Skip to main content

Table 2 Factors that drive the effectiveness of communication

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

Modes of communication

A variety of non-linear modes of communication should be considered and more iterative models refer to, and differentiate between, a wide range of degrees and modes of participation.

Arnstein 1969; Gibbons 1994; Ronan et al. 2000; Cornell 2006; Jóhannesdóttir and Gísladóttir 2010; McCall and Peters-Guarin 2012; Bird and Gìsladóttir 2012.

Stakeholder capacities

The capacity of at-risk individuals, and the duty holders mandated to protect them, within the management contexts within which they must make risk-mitigation decisions.

Cardona 2004; UN/ISDR 2015; Scolobig et al. 2017; Preuner et al. 2017.

Understandings (Mental models)

How people understand and think about hazards and risks.

Douglas 1992; Cardona 2004; Bostrom 2008; Christie et al. 2015; Scolobig et al. 2017; Preuner et al. 2017.

Materiality/Relevance/Salience

The quality of dialogue between risk management stakeholders, and the provision of information and advice that is relevant to risk-mitigation decisions founded upon a mutual understanding by those stakeholders of: (1) their respective needs, responsibilities, functions, demands and roles, and (2) their capacity to anticipate other stakeholders’ decision-related requirements.

Turner et al. 1986; Salas et al. 1994; Newhall et al. 1999; Crichton 1999; Cash et al. 2003; Bankoff et al. 2004; Perry et al. 2008; Newhall et al. 1999; Ronan et al. 2000; Lipshitz et al. 2001; Paton and Jackson 2002; Renn 2008; Jóhannesdóttir and Gísladóttir 2010; Tierney et al. 2001; Doyle and Johnston 2011; Fischhoff 2013; Doyle et al. 2011, 2015; Carreno et al. 2012; Fearnley et al. 2012, Fearnley 2013; Potter et al. 2014; Jolly and Cronin 2014; Christie et al. 2015.

Proximity/Delivery

The importance of: (1) regular disseminations of information by volcanic hazard assessors (e.g. volcano observatories); and (2) timely exchanges of information, both within and between advisory and decision-making bodies. However, multiple and divergent sources of scientific advice, with associated uncertainties, can stifle decision-making.

Mileti and Sorensen 1990; Newhall et al. 1999; Ronan et al. 2000; Haynes et al. 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Paton 2008; De la Cruz-Reyna and Tilling 2008; IRDR 2011; Doyle et al. 2011; Fearnley et al. 2012; Fearnley 2013; Fischhoff 2013; Potter et al. 2014; Jolly and Cronin 2014.

Comprehensibility

The need for careful consideration of the form and content of hazard communications to minimise any misinterpretation or confusion. A communication should be in a form, and have content, from which sufficient meaning can be extracted by the recipient to make informed decisions.

Peterson (1988); Bernknopf et al. 1990; Gibbons et al. 1994; Teigen and Brun 1999; Karelitz and Budescu 2004; Wilson et al. 2007; Cronin 2008; Solana et al. 2008; Haynes et al. 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Budescu et al. 2009; Joslyn et al. 2009; Visschers et al. 2009; McGuire et al. 2009; Lipkus 2010; Doyle et al. 2011; Fischhoff 2013; Doyle et al. 2014; Potter et al. 2014; Neuberg 2015; Thompson et al. 2015.

Trust

Trust is an earned attribute and may be affected by many factors. It is important to maintain an authoritative scientific advisory voice that is trusted in fast-moving contexts in which decision makers may be receiving a diverse range of mandated, alternative and unorthodox views as well as solicited and unsolicited advice. Qualities that may enhance trust include reliability, competence, openness and integrity.

Renn and Levine 1991; Siegrist and Cvekovich 2000; Frewer et al. 2003; Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003; Poortinga et al. 2004; Siegrist and Gutscher 2006; Hemlin and Rasmussen 2006, 188; Pielke 2007; Wilson et al. 2007; Eiser et al. 2009; Renn 2008; Haynes et al. 2008b; Doyle and Johnston 2011; Fischhoff 2013; Ulusoy 2012; Owen et al. 2013; IAVCEI 2013 Newsletter No. 4; Sparks et al. 2013; Siegrist 2014; Pierson et al. 2014; Potter et al. 2014; Leonard et al. 2014; Donovan and Oppenheimer 2014; Doyle et al. 2015; Christie et al. 2015; Mothes et al. 2015; Scolobig et al. 2017; Preuner et al. 2017.

Credibility/Legitimacy

The adequacy of the scientific inputs based upon processes to ensure quality, comprehensiveness, transparency and robustness.

The perception that the production of scientific information has been respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in its conduct, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests.

Cash et al. (2003) and Sarrki et al. (2014) adopted by Fearnley and Beaven (2018) in the context of volcano alert systems.