Using mental models as a tool to understand perspectives of scientific uncertainty and effectively communicate natural hazards science advice

Abstract

Science communication about natural hazards involves many complex uncertainties. These uncertainties come from system variability, lack of scientific knowledge, comprehension, and incomplete information. Relationships, roles, responsibilities and needs also contribute to uncertainty. People's trust in science is affected by how they understand these uncertainties.

To communicate ethically, official guidelines suggest being open about uncertainties. Effective communication requires understanding how different audiences perceive uncertainty. Researchers conducted 'mental model' interviews with officials, scientists, and members of the public, revealing key themes, including a) as well as data sources, the 'actors' involved can be sources of uncertainty; b) governance and funding factors can influence uncertainty; c) assumptions about expected human behaviours can contribute to 'known unknowns'; and d) there is difficulty in defining what uncertainty actually is.

Analysis showed greater science training results in a more developed and structured mental model of uncertainty. Laypeople focus on control, safety, and trust. These insights can improve hazard communication, and the design of our interview methodology can be adapted for participatory research.