Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forecast communication through the newspaper Part 2: perceptions of uncertainty

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Volcanology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the first part of this review, I defined the media filter and how it can operate to frame and blame the forecaster for losses incurred during an environmental disaster. In this second part, I explore the meaning and role of uncertainty when a forecast, and its basis, is communicated through the response and decision-making chain to the newspaper, especially during a rapidly evolving natural disaster which has far-reaching business, political, and societal impacts. Within the media-based communication system, there remains a fundamental disconnect of the definition of uncertainty and the interpretation of the delivered forecast between various stakeholders. The definition and use of uncertainty differs especially between scientific, media, business, and political stakeholders. This is a serious problem for the scientific community when delivering forecasts to the public though the press. As reviewed in Part 1, the media filter can result in a negative frame, which itself is a result of bias, slant, spin, and agenda setting introduced during passage of the forecast and its uncertainty through the media filter. The result is invariably one of anger and fury, which causes loss of credibility and blaming of the forecaster. Generation of a negative frame can be aided by opacity of the decision-making process that the forecast is used to support. The impact of the forecast will be determined during passage through the decision-making chain where the precautionary principle and cost-benefit analysis, for example, will likely be applied. Choice of forecast delivery format, vehicle of communication, syntax of delivery, and lack of follow-up measures can further contribute to causing the forecast and its role to be misrepresented. Follow-up measures to negative frames may include appropriately worded press releases and conferences that target forecast misrepresentation or misinterpretation in an attempt to swing the slant back in favor of the forecaster. Review of meteorological, public health, media studies, social science, and psychology literature opens up a vast and interesting library that is not obvious to the volcanologist at a first glance. It shows that forecasts and their uncertainty can be phrased and delivered, and followed-up upon, in a manner that reduces the chance of message distortion. The mass-media delivery vehicle requires careful tracking because the potential for forecast distortion can result in a frame that the scientific response is “absurd”, “confused”, “shambolic”, or “dysfunctional.” This can help set up a “frightened”, “frustrated”, “angry”, even “furious” reaction to the forecast and forecaster.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

References

  • Adams MD (2002) The precautionary principle and the rhetoric behind it. J Risk Res 5(4):301–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberico I, Petrosino P, Maglione G, Bruno L, Capaldo FS, Dal Piaz A, Lirer L, Mazzola S (2012) Mapping the vulnerability for evacuation of the Cami Flegrei territorial system in case of a volcanic unrest. Nat Hazards 64:1823–1854

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcorn R, Panter KS, Gorsevski PC (2013) A GIS-based volcani hazard and risk assessment of eruptions sourced within Valles Caldera, New Mexico. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 267:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2011a) Introduction. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp xix–xxxiv

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2011b) What happened and lessons: learned: a European and international perspective. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno A (2011c) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 273

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais M (1953) Le comportement de I’homme rationel devant le risqué, critique des postulates et axioms de I’ecole americane. Econometrica 21:503–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Andorno R (2004) The precautionary principle: a new legal standard for a technological age. J Int Bus Law 1:11–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Fisher AC (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Q J Econ 88(2):312–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Eads GC, Hahn RW, Lave LB, Noll RG, Portney PR, Russell M, Schmalensee R, Kerry Smith V, StavinsIs RN (1996) Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science 272(5259):221–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall W (2011) Check your legal position before advising others. Nature 477:251

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayton P (1988) Perceptions of broadcast weather forecasts. Weather 43(5):193–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzano Q, Sheppard AR (2002) The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields. J Risk Res 5(4):351–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington MS (2013) Assessing probabilistic forecasts of volcanic eruption onsets. Bull Volcanol 75:783–796

    Google Scholar 

  • Béguier P (2006) Localement vôtre: Le guide du journaliste en presse départementale et régionale. CFPJ Éditions, Paris, 215 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Behncke B, Neri M, Nagay A (2005) Lava flow hazard at Mount Etna (Italy): new data from a GIS-based study. Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 369:189–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson R (2011) F in exams. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 124 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolaso G, De Bernardinis B, Bosi V, Cardaci V, Ciolli S, Colozza R, Cridtiani C, Mangione D, Ricciardi A, Rosi M, Scalzo A, Soddu P (2009) Civil protection preparedness and response to the 2007 eruptive crisis of Stromboli volcano, Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 182:269–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley T, Burgess R (2002) The political economy of government responsiveness: theory and evidence from India. Q J Econ 117(4):1415–1451

