RIA World Social Science Fellows’ work:
- Gas production from the Groningen gas filed in the north of the Netherlands has caused earthquakes. In August 2012, the strongest earthquake happened, which was 3.6 on Richter scale. This demands legitimate energy policy and adequate mitigation measures. For that, it is important to know how people in the province of Groningen perceived the risks of earthquakes and which mitigation measures they demand and prefer. Researches Goda Perlaviciute, Elisbateh Hoekstra and Linda Steg at the University of Groningen conducted longitudinal research into public concern, perceived risks, and emotions towards the earthquakes in the province of Groningen. Results revealed that inhabitants were concerned about the earthquakes caused by gas production in their region. Respondents perceived highest risks for properties and for the image of the province of Groningen, while other risks, including physical injury and stress, were perceived as lower. In contrast to media images, the earthquakes only elicited moderate negative emotions, yet people felt powerless when thinking about the earthquakes. Respondents considered the mitigation measures that are directly aimed at preventing and/or reducing the risks of earthquakes as most urgent, but they thought that these measures are not well implemented. Public concern, perceived risks and emotions hardly changed after the mitigation measures were implemented; if anything, they became more negative. The result have important practical implications and offer new insights into public risk perception. For more information about this research, see http://www.rug.nl/gmw/psychology/onderzoekgaswinning/
- Wein, A., Potter, S., Johal, S., Doyle, E., & Becker, J. (2016) Communicating with the Public during an Earthquake Sequence: Improving Communication of Geoscience by Coordinating Roles. Seismological Research Letters, 87(1), doi: 10.1785/0220150113
- Doyle, E.H., Becker, J.S., Neely, P. D., Johnston, D.M., & Pepperell, B. (2015). Knowledge transfer between communities, practitioners, and researchers: A case study for community resilience in Wellington, New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies: Practice Update, 19(2), 55-66.
- Doyle, E. E. H., Paton, D., Johnston, D (2015) Enhancing scientific response in a crisis: evidence-based approaches from emergency management in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Volcanology 2015, 4:1
- Schenk, T., R.A.L. Vogel, N. Maas and L. Tavasszy (2016). Joint Fact-Finding in Practice: Review of a Collaborative Approach to Climate-Ready Infrastructure in Rotterdam. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 16(1): 273-293.
- Schenk, T., E. Czaika, D. Rumore and M. Russo (2016). Joint Fact-Finding: A tool for scientifically and technically-intensive interactive governance. Critical Reflections on Interactive Governance. L. Edelenbos and I. van Meerkerk, Eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Sword-Daniels, V., Eriksen, C., Doyle, E.E.H., Alaniz, R., Adler, C., Schenk, T., Vallance, S. (2016) Embodied uncertainty: living with Complexity and Natural Hazards. Journal of Risk Research, In Press.
The following are the products of the RIA project to date:
[This statement is an output of the London ICoE-Risk Interpretation and Action (RIA) as a response from the scientific community to the revision process of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (HFA). ICoE-RIA is a member of the UKDC-Resilience alliance that is composed of leading UK centres of excellence for natural hazards, disaster risk and resilience research and learning.]
[This report was undertaken in support of the State of the Science for the Global Assessment of Disaster Risk Management (GAR). Grant number G/82625/2014/02. The grantee was the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science).]
- Disaster Risk Communication: Dialogues for Reducing Disaster Risk (An Integrated Research on Disaster Risk, Risk Interpretation and Action programme Briefing Note) 2013
This note is the outcome of the two day workshop, Risk Interpretation and Action: An agenda setting workshop to better integrate behavioural and social science and practitioner approaches to knowledge and learning in resilience building for disaster risk management. This workshop was held at King’s College London, from 16-17 May 2013, and hosted by Mark Pelling (King’s College London), Emma Visman (Humanitarian Futures) and Terry Gibson (Global Network for Disaster Reduction).
- Eiser, J.R., Bostrom, A., Burton, I., Johnston, D.M., McClure, J., Paton, D., van der Pligt, J. and White, M.P. (2012). Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 1, pp. 5-16.
- Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2011). Risk Interpretation and Action: A Conceptual Framework for Research in the Context of Natural Hazards (IRDR RIA Publication No. 1). Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.