BACK OFF: WE'RE SCIENTISTS! MYTH VS. REALITY AND HOW TO COMMUNICATE RISK RELATED TO NATURAL HAZARDS

Geoscientists have an essential role in communicating natural hazard risk and mitigation options to the public in order to generate timely, effective action. Common misconceptions about risk perception and public behavior in disasters are as much an obstacle in risk communication as in disaster response, and can generate counterproductive messages and actions. Awareness of risk communication principles and lessons learned from actual events can help geoscientists avoid common “disaster myths” and convey critical information more effectively. Common myths include: 1) Mass panic, looting, and irrational or other antisocial behavior; 2) Mass evacuation at the first hint of danger; 3) Role abandonment; 4) Civilian inability to act after disaster impact (“shock” or “numbness”).

Reality presents a different picture. Selfishness and antisocial behavior are uncommon in disasters: altruism and communal behavior are the norm. Mass panic and looting are extremely rare, but belief in their occurrence leads to misallocation of resources and attempts to “shield” the public from the truth. Most people are reluctant to evacuate, whether for a fire alarm in a building or from their home when a warning is given. Most employees in public safety, healthcare, and other critical roles are unlikely to abandon their posts, despite potential threats to their own families and homes. Most disaster victims have demonstrated capability to receive information and act purposefully and constructively after impact.

Effective risk communication includes identifying audiences, understanding how people perceive risk, minimizing jargon, and admitting and explaining uncertainty. Audience classification is complex but may include age, sex, location, economic status, and hazard-specific vulnerability (in part determined by aforementioned characteristics). Individuals tend to personalize risk, and actual hazard perception (and thus willingness to act) may diverge from expert assessment. Technical terminology (e.g., peak ground acceleration) is appropriate for intradisciplinary use, but creates a barrier between technical experts and audiences. The public does not expect omniscience: admission and explanation of uncertainty can enhance credibility and increase the likelihood of compliance with advised protective actions.