    Google Scholar 

  • Better Regulation Commission (2006) Risk, responsibility and regulation—whose risk is it anyway? Better Regulation Commission, Whitehall, 55 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Biass S, Frischknecht C, Bonadonna C (2012) A fast GIS-based risk assessment for tephra fallout: the example of Cotopaxi volcano, Ecuador-Part II: vulnerability and risk assessment. Nat Hazards 64:615–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisson M, Behncke B, Fornaciai A, Neri M (2009) LiDAR-based digital terrain analysis of an area exposed to the risk of lava flow invasion: the Zafferana Etnea territory, Mt. Etna (Italy). Nat Hazards 50:321–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonfils L, Bosi V (2012) Means and methods for crisis management. In: Handbook for volcanic risk management. MIAVITA, Orleans, pp 159–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonfils L, Bosi V, Costantini L, Fontaine M, Hidayati S, Le Cozannet G, Sumarti S, Surono, Thierry P, Vaccari P, Vagner A (2012) Living with a volcano: increasing preparedness. In: Handbook for volcanic risk management. MIAVITA, Orleans, pp 91–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonne K, Kervyn M, Cascone L, Njome S, Van Ranst E, Suh E, Ayonghe S, Jacobs P, Ernst G (2008) A new approach to assess long-term lava flow hazard and risk using GIS and low-cost remote sensing: the case of Mount Cameroon, West Africa. Int J Remote Sens 29(22):6539–6564

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannigan V (2011) Paradigms lost: emergency safety regulation under scientific and technical uncertainty. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 101–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownbill A (1984) The costs of aircraft accidents in Australia: with preliminary estimates for 1980. Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (Department of Aviation, Australia) Report 83–85. 50 p

  • Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Millstein SG, Halpern-Felsher BL (2000) Verbal and numerical expressions of probability: “it’s a fifty–fifty chance”. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81(1):115–131. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2868

    Google Scholar 

  • Brun W, Teigen KH (1988) Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 41:390–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess A (2011) Representing emergency risks: media, risk and ‘acts of God’ in the volcanic ash cloud. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt SD, Mansfield DA (1988) The Great Storm of 15–16 October 1987. Weather 43(3):90–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron L (2006) Environmental risk management in New Zealand—Is there scope to apply a more generic framework? New Zealand Treasury Policy Perspectives Paper 06/06. 37 p

  • Cardona OD (1997) Management of the volcanic crises of Galeras volcano: social, economic and institutional aspects. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 77:313–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Carta S, Figari R, Saroris G, Sassi E, Scandone R (1981) A statistical model for Vesuvius and its volcanological implications. Bull Volcanol 44(2):129–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Čavka I, Čokorilo O (2012) Cost–benefit assessment of aircraft safety. Int J Traffic Transp Eng 2(4):359–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty S (2011) The challenge of emergency risk communication: lessons learned in trust and risk communication from the volcanic ash crisis. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 80–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Charon J-M (2013) La presse quotidienne, 3rd edn. Le Découverte, Paris, 126 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Christidou V, Kouvatas A (2011) Visual self-images of scientists and science in Greece.  Public Underst Sci 22(1):91–109

  • Chirico G, Favalli M, Papale P, Boschi E, Pareschi MT, Mamou-Mani A (2009) Lava flow hazard at Nyiragongo Volcano, DRC. Bull Volcanol 71:375–387

    Google Scholar 

  • CIMARPH - Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Research Council, Washington DC, 191 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Cioni R, Longo A, Macedonio G, Santacroce R, Sbrana A, Sulpizio R, Andronico D (2003) Assessing pyroclastic fall hazard through field data and numerical simulations: example from Vesuvius. J Geophys Res 108(B2):2063. doi:10.1029/2001JB000642

    Google Scholar 

  • Clow DG (1988) Daniel Defoe’s account of the storm of 1703. Weather 43(3):140–141

    Google Scholar 

  • COMSET - World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (2005) The precautionary principle. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Paris) SHS-2005/WS/21. 54 p

  • Cooke WE (1906) Forecasts and verifications in Western Australia. Mon Weather Rev 34:23–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell SE, Jackson MS (2013) Social science perspectives on natural hazards risk and uncertainty. In: Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 502–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Corroy L, Roche E (2010) La presse en France depuis 1945. Ellipses, Paris, 144 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Covey JA (2001) People’s preferences for safety control: why does baseline risk matter? Risk Anal 21(2):331–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran J (2010) Fable of market democracy. In: Curran J, Seaton J (eds) Power without responsibility: press, broadcasting and the internet in Britain, 7th edn. Routledge, London, pp 66–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis DR, Nnaji S (1982) The information needed to evaluate the worth of uncertain information, predictions and forecasts. J Appl Meteorol 21:461–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis MS, Ricci T, Mitchell LM (2005) Perceptions of risk for volcanic hazards at Vesuvio and Etna, Italy. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 2005(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Cruz-Reyna S, Tilling RI (2008) Scientific and public responses to the ongoing volcanic crisis at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico: importance of an effective hazards-warning system. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 170:121–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuth JL, Morss RE, Morrow BH, Lazo JK (2012) Creation and communication of hurricane risk information. Bull Am Met Soc 1133–1145. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00150.1

  • Dhami MK, Wallsten TS (2005) Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: toward translating linguistic probabilities. Mem Cogn 33(6):1057–1068

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan A, Oppenheimer C, Bravo M (2012a) Science at the policy interface: volcano-monitoring technologies and volcanic hazard management. Bull Volcanol 74(5):1005–1022

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan A, Oppenheimer C, Bravo M (2012b) The use of belief-based probabilistic methods in volcanology: scientists’ views and implications for risk assessments. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 247–248:168–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, 221 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle EEH, Johnston DM, McClure J, Paton D (2011) The communication of uncertain scientific advice during natural hazard events. N Z J Psychol 40(4):39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle EEH, McClure J, Johnston DM, Paton D (2014) Communicating likelihoods and probabilities in forecasts of volcanic eruptions. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 272:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuit, AJEJ (1844) De la mesure de l’utilité des travaux publics. Annales des ponts et chaussées 8

  • Eden P (2011) From observations to forecasts – part 14: communicating forecasts. Weather 66(12):325–327

  • Eldridge J, Reilly J (2003) Risk and relativity: BSE and the British media. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 138–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiquity, and the savage axioms. Q J Econ 75:643–669

  • Eoyang GH, Holladay RJ (2013) Adaptive action: leveraging uncertainty in your organization. Stanford Business Books, Stanford, 253 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein LG (1980) Decision making and the temporal resolution of uncertainty. Int Econ Rev 21(2):269–283

    Google Scholar 

  • European Community (2000) Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities (Brussels) 2.2.2000 COM(2000) 1 final. 28 p

  • Fast NJ, Tiedens LZ (2010) Blame cognition: the automatic transmission of self-serving attributions. J Exp Psychol 46:97–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Faunce T, Murray K, Nasu H, Bowman D (2008) Sunscreen safety: the precautionary principle, the Australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens. NanoEthics 2:231–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Favalli M, Mazzarini F, Pareschi MT, Boschi E (2009) Topographic control on lava flow paths at Mount Etna: implications for hazard assessment. J Geophys Res 114(F01017). doi:10.1029/2007JF000918

  • Felpeto A, Arana V, Ortiz R, Astiz M, Garcia A (2001) Assessment and modeling of lava flow hazard on Lanzarote (Canary Islands). Nat Hazards 23:247–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Felpeto A, Martí J, Orttiz R (2007) Automatic GIS-based system for volcanic hazard assessment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 166:106–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira C, Boholm A, Löfstedt R (2001) From vision to catastrophe: a risk event in search of images. In: Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther (eds) Risk, media and stigma: understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. Earthscan, London, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields J (2011) Uncertainty: turning fear and doubt into fuel for brilliance. Portofilio|Penguin, London, 228 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15(2):137–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske RS (1984) Volcanologists, journalists, and the concerned local public: a tale of two crises in the Eastern Caribbean. In: Explosive volcanism: inception, evolution, and hazards. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 170–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Folch A, Sulpizio R (2010) Evaluating long-range volcanic ash hazard using supercomputing facilities: application to Somma-Vesuvius (Italy), and consequences for civil aviation over the Central Mediterranean Area. Bull Volcanol 72:1039–1059

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgione G, Luongo G, Romano R (1989) Mt. Etna (Sicily): volcanic hazard assessment. In: Latter JH (ed) IAVCEI Proceedings in Volcanology I. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH (2000) Source science and the precautionary principle. Science 288(5468):979–981

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Theory and Decision Library A: Book 15 (Springer). 231 p

