SCEC INSTANeT News
	Development and Implementation of an Outreach Program to Promote Public Awareness of Seismic Hazards and Encourage Risk Mitigation in Vulnerable Communities (Part 1)

By Jill Andrews Abstract A symposium on Active Faulting was held at the community center of Hokudan town, Japan, January 16-20, 2000. Several SCEC researchers attended and presented papers (see http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/kojiok/hokudan.htm for more information). SCEC Outreach director Jill Andrews was invited to give the following overview on the development of programs to promote public awareness of seismic hazards and encourage risk mitigation in vulnerable communities. Part 1 focuses on how the southern California earth science research community developed a plan to work with government officials, building and design professionals, educators, media reporters and writers, and the public to increase awareness of the region's seismic hazard and to facilitate decisions that result in strengthened and enforced codes and better building practices. Part 2 includes specific examples of how we implement our outreach plan through interactions with our end users, especially those who develop risk mitigation measures. Part 3 addresses the southern California scientific community's plans for response to a damaging metropolitan earthquake.   Introduction We know that scientific knowledge is primarily determined by the research community, but issues related to public concern (e.g., hazard awareness, public safety, mitigation efforts) and end user requirements (i.e., "user friendly" products) are critical to facilitating application of that knowledge. Scientists, engineers and outreach professionals at the Southern California Earthquake Center have learned that effective, two-way communication is the first and most important step to establishing stronger ties between researchers and the public. We have learned that interpretation of scientific research - reducing results to understandable, usable products - is an essential part of the application process. Finally, we have learned that successful communication between scientists and the public is usually the result of each group sharing responsibility for active and continuos collaboration. SCEC's Outreach team, an integral part of the scientific community, constantly seeks ways to successfully motivate vulnerable populations to take protective action. The results of our efforts are just beginning to emerge: We see positive changes occurring in the level of public awareness and concern; we are helping produce products that can be readily understood and applied; and we are forming collaboratives and partnerships that maximize scarce resources and minimize duplication.   Part 1: Developing a Plan for Outreach How did we construct our Outreach Program? We based our plans on a six-step process. First, we conducted an internal investigation to identify our unique source strengths in light of our vision, goals, and research objectives. Consensus building on outreach issues among ourselves was a new concept to many, and although it was impossible to achieve complete agreement on every issue, the process enabled us to present a clear outreach plan to the public. Some of the questions we addressed during the internal investigation were What are the research objectives? What key projects or products are research related? What are the significant and/or unique technical capabilities of the group? What Successful Activities and/or methods have been previously used to disseminate research results? What funding levels are required or recommended for past, present and future projects? Second, we identified end users in the community who we believed had the capability to use our products. We learned that our research results needed to be packaged in such a way that they "fit" various users, who also had to possess the ability and resources to adopt and implement those results. We carefully selected a group of "working colleagues" (internal "champions") within our targeted user groups. We conducted a workshop with this new Research Utilization Council (RUC) (see participants and questions below. The RUC served to increase SCEC's credibility in the community and promoted faster adoption of new information. Workshop Participants Scientists, educators, and students interested in increasing public understanding and awareness of earthquake-related hazards in their region; and provide information on how to protect themselves and their properties from damaging earthquakes. Government officials interested in using or applying scientific data and information (i.e., probabilistic hazard analyses, damage potential) to aid in forming policies to increase public safety. Emergency planners and responders interested in using or applying scientific data and information to increase accuracy in planning scenarios and increase efficiency in response to damaging earthquakes. Media representatives and public information officials who wish to become more knowledgeable about the effects of earthquakes; and who wish to accurately report information to the public in the event of a damaging earthquake. Members of the general public who need better information on ways to protect themselves from damaging earthquakes. Workshop Questions What opportunities exist for coordination / collaboration among scientists, emergency planners and responders, media representatives, and the general public? What related state and national research capabilities as well as international programs in earthquake research exist? Who are the potential partners (domestic and foreign) who could aid in designing a public education / awareness program? What are the most effective means of coordinated communication among those engaged in public education / awareness programs? (Examples: the Internet, workshops, seminars, informal meetings, teleconferencing.) What means or tools does this group most effectively use? What new projects might integrate capabilities and leverage resources of potential partners? What resources exist to leverage existing resources? (Examples: government funding; industry support; matching funds to existing grants; public or private foundations.) We developed three distinct outreach programs to address the needs of our end users (Figure 1, Adapted from Yin, R. and Moore, G., 1985, The Utilization of Research: Lessons from the Natural Hazards Field, Cosmos Corporation):     Public awareness programs for the general public and media reporters and writers; Formal and nonformal education programs for students, teachers, emergency planners and responders, government officials, policy makers and insurers; and Knowledge transfer programs for practicing design professionals, urban planners, code officials, and academicians. Third, we conducted a series of workshops with the RUC. We asked them to help us initiate the outreach programs keeping in mind two goals: 1) to achieve consensus, not just between users but also among providers' leadership; and, 2) to focus on simplicity and practical solutions, so that increased utilization could be reached in a timely and cost effective manner. We solicited advice on what products were needed by priority users, what communication and dissemination methods should be used, and what societal role SCEC should pursue. The results of the workshops set the stage for the next three steps. Fourth, we resolved to continue interaction with the RUC to stay current with their needs. Over the years, they have provided us with valuable feedback on the best methods of communication; identification of linkages or opportunities with end users; and help with establishing management policies that enhance our outreach efforts on a continuing basis. We learned from them that our research group management policies should: Ensure that research is disseminated and that products have useful application. Invite user participation within the research organization. Encourage principal investigators to improve technology transfer. Require principal investigators to involve users in each funded project. Assign higher priority to research proposals, which include product development and dissemination efforts. Appropriate funding needed to support such an effort. Identify funding sources. Require that a utilization plan, or implementation strategy, be prepared for every funded project. These plans should describe the potential end uses of research results and also address how these results will be disseminated. Develop performance measurements to evaluate the usefulness of research information. These measurements could be used as guides for funding research proposals, conducting post-research evaluations, and providing a feedback mechanism for a strategic science plan. Fifth, we devised a plan for implementation. We had to carefully consider the feasibility of each project or product suggested, and account for time required (especially of researchers who already have full schedules), resources (can they be leveraged?), and capabilities. We have learned that the following sample projects and activities encourage two-way communication while providing participants a variety of ways to stay in touch with the researchers and the results of their efforts: Frequent science/engineering seminars: featuring state-of-the-art ideas, methods or hypotheses, these promote lively exchange among researchers. Although seminars primarily target scientists and engineers, we invite practicing professionals with expertise in applying the research. Technical Briefs: Distribution of research results, in a form ready for application by professionals, should include recommendations for how to use the information in practice, as well as describe the limitations of the results. Field excursions: In earthquake research, field studies are not only a necessity but also an excellent means to transfer knowledge to other researchers and to end users. These activities take a great deal of time to plan in advance, but if the effort is well documented and produced in a book or guide, they can be repeated with minimal effort. Informational and/or Technical workshops and/or short courses: An excellent way to transfer scientific or technical information to end users with specific needs. Workshops are probably the single most effective tool in transferring dynamic knowledge. Workshops promote two-way communication and often stimulate innovative ideas for new approaches in solving problems. Participants contribute abstracts or papers for proceedings and technical briefs. Short courses are conducted in partnership with professional associations or academic organizations that assist in developing course materials and provide other support. Publications (newsletters, articles or papers in other organizations' publications, Web sites): These tools can significantly impact the community-at-large, provided the expertise and energy level of the knowledge transfer professional matches the resulting increase in public demand. Increased use of the Internet, specifically the World Wide Web, enables widespread dissemination of materials. Agreements, Alliances, Partnerships, and/or Links to groups in the research and user communities. Successful linkages require participants who have knowledge of system processes, have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and accept the high transaction costs associated with interdisciplinary activities, and are able to overcome communication problems by developing a common language. Partnerships should be based on collaborative behavior rather than merely being an exchange relationship; and must be flexible, allowing for development of interpersonal relationships and organizational learning. A partnership between the scientific research and applied professional communities can make a significant contribution to improving management of the earthquake risk. Each partner must contribute to bridging the gap between cultures to promote gains in knowledge transfer. Examples of opportunities for partnership in earthquake activities include probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, regional geologic mapping, active fault analysis, scenario development, ground motion recording and archiving, and creation of synthetic seismograms. Some of these will be discussed in more detail in the second part of this presentation. Sixth, we incorporate an iterative education process where both researchers and end users actively educate each other. The results: refined and improved (therefore usable) products; strengthened linkages and collaborative partnerships; and expanded opportunities. The iterative process also advances the concept of joint ownership among disparate groups. This in turn can lead to consensus and implementation of mutually identified priorities for earthquake hazard awareness, mitigation product development, information dissemination and two-way communication. Conclusion Earthquakes are inevitable, but the damage from earthquakes is not. Knowledge can save time, money, and even lives. With careful planning, earthquake science and engineering researchers can contribute to political, social and economic changes that reduce losses due to seismic activity. The challenge is to select the right kinds of communications activities, target the appropriate audiences, and present them at the right places and at the right times. We know that knowledge and use of new earthquake research results, especially by engineering design professionals, public policy makers, and government officials can promote public safety. We also know that "user-friendly" information distributed widely and in understandable terms advances public understanding of the severity of an earthquake threat and probable consequences; and can lead vulnerable populations to take protective measures. Finally, we know by our own experience that community leaders and stakeholders can enhance their capacity to manage their own environment, resources, and natural hazards - even earthquakes - through better utilization of existing information, new knowledge and increased understanding.     Part 2 includes specific examples of how we implement our outreach plan through interactions with our end users, especially those who develop risk mitigation measures. Part 3 addresses the southern California scientific community's plans for response to a damaging metropolitan earthquake.

OTHER FEATURE STORIES

Phone 213/740-5843 Fax 213/740-0011 e-mail: SCECinfo@usc.edu