Skip to content

Reframing science advisory: it all starts with a conversation

Nico Fournier , GeoNet Volcano Monitoring Group

Abstract

There is a persisting romantic view of decision-making whereby authorities and communities have well-defined and well-articulated information needs that guide scientists in their providing of science advice about volcanic hazards and risks. Reality is somewhat different and far more complex, especially in uncertain times, and potentially escalating volcanic crises, or even during peacetime when volcanic risk can be deprioritised over more pressing issues. Some key factors contribute to this complexity. - Decision-making is contextual. Volcanologists tend to view volcanic hazards and risks as the sole determinant for decision-making, whereas it is only one piece of the puzzle. - Decision-making involves both facts and emotions; hence, advisory should be presented in a relatable narrative. - Experiences like the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake and the 2019 Whakaari / White Island eruption have stigmatised science advisory. This has caused anxiety and pushback from scientists to stay clear of risk management, leading to unhelpful passive attitudes or "it is not our role" narratives, fostering communication breakdowns. Authorities keep setting unrealistic expectations of science advisory, while scientists try to determine in semi-isolation the most helpful range of science outputs to provide. This often leads to information overload in technical jargon, leaving authorities and communities with only one question: "what should we do?" Here we draw from decades of volcanic crises to illustrate how reframing our approach to science advisory can make a positive difference. And it all starts with a conversation and two key questions: what decision do you have to make? And how do you make it?