Bulletin of Volcanology

, Volume 70, Issue 5, pp 605–621 | Cite as

The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis

Research Article

Abstract

This paper investigates trust in the scientists, government authorities and wider risk management team during the ongoing volcanic crisis in Montserrat, WI. Identifying the most trusted communicator and how trust in information can be enhanced are considered important for improving the efficacy of volcanic risk communication. Qualitative interviews, participant observations and a quantitative survey were utilised to investigate the views and attitudes of the public, authorities and scientists. Trust was found to be dynamic, influenced by political factors made more complex by the colonial nature of Montserrat’s governance and the changing level of volcanic activity. The scientists were viewed by the authorities as a highly trusted expert source of volcanic information. Mistrust among some of the local authorities towards the scientists and British Governor was founded in the uncertainty of the volcanic situation and influenced by differences in levels of acceptable risk and suspicions about integrity (e.g. as a consequence of employment by the British Government). The public viewed friends and relatives as the most trusted source for volcanic information. High trust in this source allowed competing messages to reinforce beliefs of lower risk than were officially being described. The scientists were the second most trusted group by the public and considered significantly more competent, reliable, caring, fair and open than the authorities. The world press was the least trusted, preceded closely by the British Governor’s Office and Montserratian Government officials. These results tally well with other empirical findings suggesting that government ministers and departments are typically distrusted as sources of risk-related information. These findings have implications for risk communication on Montserrat and other volcanic crises. The importance and potential effectiveness of scientists as communicators, because of, and despite, the existence of political, cultural and institutional barriers, is exemplified by this study.

Keywords

Communication role Volcanic risk communication Montserrat Competing messages Unofficial communications Dimensions of trust 

References

  1. Aspinall WP, Sparks RSJ (2004) Volcanology and the law. IAVCEI News 1:4, http://www.iavcei.org/pubs_w.html
  2. Aspinall WP, Loughlin SC, Michael FV, Miller AD, Norton GE, Rowley KC, Sparks RSJ, Young SR (2002) The Montserrat volcano observatory: its evolution, organization, role and activities. In: Druitt TH, Kokelaar BP (eds) The eruption of Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, from 1995 to 1999. Geol Soc Lond Mem 21:71–91Google Scholar
  3. Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  4. Breakwell GM (2000) Risk communication: factors affecting impact. Brit Med Bull 1:110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryman A (1988) Quantity and quality in social research. Unwin Hyman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham PK, Gillard K, Grant W, Layton-Henry Z (2004) Research methods in politics. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  7. Clay E, Barrow C, Benson C, Dempster J, Kokelaar P, Pillai N, Seaman J (1999) An evaluation of HMG’s response to the Montserrat volcanic emergency, 2 vols. Evaluation Report EV635, Department for International Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social trust: towards a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Fergus H (2001) Montserrat in the Twentieth Century: Trials and Triumphs. UWI School of Continuing Studies, MontserratGoogle Scholar
  11. Field A (2000) Discovering Statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16:473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbs G (2002) Qualitative data analysis: explorations with NVivo. Open University, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregg CE, Houghton BF, Johnston DM, Paton D, Swanson DA (2004) The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hualalai volcanoes, Hawaii. J Volcanol Geoth Res 130:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammersley M (1996) The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In: Richardson TE (ed) Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. BPS Books (The British Psychological Society), Leicester, UK, pp 159–174Google Scholar
  16. Hammond KR (1996) Human judgement and social policy: irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Handmer J (2000) Are flood warnings futile?: risk communication in emergencies. Australas J Disas Trauma Std 2: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2000–2002/handmer.htm
  18. Haynes K (2005) Exploring the communication of risk during a volcanic crisis: a case study of Montserrat, WI. PhD thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Henwood KL, Pidgeon NF (1992) Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. British J Psychol 83:97–111Google Scholar
  20. Herd RA, Edmonds M, Bass VA (2005) Catastrophic lava dome failure at Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, 12–13 July 2003. J Volcanol Geoth Res 148:234–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horlick-Jones T, Sime J, Pidgeon N (2003) The social dynamics of environmental risk perception: implications for risk communication research and practice. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 262–285Google Scholar
  22. Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH (1953) Communication and persuasion: psychological issues of opinion change. Yale University Press, NewhavenGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson BB (1999) Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard related trust. J Risk Res 2:325–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston D, Bebbington MS, Lai CD, Houghton BF, Paton D (1999) Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disast Prevent Man 8:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasperson RE (1992) The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework of risk. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, pp 153–178Google Scholar
  26. Kinzig A (2003) Uncertainty and the Scientist. Ambio 32:329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinzig A, Starrett D (2003) Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32:330–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kokelaar BP (2002) Setting, chronology and consequences of the eruption of Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat (1995–1999). In: Druitt TH, Kokelaar BP (eds) The eruption of Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, from 1995 to 1999. Geol Soc Lond Mem 21:1–44Google Scholar
  29. Krimsky S, Golding D (1992) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  30. McKnight DH, Chervany NL (1996) The meanings of trust. Technical report MISRC working paper series 96-04. University of Minnesota, Management Information Systems Research Centre. http://www.misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/wp96-04.htm
  31. Metlay D (1999) Institutional trust and confidence: a journey into a conceptual quagmire. In: Cvetkovich GT, Lofstead RE (eds) Social trust and the management of risk. Earthscan, London, pp 100–116Google Scholar
  32. Millward L (1995) Focus groups. In: Breakwell GM, Hammond S, Fife-Shaw C (eds) Research methods in psychology. Sage, London, pp 274–292Google Scholar
  33. Newhall C, Aramaki S, Barberi F, Blong R, Calvache M, Cheminee J-L, Punongbayan R, Siebe C, Simkin T, Sparks S, Tjetjep W (1999) Professional conduct of scientists during volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 60:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paton D, Smith L, Johnston D (2000) Volcanic hazards: risk perception and preparedness. New Zealand J Psychol 29:86–91Google Scholar
  35. Pattullo P (2000) Fire from the mountain: the tragedy of Montserrat and the betrayal of its people. Constable, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Perry RW, Greene MR (1983) Citizen response to volcanic eruptions: the case of Mt. St. Helens. Irvington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson DW (1996) Mitigation measures and preparedness plans for volcanic emergencies. In: Scarpa R, Tilling RI (eds) Monitoring and mitigation of volcanic hazards. Springer, Berlin, pp 701–718Google Scholar
  39. Peterson DW, Tilling RI (1993) Interactions between scientists, civil authorities and the public at hazardous volcanoes. In: Kilburn CRJ, Luongo G (eds) Active lavas. UCL, London, pp 339–365Google Scholar
  40. Pidgeon N, Henwood K (2004) Grounded theory. In: Hardy M, Bryman A (eds) Handbook of data analysis. Sage, London, pp 625–648Google Scholar
  41. Pidgeon N, Hood C, Jones D, Turner B, Gibson R (1992) Risk perception. In: Royal Society Study Group (ed) Risk analysis, perception and management. Royal Society, London, pp 89–134Google Scholar
  42. Poortinga W (2004) Public perceptions and trust in the regulation of genetically modified food. PhD thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UKGoogle Scholar
  43. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23:961–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2004) Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Anal 24:1475–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Possekel AK (1999) Living with the unexpected. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  46. Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds) Communicating risks to the public. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 175–218Google Scholar
  47. Ronan KR, Paton D, Johnston DM, Houghton BF (2000) Managing societal uncertainty in volcanic hazards: a multidisciplinary approach. Disast Prevent Man 9:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skelton T (2000) Political uncertainties and natural disasters: Montserratian identity and colonial status. Interventions: Internat J Postcolonial Stud 2:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slovic P (2000) Perception of risk. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London, pp 220–231Google Scholar
  53. Trettin L, Musham C (2000) Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk communication? Environ Behav 32:410–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walls J, Pidgeon N, Weymann A, Horlick-Jones T (2004) Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health Risk Soc 6:133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wynne B (1980) Risk, technology and trust: on the social treatment of uncertainty. In: Conrad J (ed) Society, technology and risk. Arnold, London, pp 83–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharine Haynes
    • 1
    • 3
    • 2
  • Jenni Barclay
    • 1
  • Nick Pidgeon
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Risk Frontiers, Natural Hazards Research Centre, Room 817 Building E7AMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Risk and Community SafetyRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.School of PsychologyCardiff UniversityWalesUK

Personalised recommendations