Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs. fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology

Addressing the challenges of making data, products, and services accessible: an EPOS perspective

Novel measurement technologies, additional sensors and increasing data processing capacities offer new opportunities to answer some of the currently most pressing societal and environmental questions. They also contribute to the fact that the available data volume will continue to increase. At the same time, the requirements for those providing such data rise and the needs of users to access it. The EPOS Delivery Framework aims to support this endeavour in the solid Earth domain by providing access to data, products, and services supporting multidisciplinary analyses for a wide range of users. Based on this example, we look at the most pressing issues from when data, products, and services are made accessible, to access principles, ethical issues related to its collection and use as well as with respect to their promotion. Among many peculiarities, we shed light on a common component that affects all fields equally: change. Not only will the amount and type of data, products, and services change, but so will the societal expectations and providers capabilities

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs. fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology

Why should I use a multi-hazard app? Assessing the public's information needs and app feature preferences in a participatory process

In the age of nearly instant information and high-bandwidth communication, public expectations regarding the availability of authoritative short-term and real-time hazard information are evolving rapidly. Despite the existence of numerous apps covering hazard information, little research has been conducted to assess what the public actually expects from such an app. Perceived usefulness is crucial as the public will only use apps offering an added value to them. Several studies have identified that people prefer an app combining relevant hazards instead of single hazard apps. Therefore, we focused our analysis on multi-hazard apps. With seven virtual interactive workshops, we assessed the public's information needs and app feature preferences. With respect to the content of multi-hazard apps, our results show that participants would mainly combine natural hazards but also have an interest in integrating anthropogenic and socio-natural hazards. To this end, participants advocate sending push notifications for low-probability hazards via general-purpose apps (e.g., weather apps) to reach a larger audience. Despite the desired diversity of hazard information, participants wish for an app focusing on relevant information only and redirecting users to other authorized sources for further information. Participants define the following as relevant information: location, time, hazard severity, behavioral recommendations and the contact details of emergency services. In addition, they wish for the following features: push notifications, a help button, a sharing function, a chat forum, an “I am safe” button, and a “Report an event” button.ISSN:2212-420

Supplementary material: Why should I use a multi-hazard app? Assessing the public's information needs and app feature preferences in a participatory process

ISSN:2212-420

What defines the success of maps and additional information on a multi-hazard platform?

Triggered by technical progress that has allowed for the combining of information about natural, anthropogenic and socionatural hazards, numerous multi-hazard platforms have been established over the last years. Despite their increasing use, surprisingly, little research has been conducted evaluating how the public perceives of the hazard information provided by these multi-hazard platforms. Because most of them use maps on the start page, we were especially interested in the different approaches towards presenting multiple hazards and towards compiling the contents of the hazard announcements attached to the maps. With an online conjoint choice experiment (N = 768, fully randomised design), we tested different start page designs and hazard announcements representing the diversity of elements used in multi-hazard platforms. The alternatives were randomly displayed as pairs to the participants (between-subjects design), asking them to first rate the alternatives separately and then to choose which of the two they preferred. Our main results are that the participants prefer a start page consisting of a single map with textual information about the current hazards below the map. In addition, they prefer hazard classifications with four or five hazard categories. Moreover, the participants appreciate the embedding of a sharing function in the hazard announcements. Finally, the participants prefer a combination of textual and pictured behavioural recommendations. To conclude, the results indicate that the design of information provided on multi-hazard platforms indeed affects the public's preferences. Therefore, in parallel to the continuous improvement of scientific-technical products, the communication and perception of these products should be systematically examined too.ISSN:2212-420