  • Galli I, Nigro G (1987) The social representation of radioactivity among Italian children. Soc Sci Inf 26(3):535–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Aristizabal A, Selva J, Fujita E (2013) Integration of stochastic models for long-term eruption forecasting into a Bayesian event tree scheme: a basis method to estimate the probability of volcanic unrest. Bull Volcanol 75:689–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G (2002) Reckoning with risk. Penguin, London, 310 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, Fasolo B, Konstantinos V (2005) “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal 25(3):623–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill J (2008) Communicating forecast uncertainty for service providers. WMO Bull 57(4):237–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein BD, Carruth RS (2004) Implications of the precautionary principle: is it a threat to science? Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17(1):153–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollier G, Jullien B, Treich N (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. J Public Econ 75:229–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Fernández F (2000) Contribution of geographical information systems to the management of volcanic crises. Nat Hazards 21:347–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong Z, Forrest Y-LJ (2014) Special issue on meteorological disaster risk and assessment: on basis of grey systems theory. Nat Hazards 71:995–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabe M (2001) Estimation of measurement uncertainties—an alternative to the ISO Guide. Metrologia 38:97–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabe M (2005) Measurement uncertainties in science and technology. Springer, Berlin, 269 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham JD, Hsia S (2002) Europe’s precautionary principle: promise and pitfalls. J Risk Res 5(4):371–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger Morgan M (2003) Characterizing and dealing with uncertainty: insights from the integrated assessment of climate change. Integr Assess 4(1):46–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory J, Miller S (1998) Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. Basic, Cambridge, 294 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudmundsson MT, Pedersen R, Vogfjord K, Thorbjarnardottir B, Jakobsdottir S, Roberts MJ (2010) Eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull Volcano, Iceland. Eos Trans AGU 91(21):190–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunn LS, Blake S, Jones MC, Rymer H (2014) Forecasting the duration of volcanic eruptions: an empirical probabilistic model. Bull Volcanol 76:780–798

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurioli L, Sulpizio R, Cioni R, Sbrana A, Santacroce R, Luperini W, Andronico D (2010) Pyroclastic flow assessment at Somma-Vesuvius based on the geological record. Bull Volcanol 72:1021–1038

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn WH, Sunstein CR (2005) The precautionary principle as a basis for decision making. The Economists’ Voice 2(2): Article 8

  • Haigh N (1994) The introduction of the precautionary principle into the UK. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London, pp 229–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall F (1950) Communication theory applied to meteorological measurements. J Meteorology 7:121–129

  • Harcup T (2009) Journalism: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angeles, 244 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Harremoës P (2003) The need to account for uncertainty in public decision making related to technological change. Integr Assess 4(1):18–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris AJL, Gurioli L, Hughes EE, Lagreulet S (2012) Impact of the Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud: a newspaper perspective. J Geophys Res 117(B00C08). doi:10.1029/2011JB008735

  • Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2007) Volcanic hazard communication using maps: an evaluation of their effectiveness. Bull Volcanol 70:123–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis. Bull Volcanol 70:605–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Heliker C (1992) Volcanic and seismic hazards on the island of Hawaii. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C., 48 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho C-H, Smith EI, Keenan DL (2006) Hazard area and probability of volcanic disruption of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA. Bull Volcanol 69:117–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins CC (2010) Scientific advertising. Cosimo, New York, 95 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton JT (1988) The storm, the media and the enquiry. Weather 43(3):67–70

    Google Scholar 

  • IAVCEI - Subcommittee for Crisis Protocols (1999) Professional conduct of scientists during volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 60:323–334

    Google Scholar 

  • ILGRA - Inter-Departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (2002) The precautionary principle: policy and application. ILGRA, London, 18 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine CG, Hrude SE (1997) Mixed messages in risk communication. Risk Anal 17(4):489–498

    Google Scholar 

  • JCGM (2008) Evaluation of measurement data—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 100:2008 (GUM 1995 with minor corrections). 120 p

  • Jenkins S, Magill C, McAneney J, Blong R (2012a) Regional ash fall hazard I: a probabilistic assessment methodology. Bull Volcanol 74:1699–1712

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins S, Magill C, McAneney J, Blong R (2012b) Regional ash fall hazard II: Asia-Pacific modelling results and implications. Bull Volcanol 74:1713–1727

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson SR, Holt MT (1997) The value of weather information. In: Katz RW, Murphy AH (eds) Economic value of weather and climate forecasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C, Jeunemaitre A (2011) Risk and the role of scientific input for contingency planning: a response to the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 51–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson J, Brantley SR, Swanson DA, Stauffer PH, Hendley JW II (2000) Viewing Hawaii’s lava safely—common sense is not enough. USGS Fact Sheet 152-00. 4 p

