Table 3 Behaviour reflecting assessments influenced by factors not strictly confined to, or derived from, evidence-based scientific analysis of volcanic hazards, and detrimental to quality standards of integrity, materiality, comprehensibility and proximity

Behaviour detrimental to a quality standard of integrity

 (1) Characterisations that:

  (a) are not the product of scientific rigour and good practice;

  (b) are more complete or certain than justified by the available data;

  (c) do not reflect openly levels of significant scientific disagreement; or

  (d) reflect psychological, personal and other subjective factors.

 (2) Consideration of:

  (a) societal issues such as population/valued asset exposures and vulnerabilities and thereby risk-related consequences;

  (b) political, economic, local, or environmental values; or

  (c) commercial, ideological, religious or local sentiments and pressures.

 (3) Advocating, favouring, encouraging or refuting the views of other stakeholders on non-scientific matters.

 (4) Consideration and/or choice of risk-mitigation options such as risk alert levels.

 (5) Actions intended not only to inform non-scientific/risk-mitigation decisions but also to influence, directly or indirectly, their nature and/or timing.

 (6) Actions that may represent breaches of duties of care owed in criminal and civil law.

 (7) Blurring of functional risk governance roles involving scientific hazard analysis and risk-mitigation decisions and/or the assumption by volcanologists of another stakeholder’s duty to make risk-mitigation decisions.

 (8) Precautionary, defensive, conservative or blame-related bias related to perceived ‘managerial’ risks as opposed to ‘societal’ risks.

Behaviour detrimental to quality standards of materiality, comprehensibility and proximity

 (9) Communications that do not respond to the needs and expectations of risk-mitigation decision-makers.