A change of paradigm
From: Guido Giordano <guido.giordano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
****************************************************************************************
A change of paradigm
The discussion of these days hosted meritoriously by Listserv on the L’Aquila earthquake and consequent trial and sentence shows how delicate are the relationships between science, politics and media.
I will not add to the many opinions already presented by many collegues, which perfectly illustrate the complexity of the issue. However I believe that the trial and sentence derive from the kind of “rules of engagement”, both written and unwritten, currently existing between science and society [my view and experience is obviously mostly based on the Italian situation]. My understanding is that the convicted scientists acted by those rules, therefore seemingly correctly within the given cultural frame. However, this case interrogates my conscience of scientist and citizen about those rules and their effectiveness in protecting people and promoting empowerment of individuals against natural disasters.
I want therefore to focus on the need for a radical cultural change from a state-oriented to a person-oriented science action, which I feel is at the core of the problem, as I will try to show below.
At present most of the scientific activity applied to civil protection is aimed at delivering information to state agencies for the implementation of emergency and evacuation plans. We are required to and we deliver probabilistic maps that (should) guide priorities of interventions and explain where and when it is most likely that a hazardous event will occur, given a threshold and a recurrence time. This kind of approach is tailored for a cost-benefit evaluation, typical of insurance companies. This approach also largely disregards the communities who live in the affected territories. Persons are required only to “behave” when required to move, or to stay. A common understatement in civil protection procedures is for example not to create panic, implicitly considering the citizens incapable of handling the uncertainties associated with natural hazards or even of receiving information on the risks associated with the territories they live in. And in facts, peoples in general have very little access to educational programs on risks so that they are largely unaware of those risks and have a very little scientific alphabetisation. For these reasons people do not urge a steady spending policy oriented at prevention and mitigations of risks. For these reasons people cannot properly evaluate what media and officials report when the crisis arrives, nor take site- and person-specific actions based, for example, on the knowledge of the building they live in, or on the personal situation, such they would be the very different cases of a lone elderly person who may want to stay versus a young couple with kids who may want to go.
The needed change of paradigm is perfectly expressed by the words of the Commission on Human Security of the United Nations (2003) quoted in an insightful essay by D. Ikeda (http://www.sgi.org/sgi-president/proposals/peace/2012.html):
“The state remains the fundamental purveyor of security. Yet it often fails to fulfill security obligations. That is why attention must now shift from the security of the state to the security of the people--to human security.
The primary question of every human security activity should not be: What can we do? It should be: How does this activity build on the efforts and capabilities of those directly affected?” (Commission on Human Security. 2003. "Human Security Now: The Report of the Commission on Human Security." http://ochaonline.un.org/OchaLinkClick.aspx?link=ocha&docId=1250396)
This change implies that we scientists should feel contracted both by the state and by the citizens and that our efforts need to deliver to each individual potentially affected.
With this I mean, first, to give a priority to protect each and any life, via the enforcement of policies for the reduction of vulnerabilities, and programs aimed at risk awareness and preparedness. People should be involved in directing applied science, presently instead largely driven by insurance companies. For example, the result of a recent investigation on volcanic risk perception in the Campi Flegrei area (Project V5 Speed; http://istituto.ingv.it/l-ingv/progetti/progetti-finanziati-dal-dipartimento-di-protezione-civile-1/progetti-dpc-convenzione-2007-2009/progetti_v/V5/V5-Speed) demonstrated that volcanic hazard is not perceived at all by the local population, and that the closest volcano is believed to be Vesuvius (!). Citizens have the right to know where they live in and choose accordingly what kind of public, private and personal policies should be enacted, including contributing to the direction of applied science. People have the right to know the basic information for self-protection and to see a consistent program of public and private investment in risk mitigation. And science needs educated hears to be understood. If that does not happen, then science will be perceived, as unfortunately largely already is, as part of the “establishment” instead as a resource.
Second I see the need for a shift of emphasis from the probabilistic approach to the maximum expected event.
For example, the Italian territory is since 2003 very carefully subdivided into 4 classes in terms earthquake hazard and antiseismic building prescriptions, based on the expected horizontal peak acceleration with a probability exceeding 10% within the recurrence time of 50 years (http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/pcm3274.html). The recent 5.9 M earthquake in northern Italy occurred in an area where the previous and only historically recorded event of that magnitude occurred in 1570 C.E. So while in terms of probability the classification of that territory in class 3 (low hazard; expected acceleration = 0.05-0.15g) is correct, for those who experienced that particular earthquake (local acceleration >0.3g) the probability is irrelevant while the actual occurrence is very relevant. Similarly, scientists in L'Aquila were asked to assess the probability of a large quake during the swarm, and they correctly answered that the occurrence of a swarm does not increase that probability. With the change of emphasis I suggest the question would have become "what is the maximum expected event in this area?" [note that the Italian catalogue report a major destructive earthquake occurred in 1117 in northern Italy in many areas that are classified with a minimal probabilistic hazard].
I therefore think that we need to urgently implement a twofold process: a) the probabilistic approach should drive the economy-constrained priorities of intervention by the state, in terms of consolidation of public buildings etc.; b) the maximum expected event should drive the prescriptions (to land use, buildings etc) and the programs of education. This process needs to involve the end-users in decision-making and control. Note that by using the maximum expected event, the entire Italian territory would fall into a single high (class 1) hazard class, which I believe much more reflective of the actual risk
Third, I see the need for full, real-time publicity of scientific data. Fortunately this seems the clear present and future trend of science. For example the recent activation of the earth-obervational Supersites (http://supersites.earthobservations.org/) is an excellent initiative, aimed at providing public access to spaceborne and in-situ geophysical data in areas prone to geological hazards. However in a recent presentation of the Supersites initiative we were told that in many areas, local space agencies or observatories are still reluctant to fully contribute, often with the excuse that data during crises should only be available to the local scientist community to prevent confusion in the public opinion, again suggesting very little “trust” in both the scientific and local communities.
To conclude, I support the resumption of the IAVCEI sub-Committee for Crisis Protocol (see documents published on Bull.Volc. between 1999 and 2000 and available at www.iavcei.org) and extend its view on the entire process that involves science for disaster mitigation, with a focus on how science can be applied to “build on the efforts and capabilities of those directly affected”. A similar discussion should involve the entire geological community at IUGG.
Guido Giordano
Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche
Università Roma Tre
Italy==============================================================
Volcano Listserv is a collaborative venture among Arizona State University (ASU), Portland State University (PSU), the Global Volcanism Program (GVP) of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, and the International Association for Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI).
ASU - http://www.asu.edu/ PSU - http://pdx.edu/ GVP - http://www.volcano.si.edu/ IAVCEI - http://www.iavcei.org/
To unsubscribe from the volcano list, send the message: signoff volcano to: listserv@xxxxxxx, or write to: volcano-request@xxxxxxx.
To contribute to the volcano list, send your message to: volcano@xxxxxxx. Please do not send attachments.
==============================================================