  • Joslyn SL, Nichols RM (2009) Probability or frequency? Expressing forecast uncertainty in public weather forecasts. Meteorol Appl 16:309–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Joslyn S, Pak K, Jones D, Pyles J, Hunt E (2007) The effect of probabilistic information on threshold forecasts. Weather Forecast 22:804–812

    Google Scholar 

  • Joslyn SL, Nadav-Greenberg NL, Taing MU, Nichols RM (2009) The effects of wording on the understanding and use of uncertainty information in a threshold forecasting decision. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:55–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Karelitz TM, Budescu DV (2004) You say “probable” and I say “likely”: improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J Exp Psychol Appl 10(1):25–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper RG (1980) Perceptions of risk and their effects on decision making. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA Jr (eds) Societal risk: how safe is safe enough? Plenum, New York, pp 71–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Palmlund I (1989) Evaluating risk communication. In: Covello V, McCallum D, Pavmova M (eds) Evaluating risk communication. Plenum, New York, pp 143–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipfer BA (1993) Roget’s 21st century thesaurus in dictionary form. Philip Lief, New York, 859 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen NI, Stohl A, Prata AJ, Bukowiecki N, Dacre H, Eckhardt S, Henne S, Hort MC, Johnson BT, Marenco F, Neininger B, Reitebuch O, Seibert P, Thomson DJ, Webster HN, Weinzierl B (2012) Performance assessment of a volcanic ash transport model mini-ensemble used for inverse modeling of the 2010 Eyjafallajökull eruption. J Geophys Res 117(D00U11). doi:10.1029/2011JD016844

  • Kunreuther H (1992) A conceptual framework for managing low-probability events. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger Publishers, Westport, pp 301–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb HH (1988) The storm of 15–16 October 1987: historical perspective. Weather 43(3):136–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawes HD (19887) The storm of 15–16 October 1987: a personal experience. Weather 43(3):142

  • Le Blancq F (2012) Communicating forecasts, or the art of the weather report. Weather 67(3):68–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay J, Marzocchi W, Jolly G, Constantinescu R, Selva J, Sandri L (2010) Towards real-time eruption forecasting in the Auckland Volcanic Field: application of BET_EF during the New Zealand National Disaster Exercise ‘Ruaumoko’. Bull Volcanol 72:185–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipkus IM (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 27:696–713

    Google Scholar 

  • Lirer L, Vitelli L (1998) Volcanic risk assessment and mapping in the Vesuvian area using GIS. Nat Hazards 17:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt RE (2002) Editorial. J Risk Res 5(4):285–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrae D (2011) Which risk and who decides when there are so many players? In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel GN, Gathii GT (2006) Cost-benefit analysis versus the precautionary principle: beyond Cass Sunstein’s Laws of Fear. Univ Ill Law Rev 2006:1037–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Manheim JB (1994) Strategic public diplomacy and American foreign policy: the evolution of influence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning MR (2003) The difficulty of communicating uncertainty. Clim Chang 61:9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant G, Abbott L, Felsot A, Griffin RL (2013) Impact of the precautionary principle on feeding current and future generations. CAST Issue Pap 52:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchau VAWJ, Walker WE (2003) Dealing with uncertainty in implementing advanced driver assistance systems: an adaptive approach. Integr Assess 4(1):35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley J (2010) Volcanic ash: lessons from the cloud of unknowing? Urol Nurs 4(2):51–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin M (2002) La presse régionale: des affiches aux grands quotidiens. Fayard, Paris, 501 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Bebbington MS (2012) Probabilistic eruption forecasting at short and long time scales. Bull Volcanol 74:1777–1805

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Woo G (2007) Probabilistic eruption forecasting and the call for an evacuation. Geophys Res Lett 34(L22310). doi:10.1029/2007GL031922

  • Marzocchi W, Woo G (2009) Principles of volcanic risk metrics: theory and the case study of Mount Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei, Italy. J Geophys Res 114(B03213). doi:10.1029/2008JB005908

  • Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Gasparini P, Newhall C, Boschi E (2004) Quantifying probabilities of volcanic events: the example of volcanic hazard at Mount Vesuvius. J Geophys Res 109(B11201). doi:10.1029/2004JB003155

  • Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Selva J (2008) BET_EF: a probabilistic tool for long- and short-term eruption forecasting. Bull Volcanol 70:623–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Selva J (2010) BET_VH: a probabilistic tool for long-term volcanic hazard assessment. Bull Volcanol 72:705–716

