Theory article Special Issues

Public understanding and scientific uncertainty: The communication of risk in the L'Aquila earthquake

  • Received: 03 June 2024 Revised: 12 July 2024 Accepted: 17 July 2024 Published: 22 July 2024
  • On April 6, 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck L'Aquila, Italy, causing extensive damage and loss of life, and raising significant issues around the communication of scientific risk. In the preceding weeks, increased seismic activity had alarmed the population, prompting authorities to seek expert advice. Public authorities reassured the population that the chances of a dangerous shock were slim. These assurances given by officials led many to remain in their homes when the earthquake struck. The subsequent legal actions against the scientists involved ignited a global debate on the responsibilities and challenges in scientific communication. This paper explores the complexities of conveying probabilistic risk information to the public and decision-makers. It highlights how different formats for presenting probabilistic data can significantly influence understanding and decision-making. In particular, it canvasses how the use of natural frequencies to convey probabilistic information makes it cognitively easier to understand and manipulate them, given how they make more salient and transparent the so-called base rate. However, the benefits of using natural frequencies decrease when dealing with low-probability, high-consequence (LPHC) events like major earthquakes, where even significant increases in relative probability remain small in absolute terms. Moreover, the paper investigates the social dimensions of earth science, examining the multifaceted role of scientists as both technical experts and social actors. The L'Aquila case exemplifies the need for integrating scientific accuracy with an understanding of its social implications. Effective risk communication must address cognitive limitations and the presence of social context to reach appropriate public behavioral responses. In order to achieve that, communication should be handled by actors that have specific expertise in its complexity.

    Citation: Alessandro Demichelis, Malvina Ongaro. Public understanding and scientific uncertainty: The communication of risk in the L'Aquila earthquake[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(3): 540-552. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024028

    Related Papers:

  • On April 6, 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck L'Aquila, Italy, causing extensive damage and loss of life, and raising significant issues around the communication of scientific risk. In the preceding weeks, increased seismic activity had alarmed the population, prompting authorities to seek expert advice. Public authorities reassured the population that the chances of a dangerous shock were slim. These assurances given by officials led many to remain in their homes when the earthquake struck. The subsequent legal actions against the scientists involved ignited a global debate on the responsibilities and challenges in scientific communication. This paper explores the complexities of conveying probabilistic risk information to the public and decision-makers. It highlights how different formats for presenting probabilistic data can significantly influence understanding and decision-making. In particular, it canvasses how the use of natural frequencies to convey probabilistic information makes it cognitively easier to understand and manipulate them, given how they make more salient and transparent the so-called base rate. However, the benefits of using natural frequencies decrease when dealing with low-probability, high-consequence (LPHC) events like major earthquakes, where even significant increases in relative probability remain small in absolute terms. Moreover, the paper investigates the social dimensions of earth science, examining the multifaceted role of scientists as both technical experts and social actors. The L'Aquila case exemplifies the need for integrating scientific accuracy with an understanding of its social implications. Effective risk communication must address cognitive limitations and the presence of social context to reach appropriate public behavioral responses. In order to achieve that, communication should be handled by actors that have specific expertise in its complexity.



    加载中


    [1] Alexander DE (2014) Communicating earthquake risk to the public: The trial of the "l'Aquila Seven". Nat Hazards 72: 1159–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1062-2 doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1062-2
    [2] Alexander DE (2010) The L'Aquila earthquake of 6 april 2009 and Italian government policy on disaster response. J Nat Resour Policy Res 2: 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390459.2010.511450 doi: 10.1080/19390459.2010.511450
    [3] Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychol Rev 102: 684–704.
    [4] Chapman GB, Liu J (2009) Numeracy, frequency, and Bayesian reasoning. Judgm and Decis Mak 4: 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000681 doi: 10.1017/S1930297500000681
    [5] Ferguson E, Starmer C (2013) Incentives, expertise, and medical decisions: Testing the robustness of natural frequency framing. Health Psychol 32: 967–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033720 doi: 10.1037/a0033720
    [6] McDowell M, Jacobs P (2017) Meta-analysis of the effect of natural frequencies on Bayesian reasoning. Psychol Bull 143: 1273–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000126 doi: 10.1037/bul0000126
    [7] Riggio A, Capobianco S, Genzano N, et al. (2016) Preliminary results of long term correlation analysis among earthquakes (m > 4) occurrence and anomalous transients in radon emission and earth's emitted TIR radiation in northeastern Italy. Rn 14: 16.
    [8] Jordan TH, Chen YT, Gasparini P, et al. (2011) Operational earthquake forecasting: State of knowledge and guidelines for utilization. Ann Geophys 54: 315–391. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5350 doi: 10.4401/ag-5350
    [9] Tribunale dell'Aquila Sezione Penale I (2012) Motivazione sentenza n. 380 pronunciata in data 22/10/2012, depositata il 19/01/2013.
    [10] Corte di Appello dell'Aquila I (2014) Motivazione sentenza n. 3317 pronunciata in data 10/11/2014 depositata in data 06/02/2015. Available from: https://archiviodpc.dirittopenaleuomo.org/upload/1423587968CA_LAquila_GrandiRischi.pdf, last consulted 10/07/2024
    [11] Corte Suprema di Cassazione I (2015) Cassazione penale, sezione iv, 25 marzo 2016 (udienza 19 novembre 2015), n.12748. Available from: https://www.giurisprudenzapenale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/terremoto-sentenza.pdf, last consulted 10/07/2024
    [12] Shock and law. Nature 490: 446. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/490446b
    [13] Clark S (2012) From Galileo to the L'Aquila earthquake: Italian science on trial. The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/24/galileo-laquila-earthquake-italian-science-trial.
    [14] Geller RJ (1997) Earthquake prediction: a critical review. Geophys J Int 131: 425–450.
    [15] Imperiale AJ, Vanclay F (2019) Reflections on the L'Aquila trial and the social dimensions of disaster risk. Disaster Prev Manag 28: 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-01-2018-0030 doi: 10.1108/DPM-01-2018-0030
    [16] Ropeik D (2012) The L'Aquila verdict: A judgment not against science, but against a failure of science communication. Sci Am 22.
    [17] Peterson CR, Beach LR (1967) Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychol Bull 68: 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024722 doi: 10.1037/h0024722
    [18] Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychol 3: 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
    [19] Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
    [20] Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo Heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 1: 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x
    [21] Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox, Simple heuristics that make us smart, Oxford University Press, 3–34.
    [22] Thaler R, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
    [23] Martignon L, Hoffrage U (2002) Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theor Decis 52: 29–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015516217425 doi: 10.1023/A:1015516217425
    [24] Bell N, Dickinson J, Grad R, et al. (2018) Understanding and communicating risk: Measures of outcome and the magnitude of benefits and harms. Can Fam Physician 64: 181–185.
    [25] Gigerenzer G, Edwards A (2003) Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Bmj 327: 741–744. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741 doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741
    [26] Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk. Bmj 327: 741–744.
    [27] Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM (1994) Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Organ Beh Hum Dec 60: 387–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1091 doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1091
    [28] Spiegelhalter D (2017) Risk and uncertainty communication. Annu Rev Stat Appl 4: 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148 doi: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148
    [29] Woo G, Marzocchi W (2014) Operational earthquake forecasting and decision-making, Early Warning for Geological Disasters: Scientific Methods and Current Practice, Springer, 353–367.
    [30] Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117: 440.
    [31] Chandran S, Menon G (2004) When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. J Consum Res 31: 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/422116 doi: 10.1086/422116
    [32] Bonner C, Newell BR (2008) How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgm Decis Mak 3: 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000437 doi: 10.1017/S1930297500000437
    [33] Henrich L, McClure J, Crozier M (2015) Effects of risk framing on earthquake risk perception: Life-time frequencies enhance recognition of the risk. Int J Disast Risk Re 13: 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.003
    [34] Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, et al. (2013) The risk perception paradox–-Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33: 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
    [35] Terpstra T, Lindell MK, Gutteling JM (2009) Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? results of a quasi-experimental study. Risk Anal Int J 29: 1141–1155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01252.x doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01252.x
    [36] Oreskes N (2015) How earth science has become a social science. Hist Soc Res 40: 246–270.
    [37] Feldbacher-Escamilla CJ (2019) A rational reconstruction of the L'aquila case: How non-denial turns into acceptance. Soc Epistemol 33: 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1672825 doi: 10.1080/02691728.2019.1672825
    [38] DeVasto D, Graham SS, Zamparutti L (2016) Stasis and matters of concern: The conviction of the L'Aquila seven. J Bus Tech Commun 30: 131–164.
    [39] Center ADR (2015) The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland.
    [40] Stewart IS, Ickert J, Lacassin R (2017) Communicating seismic risk: the geoethical challenges of a people-centred, participatory approach. Ann Geophys 60.
    [41] Benessia A, Marchi BD (2017) When the earth shakes … and science with it. the management and communication of uncertainty in the L'Aquila earthquake. Futures 91: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.011
    [42] Pielke Jr RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics, Cambridge University Press.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(475) PDF downloads(27) Cited by(0)

Article outline

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog