Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication
This paper reports work on an on-going EC project called KnowRISK aimed at reducing the seismic risk from non-structural elements in buildings. Specifically it reports work on the development of a European tool to assess the effectiveness of risk communication interventions and awareness raising tra...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Conference Object |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11391 http://icesd.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AID_46.pdf |
| id |
ftingv:oai:www.earth-prints.org:2122/11391 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openpolar |
| institution |
Open Polar |
| collection |
Earth-Prints (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia) |
| op_collection_id |
ftingv |
| language |
English |
| topic |
non-structural earthquake risk risk communication assessment tool children’s attitudes 04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.11. Seismic risk |
| spellingShingle |
non-structural earthquake risk risk communication assessment tool children’s attitudes 04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.11. Seismic risk Platt, S. Musacchio, Gemma Crescimbene, Massimo Pino, Nicola Alessandro Silva, D. Ferreira, Monica A. Oliveira, Carlos S. Lopes, Mário Rupakhety, Rajesh Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| topic_facet |
non-structural earthquake risk risk communication assessment tool children’s attitudes 04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.11. Seismic risk |
| description |
This paper reports work on an on-going EC project called KnowRISK aimed at reducing the seismic risk from non-structural elements in buildings. Specifically it reports work on the development of a European tool to assess the effectiveness of risk communication interventions and awareness raising training with middle and high school children in case study areas in Portugal, Italy and Iceland. It describes the difficulties research teams faced in agreeing a theoretical framework and in devising the survey tool. Although they all agreed it was essential to have a common survey if the findings from the research were to be compared across the three countries, one year into the two-year project two of the teams were moving in different directions. This was significant since some of the pre-intervention surveys had already been conducted. Both theoretical frameworks had merit and each of the questionnaires were capable of assessing the efficacy of the training. However, they were in no way comparable. Finally the paper details how these difficulties were resolved and a common questionnaire was devised that embodied virtues from both surveys. This was then applied in all three countries to provide comparable data, the findings from which will be reported elsewhere. Published Reykjavik, Iceland 2TM. Divulgazione Scientifica |
| author2 |
Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione AC, Roma, Italia Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione OV, Napoli, Italia Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon (LNEC) Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Dept of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, CEris, Lisboa,Portugal Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (EERC), University of Iceland, Iceland |
| format |
Conference Object |
| author |
Platt, S. Musacchio, Gemma Crescimbene, Massimo Pino, Nicola Alessandro Silva, D. Ferreira, Monica A. Oliveira, Carlos S. Lopes, Mário Rupakhety, Rajesh |
| author_facet |
Platt, S. Musacchio, Gemma Crescimbene, Massimo Pino, Nicola Alessandro Silva, D. Ferreira, Monica A. Oliveira, Carlos S. Lopes, Mário Rupakhety, Rajesh |
| author_sort |
Platt, S. |
| title |
Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| title_short |
Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| title_full |
Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| title_fullStr |
Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| title_sort |
development of a common (european) tool to assess earthquake risk communication |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11391 http://icesd.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AID_46.pdf |
| genre |
Iceland |
| genre_facet |
Iceland |
| op_relation |
International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics Adams J (2011) The ‘public’ understanding of risk In Successful Science Communication, Bennet D and Jennings R Eds, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760228 Akason J, Olafsson S, Sigbjörnsson R (2006) Perception and observation of residential safety during earthquake exposure: A case study. Safety Science, 44:919-933 Bessason B, Bjarnasson J (2016) Seismic vulnerability of low-rise residential buildings based on damage data from three earthquakes (Mw 6.5, 6.5, 6.3). Engineering Structures, 111:64-79 Boer H, & Seydel E (1996) Protection motivation theory. In M. Connor and P. Norman (Eds.) Predicting Health Behavior. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bryman A (2011) Social Research Methods. London: Oxford Press Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino N (2013) Seismic risk perception test. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 15. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi, R, Alessandro Pino, N, Peruzza L (214) What’s the Seismic Risk Perception in Italy? Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 7 pp 69-75 Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino N (2015a) The seismic risk perception questionnaire. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. Vol 419, pp 69-77. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino N, Peruzza L, Pessina V, Cerbara L, Crescimbene C (2015b) INGV. EOS8 Geoethics for society: General aspects and case studies in geosciences Crescimbene M, Pino N, Musacchio G (2017) Reference Frame: KnowRisk Questionnaire (ITA) Internal document. EC (2016) Perception and awareness about transparency of state aid. Special Eurobarometer 448 – Wave EB85.3 – TNS opinion & social Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H (1988) Attitudes Toward Risk and The Risk–Return Paradox: Prospect Theory Explanations. Academy of Management Journal. vol. 31 no. 1 85-106 Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9: Issue 2 pp 127-152. Floyd D, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers R (2000) A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30: 407-429 Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards, 38, pp101–120. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica Vol 47 No 2 Kahneman D (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan. Kates R (1971) Natural hazards in human ecological perspective; hypotheses and models. Economic Geography 47; 428-51 Krallis D, Csontos A (2006) From risk perception to safe behaviour. Enterprise Risk Services, Deloitte for the Safety Institute of Australia. https://sia.org.au/downloads/SIGs/Resources/From_Risk_Perception_to_Safe_Behaviour.pdf (accessed 24 Feb 2017) Lazarus R (1966) Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leventhal H (1970) Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5. New York: Academic Press, 119-86. Likert R (1932) Technique for the measure of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 140 pp 5-55. Lindell M (1994) Perceived characteristics of environmental hazards. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 12, pp 303-326 Lindell M, Perry R (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis. April 32 (4) pp616-32. Lindell M (2013) The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practical Issues. Quarantelli Lecture. University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning http://visunc.sci.utah.edu/files/Lindell_PADM_QuarantelliLecture.pdf (accessed 27 Feb 2017) Maidl E, Buchecker M (2015) Raising risk preparedness by flood risk communication. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, 15, pp1577–1595. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy, Journal Environment Psychology, 28, pp164–173. NSET (2017) Risk Perception Survey in Bhimeshwor Municipality. National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET) 16WCEE Conference Chile 9 January 2017. Neuwirth K, Dunwoody S, Griffin R (2000) Protection motivation and risk communication. Risk Analysis 20 pp 721-734 Osgood C, Suci G, Tannenbaum P (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Peruzza L, Saraò A, Barnaba C, Bragato P, Dusi A, Grimaz S, Malisan P, Mucciarelli M, Zuliani D, Cravos C (2016) Teach and learn seismic safety at high school: the SISIFO project. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata Vol. 57 No. 2, pp 129-146 Renn O (1992) Concept of Risk: A Classification. In: Krimsky, S. – Golding, D. (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. pp. 53–79. Westport, CT: Praeger Reyna V (2004) How people make decisions that involve risk. Current Directions in Psychology. Rogers R (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology. 91 pp 93–11. Savage I (1993) Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13: 413–420. Schwarz N, Gerd Bohner G (2001) The Construction of Attitudes. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.) (2001) Intrapersonal Processes: Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 436-457. Schmidt M (2004) Investigating risk perception: a short introduction. In: Schmidt M. Loss of agro-biodiversity in Vavilov centers, with a special focus on the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). PhD Thesis, Vienna, Austria Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Borga M (2012) The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: Findings from case studies in an Alpine Region. Natural Hazards, 63(2) pp 499-520 Shaw R, Kobayashi K, Kobayashi M (2004) Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss: 1, pp 39 – 49 Sigbjörnsson R, Ólafsson S (2004) On the South Iceland earthquakes in June 2000: Strong-motion effects and damage. Bollettino di Geofisica teorica ed applicate, 45(3):131-52. Sigbjörnsson R, Snæbjörnsson J, Higgins S, Halldórsson B, Ólafsson S (2009) A note on the M6.3 earthquake in Iceland on 29 May 2008 at 15:45 UTC. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 7(1):113–126. Sigbjörnsson R, Ragnarsdottir S, Rupakhety R (2017) Is perception of earthquakes gender dependent. In: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics in memory of Prof Ragnar Sigbjörnsson: Selected Topics, Rupakhety R and Olafsson S (editors), Springer. Silva D (2017) Theoretical framework for risk communication impact assessment. LNEC. KnowRisk Project Task 4 Action D3 Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H (2014) Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Sjöberg L (2000) Consequences matter, "risk" is marginal. Journal of Risk Research, 3, pp 287-295. Sjöberg L, Moen B, Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde, Trondheim. Slovic P, Weber E. (2002) Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Conference on Risk Management strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York, April 12-13, 2002. Terpstra T, Lindell M, Gutteling J (2009) Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study, Risk Analysis, 29, pp1141–1155. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 1453-1458. Vasvári T (2015) Risk, risk perception, risk management – a review of the literature. Focus – Risk management. Public Finance Quarterly 1 pp 29-48 Vicente R, Ferreira T, Maio R, Koch H (2014) Awareness, perception and communication of earthquake risk in Portugal: Public survey. Procedia Economics and Finance 18 pp 271-278. Wachinger G, Renn O (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperative Research, Stuttgart (available at: http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP3_Risk-Perception.pdf Weinstein N (1988) The Precaution Adoption Process. Health Psychology 7 (4) pp 355-386. http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11391 http://icesd.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AID_46.pdf |
| op_rights |
open |
| op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760228 |
| op_publisher_place |
Cambridge |
| _version_ |
1766038321118576640 |
| spelling |
ftingv:oai:www.earth-prints.org:2122/11391 2023-05-15T16:48:13+02:00 Development of a common (European) tool to assess earthquake risk communication Platt, S. Musacchio, Gemma Crescimbene, Massimo Pino, Nicola Alessandro Silva, D. Ferreira, Monica A. Oliveira, Carlos S. Lopes, Mário Rupakhety, Rajesh Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione AC, Roma, Italia Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione OV, Napoli, Italia Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon (LNEC) Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Dept of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, CEris, Lisboa,Portugal Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (EERC), University of Iceland, Iceland 2017-06-12 http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11391 http://icesd.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AID_46.pdf en eng International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics Adams J (2011) The ‘public’ understanding of risk In Successful Science Communication, Bennet D and Jennings R Eds, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760228 Akason J, Olafsson S, Sigbjörnsson R (2006) Perception and observation of residential safety during earthquake exposure: A case study. Safety Science, 44:919-933 Bessason B, Bjarnasson J (2016) Seismic vulnerability of low-rise residential buildings based on damage data from three earthquakes (Mw 6.5, 6.5, 6.3). Engineering Structures, 111:64-79 Boer H, & Seydel E (1996) Protection motivation theory. In M. Connor and P. Norman (Eds.) Predicting Health Behavior. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bryman A (2011) Social Research Methods. London: Oxford Press Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino N (2013) Seismic risk perception test. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 15. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi, R, Alessandro Pino, N, Peruzza L (214) What’s the Seismic Risk Perception in Italy? Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 7 pp 69-75 Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino N (2015a) The seismic risk perception questionnaire. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. Vol 419, pp 69-77. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino N, Peruzza L, Pessina V, Cerbara L, Crescimbene C (2015b) INGV. EOS8 Geoethics for society: General aspects and case studies in geosciences Crescimbene M, Pino N, Musacchio G (2017) Reference Frame: KnowRisk Questionnaire (ITA) Internal document. EC (2016) Perception and awareness about transparency of state aid. Special Eurobarometer 448 – Wave EB85.3 – TNS opinion & social Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H (1988) Attitudes Toward Risk and The Risk–Return Paradox: Prospect Theory Explanations. Academy of Management Journal. vol. 31 no. 1 85-106 Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9: Issue 2 pp 127-152. Floyd D, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers R (2000) A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30: 407-429 Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards, 38, pp101–120. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica Vol 47 No 2 Kahneman D (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan. Kates R (1971) Natural hazards in human ecological perspective; hypotheses and models. Economic Geography 47; 428-51 Krallis D, Csontos A (2006) From risk perception to safe behaviour. Enterprise Risk Services, Deloitte for the Safety Institute of Australia. https://sia.org.au/downloads/SIGs/Resources/From_Risk_Perception_to_Safe_Behaviour.pdf (accessed 24 Feb 2017) Lazarus R (1966) Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leventhal H (1970) Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5. New York: Academic Press, 119-86. Likert R (1932) Technique for the measure of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 140 pp 5-55. Lindell M (1994) Perceived characteristics of environmental hazards. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 12, pp 303-326 Lindell M, Perry R (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis. April 32 (4) pp616-32. Lindell M (2013) The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practical Issues. Quarantelli Lecture. University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning http://visunc.sci.utah.edu/files/Lindell_PADM_QuarantelliLecture.pdf (accessed 27 Feb 2017) Maidl E, Buchecker M (2015) Raising risk preparedness by flood risk communication. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, 15, pp1577–1595. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy, Journal Environment Psychology, 28, pp164–173. NSET (2017) Risk Perception Survey in Bhimeshwor Municipality. National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET) 16WCEE Conference Chile 9 January 2017. Neuwirth K, Dunwoody S, Griffin R (2000) Protection motivation and risk communication. Risk Analysis 20 pp 721-734 Osgood C, Suci G, Tannenbaum P (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Peruzza L, Saraò A, Barnaba C, Bragato P, Dusi A, Grimaz S, Malisan P, Mucciarelli M, Zuliani D, Cravos C (2016) Teach and learn seismic safety at high school: the SISIFO project. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata Vol. 57 No. 2, pp 129-146 Renn O (1992) Concept of Risk: A Classification. In: Krimsky, S. – Golding, D. (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. pp. 53–79. Westport, CT: Praeger Reyna V (2004) How people make decisions that involve risk. Current Directions in Psychology. Rogers R (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology. 91 pp 93–11. Savage I (1993) Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13: 413–420. Schwarz N, Gerd Bohner G (2001) The Construction of Attitudes. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.) (2001) Intrapersonal Processes: Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 436-457. Schmidt M (2004) Investigating risk perception: a short introduction. In: Schmidt M. Loss of agro-biodiversity in Vavilov centers, with a special focus on the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). PhD Thesis, Vienna, Austria Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Borga M (2012) The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: Findings from case studies in an Alpine Region. Natural Hazards, 63(2) pp 499-520 Shaw R, Kobayashi K, Kobayashi M (2004) Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss: 1, pp 39 – 49 Sigbjörnsson R, Ólafsson S (2004) On the South Iceland earthquakes in June 2000: Strong-motion effects and damage. Bollettino di Geofisica teorica ed applicate, 45(3):131-52. Sigbjörnsson R, Snæbjörnsson J, Higgins S, Halldórsson B, Ólafsson S (2009) A note on the M6.3 earthquake in Iceland on 29 May 2008 at 15:45 UTC. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 7(1):113–126. Sigbjörnsson R, Ragnarsdottir S, Rupakhety R (2017) Is perception of earthquakes gender dependent. In: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics in memory of Prof Ragnar Sigbjörnsson: Selected Topics, Rupakhety R and Olafsson S (editors), Springer. Silva D (2017) Theoretical framework for risk communication impact assessment. LNEC. KnowRisk Project Task 4 Action D3 Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H (2014) Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Sjöberg L (2000) Consequences matter, "risk" is marginal. Journal of Risk Research, 3, pp 287-295. Sjöberg L, Moen B, Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde, Trondheim. Slovic P, Weber E. (2002) Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Conference on Risk Management strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York, April 12-13, 2002. Terpstra T, Lindell M, Gutteling J (2009) Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study, Risk Analysis, 29, pp1141–1155. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 1453-1458. Vasvári T (2015) Risk, risk perception, risk management – a review of the literature. Focus – Risk management. Public Finance Quarterly 1 pp 29-48 Vicente R, Ferreira T, Maio R, Koch H (2014) Awareness, perception and communication of earthquake risk in Portugal: Public survey. Procedia Economics and Finance 18 pp 271-278. Wachinger G, Renn O (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperative Research, Stuttgart (available at: http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP3_Risk-Perception.pdf Weinstein N (1988) The Precaution Adoption Process. Health Psychology 7 (4) pp 355-386. http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11391 http://icesd.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AID_46.pdf open non-structural earthquake risk risk communication assessment tool children’s attitudes 04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.11. Seismic risk Conference paper 2017 ftingv https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760228 2022-07-29T06:07:18Z This paper reports work on an on-going EC project called KnowRISK aimed at reducing the seismic risk from non-structural elements in buildings. Specifically it reports work on the development of a European tool to assess the effectiveness of risk communication interventions and awareness raising training with middle and high school children in case study areas in Portugal, Italy and Iceland. It describes the difficulties research teams faced in agreeing a theoretical framework and in devising the survey tool. Although they all agreed it was essential to have a common survey if the findings from the research were to be compared across the three countries, one year into the two-year project two of the teams were moving in different directions. This was significant since some of the pre-intervention surveys had already been conducted. Both theoretical frameworks had merit and each of the questionnaires were capable of assessing the efficacy of the training. However, they were in no way comparable. Finally the paper details how these difficulties were resolved and a common questionnaire was devised that embodied virtues from both surveys. This was then applied in all three countries to provide comparable data, the findings from which will be reported elsewhere. Published Reykjavik, Iceland 2TM. Divulgazione Scientifica Conference Object Iceland Earth-Prints (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia) Cambridge |