    Google Scholar 

  • Met. Office (2013) The 1987 Great Storm. UK Meteorological Office Factfile, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

  • Météo France (2011) Vigilance. Les Guides Pratiques Météo France, Météo France (Saint Mandé). 19 p

  • Mikula G, Scherer KR, Athensteadt U (1998) The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 24:769–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles S, Frewer LJ (2003) Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards.  J Risk Res 6(3):267–283

  • Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Communicating uncertainty. In: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making, U.S. Climate Change Science Program: 67–70

  • Morris RM, Gadd AJ (1988) Forecasting the storm of 15–16 October 1987. Weather 43(3):70–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris MW, Peng K (1994) Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Attitudes Soc Cogn 67(6):949–971

    Google Scholar 

  • Morss RE (2010) Interactions among flood predictions, decisions, and outcomes: synthesis of three cases. Nat Hazards Rev 11:83–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Morss RE, Demuth JL, Lazo JK (2008) Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: a survey of the U.S. public. Weather Forecast 23:974–991

  • Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Pachauri R, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K (eds) Guideline papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, pp 33–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy AH (1998) The early history of probability forecasts: some extensions and clarifications. Weather Forecast 13:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy AH, Winkler RL (1974) Probability forecasts: a survey of National Weather Service forecasters. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 55(12):1449–1452

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy AH, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Winkler RL (1980) Misinterpretations of precipitation probability forecasts. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 61(7):695–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin D (2003) Foreword: the social meanings of risk. In: Herr Harthorn B, Nelkin D (eds) Risk, culture and health inequality. Praeger, Westport, pp vii–xii

    Google Scholar 

  • Neufville D (2003) Real options: dealing with uncertainty in systems planning and design. Integr Assess 4(1):26–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Newhall CG, Hoblitt RP (2002) Constructing event trees for volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 64:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman SM, Clarisse L, Hurtmans D, Marenco F, Johnson B, Turnbull K, Havemann S, Baran AJ, O’Sullivan, Haywood J (2012) A case study of observations of volcanic ash from the Eyjafjallajökull eruption: 2. Airborne and satellite radiative measurements. J Geophys Res 117(D00U13). doi:10.1029/2011JD016780

  • Norton JP, Brown JD, Mysiak J (2006) To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Integr Assess J 6(1):83–88

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Cameron J (1994) The history and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London, pp 12–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouest France (2014) Le Bretagne épuisée. Ouest France Édition Spécial, Rennes, 48 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachauri R, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K (2000) Guideline papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 138 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappenberger F, Beven KJ, Hunter NM, Bates PD, Gouweleeuw BT, Thielen J, de Roo APJ (2005) Cascading model uncertainty from medium range weather forecasts (10 days) through a rainfall-runoff model to flood inundation predictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS). Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9(4):381–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Pareschi MT, Cavarra L, Favalli M, Giannini F, Meriggi A (2000) GIS and risk management. Nat Hazards 21:361–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Patt AG, Schrag DP (2003) Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim Chang 61:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel J (2005) The precautionary principle in practice: environmental decision-making and scientific uncertainty. The Federation Press, Annandale, 244 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennesi K (2007) Improving forecast communication: linguistic and cultural considerations. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1033–1044. doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-7-1033

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaresi C, Marta M, Palagiano C, Scandone R (2008) The evaluation of “social risk” due to volcanic eruptions of Vesuvius. Nat Hazards 47:229–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson DW (1988) Volcanic hazards and public response. J Geophys Res 93(B5):4161–4170

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson DW, Tilling RI (1993) Interactions between scientists, civil authorities and the public at hazardous volcanoes. In: Kilburn CR, Luongo G (eds) Active lavas. UCL, London, pp 339–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF (2007) Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 27:681–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Princeton Language Institute (1993) Roget’s 21st century thesaurus. Laurel, New York, 859 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine CP (1988) Damage to trees and woodlands in the storm of 15–16 October 1897. Weather 43(3):114–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffensperger C, Jackson W (1999) Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island, Washington DC, 385 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragnao M, Hansstein F, Mazzocchi M (2011) The financial impact of the volcanic ash crisis on the European airline industry. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 27–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in IPCC uncertainty assessment process.  Clim chang 85:19–31

  • Ricci PF, Rice D, Ziagos J, Cox LA Jr (2003) Precaution, uncertainty and causation in environmental decisions. Environ Int 29:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process. Clim Chang 85:19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • RMS (2007) The Great Strom of 1987: 20-year retrospective. Risk Management Solutions Inc., Special Report. 18 p

