Table 5 Values related to the nature, perception, delivery and content of communications
From: Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 2 - quality standards for volcanic hazard assessments
Value statement | Ranking /42 | % Max score | Median Narrative | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Timely delivery (reflecting the dynamic demands of the situation) | 1 | 92 | Critical | Prox. |
Independent (free from duress and uninfluenced by the pressures of all affected and interested parties) | 2 | 91 | Critical | Integ. |
Free from the influence of commercial interests | 3 | 91 | Critical | Integ. |
Non-political | 4 | 90 | Critical | Integ. |
Honest and candid (even if worrisome) | 5 | 89 | Critical | Integ. |
Neutral/Unbiased (free from institutional systemic bias, which tends to encourage particular outcomes, and not advocating, encouraging or refuting any stakeholder view/risk management action) | 7 | 86 | Critical | Integ. |
Delivered from one authorised source (to avoid mixed scientific messages) | 8 | 86 | Critical | Prox. |
Free from the influence of ideological and religious interests | 10 | 85 | Critical | Integ. |
Recipient centric - “User-friendly” (directed to the identified needs/wishes/uses of the recipients and to enable them to make “informed” choices) | 11 | 84 | Critical | Mat. |
Written | 14 | 82 | Critical | Prox. |
Likelihood (probability of onset of defined scenario) Clarity | 15 | 82 | Critical | Comp. |
Understandable/unambiguous terminology (geological, chemical, scientific and qualitative terms) | 16 | 82 | Critical | Comp. |
Confidence/Trust building | 17 | 81 | Critical | Integ. |
Outcome/Output centric (relevant to subsequent risk management processes and decisions) | 18 | 80 | Critical | Mat. |
Value-free (unaffected by societal context e.g. knowledge of societal exposures and vulnerabilities) | 20 | 79 | Very imp. | Integ. |
Objective (removing as much subjectivity as possible) | 21 | 79 | Very imp. | Integ. |
Authoritative | 22 | 79 | Very imp. | Integ. |
Balanced (reflecting unknowns, uncertainties and the range of differing expert views) | 23 | 78 | Very imp. | Integ. |
Reflecting current scientific “Good Practice” | 27 | 76 | Very imp. | Integ. |
Assumptions, limitations, time/cost constraints, etc. Clarity | 28 | 75 | Very imp. | Comp. |
Confidence (variability due to limited/lack of knowledge, etc. reflected in the width of the 95% confidence interval) in Likelihood Clarity | 29 | 72 | Very imp. | Comp. |
Graphics (such as pie charts, histograms, event trees, etc.) to illustrate/support narrative | 30 | 67 | Very imp. | Comp. |
Likelihood Expression in qualitative terms (e.g. “likely”) as well as quantitative terms (65%) | 34 | 58 | Important | Comp. |
Tweets, public internet status alerts, etc. | 35 | 54 | Important | Prox. |
Peer reviewed (to the extent possible given the dynamics of the situation) | 36 | 53 | Important | Integ. |
Confidence Precision | 38 | 53 | Important | Comp. |
Confidence Expression in qualitative terms (e.g. “high/medium/low confidence”) or a probability range (e.g. 65–75%) reflecting the width of the confidence interval | 40 | 51 | Important | Comp. |
Likelihood Precision | 41 | 48 | Important | Comp. |
Provider centric (directed to the needs/wishes of the hazard assessors) | 42 | 28 | Important | Comp. |