The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis
Tóm tắt
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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aspinall WP, Sparks RSJ (2004) Volcanology and the law. IAVCEI News 1:4, http://www.iavcei.org/pubs_w.html
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 21:71–91
Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick
Breakwell GM (2000) Risk communication: factors affecting impact. Brit Med Bull 1:110–120
Bryman A (1988) Quantity and quality in social research. Unwin Hyman, London
Burnham PK, Gillard K, Grant W, Layton-Henry Z (2004) Research methods in politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
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, London
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334
Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social trust: towards a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, London
Fergus H (2001) Montserrat in the Twentieth Century: Trials and Triumphs. UWI School of Continuing Studies, Montserrat
Field A (2000) Discovering Statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage, London
Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16:473–485
Gibbs G (2002) Qualitative data analysis: explorations with NVivo. Open University, Buckingham
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 130:179–196
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 159–174
Hammond KR (1996) Human judgement and social policy: irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press, New York
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
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, UK
Henwood KL, Pidgeon NF (1992) Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. British J Psychol 83:97–111
Herd RA, Edmonds M, Bass VA (2005) Catastrophic lava dome failure at Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, 12–13 July 2003. J Volcanol Geoth Res 148:234–252
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 262–285
Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH (1953) Communication and persuasion: psychological issues of opinion change. Yale University Press, Newhaven
Johnson BB (1999) Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard related trust. J Risk Res 2:325–354
Johnston D, Bebbington MS, Lai CD, Houghton BF, Paton D (1999) Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disast Prevent Man 8:118–126
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 153–178
Kinzig A (2003) Uncertainty and the Scientist. Ambio 32:329
Kinzig A, Starrett D (2003) Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32:330–335
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 21:1–44
Krimsky S, Golding D (1992) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, CT
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
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 100–116
Millward L (1995) Focus groups. In: Breakwell GM, Hammond S, Fife-Shaw C (eds) Research methods in psychology. Sage, London, pp 274–292
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 60:323–334
Paton D, Smith L, Johnston D (2000) Volcanic hazards: risk perception and preparedness. New Zealand J Psychol 29:86–91
Pattullo P (2000) Fire from the mountain: the tragedy of Montserrat and the betrayal of its people. Constable, London
Perry RW, Greene MR (1983) Citizen response to volcanic eruptions: the case of Mt. St. Helens. Irvington, New York
Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43–54
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 701–718
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 339–365
Pidgeon N, Henwood K (2004) Grounded theory. In: Hardy M, Bryman A (eds) Handbook of data analysis. Sage, London, pp 625–648
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 89–134
Poortinga W (2004) Public perceptions and trust in the regulation of genetically modified food. PhD thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK
Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23:961–972
Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2004) Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Anal 24:1475–1486
Possekel AK (1999) Living with the unexpected. Springer, Berlin
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 175–218
Ronan KR, Paton D, Johnston DM, Houghton BF (2000) Managing societal uncertainty in volcanic hazards: a multidisciplinary approach. Disast Prevent Man 9:339–348
Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–11
Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198
Skelton T (2000) Political uncertainties and natural disasters: Montserratian identity and colonial status. Interventions: Internat J Postcolonial Stud 2:103–117
Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682
Slovic P (2000) Perception of risk. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London, pp 220–231
Trettin L, Musham C (2000) Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk communication? Environ Behav 32:410–426
Walls J, Pidgeon N, Weymann A, Horlick-Jones T (2004) Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health Risk Soc 6:133–150
Wynne B (1980) Risk, technology and trust: on the social treatment of uncertainty. In: Conrad J (ed) Society, technology and risk. Arnold, London, pp 83–117