  • Rougier JC (2013) Quantifying hazard losses. In: Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Rougier JC, Beven KJ (2013) Model and data limitations: the sources and implications of epistemic uncertainty. In: Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality? Risk Anal 21(2):341–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe GR, Frewer L, Sjöberg L (2000) Newspaper reporting of hazards in the UK and Sweden. Public Underst Sci 9:59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus WD (1984) Risk in a free society. Risk Anal 4(3):157–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs NM (2011) Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. Univ Ill Law Rev 2011:1285–1338

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Juthe A (2002) Five charges against the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 5(4):287–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandri L, Guidoboni E, Marzocchi W, Selva J (2009) Bayesian event tree for eruption forecasting (BET_EF) at Vesuvius, Italy: a retrospective forward application to the 1631 eruption. Bull Volcanol 71:729–745

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandri L, Jolly G, Lindsay J, Howe T, Marzocchi W (2012) Combining long- and short-term probabilistic volcanic hazard assessment with cost-benefit analysis to support decision making in a volcanic crisis from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand

  • Schwitzer G (2011) News coverage. In: Brewer NT, Downs JS (eds) Communication risks and benefits: an evidence-based user’s guide. FDA, Silver Spring, pp 185–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Selva J, Orsi G, Di Vito MA, Marzocchi W, Sandri L (2012) Probability hazard map for future vent opening at the Campi Flegrei caldera, Italy. Bull Volcanol 74:497–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackley S, Wynne B (1995) Integrating knowledge for climate change: pyramids, nets and uncertainties. Glob Environ Chang 5(2):113–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubik M (1954) Information, risk, ignorance, and indeterminacy. Q J Econ 68(4):629–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Sink SA (1995) Determining the public’s understanding of precipitation forecasts: results of a survey. Nat Weather Dig 19(3):9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Sissors JZ, Baron RB (2010) Advertising media planning, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 480 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2001) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan, Trowbridge, pp 316–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith N, Joffe H (2012) How the public engages with global warming:  A social representations approach.  Public Underst Sci 22(1):16–32

  • Sobradelo R, Martí J (2010) Bayesian event tree for long-term volcanic hazard assessment: application to Teide-Pico Viejo stratovolcanoes, Tenerife, Canary Islands. J Geophys Res 115(B05206). doi:10.1029/2009JB006566

  • Sobradelo R, Bartolini S, Martí J (2014) HASSET: a probability event tree tool to evaluate future volcanic scenarios using Bayesian inference—presented as a plug-in for QGIS. Bull Volcanol 76:770–785

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonka ST, Changnon SA, Hofing S (1988) Assessing climate information use in Agribusiness. Part II: decision experiments to estimate economic value. J Clim 1:766–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonner BS (1998) The effectiveness of negative political advertising: A case study.  J Advert Res 1986: 37–42

  • Sparks RSJ (2003) Forecasting volcanic eruptions. Earth Planet Sci Lett 210:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ (2008) Understanding uncertainty. Ann Fam Med 6(3):196–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Riesch H (2011) Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1956):4730–4750

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TR (1997) Forecast value: descriptive decision studies. In: Katz RW, Murphy AH (eds) Economic value of weather and climate forecasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 147–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling R (1997) The weather of Britain. Giles de la Mare Publishers Limited, London, 306 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2007) Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep 8(4):309–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocking SH (1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In: Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 23–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulpizio R, Folch A, Costa A, Scaini C, Dellino P (2012) Hazard assessment of far-range volcanic ash dispersal from a violent Strombolian eruption at Somma-Vesuvius volcano, Naples, Italy: implications on civil aviation. Bull Volcanol 74:2205–2218

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2002) The paralyzing principle. Regulation 2002–2003:32–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 234 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2007) Worst-case scenarios. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 340 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvian J (2011) Newspaper and magazine advertising that works: a step by step guide. Digital Media Publishing, 35 p

  • Taylor JR (1997) An introduction to error analysis: the study of uncertainties in physical measurements. University Science, Sausalito, 327 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor BN and Kuyatt CE (1994) Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical Note 1297, U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington DC). 20 p

  • Teigen TH, Brun W (1999) The directionality of verbal probability expressions: effects on decisions, predictions, and probabilistic reasoning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 80(2):155–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeman RF, Oliver HR, Stroud MR, Walker ME, Altay T, Pike SL (1988) Some wind speed and temperature observations during the storm of 15–16 October 1987. Weather 43(3):118–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilling RI (1989) Volcanic hazards and their mitigation: progress and problems. Rev Geophys 27(2):237–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilling RI, Punongbayan RS (1989) Scientific and public response. In: Short courses in Geology (AGU) 1:103–106

  • Turnbull K, Johnson B, Marenco F, Haywood J, Minikin A, Weinzierl B, Schlager H, Schumann U, Leadbetter S, Woolley A (2012) J Geophys Res 117(D00U12). doi:10.1029/2011JD016688

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt H (2003) Debating the precautionary principle: “guilty until proven innocent” or “innocent until proven guilty”? Plant Physiol 132:1122–1126

    Google Scholar 

  • Viehrig H (2008) Mass media and catastrophe prevention: how to avoid the crisis after the crisis. In: Apostol I et al (eds) Risk assessment as a basis for the forecast and prevention of catastrophes. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 258–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Viens AM (2011) Normative uncertainty and ethics in emergency risk regulation. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 137–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Violette C (2014) Deux mois de pluies et tempêtes. In: Ouest France Édition Spécial (Rennes): 3

  • Walker WE, Marchau VAWJ (2003) Dealing with uncertainty in policy analysis and policymaking. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker G, Simmons P, Irwin A, Wynee B (1999) Risk communication, public participation and the Seveso II directive. J Hazard Mater 65:179–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, Van Der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer Von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten TS, Fillenbaum S, Cox JA (1986a) Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. J Mem Lang 25:571–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Zwick R, Forsyth B (1986b) Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J Exp Psychol Gen 115(4):348–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster M (2003) Communicating climate change uncertainty to policy-makers and the public. Climate Change 61:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener JB, Rogers MD (2002) Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. J Risk Res 5(4):317–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks DS (1997) Forecast value: prescriptive value. In: Katz RW, Murphy AH (eds) Economic value of weather and climate forecasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl PD, Weber EU (1999) The interpretation of “likely” depends on the context, but “70%” is 70%—right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25(6):1514–1533

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo G (2008) Probabilistic criteria for volcano evacuation decisions. Nat Hazards 45:87–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse MJ, Hogg AJ, Phillips JC, Sparks RSJ (2013) Interaction between volcanic plumes and wind during the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, Iceland. J Geophys Res 118:1–18. doi:10.1029/2012JB009592

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright AM, Dunlap RE (2010) Anti-reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27:100–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2(2):111–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehr SC (1999) Scientists’ representation of uncertainty. In: Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 3–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Reviews by Tim Orr and Amy Donovan, whose notes, comments, advice, and insight, greatly improved the content and delivery of this contribution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Magmas et Volcans, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont Ferrand, France

    Andrew J. L. Harris

Authors
  1. Andrew J. L. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. L. Harris.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: S. Self

Appendix

Appendix

A negative frame that sides with an industrial stakeholder

The following is transcribed from the opening paragraph of Marley (2010). It aptly sums up the situation as regards popular perception of the Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud problem as of May 2010.

“With the benefit of hindsight we might ask—what was it that initially paralyzed the aviation system of North-West Europe for a number of days in April this year? Volcanic ash? Not at all—it was evidence, or rather lack of it. For days on end aircraft were grounded all because of a prevailing and unquestioning paradigm view regarding safety. Until April it had been widely assumed that aircraft should never fly through ash, yet the actual evidence supporting such a view (which may or may not be true) was found to be inadequate, if not absent. Inadequate or not, the assumed view prevailed and aircraft were grounded. Hundreds of thousands of people can testify to confusion, dashed hopes, missed opportunity and sheer misery all because they were unable to reach their destination. People reported being grounded without adequate support and in many cases became frightened and vulnerable, increasingly unable to help themselves from their dwindling personal resources. Motivated by a complex mixture of ‘need to know’, evaporating finances, increasing liability for stranded passengers and a desperation to get flying, airlines carried out tests, the results of which were sufficient to persuade authorities (to) open the skies once again. When faced with loss and a threat to their survival, the airline pursued evidence with single-minded determination, proving that when a strong social and commercial will exists then heaven and earth can literally be moved to ensure change. Of course it remains to be seen if the test results are valid, reliable or capable of safe generalization.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harris, A.J.L. Forecast communication through the newspaper Part 2: perceptions of uncertainty. Bull Volcanol 77, 30 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-015-0902-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-015-0902-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation