# **Session No. 5**

**Course Title: HAZARD MAPPING AND MODELING**

**Session 5: Communicating Risk**

**Prepared By: Ute J. Dymon, Professor of Geography, Kent State
University**

**Nancy L. Winter PhD**

**Time : 2 hrs.**

**Overall Goal: This course is to contribute to the reduction of the
growing toll of disasters (deaths and injuries, property loss,
environmental degradation, etc.) in the United States by providing an
understanding of the significant role of mapping and modeling in the
management of hazards.**

**Objectives:**

**5.1 Describe the formation of the field called "risk communication".**

**5.2 Identify the fundamental difference between a hazard map and a
risk map.**

**5.3 Illustrate the difference between risk and vulnerability.**

**5.4 Enumerate the mapping advantages to applying NOAA\'s Risk and
Vulnerability**

**Assessment Tool (RVAT).**

**5.5 Enumerate the various \"publics\" involved in any risk
communication situation.**

**5.6 Identify the characteristics of a given hazard that affect human
risk perceptions.**

**5.7 Review the steps in planning a risk message and the recommended
contents of a risk message.**

**5.8 Describe the role of maps in communicating risk.**

**5.9 Account for the advantages in applying visualization in depicting
risks.**

**5.10 Examine the maps required to depict the risk of volcanic hazard**

**Scope:**

Build a cogent, logical set of definitions to cover the technical
concepts in the field of risk communication including hazard, risk,
vulnerability, perception, outrage, visualization, uncertainty and risk
assessment. Compare visualization vs. static maps and explore a case
study of hazard and risk mapping of a volcano. Explore some of the
misuses of maps in risk communication attempts. Students should also be
given the opportunity to share their opinions about this Session 8.

**Readings:**

*Required Student Reading:*

Chapter 8 in Monmonier, Mark. 1995. *Drawing the Line*. New York: Henry
Holt and Co., Inc.

*Suggested Student Reading:*

Cutter, S.L. 1993. *Living with Risk.* New York: Routledge, Chapman and
Hall, Inc.

MacEachren, A. M. 1994. *Visualization in Modern Cartography.* London:
Pergamon Press.

*Instructor Reading:*

Cutter, S.L. 1993. *Living with Risk.* New York: Routledge, Chapman and
Hall, Inc.

Frew, Suzanne. 2004. \"The Difference Between Cats and Dogs: Considering
the Social Cultural Dimensions of Communicating\" in *The Natural
Hazards Observer*. May. pp.10-11.

Monmonier, Mark. 1995. *Drawing the Line*. New York: Henry Holt and Co.,
Inc.

Monmonier,l Mark. 1997. *Cartographies of Danger*. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

MacEachren, A. M. 1994. *Visualization in Modern Cartography.* London:
Pergamon Press.

**GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:**

Power point slides are provided for the instructor\'s use, if so
desired.

It is recommended that students with little or no knowledge of hazards
acquire a general overview of the most common *natural, technological*
and *intentional hazards*. The websites for materials relating to these
are listed at the end of the lesson. In addition, the FEMA publication
\"Multihazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report\" provides
detailed explanations for many of the hazards mentioned herein.

**OBJECTIVE 5.1 Describe the formation of the field called "risk
communication".**

**Requirements:**

Delineate the environmental conditions in the U.S. in the mid 20^th^
century that led the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other
federal agencies to develop the art and science of risk assessment.
Because of the difference between objective risk and perceived risk,
scientists had difficulty communicating the findings of these
assessments to the public. Studies were done to identify effective
methods to convey to ordinary citizens the results of these assessments
of the probability of natural and technological disasters. Define the
basic concepts of risk communication.

**Remarks:**

I. **The impetus for a whole new field of study: risk communication.**

A. The demonstrations of Earth Day in April 1970 came about because of
the

> obvious degradation of the land, air and water resources of the United
> States.
>
> The birth of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shortly
> thereafter
>
> provided opportunities to scientifically study what risks to health
> and safety
>
> existed.

