Communicating natural hazards science advice: Understanding scientists', decision-makers’, and the public's perceptions of the scientific process

Simple item page
dc.citation.volume128
dc.contributor.authorDoyle EEH
dc.contributor.authorThompson J
dc.contributor.authorHill SR
dc.contributor.authorWilliams M
dc.contributor.authorPaton D
dc.contributor.authorHarrison SE
dc.contributor.authorBostrom A
dc.contributor.authorBecker JS
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-18T02:00:35Z
dc.date.available2025-08-18T02:00:35Z
dc.date.issued2025-10-01
dc.description.abstractHow individuals perceive scientific processes impacts their interpretation of, trust in, and use of, science advice particularly when managing uncertain natural hazard risk. We explored a) how diverse stakeholders understand how science of natural hazards is produced, and b) how this relates to their ontological, epistemological, and philosophical views of science. Using inductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with 31 participants involved in the management of natural hazards in Aotearoa New Zealand (including non-scientists), we produced three leading themes describing their views: 1) ‘Science is a way of seeing the world’; 2) ‘Science has limitations’; and 3) ‘Knowledge evolves’. Across Scientist, non-Scientist, and Lay public groups, there was broad agreement on the fundamental steps of the scientific process, aligning mostly with a hypothetico-deductive process. However, many discussed how others may have different perspectives of scientific approaches, truth, and reality. These are informed by training, disciplinary biases, cultural practices, and personal experience of hazards and associated science. We propose that individuals who recognise different worldviews and philosophies of science will experience higher levels of communication and cognitive uncertainty, which encourages information seeking behaviour and can improve communication efficacy, particularly during high pressure events. We conclude with three communication lessons: 1) be transparent about the processes and causes of change in natural hazards science advice; 2) communicate as both trusted individuals as well as through collective Science Advisory Group (SAG) systems; and 3) provide accessible structures and language to help lay people articulate scientific processes they often intuitively understand, rather than just simplifying information.
dc.description.confidentialfalse
dc.identifier.citationDoyle EEH, Thompson J, Hill SR, Williams M, Paton D, Harrison SE, Bostrom A, Becker JS. (2025). Communicating natural hazards science advice: Understanding scientists', decision-makers’, and the public's perceptions of the scientific process. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 128.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105731
dc.identifier.elements-typejournal-article
dc.identifier.issn2212-4209
dc.identifier.number105731
dc.identifier.piiS2212420925005552
dc.identifier.urihttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/73370
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.publisher.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420925005552
dc.relation.isPartOfInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
dc.rights(c) 2025 The Author/s
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 4.0
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.titleCommunicating natural hazards science advice: Understanding scientists', decision-makers’, and the public's perceptions of the scientific process
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.elements-id502703
pubs.organisational-groupOther
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
502703 PDF.pdf
Size:
1.95 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version.pdf
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
9.22 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles