Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives on Visualizing Uncertainty in Natural Hazards

  • Chapter
Risk Assessment, Modeling and Decision Support

Part of the book series: Risk, Governance and Society ((RISKGOSO,volume 14))

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the perspective of consumers of visual information about natural hazards — particularly decision makers and individuals who must make difficult personal choices in the face of vast quantities of data that have been produced for other purposes. Ellen Peters draws on empirical studies to show that “Less is More” in the presentation of information. She also argues that visualizations should be tailored to specific decision needs by choosing precision levels and visual cues appropriate to the evaluation context. Ann Bostrom expands the discussion on the definitions of risk and uncertainty and discusses how spatial information in particular is perceived by users. She emphasizes the particular visual tools that have been shown to be effective in affecting individuals’ judgments about certain risks. Finally Susan Cutter discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various visual approaches to representing uncertainty, and recommends keeping the overall presentation simple.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baty BJ, Venne VL, McDonald J, Croyle RT, Halls C, Nash JE, et al. (1997) BRCAI testing: Genetic counseling protocol development and counseling issues. Journal of Genetic Counseling 6:223–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer CA (2005) Designing better maps: A guide for GIS users. ESRI Press, Redlands CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer CA, Hatchard GW, Harrower MA (2003) ColorBrewer in print: A catalog of color schemes for maps. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 30:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua HF, Yates JF, Shah P (2006) Risk avoidance: Graphs versus numbers. Memory & Cognition 34:399–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins RF (1998) Risk visualization as a means for altering hazard cognition. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD (2001) Valuing mortality-risk reduction: Using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23:165–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT (1991) Risk comparisons and risk communications: Issues and problems in comparing health and environmental risks. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds), Communicating risks to the public: International perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (The Netherlands), pp 79–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Risk analysis: Understanding “How safe is safe enough?” Risk Analysis 1:217–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinitz L, Rabinovici S, Kapla R, Taketa R, Wood N, Bernknopf R (2003) An interactive GIS linking science to natural hazard mitigation decisions. In: Proceedings of the URISA Annual Conference. Atlanta, GA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Quadrel MJ (1997) Risk perception and communication. In: Detels R, McEwen J, Omenn G (eds), Oxford textbook of public health. Oxford University Press, London, pp 987–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Watson S, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sciences 17:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino EC, Edell JA (1997) Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research 24:147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettys CF, Kelly CW, Peterson C (1973) The best guess hypothesis in multistage inference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10:365–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillan DJ, Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Carswell CM (1998) Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in hfes publications. Human Factors 40:28–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard JH, Peters E (2003) Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health 24:413–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard JH, Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML (2002) Strategies for reporting health plan performance information to consumers: Evidence from controlled studies. Health Services Research 37:291–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (2000) Medicine: Communicating statistical information. Science 290:2261–2262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee CK (1995) Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 62:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee CK (1998) Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11:107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee J, Blount S, Loewenstein G, Bazerman (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychology Bulletin 125:576–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79:995–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BB, Slovic P (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis 15:485–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RM, Hammel ZB, Schimmel LE (1985) Patient information processing and decision to accept treatment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1:113–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller C, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis 26:631–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Harper Collins Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Nunez RE (2001) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipkus IM, Hollands JG (1999) The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 25:149–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer J, Shinar D, Leiser D (1997) Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors 39:268–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monmonier M (1996) How to lie with maps, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1997) Review of recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. Panel on seismic hazard evaluation, committee on seismology, board on earth sciences and resources, commission on geosciences, environment, and resources. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne J, Bettman J, Johnson E (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK (2007) Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research & Review, 64(2) 169–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S (2006) Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science 17:408–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo JE, Staelin R, Nolan CA, Russell GJ, Metcalf BL (1986) Nutrition information in the supermarket. Journal of Consumer Research 13:48–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo JE, Krieser G, Miyashita S (1975) An effective display of unit price information. Journal of Marketing 39:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandman PM, Weinstein ND, Miller P (1994) High-risk or low-how location on a risk ladder affects perceived risk. Risk Analysis 14:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schum DA, DuCharme WM (1971) Comments on the relationship between the impact and the reliability of evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6:111–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz HG (1961) An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays (experiment ii). Human Factors 3:99–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah P, Carpenter PA (1995) Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124:43–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah P, Mayer RE, Hegarty M (1999) Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 91:690–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah P, Miyake A (eds) (2005). The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamo MK, Jeyer J, Gopher D (1996) Predicting values from tables and graphs. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1982) Toward understanding and improving decisions. In: Howell WC, Fleishman EA (eds), Human performance and productivity vol. 2. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 157–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1995) The construction of preferences. American Psychology 50:364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 397–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG (2000) Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior 24:271–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KV, Desvouges W, Payne JW (1995) Do risk information programs promote mitigation behavior? Journal of Risk Uncertainty 10:203–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Desvousges WH, Freeman AM (1985) Valuing changes in hazardous waste cooperative agreement no. Cr-811075: The benefits of hazardous waste management regulations using contingent valuation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Fisher A (1990) Can public information affect risk perception? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 9:41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson MT, Witte K (1998) Fear, threat, and perceptions of efficacy from frightening skin cancer messages. Public Health Review 26:147–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone ER, Sieck WR, Bull BE, Yates JF, Parks SC, Rush. CJ (2003) Foreground-background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90:19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM (1997) Effect of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 3:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson J, Hetzler B, MacEachren A, Gahegan MN, Pavel M (2005) Typology for visualizing uncertainty. Visualization and Data Analysis 5669:146–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Shafir E (1992) Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science 3:358–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (2000) Levels and structure of cognitive mapping. In: Freundschuh RKSM (ed), Cognitive mapping: Past, present and future. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B (2000) Some ways that maps and diagrams communicate. Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence 1849:72–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B, Kugelmass S, Winter A (1981) Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology 23:515–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlek C, Cvetkovich C (1989) Social decision methodology for technological projects. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K (2006) Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. Journal of Health Communication 11:167–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein ND, Sandman PM, Hallman WH (1994) Testing a visual display to explain small probabilities. Risk Analysis 14:895–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi K (1997) When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology 11:495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon, USA

    Ellen Peters

  2. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

    Ann Bostrom

  3. University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

    Susan Cutter

Authors
  1. Ellen Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Bostrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan Cutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, 327 Parrington Hall, Box 353055, Seattle, Washington, 98195-3055, USA

    Ann Bostrom (Associate Dean of Research & Associate Professor) (Associate Dean of Research & Associate Professor)

  2. Georgia Institute of Technology, Center for Geographic Information Systems, College of Architecture, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Steven French  & Sara Gottlieb  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peters, E., Bostrom, A., Cutter, S. (2008). Perspectives on Visualizing Uncertainty in Natural Hazards. In: Bostrom, A., French, S., Gottlieb, S. (eds) Risk Assessment, Modeling and Decision Support. Risk, Governance and Society, vol 14. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71158-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation