used in common language that have a different meaning for scientists:
especially the difference between hazard (the probability of
a natural event occurring), risk (the probability of a loss
caused by the hazard) and danger (a situation that can cause
damage, injury and/or loss of life). It is important to explain
and familiarise the audience with these terms before an emergency.
A limited public understanding of scientific jargon (e.g., technical
terms for volcanic processes, such as "pyroclastic flow") and
concepts such as probabilities in the forecasts. A false understanding
of scientific jargon. On Montserrat, for example, terms such
as "pyroclastic flow" soon entered the public vocabulary, giving
the impression that their significance had also been understood.
Many times, however, the terms had been learned through repetition
by the media, while the true nature and scale of the associated
hazards had not been appreciated. Indeed, a false familiarity
with the terms may even have lowered the public's perception
of danger by inducing an unrealistic sense of security. It is
therefore essential for scientists to explain key technical
terms at the start of an emergency (or, if possible, beforehand)
and to ensure that non-scientists have properly understood the
associated hazard implications. These requirements cannot be
understated - a misunderstood message may be more dangerous
than no message at all.
Whether dealing with the Emergency Management Committee and
its science liaison officer, the media, or addressing public
meetings:
Use simple, short messages. Speak slowly and clearly.
Stick to essential information. Too much unnecessary scientific
data may confuse the audience and hide the basic message. For
example, "Earthquakes tell us that..." is more effective than
"The 200 VT earthquakes and 50 long period tremors mean that
…".
Use jargon only if it is essential, and then explain it in simple
terms. |
Wherever possible, use pictures, drawings or graphics to explain
concepts.
Compare any new concept with a more familiar example. For instance,
use the analogy of weather forecasts to explain uncertainties
in eruption forecasts.
Use numbers, percentages or proportions carefully and explain
the context (e.g. "The probability of Y happening is X %. This
means that Y is very likely/unlikely to occur.")
Avoid using units not in common public use (e.g., Joules or
Atmospheres).
Always confirm that the message has been fully understood. Repeat
the message as often as necessary until such confirmation is
apparent.
DO NOT cultivate a superior attitude when dealing
with groups whom you perceive are less knowledgeable about volcanoes
than yourselves.
NEVER be condescending to members of the EMC.
This can rapidly result in the breakdown of working relationships
and the potentially fatal collapse of communication and information
flow.
NEVER be unnecessarily obtuse or evasive. This
promotes misunderstanding and leads to fears that you may be
hiding something.
The critical step of transforming a forecast (to
advise how a volcano may behave) into a public
warning (to advise how a vulnerable community
should react) is the responsibility of the
authorities. However, as producers of the forecast
who are in close and continuous contact with
the Emergency Management Committee,
monitoring scientists are inevitably involved in
the transformation process. During the current
emergency on Montserrat, for example, the close
link between scientists and the EMC raised
public confidence and improved the response of
the population. Importantly, however, the
warnings and instructions were issued by the
civil authorities: the scientists acted only in an
advisory role.
|
|
Download manual