B. Federal agencies and the academic community developed the art and

science of **risk assessment** not only for the management of familiar
natural

hazards such as hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes, but especially
for the management of technological hazards such as use of chemicals,
pollution from industries and the spread of nuclear radiation. The major
aim of risk assessment is **to quantify risks including their
probability and**

**consequences in order to manage risks. *(Power Point slide #2)***

C. The general definition of **risk assessment** is: ***a scientific
process of***

> ***evaluating the adverse effects caused by a substance, activity,
> lifestyle, or natural phenomenon. (Power Point slide #3**)* This
> definition needs to have the concept of **uncertainty** included in
> it*.* Throughout a risk assessment process researchers are forced to
> make assumptions, sometimes on limited data, because of the
> **uncertainty** that limited data and lack of understanding bring to
> the process. The result is that risk assessors cannot precisely
> describe the risk, but must couch their results in terms of the
> **range of probabilities** they uncovered.
>
> An example of risk stated as a range of probabilities states: \"Our
> best estimate of the risk of cancer from chemical X is one additional
> case in 10,000 people, but the risk could be as high as one additional
> case in 1,000 people or as low as no additional cases.\" With
> uncertainty unavoidable, the implication is that a statement of risk
> is not necessarily a statement of absolute fact. ***(Power Point slide
> #4***)

D. A major hurdle was encountered in attempting to explain the meaning
of

many of these scientific assessments to Americans. The gap between the

way scientists viewed risks and the way they were perceived by ordinary

citizens was studied to develop guidelines for promoting better
understanding

of the scientific approach to risks. Thus, t*he field of risk
communication was*

*born. The process of developing and delivering a message from the risk
expert to the general public is risk communication* **(*Power Point
slide #5).*** The message may focus on a pending emergency or generally
may be aimed at illuminating an issue that the ordinary citizen may or
may not see differently from the experts.

II\. **Perceived vs Objective Risk**

> A. Humans perceive risk as **the degree of imminent danger they feel
> they are in. (*Power Point slide #6*). Risk perception** is the study
> of the bases for

these human insights. In contrast, scientists need to quantify risk to
have

> mathematical numbers on which to base technological decisions. The
> simplest scientific definition of risk involves the two "elements"
> probability and

consequence:

R = P x C (Probability times Consequence). **(*Power Point slide #7)***

B. When dealing with quantified risk however, a problem arises when a
high

> **high probability-low consequence** happening may end up having the
> same objective risk \"number\" as a **low probability-high
> consequence** event. However, humans would rate one risk as greater
> than the other because its consequences were less acceptable.
> **(*Power Point slide #8)*** This often underlies the basis for
> diverging views on the part of the public and the scientific experts.

**OBJECTIVE 5.2 Identify the fundamental difference between a hazard map
and a risk map.**

**Requirements:**

Review the definitions for a hazard and a risk. Explain how these are
applied to maps.

Cartographic products are needed to depict the information that science
has accumulated about risks and hazards. Explain that there is a
scarcity of true risk maps.

**Remarks:**

I. Explain the definition of a hazard map.

A. **ASK STUDENTS:** What is your definition for a hazard?

> 1\. After some student contributions, give students the most easily
> applied definition for a hazard. They are \"**threats to humans and
> what they value\"**. (Kates, 1985) ***(Power Point slide #9)***
>
> 2\. Point out that this covers all the classes of hazards: *natural,
> technological* and *intentional.*

B**. ASK STUDENTS**: In a general sense, what do hazard maps show about

hazards?

1\. their location (They are primarily locational maps.)

2\. the distribution of their effects

C. **ASK STUDENTS**: How is a risk defined differently than a hazard?

1\. A hazard is a descriptive definition with words; a risk requires a

> mathematical calculation in order to be fully defined (R = P x C).

D. **ASK**: What would be required to make a risk map?

1\. Some mathematical calculation of the risk in question.

> 2\. A method for depicting the calculated range of probabilities
> associated
>
> with the risk in question.

3\. Explain that a legend on a risk map should reveal the range of

> probabilities of a disaster happening from the hazard in question. In
> most cases, such a range is usually depicted with a fairly coarse
> ranking such as high, medium and low. True risk maps with the range of
> probabilities expressed as calculated numbers ranging from zero to one
> are still rare. ***(Power Point slide #10)***
>
> E. The following map, summarizing the natural hazard risk areas
> identified by the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RVAT) of
> NOAA, uses a five

level rating of the risk areas depicted: *high, moderately-high,
moderate,*

*moderately-low and low.*

**NATURAL HAZARDS SUMMARY RISK AREA**

***(Power Point slide #11)***

![](media/image1.png)

> [**http://www.csc.noaa.gov/rvat/hazid.html**](http://www.csc.noaa.gov/rvat/hazid.html)

**OBJECTIVE 5.3 Illustrate the difference between risk and
vulnerability.**

**Requirements:**

Compare the elements that make up risk with those that are considered
when judging the vulnerability of a place.

**Remarks:**

I. Compare the characteristics of risk with the components that make up

**vulnerability.**

A.  The main comparison between risk and vulnerability lies in the scope
    of their

> definitions. There may be a number of risks that comprise the total
> vulnerability of a geographic place to harm.

