Abstract
Communication is important in all aspects of the geosciences but is more prominent in the area of geological hazards, as the main audience for scientific information often lacks a geoscience background; and because the implications of not communicating results effectively can be very serious. Geoscientists working in the hazards area face particular challenges in communicating the concepts of risk, probability and uncertainty. Barriers to effective communication of geoscience include the complex language used by geoscientists, restriction of dissemination of results to traditional scientific media, identification of the target audience, inability to tailor products to a variety of audiences, and lack of institutional support for communication efforts. Geoscientists who work in the area of natural hazards need training in risk communication, media relations, and communicating to non-technical audiences. Institutions need to support the efforts of geoscientists in communicating their results through providing communications training; ensuring access to communications professionals; rewarding efforts to engage the public; and devoting sufficient staff and budget to the effort of disseminating results. Geoscientists themselves have to make efforts to change attitudes towards social science, and to become involved in decision making at a community level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Barclay J, Haynes K, Mitchell T et al. (2008) Framing volcanic risk communication within disaster risk reduction: finding ways for the social and physical sciences to work together. In: Liverman DGE, Pereira CP, Marker B (eds), Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society of London Special Publication 305.
Bella HM, Tobin GA (2007) Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and perception of flood risk. Environmental Hazards 7: 302–311.
Bernknopf RL, Rabinovici SJM, Wood NJ Dinitz, BL (2006) The influence of hazard models on GIS-based regional risk assessments and mitigation policies. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 6: 369–387.
Boykoff M (2008) Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change. In: Liverman DGE, Pereira CP, Marker B (eds), Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society of London Special Publication 305.
Boykoff M, Boykoff J (2004) Bias as balance: global warming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14: 125–136.
Burgess J, Harrison C, Filius P (1998) Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A 30: 1445–1460.
Cleland CE (2001) Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology 29: 987–990.
Corrado M, Duthie T (2006) Opinion of Professions – Trend Data. Report for the Royal College of Physicians. Ipsos MORI, United Kingdom.
Department of Health (1997) Communicating About Risks to Public Health: Pointers to Good Practice. Department of Health, London, p. 27.
Earth Sciences for Society Foundation (2004) Hazards – Minimizing Risk, Maximizing Awareness. Earth Sciences for Society Foundation, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Forster A, Freeborough K (2006) A guide to the communication of geohazards information to the public. British Geological Survey Internal Report, IR06–009.
Futerra Sustainability Communications (2005). New Rules/New Game: Communications Tactics for Climate Change. http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf, accessed 25 August 2008.
Geological Society of America (2005) Geoscience and Natural Hazards Policy. Position paper on Geological Society of America website, http://www.geosociety. org/positions/position6.htm accessed 20 July 2008.
Glanz J (1997) Cut the communications fog say physicists and editors. Science Magazine 277: 895–896.
Handmer J (2000) Are flood warnings futile? Risk communication in emergencies. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies 2000-2.
Hartz J, Chappell R (1998) Worlds apart: how the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center Publication 98-FO2.
ICSU Scoping Group on Natural and Human-induced Environmental Hazards Report to the ICSU 28th General Assembly, Suzhou, China, October 2005.
Kinzig AD, Starrett K, Arrow S et al. (2003) Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32: 330–335.
Liverman DGE, Pereira CP, Marker B (2008) Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society of London Special Publication 305.
Locke J (1690) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1975 edition, (ed) PH Nidditch, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Lubchenco J (2005) Science’s communication gap. International Herald Tribune, Published: Friday 11 November 2005.
Mileti D, Nathe S, Gori P et al. (2004) Public Hazards Communication and Education: The State of the Art. Natural Hazards Informer, Issue 2 (update), Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado.
Minkel JR, Stix G (2006) Scientific American 50: Policy Leader of the Year. Scientific American website, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientific-american-50-po-2006-12, accessed 25 August 2008.
MORI/Science Media Centre (2002) Science and the Media. Survey conducted for the Science Media Centre, reported at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/science.shtml, accessed 25 August 2008.
Moser S, Dilling L (eds) (2007) Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
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) Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, pp. 33–51.
Neild T (2008) Altered priorities ahead – or, how to develop fruitful relationships with the media. In: Liverman DGE, Pereira CP, Marker B (eds) Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society of London Special Publication 305.
Ogle R (2004) Communicating what the 1% chance flood means. In “Reducing Flood Losses: Is the 1% Chance (100-year) Flood Standard Sufficient?” Association of State Floodplain Managers; 2004 Assembly of the Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum; background papers, p. 136.
Owens S (2000) ‘Engaging the public’: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A 32: 1141–1148.
Petterson MG, Tolia D, Cronin SJ, Addison R (2008) Communicating geoscience to indigenous people: examples from the Solomon islands. In: Liverman DGE, Pereira CP, Marker B (eds) Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society of London Special Publication 305.
Robinson GD Spieker AM (1978) Nature to be Commanded: Earth Science Maps Applied to Land and Water Management. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 950. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Royal Society (2006) Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. Royal Society, London.
Schneider SH (1990) Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? Sierra Club/the Lutterworth Press, Cambridge, p. 343.
Schneider SH (1997) Defining and teaching environmental literacy. Tree 12: 457.
Schneider SH (2002) Keeping out of the box. American Scientist 90: 496–498.
Simpson C (2008) Communicating environmental geoscience – Australian communication pathways. In: Liverman DGE, Pereira CP, Marker B (eds) Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society of London Special Publication 305.
Snow CP (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, 1993 edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 181.
Wang XT (2001) Bounded rationality of economic man: new frontiers in evolutionary psychology and bioeconomics. Journal of Bioeconomics 3: 83–89.
White G (1972) Geography and public policy. The Professional Geographer 24: 101–104.
Williams J (2000) The phenomenology of global warming: the role of proposed solutions as competitive factors in the public arenas of discourse. Human Ecology Review 72: 63–72.
Zehr SC (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9: 85–103.
Acknowledgments
I thank the members of the IUGS GeoIndicators management committee and the IUGS GEM Commission for their encouragement to develop a working group to deal with this issue, and for much interesting discussion and feedback. Martin Batterson is thanked for his review of an earlier version of this paper. The paper was significantly improved by the comments of an anonymous reviewer, and through discussion following the presentation of some of this work at the 2008 International Geological Congress in Oslo. The Geological Survey of Newfoundland and Labrador is thanked for its support in my involvement with the activities of the CEG-GEM working group.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liverman, D. (2009). Communicating Geological Hazards: Educating, Training and Assisting Geoscientists in Communication Skills. In: Beer, T. (eds) Geophysical Hazards. International Year of Planet Earth. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3236-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3236-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3235-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3236-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)