Fearnley C J, Beaven S
1Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT UK.
2Disaster Risk and Resilience Group, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag, Christchurch, 48000 New Zealand.
Bull Volcanol. 2018;80(5):46. doi: 10.1007/s00445-018-1219-z. Epub 2018 Apr 13.
Over the last four decades, volcano observatories have adopted a number of different communication strategies for the dissemination of information on changes in volcanic behaviour and potential hazards to a wide range of user groups. These commonly include a standardised volcano alert level system (VALS), used in conjunction with other uni-valent communication techniques (such as information statements, reports and maps) and multi-directional techniques (such as meetings and telephone calls). This research, based on interviews and observation conducted 2007-2009 at the five US Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories, and including some of the key users of the VALS, argues for the importance of understanding how communicating volcanic hazard information takes place as an everyday social practice, focusing on the challenges of working across the boundaries between the scientific and decision-making communities. It is now widely accepted that the effective use, value and deployment of information across science-policy interfaces of this kind depend on three criteria: the scientific credibility of the information, its relevance to the needs of stakeholders and the legitimacy of both the information and the processes that produced it. Translation and two-way communication are required to ensure that all involved understand what information is credible and relevant. Findings indicate that whilst VALS play a role in raising awareness of an unfolding situation, supplementary communication techniques are crucial in facilitating situational understanding of that situation, and the uncertainties inherent to its scientific assessment, as well as in facilitating specific responses. In consequence, 'best practice' recommendations eschew further standardisation, and focus on the in situ cultivation of dialogue between scientists and stakeholders as a means of ensuring that information, and the processes through which it is produced are perceived to be legitimate by all involved.
在过去的四十年里，火山观测站采用了多种不同的沟通策略，向广泛的用户群体传播有关火山活动变化和潜在危害的信息。这些策略通常包括一个标准化的火山警报级别系统（VALS），并结合其他单向沟通技术（如信息声明、报告和地图）以及多向沟通技术（如会议和电话）使用。这项研究基于2007年至2009年在美国地质调查局（USGS）的五个火山观测站进行的访谈和观察，其中包括VALS的一些关键用户，强调了理解传播火山危害信息作为一种日常社会实践是如何进行的重要性，重点关注跨越科学和决策社区之间界限开展工作所面临的挑战。现在人们普遍认为，在这种科学与政策的接口上有效利用、评估和部署信息取决于三个标准：信息的科学可信度、其与利益相关者需求的相关性以及信息及其产生过程的合法性。需要进行翻译和双向沟通，以确保所有相关人员都理解哪些信息是可信和相关的。研究结果表明，虽然VALS在提高对正在发展的情况的认识方面发挥了作用，但补充沟通技术对于促进对该情况的情境理解、其科学评估中固有的不确定性以及促进具体应对措施至关重要。因此，“最佳实践”建议避免进一步标准化，而是侧重于在科学家和利益相关者之间就地培养对话，以确保信息及其产生过程被所有相关人员视为合法。
