Bulletin of Volcanology

, 77:30 | Cite as

Forecast communication through the newspaper Part 2: perceptions of uncertainty

  • Andrew J. L. HarrisEmail author
Review Article


In the first part of this review, I defined the media filter and how it can operate to frame and blame the forecaster for losses incurred during an environmental disaster. In this second part, I explore the meaning and role of uncertainty when a forecast, and its basis, is communicated through the response and decision-making chain to the newspaper, especially during a rapidly evolving natural disaster which has far-reaching business, political, and societal impacts. Within the media-based communication system, there remains a fundamental disconnect of the definition of uncertainty and the interpretation of the delivered forecast between various stakeholders. The definition and use of uncertainty differs especially between scientific, media, business, and political stakeholders. This is a serious problem for the scientific community when delivering forecasts to the public though the press. As reviewed in Part 1, the media filter can result in a negative frame, which itself is a result of bias, slant, spin, and agenda setting introduced during passage of the forecast and its uncertainty through the media filter. The result is invariably one of anger and fury, which causes loss of credibility and blaming of the forecaster. Generation of a negative frame can be aided by opacity of the decision-making process that the forecast is used to support. The impact of the forecast will be determined during passage through the decision-making chain where the precautionary principle and cost-benefit analysis, for example, will likely be applied. Choice of forecast delivery format, vehicle of communication, syntax of delivery, and lack of follow-up measures can further contribute to causing the forecast and its role to be misrepresented. Follow-up measures to negative frames may include appropriately worded press releases and conferences that target forecast misrepresentation or misinterpretation in an attempt to swing the slant back in favor of the forecaster. Review of meteorological, public health, media studies, social science, and psychology literature opens up a vast and interesting library that is not obvious to the volcanologist at a first glance. It shows that forecasts and their uncertainty can be phrased and delivered, and followed-up upon, in a manner that reduces the chance of message distortion. The mass-media delivery vehicle requires careful tracking because the potential for forecast distortion can result in a frame that the scientific response is “absurd”, “confused”, “shambolic”, or “dysfunctional.” This can help set up a “frightened”, “frustrated”, “angry”, even “furious” reaction to the forecast and forecaster.


Forecast Uncertainty Precautionary principle Cost-benefit analysis Communication 



Reviews by Tim Orr and Amy Donovan, whose notes, comments, advice, and insight, greatly improved the content and delivery of this contribution.


  1. Adams MD (2002) The precautionary principle and the rhetoric behind it. J Risk Res 5(4):301–316Google Scholar
  2. Alberico I, Petrosino P, Maglione G, Bruno L, Capaldo FS, Dal Piaz A, Lirer L, Mazzola S (2012) Mapping the vulnerability for evacuation of the Cami Flegrei territorial system in case of a volcanic unrest. Nat Hazards 64:1823–1854Google Scholar
  3. Alcorn R, Panter KS, Gorsevski PC (2013) A GIS-based volcani hazard and risk assessment of eruptions sourced within Valles Caldera, New Mexico. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 267:1–14Google Scholar
  4. Alemanno A (2011a) Introduction. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp xix–xxxivGoogle Scholar
  5. Alemanno A (2011b) What happened and lessons: learned: a European and international perspective. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  6. Alemanno A (2011c) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 273Google Scholar
  7. Allais M (1953) Le comportement de I’homme rationel devant le risqué, critique des postulates et axioms de I’ecole americane. Econometrica 21:503–546Google Scholar
  8. Andorno R (2004) The precautionary principle: a new legal standard for a technological age. J Int Bus Law 1:11–19Google Scholar
  9. Arrow KJ, Fisher AC (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Q J Econ 88(2):312–319Google Scholar
  10. Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Eads GC, Hahn RW, Lave LB, Noll RG, Portney PR, Russell M, Schmalensee R, Kerry Smith V, StavinsIs RN (1996) Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science 272(5259):221–222Google Scholar
  11. Aspinall W (2011) Check your legal position before advising others. Nature 477:251Google Scholar
  12. Ayton P (1988) Perceptions of broadcast weather forecasts. Weather 43(5):193–197Google Scholar
  13. Balzano Q, Sheppard AR (2002) The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields. J Risk Res 5(4):351–369Google Scholar
  14. Bebbington MS (2013) Assessing probabilistic forecasts of volcanic eruption onsets. Bull Volcanol 75:783–796Google Scholar
  15. Béguier P (2006) Localement vôtre: Le guide du journaliste en presse départementale et régionale. CFPJ Éditions, Paris, 215 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Behncke B, Neri M, Nagay A (2005) Lava flow hazard at Mount Etna (Italy): new data from a GIS-based study. Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 369:189–208Google Scholar
  17. Benson R (2011) F in exams. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 124 pGoogle Scholar
  18. Bertolaso G, De Bernardinis B, Bosi V, Cardaci V, Ciolli S, Colozza R, Cridtiani C, Mangione D, Ricciardi A, Rosi M, Scalzo A, Soddu P (2009) Civil protection preparedness and response to the 2007 eruptive crisis of Stromboli volcano, Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 182:269–277Google Scholar
  19. Besley T, Burgess R (2002) The political economy of government responsiveness: theory and evidence from India. Q J Econ 117(4):1415–1451Google Scholar
  20. Better Regulation Commission (2006) Risk, responsibility and regulation—whose risk is it anyway? Better Regulation Commission, Whitehall, 55 pGoogle Scholar
  21. Biass S, Frischknecht C, Bonadonna C (2012) A fast GIS-based risk assessment for tephra fallout: the example of Cotopaxi volcano, Ecuador-Part II: vulnerability and risk assessment. Nat Hazards 64:615–639Google Scholar
  22. Bisson M, Behncke B, Fornaciai A, Neri M (2009) LiDAR-based digital terrain analysis of an area exposed to the risk of lava flow invasion: the Zafferana Etnea territory, Mt. Etna (Italy). Nat Hazards 50:321–334Google Scholar
  23. Bonfils L, Bosi V (2012) Means and methods for crisis management. In: Handbook for volcanic risk management. MIAVITA, Orleans, pp 159–171Google Scholar
  24. Bonfils L, Bosi V, Costantini L, Fontaine M, Hidayati S, Le Cozannet G, Sumarti S, Surono, Thierry P, Vaccari P, Vagner A (2012) Living with a volcano: increasing preparedness. In: Handbook for volcanic risk management. MIAVITA, Orleans, pp 91–128Google Scholar
  25. Bonne K, Kervyn M, Cascone L, Njome S, Van Ranst E, Suh E, Ayonghe S, Jacobs P, Ernst G (2008) A new approach to assess long-term lava flow hazard and risk using GIS and low-cost remote sensing: the case of Mount Cameroon, West Africa. Int J Remote Sens 29(22):6539–6564Google Scholar
  26. Brannigan V (2011) Paradigms lost: emergency safety regulation under scientific and technical uncertainty. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 101–114Google Scholar
  27. Brownbill A (1984) The costs of aircraft accidents in Australia: with preliminary estimates for 1980. Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (Department of Aviation, Australia) Report 83–85. 50 pGoogle Scholar
  28. Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Millstein SG, Halpern-Felsher BL (2000) Verbal and numerical expressions of probability: “it’s a fifty–fifty chance”. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81(1):115–131. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2868 Google Scholar
  29. Brun W, Teigen KH (1988) Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 41:390–404Google Scholar
  30. Burgess A (2011) Representing emergency risks: media, risk and ‘acts of God’ in the volcanic ash cloud. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 65–79Google Scholar
  31. Burt SD, Mansfield DA (1988) The Great Storm of 15–16 October 1987. Weather 43(3):90–108Google Scholar
  32. Cameron L (2006) Environmental risk management in New Zealand—Is there scope to apply a more generic framework? New Zealand Treasury Policy Perspectives Paper 06/06. 37 pGoogle Scholar
  33. Cardona OD (1997) Management of the volcanic crises of Galeras volcano: social, economic and institutional aspects. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 77:313–324Google Scholar
  34. Carta S, Figari R, Saroris G, Sassi E, Scandone R (1981) A statistical model for Vesuvius and its volcanological implications. Bull Volcanol 44(2):129–151Google Scholar
  35. Čavka I, Čokorilo O (2012) Cost–benefit assessment of aircraft safety. Int J Traffic Transp Eng 2(4):359–371Google Scholar
  36. Chakraborty S (2011) The challenge of emergency risk communication: lessons learned in trust and risk communication from the volcanic ash crisis. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 80–97Google Scholar
  37. Charon J-M (2013) La presse quotidienne, 3rd edn. Le Découverte, Paris, 126 pGoogle Scholar
  38. Christidou V, Kouvatas A (2011) Visual self-images of scientists and science in Greece.  Public Underst Sci 22(1):91–109Google Scholar
  39. Chirico G, Favalli M, Papale P, Boschi E, Pareschi MT, Mamou-Mani A (2009) Lava flow hazard at Nyiragongo Volcano, DRC. Bull Volcanol 71:375–387Google Scholar
  40. CIMARPH - Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Research Council, Washington DC, 191 pGoogle Scholar
  41. Cioni R, Longo A, Macedonio G, Santacroce R, Sbrana A, Sulpizio R, Andronico D (2003) Assessing pyroclastic fall hazard through field data and numerical simulations: example from Vesuvius. J Geophys Res 108(B2):2063. doi: 10.1029/2001JB000642 Google Scholar
  42. Clow DG (1988) Daniel Defoe’s account of the storm of 1703. Weather 43(3):140–141Google Scholar
  43. COMSET - World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (2005) The precautionary principle. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Paris) SHS-2005/WS/21. 54 pGoogle Scholar
  44. Cooke WE (1906) Forecasts and verifications in Western Australia. Mon Weather Rev 34:23–24Google Scholar
  45. Cornell SE, Jackson MS (2013) Social science perspectives on natural hazards risk and uncertainty. In: Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 502–547Google Scholar
  46. Corroy L, Roche E (2010) La presse en France depuis 1945. Ellipses, Paris, 144 pGoogle Scholar
  47. Covey JA (2001) People’s preferences for safety control: why does baseline risk matter? Risk Anal 21(2):331–340Google Scholar
  48. Curran J (2010) Fable of market democracy. In: Curran J, Seaton J (eds) Power without responsibility: press, broadcasting and the internet in Britain, 7th edn. Routledge, London, pp 66–99Google Scholar
  49. Davis DR, Nnaji S (1982) The information needed to evaluate the worth of uncertain information, predictions and forecasts. J Appl Meteorol 21:461–470Google Scholar
  50. Davis MS, Ricci T, Mitchell LM (2005) Perceptions of risk for volcanic hazards at Vesuvio and Etna, Italy. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 2005(1):1–20Google Scholar
  51. De la Cruz-Reyna S, Tilling RI (2008) Scientific and public responses to the ongoing volcanic crisis at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico: importance of an effective hazards-warning system. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 170:121–134Google Scholar
  52. Demuth JL, Morss RE, Morrow BH, Lazo JK (2012) Creation and communication of hurricane risk information. Bull Am Met Soc 1133–1145. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00150.1
  53. Dhami MK, Wallsten TS (2005) Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: toward translating linguistic probabilities. Mem Cogn 33(6):1057–1068Google Scholar
  54. Donovan A, Oppenheimer C, Bravo M (2012a) Science at the policy interface: volcano-monitoring technologies and volcanic hazard management. Bull Volcanol 74(5):1005–1022Google Scholar
  55. Donovan A, Oppenheimer C, Bravo M (2012b) The use of belief-based probabilistic methods in volcanology: scientists’ views and implications for risk assessments. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 247–248:168–180Google Scholar
  56. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, 221 pGoogle Scholar
  57. Doyle EEH, Johnston DM, McClure J, Paton D (2011) The communication of uncertain scientific advice during natural hazard events. N Z J Psychol 40(4):39–50Google Scholar
  58. Doyle EEH, McClure J, Johnston DM, Paton D (2014) Communicating likelihoods and probabilities in forecasts of volcanic eruptions. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 272:1–15Google Scholar
  59. Dupuit, AJEJ (1844) De la mesure de l’utilité des travaux publics. Annales des ponts et chaussées 8Google Scholar
  60. Eden P (2011) From observations to forecasts – part 14: communicating forecasts. Weather 66(12):325–327Google Scholar
  61. Eldridge J, Reilly J (2003) Risk and relativity: BSE and the British media. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 138–155Google Scholar
  62. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiquity, and the savage axioms. Q J Econ 75:643–669Google Scholar
  63. Eoyang GH, Holladay RJ (2013) Adaptive action: leveraging uncertainty in your organization. Stanford Business Books, Stanford, 253 pGoogle Scholar
  64. Epstein LG (1980) Decision making and the temporal resolution of uncertainty. Int Econ Rev 21(2):269–283Google Scholar
  65. European Community (2000) Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities (Brussels) 2.2.2000 COM(2000) 1 final. 28 pGoogle Scholar
  66. Fast NJ, Tiedens LZ (2010) Blame cognition: the automatic transmission of self-serving attributions. J Exp Psychol 46:97–106Google Scholar
  67. Faunce T, Murray K, Nasu H, Bowman D (2008) Sunscreen safety: the precautionary principle, the Australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens. NanoEthics 2:231–240Google Scholar
  68. Favalli M, Mazzarini F, Pareschi MT, Boschi E (2009) Topographic control on lava flow paths at Mount Etna: implications for hazard assessment. J Geophys Res 114(F01017). doi: 10.1029/2007JF000918
  69. Felpeto A, Arana V, Ortiz R, Astiz M, Garcia A (2001) Assessment and modeling of lava flow hazard on Lanzarote (Canary Islands). Nat Hazards 23:247–257Google Scholar
  70. Felpeto A, Martí J, Orttiz R (2007) Automatic GIS-based system for volcanic hazard assessment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 166:106–116Google Scholar
  71. Ferreira C, Boholm A, Löfstedt R (2001) From vision to catastrophe: a risk event in search of images. In: Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther (eds) Risk, media and stigma: understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. Earthscan, London, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  72. Fields J (2011) Uncertainty: turning fear and doubt into fuel for brilliance. Portofilio|Penguin, London, 228 pGoogle Scholar
  73. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15(2):137–145Google Scholar
  74. Fiske RS (1984) Volcanologists, journalists, and the concerned local public: a tale of two crises in the Eastern Caribbean. In: Explosive volcanism: inception, evolution, and hazards. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 170–176Google Scholar
  75. Folch A, Sulpizio R (2010) Evaluating long-range volcanic ash hazard using supercomputing facilities: application to Somma-Vesuvius (Italy), and consequences for civil aviation over the Central Mediterranean Area. Bull Volcanol 72:1039–1059Google Scholar
  76. Forgione G, Luongo G, Romano R (1989) Mt. Etna (Sicily): volcanic hazard assessment. In: Latter JH (ed) IAVCEI Proceedings in Volcanology I. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–150Google Scholar
  77. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH (2000) Source science and the precautionary principle. Science 288(5468):979–981Google Scholar
  78. Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Theory and Decision Library A: Book 15 (Springer). 231 pGoogle Scholar
  79. Galli I, Nigro G (1987) The social representation of radioactivity among Italian children. Soc Sci Inf 26(3):535–549Google Scholar
  80. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Selva J, Fujita E (2013) Integration of stochastic models for long-term eruption forecasting into a Bayesian event tree scheme: a basis method to estimate the probability of volcanic unrest. Bull Volcanol 75:689–711Google Scholar
  81. Gigerenzer G (2002) Reckoning with risk. Penguin, London, 310 pGoogle Scholar
  82. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, Fasolo B, Konstantinos V (2005) “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal 25(3):623–629Google Scholar
  83. Gill J (2008) Communicating forecast uncertainty for service providers. WMO Bull 57(4):237–243Google Scholar
  84. Goldstein BD, Carruth RS (2004) Implications of the precautionary principle: is it a threat to science? Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17(1):153–161Google Scholar
  85. Gollier G, Jullien B, Treich N (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. J Public Econ 75:229–253Google Scholar
  86. Gómez-Fernández F (2000) Contribution of geographical information systems to the management of volcanic crises. Nat Hazards 21:347–360Google Scholar
  87. Gong Z, Forrest Y-LJ (2014) Special issue on meteorological disaster risk and assessment: on basis of grey systems theory. Nat Hazards 71:995–1000Google Scholar
  88. Grabe M (2001) Estimation of measurement uncertainties—an alternative to the ISO Guide. Metrologia 38:97–106Google Scholar
  89. Grabe M (2005) Measurement uncertainties in science and technology. Springer, Berlin, 269 pGoogle Scholar
  90. Graham JD, Hsia S (2002) Europe’s precautionary principle: promise and pitfalls. J Risk Res 5(4):371–390Google Scholar
  91. Granger Morgan M (2003) Characterizing and dealing with uncertainty: insights from the integrated assessment of climate change. Integr Assess 4(1):46–55Google Scholar
  92. Gregory J, Miller S (1998) Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. Basic, Cambridge, 294 pGoogle Scholar
  93. Gudmundsson MT, Pedersen R, Vogfjord K, Thorbjarnardottir B, Jakobsdottir S, Roberts MJ (2010) Eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull Volcano, Iceland. Eos Trans AGU 91(21):190–191Google Scholar
  94. Gunn LS, Blake S, Jones MC, Rymer H (2014) Forecasting the duration of volcanic eruptions: an empirical probabilistic model. Bull Volcanol 76:780–798Google Scholar
  95. Gurioli L, Sulpizio R, Cioni R, Sbrana A, Santacroce R, Luperini W, Andronico D (2010) Pyroclastic flow assessment at Somma-Vesuvius based on the geological record. Bull Volcanol 72:1021–1038Google Scholar
  96. Hahn WH, Sunstein CR (2005) The precautionary principle as a basis for decision making. The Economists’ Voice 2(2): Article 8Google Scholar
  97. Haigh N (1994) The introduction of the precautionary principle into the UK. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London, pp 229–251Google Scholar
  98. Hall F (1950) Communication theory applied to meteorological measurements. J Meteorology 7:121–129Google Scholar
  99. Harcup T (2009) Journalism: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angeles, 244 pGoogle Scholar
  100. Harremoës P (2003) The need to account for uncertainty in public decision making related to technological change. Integr Assess 4(1):18–25Google Scholar
  101. Harris AJL, Gurioli L, Hughes EE, Lagreulet S (2012) Impact of the Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud: a newspaper perspective. J Geophys Res 117(B00C08). doi: 10.1029/2011JB008735
  102. Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2007) Volcanic hazard communication using maps: an evaluation of their effectiveness. Bull Volcanol 70:123–138Google Scholar
  103. Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis. Bull Volcanol 70:605–621Google Scholar
  104. Heliker C (1992) Volcanic and seismic hazards on the island of Hawaii. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C., 48 pGoogle Scholar
  105. Ho C-H, Smith EI, Keenan DL (2006) Hazard area and probability of volcanic disruption of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA. Bull Volcanol 69:117–123Google Scholar
  106. Hopkins CC (2010) Scientific advertising. Cosimo, New York, 95 pGoogle Scholar
  107. Houghton JT (1988) The storm, the media and the enquiry. Weather 43(3):67–70Google Scholar
  108. IAVCEI - Subcommittee for Crisis Protocols (1999) Professional conduct of scientists during volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 60:323–334Google Scholar
  109. ILGRA - Inter-Departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (2002) The precautionary principle: policy and application. ILGRA, London, 18 pGoogle Scholar
  110. Jardine CG, Hrude SE (1997) Mixed messages in risk communication. Risk Anal 17(4):489–498Google Scholar
  111. JCGM (2008) Evaluation of measurement data—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 100:2008 (GUM 1995 with minor corrections). 120 pGoogle Scholar
  112. Jenkins S, Magill C, McAneney J, Blong R (2012a) Regional ash fall hazard I: a probabilistic assessment methodology. Bull Volcanol 74:1699–1712Google Scholar
  113. Jenkins S, Magill C, McAneney J, Blong R (2012b) Regional ash fall hazard II: Asia-Pacific modelling results and implications. Bull Volcanol 74:1713–1727Google Scholar
  114. Johnson SR, Holt MT (1997) The value of weather information. In: Katz RW, Murphy AH (eds) Economic value of weather and climate forecasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–107Google Scholar
  115. Johnson C, Jeunemaitre A (2011) Risk and the role of scientific input for contingency planning: a response to the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 51–64Google Scholar
  116. Johnson J, Brantley SR, Swanson DA, Stauffer PH, Hendley JW II (2000) Viewing Hawaii’s lava safely—common sense is not enough. USGS Fact Sheet 152-00. 4 pGoogle Scholar
  117. Joslyn SL, Nichols RM (2009) Probability or frequency? Expressing forecast uncertainty in public weather forecasts. Meteorol Appl 16:309–314Google Scholar
  118. Joslyn S, Pak K, Jones D, Pyles J, Hunt E (2007) The effect of probabilistic information on threshold forecasts. Weather Forecast 22:804–812Google Scholar
  119. Joslyn SL, Nadav-Greenberg NL, Taing MU, Nichols RM (2009) The effects of wording on the understanding and use of uncertainty information in a threshold forecasting decision. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:55–72Google Scholar
  120. Karelitz TM, Budescu DV (2004) You say “probable” and I say “likely”: improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J Exp Psychol Appl 10(1):25–41Google Scholar
  121. Kasper RG (1980) Perceptions of risk and their effects on decision making. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA Jr (eds) Societal risk: how safe is safe enough? Plenum, New York, pp 71–84Google Scholar
  122. Kasperson RE, Palmlund I (1989) Evaluating risk communication. In: Covello V, McCallum D, Pavmova M (eds) Evaluating risk communication. Plenum, New York, pp 143–160Google Scholar
  123. Kipfer BA (1993) Roget’s 21st century thesaurus in dictionary form. Philip Lief, New York, 859 pGoogle Scholar
  124. Kristiansen NI, Stohl A, Prata AJ, Bukowiecki N, Dacre H, Eckhardt S, Henne S, Hort MC, Johnson BT, Marenco F, Neininger B, Reitebuch O, Seibert P, Thomson DJ, Webster HN, Weinzierl B (2012) Performance assessment of a volcanic ash transport model mini-ensemble used for inverse modeling of the 2010 Eyjafallajökull eruption. J Geophys Res 117(D00U11). doi: 10.1029/2011JD016844
  125. Kunreuther H (1992) A conceptual framework for managing low-probability events. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger Publishers, Westport, pp 301–320Google Scholar
  126. Lamb HH (1988) The storm of 15–16 October 1987: historical perspective. Weather 43(3):136–139Google Scholar
  127. Lawes HD (19887) The storm of 15–16 October 1987: a personal experience. Weather 43(3):142Google Scholar
  128. Le Blancq F (2012) Communicating forecasts, or the art of the weather report. Weather 67(3):68–69Google Scholar
  129. Lindsay J, Marzocchi W, Jolly G, Constantinescu R, Selva J, Sandri L (2010) Towards real-time eruption forecasting in the Auckland Volcanic Field: application of BET_EF during the New Zealand National Disaster Exercise ‘Ruaumoko’. Bull Volcanol 72:185–204Google Scholar
  130. Lipkus IM (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 27:696–713Google Scholar
  131. Lirer L, Vitelli L (1998) Volcanic risk assessment and mapping in the Vesuvian area using GIS. Nat Hazards 17:1–15Google Scholar
  132. Löfstedt RE (2002) Editorial. J Risk Res 5(4):285–286Google Scholar
  133. Macrae D (2011) Which risk and who decides when there are so many players? In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13–26Google Scholar
  134. Mandel GN, Gathii GT (2006) Cost-benefit analysis versus the precautionary principle: beyond Cass Sunstein’s Laws of Fear. Univ Ill Law Rev 2006:1037–1080Google Scholar
  135. Manheim JB (1994) Strategic public diplomacy and American foreign policy: the evolution of influence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  136. Manning MR (2003) The difficulty of communicating uncertainty. Clim Chang 61:9–16Google Scholar
  137. Marchant G, Abbott L, Felsot A, Griffin RL (2013) Impact of the precautionary principle on feeding current and future generations. CAST Issue Pap 52:1–20Google Scholar
  138. Marchau VAWJ, Walker WE (2003) Dealing with uncertainty in implementing advanced driver assistance systems: an adaptive approach. Integr Assess 4(1):35–45Google Scholar
  139. Marley J (2010) Volcanic ash: lessons from the cloud of unknowing? Urol Nurs 4(2):51–52Google Scholar
  140. Martin M (2002) La presse régionale: des affiches aux grands quotidiens. Fayard, Paris, 501 pGoogle Scholar
  141. Marzocchi W, Bebbington MS (2012) Probabilistic eruption forecasting at short and long time scales. Bull Volcanol 74:1777–1805Google Scholar
  142. Marzocchi W, Woo G (2007) Probabilistic eruption forecasting and the call for an evacuation. Geophys Res Lett 34(L22310). doi: 10.1029/2007GL031922
  143. Marzocchi W, Woo G (2009) Principles of volcanic risk metrics: theory and the case study of Mount Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei, Italy. J Geophys Res 114(B03213). doi: 10.1029/2008JB005908
