Anthony Miner

Rockfalls: predicting high‐risk behaviour from beliefs

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to gain an understanding of the publics beliefs, attitudes and knowledge regarding rockfalls, and to see whether these variables could predict whether a person is likely to enter high‐risk rockfall areas.Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was developed to measure beliefs (informed by the health belief model), knowledge, and previous behaviour in relation to rockfalls. Questions were also included to measure attitudes regarding rockfall caution signs. In total, 138 members of the general public completed the questionnaire.Findings – High‐risk behaviour was more likely if the person was male and if the person had the belief that sign‐posted high‐risk areas were not dangerous. Further, believing that the sign‐posted areas were not dangerous was more likely among people who held negative attitudes towards cautionary signs; specifically, these participants were more likely to doubt the validity of the warning signs.Research limitations/implications – The resea...

Interpretation and misinterpretation of warning signage: Perceptions of rockfalls in a naturalistic setting

The aim of the present study was to investigate the factors relating to non-adherence to warning signs about falling rocks from coastal cliff faces. Face-to-face interviews (n = 62) in a naturalistic setting (in the vicinity of a high-risk rockfall area) were conducted to investigate attention to and comprehension of warning signs, as well as beliefs relating to non-adherence of the signage. It was found that, while most participants could correctly identify the danger in the area and had noticed the warning signage, less than half of the participants could correctly interpret the signage. The perception of danger did not differ significantly between the participants who had, or had not, entered the high-risk zone. Differences in knowledge and beliefs between local residents and visitors to the area were identified. It was concluded that the warning signs did not provide enough detail for people to make informed decisions about safe behaviours. Comprehension of the signage may have been hampered by a lack of prior-knowledge of the particular risk, a failure to think carefully about the situation (i.e. low-effort processing), and the pictorial representation on the signs misleading the participants as to the true danger.

What Does Hazard Mean? Seeking to Provide Further Clarification to Commonly Used Landslide Terminology

Concepts and definitions for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning as-assessment have been defined in the paper entitled “Guidelines for Landslide Susceptibility, Hazard and Risk Zoning for Land Use Planning” and the associated Commentary by produced by JTC-1, the Technical Committee for Landslides and Engineered Slopes (Fell et al. 2008a, b. These papers are largely based on earlier work by the Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS 2007). However the authors believe the use, meaning and intent of some landslide terminology remains an issue in effectively communicating concepts amongst the geoscience and engineering communities, land use planners and inevitably the general public. Recent experience within Australia during the 2011 National LRM Roadshow and at the 11th International and 2nd North American Symposium on Landslides in Banff, Canada in 2012 noted different interpretations and applications for the commonly used term ‘hazard’, and the associated terms ‘hazard maps’, ‘hazard mapping’ and ‘hazard assessment’ even within such specialist technical groups. It is then vitally important when relating such information and knowledge to non-technical people outside ‘our’ community, that we use clear and consistent terminology and language with appropriate clarification when needed. This paper seeks to provide clarification around the term ‘hazard’ in an attempt to inform and correct the widespread ambiguous use of this basic term when used in connection with landslide risk. We seek to provide clarifying context so as to promote better communication and understanding between all users concerned with a knowledge of areas that have been affected by landslides (inventories), areas that could be affected (susceptibility), how likely they may be to occur (frequency analysis) and what might happen if they do occur (consequences).