Journal Articles
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Where does scientific uncertainty come from, and from whom? Mapping perspectives of natural hazards science advice(Elsevier, 2023-10-01) Doyle EEH; Thompson J; Hill S; Williams M; Paton D; Harrison S; Bostrom A; Becker JThe science associated with assessing natural hazard phenomena and the risks they pose contains many layers of complex and interacting elements, resulting in diverse sources of uncertainty. This creates a challenge for effective communication, which must consider how people perceive that uncertainty. Thus, we conducted twenty-five mental model interviews in Aotearoa New Zealand with participants ranging from scientists to policy writers and emergency managers, and through to the public. The interviews included three phases: an initial elicitation of free thoughts about uncertainty, a mental model mapping activity, and a semi-structured interview protocol to explore further questions about scientific processes and their personal philosophy of science. Qualitative analysis led to the construction of key themes, including: (a) understanding that, in addition to data sources, the ‘actors’ involved can also be sources of uncertainty; (b) acknowledging that factors such as governance and funding decisions partly determine uncertainty; (c) the influence of assumptions about expected human behaviours contributing to “known unknowns'; and (d) the difficulty of defining what uncertainty actually is. Participants additionally highlighted the positive role of uncertainty for promoting debate and as a catalyst for further inquiry. They also demonstrated a level of comfort with uncertainty and advocated for ‘sitting with uncertainty’ for transparent reporting in advice. Additional influences included: an individual's understanding of societal factors; the role of emotions; using outcomes as a scaffold for interpretation; and the complex and noisy communications landscape. Each of these require further investigation to enhance the communication of scientific uncertainty.Item When the earth doesn't stop shaking: How experiences over time influenced information needs, communication, and interpretation of aftershock information during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand(Elsevier, 1/03/2019) Becker JS; Potter SH; McBride SK; Wein A; Doyle EEH; Paton D© 2018 The Authors The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) began with the Darfield earthquake on 4 September 2010. Continual large and small aftershocks since that time have meant communities have cycled through repeated periods of impact, response and recovery. Scientific communication about aftershocks during such a prolonged sequence has faced distinct challenges. We conducted research to better understand aftershock information needs for agencies and the public, and how people interpreted and responded to such information. We found that a wide range of information was needed from basic facts about aftershocks through to more technical information, and in different formats (e.g. maps, tables, graphs, text, analogies). Information needs also evolved throughout the sequence, and differed depending on people's roles and experiences, and the phase of impact, response and recovery communities were in. Interpretation of aftershock information was influenced by a variety of factors including how understandable and relevant the information was, whether people had prior knowledge or experience of aftershocks, whether the information was personalised or contextualised, emotions and feelings, credibility and trust, and external influences. Given that such a diversity of evolving information is required, it is imperative that geoscientists strategize how to provide such information before a significant earthquake occurs.