  144. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Gasparini P, Newhall C, Boschi E (2004) Quantifying probabilities of volcanic events: the example of volcanic hazard at Mount Vesuvius. J Geophys Res 109(B11201). doi: 10.1029/2004JB003155
  145. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Selva J (2008) BET_EF: a probabilistic tool for long- and short-term eruption forecasting. Bull Volcanol 70:623–632Google Scholar
  146. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Selva J (2010) BET_VH: a probabilistic tool for long-term volcanic hazard assessment. Bull Volcanol 72:705–716Google Scholar
  147. Met. Office (2013) The 1987 Great Storm. UK Meteorological Office Factfile,
  148. Météo France (2011) Vigilance. Les Guides Pratiques Météo France, Météo France (Saint Mandé). 19 pGoogle Scholar
  149. Mikula G, Scherer KR, Athensteadt U (1998) The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 24:769–783Google Scholar
  150. Miles S, Frewer LJ (2003) Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards.  J Risk Res 6(3):267–283Google Scholar
  151. Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Communicating uncertainty. In: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making, U.S. Climate Change Science Program: 67–70Google Scholar
  152. Morris RM, Gadd AJ (1988) Forecasting the storm of 15–16 October 1987. Weather 43(3):70–90Google Scholar
  153. Morris MW, Peng K (1994) Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Attitudes Soc Cogn 67(6):949–971Google Scholar
  154. Morss RE (2010) Interactions among flood predictions, decisions, and outcomes: synthesis of three cases. Nat Hazards Rev 11:83–96Google Scholar
  155. Morss RE, Demuth JL, Lazo JK (2008) Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: a survey of the U.S. public. Weather Forecast 23:974–991Google Scholar
  156. Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Pachauri R, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K (eds) Guideline papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, pp 33–51Google Scholar
  157. Murphy AH (1998) The early history of probability forecasts: some extensions and clarifications. Weather Forecast 13:5–15Google Scholar
  158. Murphy AH, Winkler RL (1974) Probability forecasts: a survey of National Weather Service forecasters. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 55(12):1449–1452Google Scholar
  159. Murphy AH, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Winkler RL (1980) Misinterpretations of precipitation probability forecasts. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 61(7):695–701Google Scholar
  160. Nelkin D (2003) Foreword: the social meanings of risk. In: Herr Harthorn B, Nelkin D (eds) Risk, culture and health inequality. Praeger, Westport, pp vii–xiiGoogle Scholar
  161. Neufville D (2003) Real options: dealing with uncertainty in systems planning and design. Integr Assess 4(1):26–34Google Scholar
  162. Newhall CG, Hoblitt RP (2002) Constructing event trees for volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 64:3–20Google Scholar
  163. Newman SM, Clarisse L, Hurtmans D, Marenco F, Johnson B, Turnbull K, Havemann S, Baran AJ, O’Sullivan, Haywood J (2012) A case study of observations of volcanic ash from the Eyjafjallajökull eruption: 2. Airborne and satellite radiative measurements. J Geophys Res 117(D00U13). doi: 10.1029/2011JD016780
  164. Norton JP, Brown JD, Mysiak J (2006) To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Integr Assess J 6(1):83–88Google Scholar
  165. O’Riordan T, Cameron J (1994) The history and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London, pp 12–30Google Scholar
  166. Ouest France (2014) Le Bretagne épuisée. Ouest France Édition Spécial, Rennes, 48 pGoogle Scholar
  167. Pachauri R, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K (2000) Guideline papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 138 pGoogle Scholar
  168. Pappenberger F, Beven KJ, Hunter NM, Bates PD, Gouweleeuw BT, Thielen J, de Roo APJ (2005) Cascading model uncertainty from medium range weather forecasts (10 days) through a rainfall-runoff model to flood inundation predictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS). Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9(4):381–393Google Scholar
  169. Pareschi MT, Cavarra L, Favalli M, Giannini F, Meriggi A (2000) GIS and risk management. Nat Hazards 21:361–379Google Scholar
  170. Patt AG, Schrag DP (2003) Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim Chang 61:17–30Google Scholar
  171. Peel J (2005) The precautionary principle in practice: environmental decision-making and scientific uncertainty. The Federation Press, Annandale, 244 pGoogle Scholar
  172. Pennesi K (2007) Improving forecast communication: linguistic and cultural considerations. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1033–1044. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-88-7-1033 Google Scholar
  173. Pesaresi C, Marta M, Palagiano C, Scandone R (2008) The evaluation of “social risk” due to volcanic eruptions of Vesuvius. Nat Hazards 47:229–243Google Scholar
  174. Peterson DW (1988) Volcanic hazards and public response. J Geophys Res 93(B5):4161–4170Google Scholar
  175. Peterson DW, Tilling RI (1993) Interactions between scientists, civil authorities and the public at hazardous volcanoes. In: Kilburn CR, Luongo G (eds) Active lavas. UCL, London, pp 339–365Google Scholar
  176. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41Google Scholar
  177. Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF (2007) Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 27:681–695Google Scholar
  178. Princeton Language Institute (1993) Roget’s 21st century thesaurus. Laurel, New York, 859 pGoogle Scholar
  179. Quine CP (1988) Damage to trees and woodlands in the storm of 15–16 October 1897. Weather 43(3):114–118Google Scholar
  180. Raffensperger C, Jackson W (1999) Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island, Washington DC, 385 pGoogle Scholar
  181. Ragnao M, Hansstein F, Mazzocchi M (2011) The financial impact of the volcanic ash crisis on the European airline industry. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  182. Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in IPCC uncertainty assessment process.  Clim chang 85:19–31Google Scholar
  183. Ricci PF, Rice D, Ziagos J, Cox LA Jr (2003) Precaution, uncertainty and causation in environmental decisions. Environ Int 29:1–19Google Scholar
  184. Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process. Clim Chang 85:19–31Google Scholar
  185. RMS (2007) The Great Strom of 1987: 20-year retrospective. Risk Management Solutions Inc., Special Report. 18 pGoogle Scholar
  186. Rougier JC (2013) Quantifying hazard losses. In: Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–39Google Scholar
  187. Rougier JC, Beven KJ (2013) Model and data limitations: the sources and implications of epistemic uncertainty. In: Rougier J, Sparks S, Hill L (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–63Google Scholar
  188. Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality? Risk Anal 21(2):341–356Google Scholar
  189. Rowe GR, Frewer L, Sjöberg L (2000) Newspaper reporting of hazards in the UK and Sweden. Public Underst Sci 9:59–78Google Scholar
  190. Ruckelshaus WD (1984) Risk in a free society. Risk Anal 4(3):157–162Google Scholar
  191. Sachs NM (2011) Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. Univ Ill Law Rev 2011:1285–1338Google Scholar
  192. Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Juthe A (2002) Five charges against the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 5(4):287–299Google Scholar
  193. Sandri L, Guidoboni E, Marzocchi W, Selva J (2009) Bayesian event tree for eruption forecasting (BET_EF) at Vesuvius, Italy: a retrospective forward application to the 1631 eruption. Bull Volcanol 71:729–745Google Scholar
  194. Sandri L, Jolly G, Lindsay J, Howe T, Marzocchi W (2012) Combining long- and short-term probabilistic volcanic hazard assessment with cost-benefit analysis to support decision making in a volcanic crisis from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  195. Schwitzer G (2011) News coverage. In: Brewer NT, Downs JS (eds) Communication risks and benefits: an evidence-based user’s guide. FDA, Silver Spring, pp 185–193Google Scholar
  196. Selva J, Orsi G, Di Vito MA, Marzocchi W, Sandri L (2012) Probability hazard map for future vent opening at the Campi Flegrei caldera, Italy. Bull Volcanol 74:497–510Google Scholar
  197. Shackley S, Wynne B (1995) Integrating knowledge for climate change: pyramids, nets and uncertainties. Glob Environ Chang 5(2):113–126Google Scholar
  198. Shubik M (1954) Information, risk, ignorance, and indeterminacy. Q J Econ 68(4):629–640Google Scholar
  199. Sink SA (1995) Determining the public’s understanding of precipitation forecasts: results of a survey. Nat Weather Dig 19(3):9–15Google Scholar
  200. Sissors JZ, Baron RB (2010) Advertising media planning, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 480 pGoogle Scholar
  201. Slovic P (2001) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan, Trowbridge, pp 316–326Google Scholar
  202. Smith N, Joffe H (2012) How the public engages with global warming:  A social representations approach.  Public Underst Sci 22(1):16–32Google Scholar
  203. Sobradelo R, Martí J (2010) Bayesian event tree for long-term volcanic hazard assessment: application to Teide-Pico Viejo stratovolcanoes, Tenerife, Canary Islands. J Geophys Res 115(B05206). doi: 10.1029/2009JB006566
  204. Sobradelo R, Bartolini S, Martí J (2014) HASSET: a probability event tree tool to evaluate future volcanic scenarios using Bayesian inference—presented as a plug-in for QGIS. Bull Volcanol 76:770–785Google Scholar
  205. Sonka ST, Changnon SA, Hofing S (1988) Assessing climate information use in Agribusiness. Part II: decision experiments to estimate economic value. J Clim 1:766–774Google Scholar
  206. Sonner BS (1998) The effectiveness of negative political advertising: A case study.  J Advert Res 1986: 37–42Google Scholar
  207. Sparks RSJ (2003) Forecasting volcanic eruptions. Earth Planet Sci Lett 210:1–15Google Scholar
  208. Spiegelhalter DJ (2008) Understanding uncertainty. Ann Fam Med 6(3):196–197Google Scholar
  209. Spiegelhalter DJ, Riesch H (2011) Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1956):4730–4750Google Scholar
  210. Stewart TR (1997) Forecast value: descriptive decision studies. In: Katz RW, Murphy AH (eds) Economic value of weather and climate forecasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 147–181Google Scholar
  211. Stirling R (1997) The weather of Britain. Giles de la Mare Publishers Limited, London, 306 pGoogle Scholar
  212. Stirling A (2007) Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep 8(4):309–315Google Scholar
  213. Stocking SH (1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In: Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 23–41Google Scholar
  214. Sulpizio R, Folch A, Costa A, Scaini C, Dellino P (2012) Hazard assessment of far-range volcanic ash dispersal from a violent Strombolian eruption at Somma-Vesuvius volcano, Naples, Italy: implications on civil aviation. Bull Volcanol 74:2205–2218Google Scholar
  215. Sunstein CR (2002) The paralyzing principle. Regulation 2002–2003:32–37Google Scholar
  216. Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 234 pGoogle Scholar
  217. Sunstein CR (2007) Worst-case scenarios. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 340 pGoogle Scholar
  218. Sylvian J (2011) Newspaper and magazine advertising that works: a step by step guide. Digital Media Publishing, 35 pGoogle Scholar
  219. Taylor JR (1997) An introduction to error analysis: the study of uncertainties in physical measurements. University Science, Sausalito, 327 pGoogle Scholar
  220. Taylor BN and Kuyatt CE (1994) Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical Note 1297, U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington DC). 20 pGoogle Scholar
  221. Teigen TH, Brun W (1999) The directionality of verbal probability expressions: effects on decisions, predictions, and probabilistic reasoning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 80(2):155–190Google Scholar
  222. Templeman RF, Oliver HR, Stroud MR, Walker ME, Altay T, Pike SL (1988) Some wind speed and temperature observations during the storm of 15–16 October 1987. Weather 43(3):118–122Google Scholar
  223. Tilling RI (1989) Volcanic hazards and their mitigation: progress and problems. Rev Geophys 27(2):237–269Google Scholar
  224. Tilling RI, Punongbayan RS (1989) Scientific and public response. In: Short courses in Geology (AGU) 1:103–106Google Scholar
  225. Turnbull K, Johnson B, Marenco F, Haywood J, Minikin A, Weinzierl B, Schlager H, Schumann U, Leadbetter S, Woolley A (2012) J Geophys Res 117(D00U12). doi: 10.1029/2011JD016688
  226. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131Google Scholar
  227. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323Google Scholar
  228. van den Belt H (2003) Debating the precautionary principle: “guilty until proven innocent” or “innocent until proven guilty”? Plant Physiol 132:1122–1126Google Scholar
  229. Viehrig H (2008) Mass media and catastrophe prevention: how to avoid the crisis after the crisis. In: Apostol I et al (eds) Risk assessment as a basis for the forecast and prevention of catastrophes. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 258–267Google Scholar
  230. Viens AM (2011) Normative uncertainty and ethics in emergency risk regulation. In: Alemanno A (ed) Governing disasters: the challenges of emergency risk regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  231. Violette C (2014) Deux mois de pluies et tempêtes. In: Ouest France Édition Spécial (Rennes): 3Google Scholar
  232. Walker WE, Marchau VAWJ (2003) Dealing with uncertainty in policy analysis and policymaking. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17Google Scholar
  233. Walker G, Simmons P, Irwin A, Wynee B (1999) Risk communication, public participation and the Seveso II directive. J Hazard Mater 65:179–190Google Scholar
  234. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, Van Der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer Von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):1–4Google Scholar
  235. Wallsten TS, Fillenbaum S, Cox JA (1986a) Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. J Mem Lang 25:571–587Google Scholar
  236. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Zwick R, Forsyth B (1986b) Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J Exp Psychol Gen 115(4):348–365Google Scholar
  237. Webster M (2003) Communicating climate change uncertainty to policy-makers and the public. Climate Change 61:1–8Google Scholar
  238. Wiener JB, Rogers MD (2002) Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. J Risk Res 5(4):317–349Google Scholar
  239. Wilks DS (1997) Forecast value: prescriptive value. In: Katz RW, Murphy AH (eds) Economic value of weather and climate forecasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–107Google Scholar
  240. Windschitl PD, Weber EU (1999) The interpretation of “likely” depends on the context, but “70%” is 70%—right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25(6):1514–1533Google Scholar
  241. Woo G (2008) Probabilistic criteria for volcano evacuation decisions. Nat Hazards 45:87–97Google Scholar
  242. Woodhouse MJ, Hogg AJ, Phillips JC, Sparks RSJ (2013) Interaction between volcanic plumes and wind during the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, Iceland. J Geophys Res 118:1–18. doi: 10.1029/2012JB009592 Google Scholar
  243. Wright AM, Dunlap RE (2010) Anti-reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27:100–133Google Scholar
  244. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2(2):111–127Google Scholar
  245. Zehr SC (1999) Scientists’ representation of uncertainty. In: Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL (eds) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp 3–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Magmas et VolcansUniversité Blaise PascalClermont FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations