Skip to main content

Table 3 The characteristics of scientific assessments that will address the perceived weaknesses of traditional risk governance models

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

To address the perceived failings of the traditional models, many commentators* advocate scientific assessments that:

 • are coherent, high-quality, technically systematic, scientifically sound and accurate, and based on a transparent, balanced and nuanced understanding the best available science;

 • reflect a change of emphasis from precision of scientific analysis to its unprompted relevance to risk management and the need to prevent avoidable risk-mitigation errors;

 • for stakeholders, are meaningful, pertinent, tailored, targeted, people-centred, user-driven, decision-driven, relevant to risk decisions, reflexive (i.e. to social, economic and legal contexts and expectations), situationally-aware, externally oriented, politically-relevant, socially-conscious, meaningful, and effective acts of effective communication;

 • reflect an understanding of, and are driven by the needs, concerns, mental models, expectations, social/trust/cultural requirements, preferences, methods, expertise, capabilities, conflicts and limits of distinct categories of stakeholders;

 • integrate methods, skills and expertise across disciplinary boundaries;

 • reflect fruitful two-way dialogue (i.e. deliberation, consultation and cooperation) between stakeholders including the media and the private sector;

 • capable of independent review.

*Fiske 1984; Blockley 1992; Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993, US/NRC 1996; Newhall et al. 1999; Ronan et al. 2000; Cash et al. 2003; Nowotny 2003; Cardona 2004; UN/ISDR 2004; G8 2005; Basher 2006; Solana et al. 2008; Renn 2008; Walker et al. 2010; Donovan and Oppenheimer 2012; CEOS 2013; Hicks et al. 2013; Sarrki et al 2014; Donovan and Oppenheimer 2014; Doyle et al. 2015; Marzocchi et al. 2015; Calder et al. 2015; Komorowski et al. 2015; UN/ISDR 2015; IFRC 2015; Scolobig et al. 2017; Preuner et al. 2017; Papale 2017; Fearnley and Beaven 2018