Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.883 IF 2.883
  • IF 5-year value: 3.321 IF 5-year
    3.321
  • CiteScore value: 3.07 CiteScore
    3.07
  • SNIP value: 1.336 SNIP 1.336
  • IPP value: 2.80 IPP 2.80
  • SJR value: 1.024 SJR 1.024
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 81 Scimago H
    index 81
  • h5-index value: 43 h5-index 43
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-112
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-112
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Research article 04 Jul 2019

Research article | 04 Jul 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).

Difficulties in explaining complex issues with maps. Evaluating seismic hazard communication – the Swiss case

Michèle Marti1, Michael Stauffacher2, and Stefan Wiemer1 Michèle Marti et al.
  • 1Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland
  • 2USYS TdLab, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland

Abstract. 2.7 billion people live in areas where earthquakes causing at least slight damage have to be expected regularly. Providing information can potentially save lives and improve the resilience of a society. Maps are an established way to illustrate natural hazard. Despite of being mainly tailored to the requirements of professional users, they are often the only accessible information to help the public deciding about mitigation measures. There is evidence that hazard maps are frequently misconceived. Visual and textual characteristics as well as the manner of presentation have been shown to influence their comprehensibility. Using a real case, the material to communicate the updated seismic hazard model for Switzerland was analyzed in a representative online survey of the population (N = 491) and in two workshops involving architects and engineers not specializing in seismic retrofitting (N = 23). Although many best practice recommendations have been followed, the understanding of seismic hazard information remains challenging. Whereas most participants were able to distinguish hazardous from less hazardous areas, correctly interpreting detailed results and identifying the most suitable set of information for answering a given question proved demanding. We suggest scrutinizing current natural hazard communication strategies and empirically testing new products.

Michèle Marti et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: open (until 29 Aug 2019)
Status: open (until 29 Aug 2019)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Michèle Marti et al.
Michèle Marti et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 169 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
122 44 3 169 2 2
  • HTML: 122
  • PDF: 44
  • XML: 3
  • Total: 169
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 2
Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Jul 2019)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 158 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 158 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 18 Jul 2019
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Earthquakes are the deadliest natural hazards. Providing information can save lives. Maps are an established way to illustrate natural hazard and regularly used to communicate with non-experts. However, there is evidence that they are frequently misconceived. Using a real case, we confirm in our study that understanding seismic hazard information is indeed very challenging. We suggest scrutinizing current natural hazard communication strategies and empirically testing new products.
Earthquakes are the deadliest natural hazards. Providing information can save lives. Maps are an...
Citation