rarely officially responsible for the management of domino effects between e.g., tsunamis and industrial accidents, earthquake and landslides, floods and electricity network failures. Other barriers for the implementation of multi-risk approaches include the limited measures to reduce exposure at the household level, inadequate financial capacities at the local level and limited public-private partnerships, especially in case of interactions between natural and industrial risks. Adapting the scale of institutions to that of multi-risk environments remains a major challenge to better mainstream multi-risk approaches into policy. To address it, we propose a multi-risk governance framework, which includes the phases of observation, social and institutional context analysis, generation of multi-risk knowledge and stakeholder engagement processes. Yet, more research is needed in order to test the framework and to identify the hallmark characteristics of effective multi-risk governance.

show abstract

“…Experts' conceptualization of risk is often based on morbidity and mortality statistics, while non-experts also tend to want to incorporate moral and emotional considerations (Slovic 2000). To effectively help individuals make an informed decision, they may need more than just the scientific information (Fischhoff 2013). Philosophers have emphasized that effective communications follow conversational norms, and take into account the goals and needs of intended recipients (Grice 1975;1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To make informed decisions, it is ethically imperative that people receive the relevant science in a way that they can use and understand (Fischhoff 2013;Gazmaraian et al 2005). Climate scientists therefore are increasingly recognizing the ethical need to share their findings with nonexpert audiences, through, for example reports, brochures, and websites (Fischhoff 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing Public Perceptions About Climate Change: A ‘Mental Models’ Approach

Wong‐Parodi

Bruin

2016

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informing public perceptions about climate change: A 'mental models' approach AbstractAs the specter of climate change looms on the horizon, people will face complex decisions about whether to support climate change policies and how to cope with climate change impacts on their lives. Without some grasp of the relevant science, they may find it hard to make informed decisions. Climate experts therefore face the ethical need to effectively communicate to non-expert audiences. Unfortunately, climate experts may inadvertently violate the maxims of effective communication, which require sharing communications that are truthful, brief, relevant, clear, and tested for effectiveness. Here, we discuss the 'mental models' approach towards developing communications, which aims to help experts to meet the maxims of effective communications, and to better inform the judgments and decisions of non-expert audiences.

show abstract

The sciences of science communication

Cited by 355 publications

References 65 publications

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

Informing Public Perceptions About Climate Change: A ‘Mental Models’ Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About