Advertisement

Communicating Risk and Uncertainty: Science, Technology, and Disasters at the Crossroads

  • Havid´an Rodr´ıguez
  • Walter D´ıaz
  • Jenniffer M. Santos
  • Benigno E. Aguirre
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

It is estimated that about 80% of all disasters are directly tied to weather events; thus forecasting weather has become a very important scientific, economic, and political endeavor. With the development of new and enhanced technology, weather forecasting skills have improved significantly both in the United States and internationally (National Research Council [NRC], 1999, 2003). However, weather forecasting is a probabilistic science and many uncertainties still remain (see National Science Foundation [NSF], 2002). Indeed, despite significant improvements in our ability to predict the weather in the short and long-term, recent experiences with natural hazards show that we continue to confront important challenges regarding lead times, false alarm rates, the accuracy and reliability of the information that is being communicated, and in our ability to elicit the appropriate response from the local, state, and federal governments as well as the general public, as the case of Hurricane Katrina (2005) clearly demonstrated.

Keywords

Lead Time Geographic Information System Weather Forecast Warning System Disaster Preparedness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

 

  1. Dynes, R.R. (1998). Coming to terms with community disaster. In E.L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a disaster: Perspectives on the question (pp. 109–126). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Perry, R.W., & Greene, M.R. (1982). The role of ethnicity in the emergency decision-making process. Sociological Inquiry, 52, 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  4. Adya, A., Bahl, P., & Qiu, L. (2002). Characterizing alert and browse services for mobile clients. Monterey, CA: USENIX Annual Technical Conference.Google Scholar
  5. Wijkman, A., & Timberlake, L. (1988). Natural disasters: Acts of God or acts of man? Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Curson, P. (1989). Introduction. In J.I. Clarke, P. Curson, S.L. Kayastha, & P. Nag (Eds.), Population and disaster (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Blackwell and Institute of British Geographers.Google Scholar
  7. King, D. (2004). Understanding the message: Social and cultural constraints to interpreting weather generated natural hazards. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  8. Wenger, D.E., Dyke, J.D., Sebok, T.D., & Neff, J.L. (1980). It’s a matter of myths: An empirical examination of individual insight into disaster response. In M. D. Pugh (Ed.), Collective behavior: A source book (pp. 65–78). New York: West.Google Scholar
  9. Mileti, D., & Sorenson, J. (1990). Communication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and the state-of-the-art assessment, ORNL–6609. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  10. Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balluz, L., Schieve, L., Holmes, T., Kiezak, S., & Malilay, J. (2000). Predictors for people’s response to a tornado warning: Arkansas, 1 March 1997. Disasters, 24(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morrow, B.H. (1997). Stretching the bonds: The families of Hurricane Andrew. In W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow, & H. Gladwin (Eds.), Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender, and the sociology of disasters (pp. 141–170). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Slovic P., Flynn, J. & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutter, S., Richardson, D.B., & Wilbanks, T.J. (Eds.). (2003). The geographical dimensions of terrorism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Steinberg, T. (2000). Acts of God: The unnatural history of natural disaster in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gilbert, C. (1998). Studying disaster: Changes in the main conceptual tools. In E.L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a disaster: Perspectives on the question (pp. 11–18). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Bandy, R., Johnson, A., Peek, L., & Sutton, J. (2004). Public hazards communication: Annotated bibliography. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Natural Hazards Center. Retrieved October 3, 2005, http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/informer/pubhazbibann.pdf.Google Scholar
  18. Platt, R.H. (1999). Disasters and democracy: The politics of extreme natural events. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lindell, M.K., & Perry, R.W. (2001). Community innovation in hazardous materials management: Profess in implementing SARA Title III in the United States. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 88, 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dash, N., Peacock, W., & Morrow, B. (1997). And the poor get poorer: A neglected black community. In W. Peacock, B. Morrow, & H. Gladwin (Eds.), Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender, and the sociology of disaster (pp. 206–225). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Morrow, B.H., & Enarson, E. (1996). Hurricane Andrew through women’s eyes: Issues and recommendations. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  22. Nigg, J.M. (1987). Communication and behavior: Organizational and individual response to warnings. In R. Dynes, Bruna de Marchi, & C. Pelanda (Eds.), Sociology of disasters: Contributions of sociology to disaster research (pp. 103–118). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  23. Wenger, D.E., James, T.F., & Faupel, C.E. (1980). Disaster beliefs and emergency planning. Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center.Google Scholar
  24. Cutter, S., Boruff, B., & Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perry, R.W. (2004). Disaster exercise outcomes for professional emergency personnel and citizen volunteers. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Blanchard-Boehm, R.D. (1998). Understanding public response to increased risk from natural hazards: Application of the hazard risk communication framework. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 16(3), 247–278.Google Scholar
  27. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking the truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  28. Peacock, W.G., Morrow, B.H., & Gladwin, H. (Eds.). (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender and the sociology of disaster. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Slovic, P. (2000). Trust, emotion, sex, politics and sciences: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In P. Slovic. (Ed.), The perception of risk: Risk, society and policy series (pp. 390–412). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  30. Quarantelli, E.L. (1991c). Lessons from research: Findings on mass communications system behavior in the pre, trans and postimpact periods. Newark, DE: University of Delware, Disaster Research Center.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, E.U., & Hsee, C.K. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception but cross–cultural similarities in attitudes towards risk. Management Science, 44, 1205–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peacock, W.G., & Girard, C. (1997). Ethnic and racial inequalities in hurricane damage and insurance settlements. In W. Peacock, B. Morrow, & H. Gladwin (Eds.), Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender, and the sociology of disaster (pp. 171–190). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Tierney, K.J., Lindell, M.K., & Perry, R.W. (2001). Facing the unexpected: Disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  34. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy: A systems perspective. Risk Analysis, 13, 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fischer, H.W. III. (1994). Response to disaster: Fact versus fiction and its perpetuation: The sociology of disaster. New York: University Presses of America.Google Scholar
  36. Rodriguez, H., Wachtendorf, T., Kendra, J., & Trainor, J. (2005). The great Sumatra Earthquake and the Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004: A preliminary assessment of societal impacts and consequences. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Newsletter, (4), May 2005, 39(5), 1–7.Google Scholar
  37. Enarson, E., & Meyreles, L. (2004). International perspectives on gender and disaster: Differences and possibilities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(10/11), 49–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Havid´an Rodr´ıguez
    • 1
  • Walter D´ıaz
    • 2
  • Jenniffer M. Santos
    • 1
  • Benigno E. Aguirre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Center for Applied Social Research, Department of Social SciencesUniversity of Puerto Rico-MayagöezPuerto RicoUSA

Personalised recommendations