2. Introduction
Risk
Risk Communication
Risk Governance and Preparedness
Challenges to Risk Communication
Information processing
Case Studies of Practices
Seismic Hazards Laws in California
Oso Landslide
Public Policy
3. Risk
Risk - condition in which there is a possibility
that persons or property could experience
adverse consequences
Risk communication addresses the exchange
of information, knowledge and attitudes
between decision makers, experts,
stakeholders, and the affected public and
focuses on concrete risk situations
4. Function of Risk
Communication
Communication prior to adverse events
Raise awareness
Encourage protective behavior
Inform to build up knowledge on hazards and risks
Inform to promote acceptance of risks and management
measures
Communication during the adverse events
Inform on how to behave during events
Warn of and trigger action to impending and current events
Communication after the adverse events
Reassure the audience (to reduce anxiety or ‘manage’
outrage)
Improve relationships (build trust, cooperation, networks)
5. Preparedness Justification
For each additional person that is able to
provide for their own needs, the burden on
the emergency services is decreased by one
Public emergency preparedness equips
individuals with the knowledge, skills, or
resources necessary to increase their
likelihood of survival and to minimize
financial and other losses in the event of an
emergency or disaster
Ordinary citizens who are empowered with
these tools are better able to help
themselves, their families, their neighbors,
and their communities
8. Challenges for Seismic Risk
Communication
Hazard contexts vary nationwide
Risk communication contexts also vary in a
variety of ways
Earthquakes range from infrequent to very rare
for individual communities, and highly damaging
earthquakes remain very rare
Regions, communities, groups, and individuals
vary with respect to their earthquake experience
All earthquake forecasts and loss projections
involve significant uncertainties, and those
uncertainties also vary on a regional basis
Tierney, 2004
9. Challenges for Seismic Risk
Communication
Public perceptions and knowledge of the earthquake threat
also vary as a function of such factors as socioeconomic
status, ethnicity, and gender
Even in areas where awareness is high, that awareness only
rarely leads to action
In general, the public is not well-informed, either with respect
to the earthquake hazard or with respect to current and
achievable levels of seismic safety
Earthquakes tend to be low on political agendas, except
during periods immediately following significant disaster
events
Since the events of September 11, 2001, earthquakes and
other natural hazards must increasingly compete with
homeland-security-related threats for public attention and
dollarsTierney, 2004
10. Stages of Processing
Information
Exposure to the message
Attention to the message
Comprehension of the arguments and
conclusions presented in the message
Yielding to the message
Accepting the message
Information integration (which allows for
message retention)
Crisis and Risk Communications , 2014
11. Practices
Best practice case study: Seismic Hazards
Laws in California
Bad practice case study: Oso Landslide
12. Policy evolution of Seismic
Hazards Laws in California
Field Act and Garrison Act
Law passed in response to 1933 Long Beach
earthquake
Unreinforced Masonry Building Law
Law passed in response to 1984 Morgan Hill
earthquake
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of
1972
Law passed in response to 1971 San Fernando
Earthquake
13. Standardized Natural Hazards
Disclosure Statement
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, under Sec.
1103 of the California Civil Code states that real
estate seller and brokers are legally required to
disclose if the property being sold lies within one
or more state or locally mapped hazard areas
A Special Flood Hazard Area
Dam Inundation
Very High Fire
Wildland fire
Earthquake Fault Zone
A Seismic hazard
17. Oso Landslide
1990 Growth Management Act required
counties and cities to identify “geologically
hazardous areas,” including landslide areas
Development rules in landslide areas don’t
affect development that’s already been built
downslope
Local governments should consider buying out
homeowners
Seattle Times, 2014
18. Oso Landslide
Previous slide events in the area in1949,
1951, 1967,1988 and 2006
Miller-Sias DOE report drew boundaries for
where groundwater could feed into the slope
and increase the risks of landslide
When issuing logging restrictions DNR used
outdated information
Seattle Times, 2014
20. Issues With Public Policy
Addressing Hazards
Healey and Malhotra (APSR 2009)
Voters reward the incumbent presidential party for
delivering disaster relief spending
Voters punish incumbent presidential party for
investing in disaster preparedness
These inconsistencies distort the incentives of
public officials
Governments underinvest in disaster
preparedness, causing substantial public welfare
losses.
$1 spent on preparedness is worth about $15 in
terms of the future damage it mitigates
21. Public Policy
Adverse events increase the salience of the
issue with the public
Evidence on increases in the demand for risk
prevention policies from empirical economics
literature
Love Canal and Cuyahoga River and toxics
legislation
Temperature and precipitation and Kyoto
Agreement
Nuclear Accidents and Nuclear Safety IEA
Oil spills and MARPOL