Communicating Seismic Risk: the Geoethical Challenges of a People-Centred, Participatory Approach

HAL Id: insu-02378418

https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-02378418

Submitted on 25 Nov 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access

archive for the deposit and dissemination of

sci-entific research documents, whether they are

pub-lished or not. The documents may come from

teaching and research institutions in France or

abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents

scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,

émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de

recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires

publics ou privés.

of a People-Centred, Participatory Approach

Iain Stewart, Johanna Ickert, Robin Lacassin

To cite this version:

Iain Stewart, Johanna Ickert, Robin Lacassin. Communicating Seismic Risk: the Geoethical

Chal-lenges of a People-Centred, Participatory Approach. Annals of Geophysics, Istituto Nazionale di

Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), 2017, 60 (FAST TRACK 7), �10.4401/AG-7593�. �insu-02378418�

Communicating Seismic Risk:

the Geoethical Challenges of a

People-Centred, Participatory Approach

I

S.

S

J

I

Su stainable Earth Institu te, University of Plym ou th, U nited Kingd om iain.stew art@p lym ou th.ac.u k

johanna.ickert@p lym ou th.ac.u k

R

L

Institu t d e Physiqu e d u Globe d e Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité University, CN RS, France lacassin@ip gp .fr

Abstract

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) encourages scientists to participate in bottom-up risk communication approaches that directly engage hazard-prone populations. Effective communication of seismic risks not only has economic impacts in terms of hazard mitigation but also provides social value in potentially empowering the marginalized populations that disproportionately live in high-risk areas. This emphasis on community-focused disaster preparedness, however, presents a novel set of communication challenges for geoscientists. Few scientists have training in or experience of translating their science for lay publics, and conveying complex risk information is especially difficult in circumstances where scientific issues are socially contested and politically charged. Recognising that disaster threats can create troublesome information battlegrounds, this paper explores the ethical and practical aspects of seismic risk communication, motivated by an early-career earth scientists’ workshop in Istanbul that voiced the concerns of young geoscientists confronted firsthand by at-risk publics. Those concerns form the basis of a wider review of the risk commu-nication issues that are likely to be encountered if community-centred participatory DRR approaches are to be adopted by earthquake science researchers.

1. IN TROD UCTION

here has to be a broader and a more peo-ple-centred preventive approach to disas-ter risk. Disasdisas-ter risk reduction practices need to be multi-hazard and multi-sectoral, inclu-sive and accessible in order to be efficient and effec-tive. (...) There is a need for the public and private sec-tors and civil society organizations, as well as academ-ia and scientific and research institutions, to work more closely together and to create opportunities for collaboration.’ (Send ai Fram ew ork, 2015, p .7).

The Sen d ai Fram ew ork for Disaster Risk Red u ction (SFDRR) offers a new global instru -m ent for con fronting n atu ral h azard s, setting ou t an am bitiou s holistic strategy that em brac-es the need for a ‘… full and meaningful partici-pation of relevant stakeholders at appropriate levels’ and the ‘… empowerment and inclusive, accessible and non-discriminatory participation of the most marginalised publics’ (UN ISDR, 2015). As su ch, the Send ai Fram ew ork d efines a new social contract betw een the hazard scientist an d the w id er p u blic (Ism ail-Zad eh et al., 2017). It is a

contract that encou rages the scientific com m u -nity to end eavou r, alongsid e their existing technical expertise, to ‘… support action by local communities and authorities; and support the inter-face between policy and science for decision-making’ (UN ISDR, 2015). This vision of citizen -oriented research is m im icked in other areas of geo-societal concern s, su ch as energy , clim ate change and infrastru ctu re d evelop m ent (e.g. Pid geon et al., 2014; Kam lage and N an z, 2017), and is one increasingly en d orsed by m ajor in-ternational sp on sors of scientific research. The Eu rop ean Com m ission, for exam p le, changed the title of their ‘Science and Society’ pro-gramme to ‘Science in Society’ and under H ori-zon 2020 developed guidelines around ‘Re-sp on sible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) w ith the d eliberate goal of stim u lating reflexivity and involving a range of social actors scien -tists, citizens, p olitician s an d bu sinesses - m ore closely in scientific end eavou rs that w ere co-d esigneco-d an co-d co-p roco-d u ceco-d by society (Ow en et al., 2012).

Inherent in this shift from the conventional ‘top-d ow n’, ‘expert-led’ approach to the emer-gent ‘bottom -up’, ‘community-led’ approach is the challenge of ‘the last mile’ - a term bor-row ed from the telecom m u nication s sector, in w hich the fin al connection betw een the con-su m er and the technology d eterm ines how ef-fective it is for the vast m arket of u sers. The challenge of reaching the last m ile (in this case, reaching those p eop le d irectly at risk) h as b e-com e a critical notion that in creasingly inform s ou r thinking abou t a far w id er range of n atu ral risk ch allenges (e.g. Shah , 2006), alth ou gh in keep ing w ith the shift to a p eop le-centred focu s of d isaster risk red u ction d iscou rse it h as be-com e re-fram ed as ‘the first m ile’ (e.g. Kelm an and Glan z, 2014; Bau d oin et al., 2016).

In ad d ition to inform ing civic officials and d is-sem inating to p olicy m akers, com m u nicating that first m ile to reach the p eop le w ho d irectly face extrem e hazard threats ou ght to be a fairly u ncontentiou s com p onent in hazard p rep ared -ness and m itigation efforts. Yet, a p articip atory ap p roach m arks a m ethod ological m ove aw ay from the p revailing m od e of know led ge tran s-fer tow ard s m ore inclu sive transd iscip lin ary strategies that incorp orate p eer -role m od els, ad op t social netw ork-based strategies and d

i-rectly engage w ith com m u nities in m otivating p rep ared ness action s (Sch neid ew ind et al., 2016; Schlosser and Pfirm an, 2012; Drake et al., 2015; Ben d ito and Barrios, 2016; Ism ail-Zad eh et al., 2017). This new , transd iscip linary science has been controversial (Schneid ew ind and Brod ow ski, 2014) and there are cu rrently no gu id elines for w h at con stitu tes su ccessfu l p a rticip ation and w hat m easu res p rom ote bu ild -ing tru st betw een civil society and its organiz a-tions and science. Desp ite the international p u sh for p articip atory ap p roaches, there is a lack of social sp aces and interactive form ats that enable exchange an d joint learning b e-tw een technical sp ecialists and lay p u blics. A review of p eop le-centred ap p roaches for d isa s-ter risk m an agem ent d escribed :

‘… a complex landscape characterized by insuffi-cient resources at the local level, and lack of will-ingness among the public at risk to share responsi-bility for disaster risk management with author-ities. If official authorities are to implement the new people-centred approach, they must better under-stand residents’ perspectives and responsibility ex-pectations, become more competent communicators, and be willing to engage in long-term dialogue with communities’ (Scolobig et al., 2015, p .202). The ch allenge of how to com m u nicate effec-tively to at-risk com m u nities, therefore, lies at the heart of the p eop le-centred ap p roach to d isaster risk red u ction. Desp ite this, few geo-scientists have been trained in conveying their technical know -how beyon d the acad em ic and p rofessional w orld , and , for those that have, that training u su ally p rioritises p eer -to-p eer com m u nication skills an d how to m anage rela-tions w ith jou rn alists an d better access the broad er p rint and broad cast m ed ia (Liverm an 2008). In contrast, ordinary people ‘on the grou nd ’ - from local com m u nity grou p s to civic au thorities - tend to be less fam iliar an d m ore rem ote (i.e. hard er -to-reach) au d iences for m ost scientists (Liverm an 2008, Stew art and N ield 2013).

In addition to being ‘harder to reach’, public au d iences often m eet ‘science’ at tim es of crisis. In em ergency situ ations, scientific u nd erstan d -ings bu ilt u p grad u ally over m any d ecad es are expected to be delivered by ‘experts’ in neat

m ed ia sou nd -bites an d u n am bigu ou s p u blic statem ents (Stew art and N ield , 2013). Distilling com p lex technical kn ow led ge into d igestible p op u lar risk m essages that can be read ily con-su m ed by lay au d iences is a p ersistent ch al-lenge for those w orking at the science/ p u blic interface. In the im m ed iacy of an em erging d is-aster, p eop le tend to behave in w ays an d m ake d ecision s that are not anticip ated by scientific exp erts an d by em ergency m anagers.

Ou tsid e of crisis situ ation s, com m u nicating u n-certainty to at-risk p u blics is associated w ith several ch allenges, su ch as id entifying the facts relevant to recip ients’ d ecisions w hile d eter-m ining the relevant u ncertainties, estieter-m ating their im p act, form u lating p ossible m essages, and evalu ating their su ccess (Fischh off and Davis, 2014). In ad d ition, bu ild ing com m u nity aw areness of p otential risks can also be d iffi-cu lt if p eop le hold seriou s m isconcep tions abou t basic scien ce concep ts, if the scientific issu es are socially contested , and if the h azard threat is p olitically ch arged (Stew art an d Lew is 2017).

The resu lt is that the science/ p u blic know led ge interface can qu ickly becom e m ore like the frontline of an inform ation battlefield . In su ch com bative circu m stances, th ose conveying the risk of natu ral hazard s to com m u nities threa t-ened by them can fin d them selves navigating a carefu l com m u nication cou rse betw een the technical nu ances an d u ncertainties of extrem e natu ral events on the one sid e and the norm a-tive nu ances and u ncertainties of m ed ia p rac-tice and hu m an behaviou r on the other. The d ilem m as faced by geoscientists in com -m u nicating risk d u ring seis-m ic crises have been m ost extensively d ocu m ented and acu tely dissected for the 2009 L’Aquila (Italy) earth-qu ake an d su bseearth-qu ent legal trial (Alexand er , 2010 an d 2014; Marzocchi, 2012; Jord an, 2013; Di Cap u a and Pep p oloni, 2014; Dolce and Di Bu cci, 2014; Mu cciarelli, 2014; Yeo, 2014; Cocco et al., 2015; DeVasto et al., 2016). Althou gh in i-tially framed as a trial of scientists w ho ‘failed’ to p red ict an earthqu ake, it is m ore w id ely in -terp reted as a failu re in risk com m u nication, as Oreskes (2016, p .254) notes:

‘The case centered not on the matter of whether or not earthquakes can be predicted, but on political

questions about the social obligations of scientists speaking in official advisory capacities, and epistem-ic questions about the appropriate manner in whepistem-ich risk assessments should be performed. The questions at stake were what information scientists should have offered the public, and how that information should have been communicated. They were not so much matters of scientific facts, but matters of how those facts were rendered and communicated.’ Su ch ‘fau lty’ com m u nications arose becau se seism ic crises are not sim p ly geop hysical p h e-nom ena bu t they are also socio-p olitical inci-d ents. Their threat can m otivate vesteinci-d bu si-ness interests to op p ose the science (Gesch w ind , 1997 and 2011) and their incid ence can be catalysts of cu ltu ral change or triggers for p olitical u p heaval (Clancey, 2006). As is ev-id ent in other areas of scien ce, notably clim ate change d iscou rse, conflicts of interest can resu lt in ‘manufactured uncertainty’ and the delibeate obfu scation or m isrep resentation of info r-m ation for w hich there is broad scientific con-sensu s (Mich aels, 2005; Michaels an d Monfor-ton, 2006; Oreskes and Con w ay, 2007). In su ch contested social sp aces, the w isd om an d re-sp on sibility of geoscientific exp erts in offering gu id ance or ad vocacy has been qu estioned : ‘W hether scientists providing expert input into pol-icy issues should be guided by extra-scientific values (and if so, whose values, and which values) in either the conduct or communication of their science, and even whether they should go beyond their scientific competence strictly speaking and provide advice about policy options, is open to debate’ (Yeo 2014). This societal entanglem ent has p otentially transform ative im p lications for the geoscien -tists that stu d y them , as acknow led ged by Oreskes (2016, p .261):

‘Earthquake safety has never been simply a matter of geophysics, but most earthquake scientists … have traditionally understood their job to be to study how, when, and why earthquakes happen, and only to a lesser extent (if at all) how to communicate that knowledge to engineers and officials responsible for mitigation, or to the general public … But in the contemporary world, the inter-relationship between knowledge and safety is not easily disentangled.

Seismology is no longer simply a matter of geophysics, if it ever was. It involves consideration of ethics, values, and monetary and social costs. L’Aquila shows that sci-entists can no longer ignore the social factors that affect and even control how damaging a particular earthquake may be. Earthquake prediction is a social science.’ In this paper, we carry forward Oreskes’s provo-cation that earthqu ake science is a social science by considering the issue of how to commu nicate seismic risk in a public sphere in which the sci-ence is socially contested and politically charged. Our consideration arises not from Italy but from Istanbul, another troublesome earthqu ake hot spot, and viewed not from the perspective of sen-ior hazard specialists but instead from that of ear-ly-career geoscientists. Motivated by their emer-gent concerns, w e examine key themes of risk com munication that might be important if neigh-bourhood-based participatory DRR is to be adopted by the earthqu ake science commu nity.

2. CASE STUDY: A SEISMIC CONFRONTATION IN ISTANBUL

Istanbu l, a m ega-city of 14.5 m illion resid ents, faces a m ajor earthqu ake threat (H ori et al., 2017). Over the last centu ry, a w estw ard

-m igrating sequ ence of large earthqu akes h as left one p rom inent segm ent of the N orth An a-tolian Fau lt u nru p tu red (Arm ijo et al., 1999; Stein et al., 1997; Le Pichon et al., 2003). Th at segm ent lies im m ed iately sou th of the city, b e-neath the w aters of the Marm ara Sea an d seis-m ologists exp ect this seisseis-m ic gap to be filled by a M >7 earthqu ake in the com ing d ecad es (Pa r-sons et al., 2000; Parson s, 2004; Bohnh off et al., 2013). The lethality of the threat is ev id ent from a d estru ctive earthqu ake that stru ck to the east of Istanbu l in Au gu st 1999, killing 17,000 p eo-p le and m aking aeo-p eo-p roxim ately half a m illion p eop le hom eless (Özerd em , 1999). Risk scen a r-ios for a fu tu re Marm ara Sea earthqu ake antic-ip ate significant fatalities and w id esp read d am age to resid ential hou sing and u rban in fr a-stru ctu re. For exam p le, a fu tu re M 7.25 earth-qu ake on this offshore segm ent is exp ected to heavily d am age or d estroy 2-4% of the near 1,000,000 bu ild ings in Istan bu l, w ith 9-15% of the bu ild ings receiving m ed iu m d am age and 20-34% of the bu ild ings lightly d am aged (Erd ik et al., 2011; Erd ik, 2013). Shaken by the 1999 earthquakes, Istanbul’s civic authorities at-tem p ted to ad d ress the acu te seism ic vu lner a-bility of the city throu gh a series of legislative

Figure 1: There is a strong cultural influence on people’s perspectives on the perceived earthquake threat. Based on in-terviews with residents in earthquake-prone parts of USA , Japan and Turkey, most participants indicated a high aware-ness of seismic adjustment but there was much variation in belief about the levels of human agency and control. Turkish participants tended strongly toward fatalism, regarded earthquakes as divine providence but displayed a heightened fo-cus on vulnerabilities caused by institutional and collective failings, implying that the consequences of earthquakes were largely determined by the actions of people and society. Redrawn from Joffe et al. (2013, figure 4).

m easu res facilitating u rban renew al. The con-troversial im p lem entation of the 2005 renew al law N o. 5366 in the city’s historic districts au-thorised the central govern m ent hou sing d e-velop m ent agency (TOKI) to u nd ertake regen-eration p rojects in seism ically vu lnerable gecekondu (squ atter) neighbou rhood s, p rojects that m et significant local resistance (Karam an, 2008; Un sal, 2015). Th at resistance reflects legis-lative changes th at have been im p osed by civic au thorities. In 2012, the u rban regeneration law N o. 6306 extend ed regeneration beyon d the historic d istricts, targeting neighbou rhood s that are generally not those m ost vu lnerable to earthqu ake d estru ction bu t instead rep resent areas w here red evelop m ent is highly econom i-cally p rofitable (Gibson an d Gökşin, 2016). De-spite a recognition that ‘seismic risk in the build-ings in Istanbul is mostly dominated by building vulnerability, not hazard’ (Yaku t et al., 2012, p .1533), there is w id esp read d istru st of Ista n-bu l’s retrofitting an d recon stru ction m easu res even am ong resid ents of som e of the city’s m ost at-risk qu arters (Green , 2008; Islam , 2010;

Karam an, 2013; Ku yu cu , 2014).

The roots of this d istru st go d eep into the Tu r k-ish ‘earthquake psyche’. A comparison of pop-u lations living in earth qpop-u ake-p rone areas in Ja-p an, USA and Tu rkey revealed that esJa-p ecially strong and varied em otion s p erm eate Tu rkish earthqu ake p ercep tions and attitu d es (Joffe et al., 2013) (Fig. 1). Direct exp eriences w ith the 1999 earthqu akes have p rovoked heightened feelings of w orry, fear an d anxiety, bu t in ad d ition there w ere strong exp ression s of corru p -tion and incom p etence of p oliticians, civil ser v-ants, p lanning regu lators an d the constru ction ind u stry (Fig. 2). For m any, it w as this end em ic corru p tion, greed and selfish ness that w as seen to p rod u ce u rban vu lnerability, and in tu rn created a heightened sense of d issonan ce (fatal-ism ) an d w eakened sen se of control and self-efficacy. Thu s, d esp ite a su bstantial aw areness of the earthqu ake risk, Joffe et al. (2013) rep ort that Tu rkish resp ond ents w ere far less likely than their US or Jap anese equ ivalents to ad op t seism ic ad ju stm ent m easu res, a tend ency also ap p arent in other stu d ies (Ru stem li an d Karanci, 1999; Özerd em , 1999; Eraybar et al.,

Figure 2: The emotional and moral responses of people to earthquakes vary in strength and character between three eart h-quake-prone countries – USA , Japan and Turkey. Fear and anxiety-related emotions dominate in all three countries, but Turkish participants show a greater prevalence of grief- and trauma- related emotions and display considerably more emo-tions relating to moral issues such as corruption (e.g., anger, distrust, blame). From Joffe et al. (2013, figure 3).

2010; Tekeli‐Yeşil et al., 2010a, 2010b, an d 2011; Oral et al., 2015; Taylan, 2015). Ind eed , Joffe et al. (2013) rep ort that the Tu rkish resp ond ents w ho felt them selves m ost vu lnerable to eart h-qu akes d isp layed the low est ad op tion of anti-seism ic ad ju stm ent m easu res. In su ch a socially p olarised an d p olitically sensitive context, d e-velop ing neighbou rhood -based p articip atory strategies for seism ic risk com m u nication w ou ld ap p ear d ifficu lt.

To exp lore this d ifficu lty, a com m u nication training w orksh op for early-career geoscien-tists held in Istanbu l d irectly confronted tw elve PhD and p ostd octoral researchers w ith the overtly p oliticised natu re of the Istanbu l earth-qu ake threat (Ickert an d Stew art, 2016). As p art of the w orkshop the you ng geoscientists visited at-risk neighbou rhood s w ithin the city to hear from resid ents an d com m u nity lead ers abou t how the city’s seismic risk w as m anifest ‘on the ground’, w itnessing firsthand the effects of the u np op u lar u rban renew al transform ation p r o-gram m e. Follow ing this field p rovocation , Ick-ert and Stew art (2016) rep ort how the w ork-shop p articip ants w ere invited to d iscu ss their p erceived role as com m u nicators. Across the grou p of you ng researchers there w as broad agreem ent on the relevance and im p ortance of their exp ert know led ge reaching atrisk com -m u nities, bu t consid erable d iscu ssion abou t the ap p rop riate w ay and level of engaging w ith the p u blic.

Researcher 1: If you know that something will hap-pen [...] that many people could die [...] you will have to communicate that. Y ou have to com-municate that in order to prepare people. Althou gh this view w as w id ely shared , m u ch d ebate centred on the p articip ants’ ind ivid u al u nd erstan d ings of the role and resp on sibility of geocom m u nicators, an d w h at im p lication s this had for their p rofessional life. For som e, the d isincentives to com m u nicating m ore w id ely w ere p ractical as w ell as m oral:

Researcher 8: (...) It is our responsibility. But the problem is: W e are not paid for that. W e have to maintain a career as well. A nd this is only one of the little aspects that are very relevant. W e have to do it for the sake of it. W e do a lot of things for science which are for free. A nd we

al-so have a hard time to maintain a pace...and to do publications, to find the next position and so on. So it is a very difficult balance.

Researcher 7: There is no real reward.

Researcher 8: W ell, it depends on how you interpret reward.

Som e p articip ants fou nd it cru cial n ot to blu r the bou nd ary betw een scientists and non -scientists and to retain their role as “objectiv e experts”, feeling uneasy w ith the prospect of op erating beyond the geoscience realm .

Researcher 11: I think you should do your best to improve your analyses and get proper results and publish and explain these results to proper people. For example, the government or the ad-ministration. A nd these people should know what to do with this. Y ou can give them sug-gestions what you think is the best idea to use the results and how to protect the people, but the decision belongs to them.

Researcher 4: In my humble opinion, science has something to do with knowledge. Policies, haz-ard mitigation, those are things related to judgement, to decision-making. Those are two completely different things.

For som e p articip ants, a d irect engagem ent w ith resid ents, p articu larly in p oliticized con-texts, w as consid ered as n egatively affecting their role as scientists, p oten tially risking a loss of rep u tation, tru st an d scientific cred ibility d u e to actu al or p erceived ad vocacy p o sition s. Others, w hilst acknow led ging these w orries, stressed instead the ‘moral and professional duty’ to directly provide their expertise to com m u nities, esp ecially in situ ations w here in-habitants face an acu te risk and op enly requ est closer collaboration s w ith scientists. For them , there w as a ‘risk of losing public trust’ w hen not reacting to shortcom in gs of com m u nica-tion, bu t at the sam e tim e an anxiety abou t drifting into the role of ‘advocate’ or even ‘a c-tivist’, as this exchange demonstrates:

Researcher 8: A hypothetical case, let’s imagine the scientific community has a very clear view that the M armara earthquake is going to happen in five years time, and it is going to be magnitude 8. Then what is your responsibility, when people are not reached by standard geoscience

commu-nication? This is how I face this problem. Then you really have to push the boundaries and tell the people that they should move away from the boundary [… ] but I am already in the activist part.

Researcher 2: Y ou’re looking at the human aspect, not at the scientific aspect. A s a human being, when you see that something bad will happen very soon, then of course you will push people and try to fix the problem [...]. A s a scientist you just have to do the research, get the information and share it.

Researcher 8: But I absolutely don’t feel like this – this is my scientific part and this is my human part [...] I don’t understand why geoscience should be communicated in a very specific, nar-row way, for example centred on geohazards. Then people might know something about the physics, but they don’t really do anything in their daily lives. A nd this is the challenge. Researcher 7: Y ou could make sure that you inform

the public better, so that they can find a way around this corrupt system so that people are in-formed to really make decisions.

Researcher 10: But this is really complicated. This d isagreem ent abou t roles and resp on sibili-ties of geoscientists in the risk com m u nication p rocess su ggest that the m u ltitu d e of factors that influ ence how risk com m u nication is p er-ceived , interp reted and translated by inhabit-ants of at-risk com m u nities is equ ally recog-nised by scientists. Desp ite this, there w as co n-sensu s am ong the grou p on the necessity to m ore effectively connect w ith at-risk com m u n i-ties in ord er to red u ce their seism ic vu lnerabil-ity. In ad d ressing this, h ow ever, there w as u n-certainty abou t w hether the you ng geoscien-tists had the ap p rop riate skillset to su ccessfu lly engage w ith lay au d iences. Som e felt confid ent in this asp ect, giving p erson al exam p les of sci-ence–p u blic interactions, su ch as encou nters w ith local resid ents in the cou rse of their field w ork, incidents in w hich they “had to get in-formation from local people”, and w ere asked to “explain” w hat “they are doing”. In that con-text, som e su p p ort for the valu e of a m ore p a r-ticip atory ap p roach em erged :

Researcher 6: W hy do you think that only the geo-scientists give the information? M aybe there are things that you don’t know, and that only an ordi-nary person knows. For example when you go to the field, [...] to a little village, if you are working on a recent event of that region, you go to the manager of the village, and you talk to him, for example “Have you ever had any floods in this area?” It is a com-munication situation and you learn from a person that is not a geoscientist.

More generally, h ow ever, the researchers felt insu fficiently skilled in com m u nication to reach be-yond the acad em ic and p rofession al geosci-ence com m u nity. Interaction w ith lay au d ien c-es w as judged a ‘rather u nknow n territory’. Given this p erceived skills d eficit, d ebate em erged abou t w hether it w as m ore effective to ‘pinpoint the communication talents’ w ithin the geoscience com m u nity or instead to engage in interd iscip lin ary research collaborations. Li-aising w ith social scientists w ere p r op osed , as w as w orking w ith interm ed iaries or tran slators - m ed ia rep resentatives, N GOs or even artists - to m ore effectively sh are kn ow led ge w ith p eo-p le on the grou nd . This brief exchange caeo-p tu res the essence of that d isagreem ent:

Researcher 10: Our responsibility is to produce sci-ence and use other scientists who can talk to people, like anthropologists, sociologists or peo-ple who have studied philosophy, psychology, this kind of stuff... M y point is that we need a bridge to communicate with the people. W e can-not communicate directly. W e need a translator. Researcher 3: Or translate it ourselves.

Researcher 2: It won´t be that easy for us.

The im p lication s arising from these w orkshop d iscu ssion s are exam ined in d etail by Ickert and Stew art (2016), bu t here w e highlight the basic d ilem m a: com m u nicating d irectly w ith atrisk com m u nities is recognised as being im -p ortant bu t there w as a gen eral anxiety abou t how easily or effectively geoscientists can ad op t su ch a p articip atory ap p roach. In this regard , the early-career geoscientists raise criti-cal qu estions abou t how best to integrate other d iscip linary p ersp ectives, p articu larly those from the social sciences, into their geo -risk

ex-p ertise. Stim u lated by these m ethod ological d ialogu es, the follow ing sections su m m arise som e key find ings that have em erged from broad er social scien ce d iscou rses on risk com -m u nication .

3. FAULTY COMMUN ICATION S - TOWARD S A SOCIAL SCIEN CE OF CON VEYIN G SEISMIC RISK

3.1 The Risk Perception Paradox

‘The majority of people at risk from earthquakes do little or nothing to reduce their vulnerability’ (Sol-berg et al., 2010, p .1663).

The convention al w ay of com m u nicating risk is throu gh ed u cation cam p aigns th at raise p u blic aw areness of h azard threats. This ap p roach rests on the assu m p tion that ind ivid u als or com m u nities w ith high h azard aw areness are m ore likely to resp ond to w arnings and u nd er-take p rep ared ness m easu res than in d ivid u als or com m u nities w ith a low er/ d eficient h azard aw areness. Increase an individual’s perception of a threat, the assu m p tion goes, an d you im -p rove their -p re-p ared ness. Dem eritt and N or bert (2014) d escribe this ap p roach to risk com -munication either under the term “risk mes-sage model”, referring to the belief that sound risk com m u nication is abou t faithfu lly tran s-m itting risk in fors-m ation w ithou t d istortion, or under the term of a “risk instrument model”, a com m u nication ap p roach w ith the goal to elicit certain cognitive or beh aviou ral resp on ses in the target au d iences that are ad d ressed (De-m eritt and N orbert, 2014). H ow ever, several d ecad es of social science research ind icates th at there can be little or no correlation betw een the p rovision of scientific in form ation abou t geo-p hysical h azard s an d risks and the ad ogeo-p tion of p rep ared ness m easu res by ind ivid u als or com m u nities (Palm an d H od gson, 1992; Palm , 1998; Sp ittal et al., 2008; Solberg et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2011). While the hazard scientist is steep ed in p robabilistic or d eterm inistic thin k-ing abou t the chances or im p acts of an extrem e event, the statistical likelihood of a d isaster is barely taken into accou nt w hen ord in ary p eo-p le m ake ju d gm ents abou t eo-p erceived risk lev-els, and the p erceived m agn itu d e of a d isa ster

seem s equ ally to be of little im p ortance. In-stead , there is a grow ing ap p reciation of the role of socio-cu ltu ral, cognitive and em otional variables in risk p ercep tion and beh aviou r. Solberg et al. (2010) p rovid e a com p rehensive review of how p eop le think, feel an d act abou t seism ic risk ad ju stm ent, argu ing that ind ivid u -al or collective aw are-ness is shap ed by a m yri-ad of social factors, p sych ological biases an d cu ltu ral norm s, inclu d ing exp erience, op ti-m isti-m , d eti-m ograp hic ch aracteristics (gen d er, age, statu s), p ercep tion s of fate an d fatalism , ind ivid u al and com m u nity feelings of control, self-efficacy and em p ow erm ent, as w ell as the d egree of tru st in exp erts an d au thorities. All of these risk m ed iators are sensitive to cu ltu ral and p olitical contexts, an d all need to be co n-sid ered if risk com m u nication is to be tru ly ef-fective.

The ‘risk perception paradox’ (Wachinger et al., 2013) contend s that if risk p ercep tion is only loosely related to risk ad ju stm ent, then sim p ly d issem inating in form ation on seism ic hazard and societal vu lnerability to exp osed p op u la-tions m ay not m otivate m eaningfu l risk red u c-tion behaviou r. This reap p raisal rests on a broad er rejection by com m u nication p ractitio n-ers of the over-reliance on factu al inform ation in conveying scientific issu es to the p u blic (Bu rns et al., 2003; N isbet, 2009). After all, the ‘facts’ around complex scientific issues are of-ten contested even by the exp erts, and the sam e technical p roblem can be p resented in very d if-ferent w ays to elicit m arked ly contrasting r e-sp on ses. In the febrile atm oe-sp here of n atu ral em ergencies an d crisis situ ations it can be ex-pected that ‘facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making’ (N isbet and Mooney, 2009, p .56), w ith the resu lt that even ‘… compelling scientific information often runs aground almost as soon as it is launched into the choppy waters of public discourse’ (Weber and Word , 2001, p .488).

The social p sychology of how p eop le receive and p rocess in form ation abou t risk d ecisions is com p lex and contested , an d the im p lications this has for science com m u n ication in general are d iscu ssed elsew here (e.g. Jam ieson et al., 2017; N ational Acad em ies of Sciences,

Engi-neering, and Med icine, 2017). H ow ever, the head line m essages that h ave em erged from several d ecad es of hu m an and behaviou ral r e-search are neatly su m m arised by Corm ick (2014) (Fig. 3):

1. ‘when information is complex, people make deci-sions based on their values and beliefs’; 2. ‘people seek affirmation of their attitudes or

be-liefs, no matter how strange those views are’. This tend ency m eans th at ind ivid u als w ill reject inform ation or evid ence that are cou nter to those attitu d es and beliefs (Ka-han et al., 2010); the fact that new infor-m ation con sistent w ith one’s beliefs is infor-m ore easily seen as reliable and inform ative than inform ation th at d iscred its one’s initial beliefs exp lains w hy bebeliefs ch ange very slow -ly and are qu ite end u ring in the face of co n-trary evid ence (N isbett an d Ross, 1980). 3. ‘people most trust those whose values mirror their

own’. They tend to look to others arou nd them for social clu es on how to act, w hich can either accentu ate or d ecrease social ac-cep tance of the risk of a given issu e (Kah an

et al., 2010). As a consequ ence, ind ivid u als generally m ake m ore risky or extrem e d ecisions as p art of a grou p than as an ind ivid -u al;

4. ‘attitudes that were not formed by logic or facts, are not influenced by logical or factual arguments’; 5. ‘public concerns about contentious science are

al-most never about the science - and scientific infor-mation therefore does little to influence these con-cerns.’

The notion that logical and factu al argu m ents m ay be su bord inate to valu e ju d gem ents and instinctive thinking in d eterm ining how p eop le m ake sense of technically com p lex issu es has im p ortant im p lications for h ow the geoscience com m u nity conveys its science to the p u blic. After all, convention ally, geoscientists tend to bu ild com m u nication strategies arou nd co nveying clear, sim p le exp lan ations of the tech -nical d etail. They d o so becau se that is w h at geoscientists have been trained to d o, becau se it is that technical know -how that d efines their ow n u nd erstand ing of the p roblem , an d b e-cau se other cru cial stakehold ers - regu lators, engineers, p lanners an d law yers - d em and it.

Figure 3: Social science research highlights a few headline messages of how people make decisions about complex and con-tested environmental concerns (after Cormick, 2014).

Figure 4: In the context of community conflicts, Sandman (1993) argues that ‘risk’ is a product of ‘hazard x outrage’. R e-ducing risk can be achieved by lowering outrage through adjusting the levels of the primary components of community anxiety.

Bu t m arsh alling the scientific facts, illu strating them w ith sim p le grap hics, and exp laining them u nclu ttered by jargon, seem s u nlikely to ad d ress p u blic concern s:

‘It is not enough to assure that scientifically sound information – including evidence of what sci-entists themselves believe – is widely disseminated: cultural cognition strongly motivates individuals – of all worldviews – to recognize such information as sound in a selective pattern that reinforces their cul-tural predispositions. To overcome this effect, com-municators must attend to the cultural meaning as well as the scientific content of information’ (Kahan et al., 2010, p .23).

3.2 Risk = Hazard x Outrage

Und erstan d ing the social an d cu ltu ral constru c-tion of risk is recognised to be at the heart of com m u nity-centred p articip atory ap p roaches to d isaster risk red u ction. It is a notion rooted strongly in the p sychom etric m od el of risk p

er-cep tion (Fischhoff et al., 1978; Slovic, 1987 and 1989; Slovic et al., 1991; Fischhoff, 1995), w hich d econvolves the com p osite p u blic view of ‘risky’ scientific issues. The ‘psychom etric’ risk p arad igm has been w id ely ap p lied by San d -m an (1987, 1989, and 1993), w ho contend s th at m ost local environm ental controversies com -p rise tw o com -p eting fram es. The first is a technical fram in g of the p roblem , involving arg u -m ents abou t the scientific analysis of the haz-ard s that are p erceived to th reaten a com m u n i-ty. The secon d relates to the social context w ithin w hich those h azard s exist and the p r o-cesses by w hich a community’s anxieties fuels collective anger. Accord ing to San d m an (1993), that com m u nity anger is rooted in a range of concerns – inclu d ing tru st, control, volu ntar i-ness, d read , an d fam iliarity – w hich he collec-tively terms ‘outrage factors’ (Fig. 4).

Sandm an (1993) contend s that when the experts and the public d isagree about the technical as-pects (such as the m agnitu de of a particular threat or its probability of occurrence), the experts are

more likely to be correct. And yet, althou gh scien-tists readily point out how the public often mis-perceives the hazard, they rarely acknowled ge that they them selves pay little attention to that com ponent of the perceived risk that is socially constru cted.

‘The experts, when they talk about risk, focus on haz-ard and ignore outrage. They therefore tend to overes-timate the risk when the hazard is high and the outrage is low, and underestimate the risk when the hazard is low and the outrage is high - because all they are doing is looking at the hazard. The public, in precise parallel, focuses on outrage and ignores hazard. The public, therefore, overestimates the risk when the outrage is high and the hazard is low, and underestimates the risk when the outrage is low and the hazard is high’ (Sandm an, 1993, p.8).

The public’s concerns - the social risk - is fre-quently d ismissed by scientific experts as being irrational, unfounded or manipulated, even thou gh it is evident from commu nity protests that the resu lting anxiety, fear and anger is argu-ably m ore tangible and m easureable than the u n-derlying hazard. In the context of commu nity conflicts, Sandm an suggests that the technical view of risk as a product of ‘hazard x vulnerabil-ity’ is more usefully reformulated as being a product of ‘hazard x outrage’. This, in turn, sets the template for risk commu nication strategies. ‘Two things are true in the typical risk controversy: People overestimate the hazard and people are out-raged. To decide how to respond, we must know which is mostly cause and which is mostly effect. If people are outraged because they overestimate the hazard, the so-lution is to explain the hazard better. But if they over-estimate the hazard because they are outraged, the so-lution is to figure out why they are outraged - and change it.’

3.3 Risk D ialogues and Honest Brokers

‘… public participation measures are probably the most effective means to create awareness of potential disasters, to enhance trust in public authorities, and to encourage citizens to take more personal respon-sibility for protection and disaster preparedness. It will be a major challenge for risk management and also an important research topic for future research

to understand people’s responses to natural hazards as well as a combination of natural and technologi-cal hazards and to design the most appropriate measures for effective risk communication, stake-holder involvement, and emergency preparedness’ (Wachinger et al., 2013).

An altern ative ap p roach to conventional risk message model of communication is the “risk dialogue model”, w hich is based on the belief that the d iverse exp ertise of m ix of civil society actors m u st be system atically anchored if a rel-evant solu tion to red u ce v u lnerability is to be fou nd (Dem eritt an d N orbert, 2014). Engaging w ith the w id er civil society in a m ore p articip atory w ay abou t earth qu ake threats m eans fra m -ing seism ic risk com m u nication not sim p ly as the conventional one-w ay transfer of infor-mation from the technical expert to the ‘end user’, but also as a tw o-w ay exchange w ith stakehold er grou p s abou t w hat concerns them . In short, p arap hrasing Latou r (1994), it requ ires a m ind set shift from con veying ‘m atters of fact’ to developing dialogues around ‘matters of concern’, recognizing that shared rather than u nid irectional flow s of inform ation are m ore likely to p rom ote know led ge and attitu d e change (Stew art and Lew is, 2017). Scientific and technical inform ation are necessary for this p rocess, bu t are n ot the sole basis on w hich d e-cision s or action s are m ad e. When accessible scientific inform ation abou t a contested scien-tific issu e is p resented in w ell-organized social sp aces in w hich ord in ary p eop le can form an d exp ress their op inions, the p u blic can actively p articip ate in scientific d ecision m aking: ‘It appears that people understand some things quite well, although their path to knowledge may be quite different from that of the technical experts… given an atmosphere of trust in which both experts and lay persons recognize that each group may have something to contribute to the discussion, exchange of information and deepening of perspectives may well be possible’ (Slovic, 1985, p .170).

Whether d irected at the p u blic or at p olicy m akers, m ore effective com m u nication em er g-es from p articip atory engagem ent and d ialogu e

w ith ind ivid u als an d com m u nities (Wachinger et al., 2012).

Particip ation p rocesses allow the p u blic to gain know led ge and p ersonal agency w ith resp ect to risks an d p rotective m easu res, and au thor i-ties to gain know ledge from the “lay ex-perts”/ the public and to collect ideas for m easu res that are effective for the given p op u -lation. Ind ivid u als and com m u nities can be risk am p lifiers or inhibitors. Thu s, as w ell as gau g-ing the intrin sic vu lnerability of th ose livg-ing in hazard -p rone settings, collective conversations p rovid e the exp ert w ith a valu able inform ation archive. These d ialogu es can reveal a social m em ory of p ast events and highlight how p re-ventative m easu res m ay be bu ilt into trad ition-al p ractices and vern acu lar architectu re. Fina l-ly, a sh ared resp on sibility for solu tion s in su ch a d ialogu e situ ation can also p rom ote the social im p lem entation of them .

Yet, d esp ite its ap p arent benefits, a m ore p ar-ticip atory ap p roach raises ethical d ilem m as for a geoscientist, not least of w hich is the p otential d rift aw ay from being a neu tral m ed iator of in -d ep en-d ent know le-d ge to a p articip ant that is engaged w ith, or p erhap s even em bed d ed in, com m u nity concerns. The scientist as an ‘ad v o-cate’ or even ‘activist’ for a specific course of action is one that m any exp erts an d non -exp erts alike - are u ncom fortable w ith. In d is-tinguishing different ‘kind s’ of scientist, Pielke (2007) highlights the im p ortant role of the ‘honest broker’ - the specialist w ho can inte-grate stakeh old er con cerns w ith available sci-entific know led ge to op en u p an d inform a range of op tion s. Draw ing on the fau lty com -m u nications and their ep iste-m ological roots d u ring the Tu hoku and Fu kishim a catastrop he, Lacassin an d Lavelle (2016) highlight the r e-sp on sibility of com m u nicating u ncertainties through such ‘honest brokers’. According to the au thors, they need not only to focu s on the d ecision -relevant elem ents of that com m u n i-cated u ncertainties, bu t also u ncover the u ncer-tainties that scientists fail or avoid to m ention becau se of d om in ant com m u nication p ar a-d igm s, argu ing th at:

‘… to promote real democratic and open debate and choices, [scientists] have the responsibility to

com-municate and properly explain all uncertainties and unknowns to the technical and political sphere as well as to the rest of the society’ (Lacassin and Lavelle, 2016, p .57).

As honest brokers, effective geoscience com -m u nication beco-m es not si-m p ly a case of secu r-ing p u blic accep tance, bu t, rather, of secu rr-ing p u blic tru st. It is argu ably m ore im p ortant to bu ild tru st than to bu ild technical u n d erstan d -ing becau se tru st is u sed by p eop le as a su rr o-gate tool - a cognitive shortcu t - for red u cing the com p lexity of scientific inform ation. And it is that tru st that w ill be cru cial later if w arnings and other typ es of vital inform ation are to be taken seriou sly d u ring an em ergency (Wachinger et al., 2013). Those scientific bro-kers w ho genu inely engage w ith affected com m u nities are likely to h ave a p articu larly p rivileged p lace in the d eliberative p rocess b e-cau se, in ad d ition to their grasp of technical com p lexity, they w ill be afford ed a high d egree of p u blic tru st. Yet that elevated d egree of in-flu ence, and the anticip ated co-p rod u ction of know led ge that accom p an ies a com m u nity -centred ap p roach, m ay m ake m any geoscientists anxiou s th at their m u ch valu ed ind ep en d -ence w ill be com p rom ised .

4. CON CLUSION S

The ethical resp on sibility of scientists is the com m u nication of balanced factu al in for-m ation, yet the relative p rofor-m inence given to those facts is cru cial. To convey a scientific m essage in a w ay that gain s w id e accep tance requ ires a sim p lified m essage strip p ed of the u su al technical caveats. The ethical bu rd en that this p laces on the science com m u nicator as an honest broker of know led ge is obviou s. The clim ate science com m u nicator Step hen Schnei-der dubbed it the ‘double ethical bind’, noting that ‘Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both’ (Schneid er, 2002, p .498). The challenge for those w orking in d isaster risk com m u nication is how to convey w hat they know honestly an d effectively to those p eop le w ho can benefit from th at know led ge. In term s of the form er, it requ ires h azard scientists to better u nd erstand the social p sych ology of how

p eop le receive an d p rocess inform ation, and in d oing so learn how best to fram e the intrica-cies, u ncertainties and lim itations of their intr i-cate technical science in w ays that are m ore easily grasp ed by lay au d ien ces. In u niversities and research in stitu tes it w ill be cru cial to train the next generation of geoscientists in the sci-ence and art of com m u nication, being m ore jou rnalistic an d m ed ia-savvy in the w ay w e com m u nicate, and m ore im aginative in exp loring new com m u nication ch annels, su ch as w eb -based p latform s, social m ed ia. The new reality is that in tim es of the crisis factu al scientific in -form ations can be qu ickly (m inu tes to hou rs) transm itted th rou gh social m ed ia (e.g. Tw itter, Facebook), thereby help ing p eop le to ap p reci-ate the geop hysical u nd erstand ing of an ong o-ing natu ral event. In the sam e w ay, how ever, m isinform ation or m iscon ceived facts can equ ally p rom inently be instantly relayed , m eaning th at p u blic tru st in honest scientific brokers m u st be m aintained . For this reason, alongsid e the obviou s ap p eal of new , rem ote m obile technologies an d d igital com m u nica-tions, face-to-face encou nters w ill be critical for effective com m u nity-centred d isaster d ia-logu es. In those encou nters, geoscientists shou ld exp ect to m eet the p u blic in their ow n com m u nity sp aces - in sch ools, p laces of w or-ship , civic halls and social clu bs. In ad d ition, deliberative formats such a ‘Reallabore’ (Mar-qu ard t and West, 2016), science shop s (Schlierfs and Meyer, 2013) or variou s form ats of infor-m al, d ialogu e-oriented citizen p articip ation (Kam lage et al., 2018) are im p ortant foru m s w here m ore d irect tw o-w ay com m u nication ap p roaches betw een d ifferent stakehold ers can take p lace.

Bu t as w ell as being m ore effective, geoscien -tists need to better ap p reciate that their seism ic risk com m u nication s are u nd ertaken in con-tested socio-p olitical contexts and bring ethical d ilem m as. The exp ert technical know led ge of the earthqu ake geoscientist m ay be afford ed a heightened d egree of tru st by those ind ivid u als and com m u nities m ost at risk, bu t th at brings resp onsibility. Ironically, the m ore effectively a p otential seism ic threat is com m u nicated by the geoscientist, the m ore that scientific m essage w ill be norm alized into the com p lex, chaotic and contested d iscou rses of d aily life.

Partici-p atory-based engagem ent strategies anticiPartici-p ate technical exp erts taking accou nt of these local socio-cu ltu ral, em otion al and even p olitical d im ension s of risk in w orking d ir ectly w ith vu lnerable com m u nities. In su ch circu m stan c-es, scientific risk m essages can becom e h ijacked by or assim ilated into social, econom ic and p o-litical controversies. The challenge for those w orking at the contested frontline of seism ic risk com m u nications w ill be balancing the eth i-cal bind s th at continu e to constrain u s in ou r role as h onest brokers

ACKN OWLEDGEMEN TS

All three au thors gratefu lly acknow led ge the financial su p p ort of the EU Marie Cu rie Initial Training N etw orks program me ‘ALErT’ (An a-tolian p Lateau clim ate and tectonic hazard s) and IS w as ad d ition ally su p p orted by the N ERC-ESRC-AH RC Global Challenges Re-search Fund project ‘ReRe-search for Emergency Aftershock Forecasting’ (REAR). We thank Da-vid Mogk and an anonym ou s review er for co nstru ctive com m ents that im p roved the m an u -scrip t, and to Giu sep p e Di Cap u a for su p p ort-ing the p ap er throu gh the review ort-ing p rocess.

REFEREN CES

Alexand er D.E. (2010). Th e L'Aqu ila earthqu ake of 6 Ap ril 2009 and Italian Gover n -m ent p olicy on d isaster resp onse. Jou rnal of N atu ral Resou rces Policy Research, 2(4), 325-342.

Alexand er D.E. (2014). Com m u nicating earth-qu ake risk to the p u blic: the trial of the “L’Aquila Seven”. N atural H azard s, 72(2), 1159-1173.

Arm ijo R., Meyer B., H u bert A., and Barka A. (1999). Westw ard p rop agation of the N orth Anatolian fau lt into the northern Aegean: Tim ing and kinem atics. Geology, 27(3), 267-270.

Bau d oin M.A., H enly-Shep ard S., Fernan d o N ., Sitati A., and Zom m ers Z. (2016). From top -dow n to “community-centric” approaches to early w arning system s: exp loring p ath-w ays to im p rove d isaster risk red u ction throu gh com m u nity p articip ation. Interna-tional Jou rn al of Disaster Risk Scien ce, 7(2), 163-174.

Bendito A. and Barrios E. (2016). Convergent agency: Encou raging transdisciplinary ap-proaches for effective clim ate change ad apta-tion and disaster risk redu capta-tion. Internaapta-tional Jou rnal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(4), 430-435. Bohnhoff M., Bu lu t F., Dresen G., Malin P.E.,

Eken T., and Aktar M. (2013). An earthqu ake gap sou th of Istanbu l. N atu re Com -m u nications, 4.

Bu rns T.W., O’Conn or D.J. and Stocklm ayer S.M. (2003). Science Com m u nication: a con -tem p orary d efinition. Pu blic Und erstan d ing of Science, 12, 183-202.

Clancey G. (2006). Earthquake Nation. The Cu ltur-al Politics of Japanese Seismicity, 1868-1930. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cormick C. (2014). Community Attitudes Towards

Science and Technology in Australia. CSIRO, 26p. Dem eritt D. and N obert S. (2014). Mod els of best p ractice in flood risk com m u nication and m an agem ent. Environ m ental H azard s, 13(4), 313-328.

DeVasto D., Grah am S.S. and Zam p aru tti L. (2016). Stasis an d Matters of Concern: The Conviction of the L’Aqu ila Seven. Jou rnal of Bu siness and Technical Com m u nication, 30(2), 131-164.

Di Cap u a G. and Pep p oloni S. (2014). Geoethi-cal asp ects in the natu ral h azard s m anag e-m ent, p p . 59-62. In: Lollin o G., Arattano M., Giard ino M., Oliveira R., Pep p oloni S. (Ed s.), Engineering Geology for Society an d Territory - Volu m e 7, Ed u cation, Profes-sional Ethics an d Pu blic Recognition of En-gineering Geology, XVII, 274 p ., Sp ringer, ISBN : 978-3-319-09302-4.

Drake J.L., Kontar Y.Y., Eichelberger J.C., Ru p p S.T., and Taylor K.M. (Ed s.) (2015). Com -m u nicating Cli-m ate-Ch ange and N atu ral H azard Risk and Cu ltivating Resilience: Case Stu d ies for a Mu ltid iscip linary Ap -p roach, Vol. 45, S-p ringer.

Dolce M. and Di Bu cci D. (2014). Risk m an-agem ent: roles an d resp on sibilities in the d ecision -m aking p rocess. In: Wyss M. an d Pep p olon i S. (Ed s.), Geoethics: ethical ch al-lenges an d case stu d ies in Earth Sciences, 450 p ., Elsevier, Waltham , Massachu setts, ISBN : 9780127999357.

Eraybar K., Okazaki K. and Ilki A. (2010). An exp loratory stu d y on p ercep tions of seism ic risk and m itigation in tw o d istricts of Ista n -bu l. Disasters, 34(1), 71-92.

Erd ik M., Şeşetyan K., Dem ircioğlu M., H ancılar U. and Zü lfikar C. (2011). Rap id earthqu ake loss assessm ent after d am aging earthqu akes. Soil Dynam ics and Earthqu ake Engineering, 31(2), 247-266.

Erd ik M. (2013). Earthqu ake risk in Tu rkey. Science, 341, 72.

Fischhoff, B., (1995). Risk p ercep tion and com -m u nication u np lu gged : tw enty years of p rocess, Risk Analysis, 15, 137–145.

Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., and Com bs B. (1978). H ow safe is safe enou gh? A p sych om etric stu d y of attitu d es tow ard s techn ological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.

Fischhoff B. an d Davis A.L. (2014). Com m u n i-cating scientific u ncertainty. Proceed ings of the N ational Acad em y of Sciences of the United States of Am erica, 111, 13664-13671. Geschw in d C.-H . (1997). 1920s Pred iction

Re-veals Som e Pitfalls of Earth qu ake Forecast-ing. Eos, Vol. 78, (38), 401-412.

Geschw in d C.-H . (2001). California Earth-qu akes: Science, Risk, and th e Politics of H azard Mitigation. Baltim ore and Lond on: Johns H op kins University Press.

Gibson M. an d Gökşin Z.A. (2016). N eighbou r-hood Regeneration in Istanbu l – from Earthqu ake Mitigation to Planned Dis-p lacem ent and Gentrification. International Planning H istory Society Proceed ings, 17(2).

Green R.A. (2008). Un au thorised Develop m ent and Seism ic H azard Vu lnerability: a stu d y of squ atters and engineers in Istanbu l, Tu r-key. Disasters, 32(3), 358-376.

Gu ̈ngrm u ̈ş Z., Karabu lu tlu E.Y. and Yıld ız E., (2012). Determ ining the kn ow led ge an d b e-havior of the ind ivid u als abou t earthqu ake p rep ared ness at hom e in Tu rkey. H ealth-MED, 6 (1), 232-237.

H all S.S. (2011). Scientists on Trial: At Fau lt? N atu re, 477 (14 Sep tem ber), 264-9.

H ori T., Pinar A., N ecm ioglu O., H ori M. and N ishizaw a A. (2017). Sp ecial issu e “The next Marm ara earthqu ake: d isaster m itig

a-tion, recovery, and early w arning”. Earth, Planets an d Sp ace, 69(1), 65.

Ickert J. and Stew art I.S. (2016). From geoscien-tific “m atters of fact” to societal “m atters of concern”: a tran sd iscip linary training a p -p roach to com m u nicating earthqu ake risk in Istanbu l (Tu rkey). N atu ral H azard s an d Earth System Sciences, 16(1), 1-1.

Islam T. and Sakızlıoğlu B. (2015). The m aking of, and resistance to, state-led gentrification in Is-tanbul, Turkey. Global gentrifications: Une-ven development and displacement, 245. Ism ail-Zad eh A.T., Cutter S.L., Takeuchi K. and

Paton D. (2017). Forging a parad igm shift in disaster science. N atu ral H azard s, 86(2), 969-988.

Jam ieson K.H ., Kahan D., and Scheu fele D.A. (Ed s.) (2017). The Oxford H and book of the Science of Science Com m u n ication, O xford University Press.

Joffe H., Rossetto T., Solberg C., and O’Connor C. (2013). Social representations of earthqu akes: A stu dy of people living in three highly seis-mic areas. Earthqu ake Spectra, 29(2), 367-397. Jord an T.H . (2013). Lesson s of L’Aqu ila for op -eration al earthqu ake forecasting. Seism o-logical Research Letters, 84, 1, 4-7.

Kah an D.M., Jenkin s‐Sm ith H . and Bram an D. (2011). Cu ltu ral cognition of scientific con-sensu s. Jou rnal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147-174.

Kamlage J.H. and N anz P. (2017). Crisis and par-ticipation in the European Union: energy poli-cy as a test bed for a new politics of citizen participation. Global Society, 31(1), pp. 65-82. Kam lage J.-H ., Richter I., and N an z P. (2018).

An d en Gren zen d er Bü rgerbeteiligu ng: In-form elle d ialogorientierte Bü rger-beteiligu ng im N etzau sbau d er Ener-giew end e. In : H and bu ch EnerEner-giew end e u nd Partizip ation, p p . 627-642, Sp ringer. Karam an O. (2008). Urban p u lse - (re)m aking

sp ace for globalization in Istanbu l. Urban Geograp hy, 29(6), 518-525.

Karam an O. (2013). Urban renew al in Istanbu l: Reconfigu red sp aces, robotic lives. Interna-tional Jou rnal of Urban an d Regional Re-search, 37(2), 715-733.

Karanci N . (2013). Facilitatin g com m u nity p ar-ticip ation in d isaster risk m anagem ent: Risk p ercep tion and p rep ared ness behaviou rs in

Tu rkey. In: Joffe H ., Rossetto T. an d Ad am s J. (Ed s.), Cities at Risk, Sp ringer N ether-land s, 93-108.

Kelm an I. and Glantz M.H . (2014). Early w arn-ing system s d efined . In: Red u carn-ing d isaster: early w arn ing system s for clim ate change, Sp ringer N etherland s, 89-108.

Ku yu cu T. (2014). Law , Prop erty an d Am bigu ty: The Uses and Abu ses of Legal Am bigu i-ty in Rem aking Istanbu l's Inform al Settle-m ents. International Jou rn al of Urban an d Regional Research, 38(2), 609-627.

Lacassin R. and Lavelle S. (2016). The crisis of a p arad igm . A m ethod ological interp ret ation of Tohoku an d Fu ku shim a catastrop he. Earth-Science Review s, 155, 49-59.

Latou r B. (2004). Why has critiqu e ru n ou t of steam ? From m atters of fact to m atters of concern. Critical Inqu iry, 30 (2), 225-248. Liverm an D.G. (2008). Environm ental

geosci-ence: com m u nication ch allenges. In: Liver-m an D. (ed .), CoLiver-m Liver-m u nicatin g EnvironLiver-m en-tal Geoscien ce, Geological Society, Lond on, Sp ecial Pu blication s, 305(1), 197-209. Le Pichon X., Cham ot‐Rooke N ., Rangin C. and

Sengör A.M.C. (2003). The N orth An atolian fau lt in the Sea of Marm ara. Jou rnal of Geo-p hysical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B4). Marqu ardt E. and West C. (2016). Co-Produ ktion

von Wissen in der Stadt. Reallabor “Urban Of-fice–N achhaltige Stadtentw icklu ng in der Wissensgesellschaft” an der Universität Hei-delberg. Technikfolgenabschätzu ng–Theorie Und Praxis, 25(3), 26-31.

Marzocchi W. (2012). Pu ttin g science on trial. Physics World , 25(12), 17.

Michaels D. (2006). Manu factu red u ncertainty. Annals of the N ew York Acad em y of Sci-ences, 1076(1), p p .149-162.

Michaels D. and Monforton C. (2005). Manu fac-tu ring u ncertainty: contested science an d the p rotection of the p u blic’s health and en-vironm ent. Am erican Jou rnal of Pu blic H ealth, 95(S1), p p .S39-S48.

Mu cciarelli M. (2014). Som e com m ents on the first d egree sentence of the “L’Aqu ila trial”. In: Wyss M. and Pep p oloni S. (Ed s.), Geo-ethics: ethical challenges and case stu d ies in Earth Sciences, 450 p ., Elsevier, Waltham , Massachu setts, ISBN : 9780127999357.

N ational Acad em ies of Sciences, En gineering, and Med icine (2017). Com m u nicating Sci-ence Effectively: A Research Agend a. Wash-ington, DC: The N ation al Acad em ies Press, d oi: 10.17226/ 23674.

N isbet M.C. (2009). Com m u nicating clim ate change: Why fram es m atter for p u blic en-gagem ent. Environm ent: Science and Policy for Su stain able Develop m ent, 51, 12-23. N isbet M.C. and Mooney C. (2009). Fram ing

science. Science, 316.

N isbett R.E. and Ross L. (1980). H u m an infer-ence: Strategies an d shortcom ings of social ju d gm ent. Prentice-H all, En glew ood Cliffs, N J.

Oral M., Yenel A., Oral E., Ayd in N . and Tu n-cay T. (2015). Earthqu ake exp erience an d p rep ared ness in Tu rkey. Disaster Preven-tion and Man agem ent, 24(1), 21-37.

Oreskes N . and Conw ay E.M. (2011). Mer-chants of d ou bt: H ow a h an d fu l of scientists obscu red the tru th on issu es from tobacco sm oke to global w arm ing. Bloom sbu ry Pu b-lishing USA.

Oreskes N . (2015). H ow Earth Science H as Be-com e a Social Science. H istorical Social Re-search 40, 2, 246-270.

Ow en R., Macn aghten P. an d Stilgoe J. (2012). Resp on sible research and in novation: From science in society to science for society, w ith society. Scien ce an d Pu blic Policy, 39(6), p p .751-760.

Özerd em A. (1999). Tiles, tap s and earthqu ake-p roofing: lesson s for d isaster m an agem ent in Tu rkey. Environm ent and Urbanization , 11(2), 177-180.

Palm R. (1998). Urban earth qu ake hazard s: the im p acts of cu ltu re on p erceived risk an d r e-sp on se in the USA an d Jap an. Ap p lied Ge-ograp hy, 18(1), p p .35-46.

Palm R. and H od gson M.E. (1992). After a Cali-fornia Earthqu ake: Attitu d e and Beh avior Change. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Parsons T., Tod a S., Stein R.S., Barka A. and Dieterich J.H . (2000). H eightened od d s of large earthqu akes near Istan bu l: an intera c-tion-based p robability calcu lation. Science, 288 (5466), 661-665.

Pid geon N ., Dem ski C., Bu tler C., Parkhill K. and Sp en ce A. (2014). Creating a n ational

citizen engagem ent p rocess for energy p oli-cy. Proceed ings of the N ational Acad em y of Sciences, 111 (Su p p lem ent 4), p p .13606-13613.

Pielke Jr R.A. (2007). The h onest broker: m ak-ing sense of scien ce in p olicy and p olitics. Cam brid ge University Press.

Rossetto T., Joffe H . and Solberg C. (2011). A d ifferent view on hu m an vu lnerability to earthqu akes: lessons from risk p ercep tion stu d ies. In: Sp en ce R., So E. and Scaw thorn C. (Ed s.), H u m an Casu alties in Earthqu ake, Sp ringer N etherland s, 291-304.

Ru stem li A. and Karanci N .A. (1999). Corre-lates of earthqu ake cognitions an d p rep a r-ed ness beh aviou r in victim isr-ed p op u lation. The Jou rnal of Social Psychology, 139 (1), 91-101.

San d m an, P.M. (1987). Risk com m u nication: facing p u blic ou trage, EPA J., 13, 21-22. San d m an, P. M. (1989). H azard versu s ou trage

in the p u blic p ercep tion of risk, in: Covello, V.T. (Ed itor). Effective Risk Com m u nica-tion, N ew York: Pu tnam Press, 45-49. San d m an P.M. (1993). Resp ond ing to com m u

-nity ou trage: strategies for effective risk com m u nication. Am erican Ind u strial H y-giene Association, Fairfax, Va.

Schlierf K. and Meyer M. (2013). Situ ating know led ge interm ed iation: Insights from science shop s and know led ge broker s. Sci-ence and Pu blic Policy, 40(4), 430–441. Schlosser P. an d Pfirm an S. (2012). Earth

sci-ence for su stain ability. N atu re Geoscisci-ence, 5 (9), 587-588.

Schneid er S.H . (2002). Keep ing ou t of the box. Am erican Scientist, 90 (N ov -Dec), 496-498. Scolobig A., Prior T., Schröter D., Jörin J. and

Patt A. (2015). Tow ard s p eop lecentred ap -p roaches for effective d isaster risk m anagem ent: Balancing rhetoric w ith reality. In -ternational Jou rn al of Disaster Risk Red u c-tion, 12, p p .202-212.

Shah H .C. (2006). The last m ile: earthqu ake risk m itigation assistance in d evelop ing cou n-tries. Philosop hical transactions - Series A, Mathem atical, p hysical, an d engineering sciences, 364(1845), 2183-2189.

Slovic P. (1985). Inform ing and Ed u cating the Pu blic abou t Risk. Disaster Research Re-p ort, Oregon, 80-85.