B. **RIsk** is derived from a factual event or condition and the
probability of its

occurrence multiplied by the consequences it produces.

C. Vulnerability more often involves a combination of factors that make
up a

**system**. Infrastructure systems such as power supply or
telecommunications

or even all of the infrastructures making up a society as a whole can be

analyzed for their vulnerability. **Vulnerability** is a measure of how
well a

system can cope with or sustain a risk. ***(Power Point slide #12)***

**OBJECTIVE 5.4 Explain the mapping advantages to applying NOAA\'S Risk
and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RVAT).**

**Requirements:**

Review the steps in conducting a hazards analysis and explain the
advantage to attempting to identify all possible weather-related hazards
in a community.

**Remarks:**

I. NOAA\'s **Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RVAT) from its
Coastal**

> **Services Center** provides guidance for performing a weather hazards
> analysis for a given coastal community.

A. The highest-risk areas are identified by completing as comprehensive
an

assemblage of data as possible using these four steps of hazard
analysis:

1\. Locate, gather and process data.

2\. Assign scores to risk areas with higher rankings indicating higher
risk.

3\. Identify high-risk locations by finding areas with highest scores.

> 4\. Focus your vulnerability assessment on areas and/or structures
> located in the highest risk locations. ***(Power Point slide #13)***

B. Hazard maps can then be produced that indicate the areas in the
community

that are most susceptible to individual weather-related hazards,
multiple

hazards, or perhaps even all of the atmospheric coastal hazards that
have

been identified.

C. This collection of maps is then available to decision makers to
consider

individual hazards or a combination of hazards.

> 1\. Local coastal zone managers will use surge and erosion maps to
> manage the natural environment e.g., effects of surge and erosion on
> sand dunes and sensitive habitats.
>
> 2\. Local floodplain managers will use flood maps for floodplain
> management.

3\. Building officials or the public works departments will use
multi-hazard

> maps to determine how and where to construct infrastructure or
> buildings e.g., to resist winds of a certain speed, to be built above
> the 100-year floodplain.
>
> 4\. Businesses located on the coast could use multi-hazard maps for
> business continuity planning e.g., to determine if their buildings are
> wind resistant or if their flood insurance policy coverage limits are
> sufficient.
>
> 5\. The mayor or county council could use mullti-hazard maps to
> determine
>
> which parts of the community are susceptible to the most destructive
>
> hazards in order to decide where to fund hazard mitigation measures,
> e.g., developing property protection ordinances or encouraging
> development in less hazard-prone areas.

**OBJECTIVE 5.5 Enumerate the various \"publics\" involved in any risk
communication situation.**

**Requirements:**

Although there is common usage of the phrase \"the public\" or \"the
general public\", the reality is that many subsets of \"publics\" make
up the American populace in any given locale. In potential risk
situations, there is always a group that are potential victims. Risk
communication messages must also be crafted for the media, public
officials, the religious communities, industry stakeholders, the
elderly, environmental groups,

etc. ***(Power Point slide #14*)**

**Remarks:**

I. As a class, list the various interest groups that students think
comprise the general

public.

> A. Discuss the factors that would affect understanding of a written
> risk message.

1.  clarity of the writing.

> 2\. level of vocabulary in the writing\'
>
> 3\. tone (condescending?)
>
> B. Would any of the groups need special aspects prepared in messages
> sent their way?
>
> C. Likewise, what factors would affect the understanding of maps
> included as part of a risk message?

1.  map reading skills

2.  amount of life experience in using maps

> 3\. previously acquired mental models of a process or environmental
> subject

II\. How would the existence of an organized environmental group make
the fashioning of a message easier and how might it make it harder?

**OBJECTIVE 5.6 Identify the characteristics of a given hazard that
affect human risk perceptions.**

**Remarks:**

Review what research has revealed as the ten key factors that affect
public perceptions and work to stoke public anger and fear about an
environmental risk issue.

**Requirements:**

I. Risk communication and mitigation are two concepts in emergency
management that are continuously ongoing. Mitigation efforts are
organized to exist on an ever-

continuing basis before, during and after an emergency event or
disaster. In the

> same sort of continual process messages about hazards and the risks
> they entail are being absorbed in an ongoing fashion by citizens from
> all sorts of sources of

information and life experiences. Research has shown that people don\'t
get their

information and opinions about environmental risk issues from just one
source.

II\. Nearly all risk issues encompass two \"hazards\": the physical
threat itself and the

> reaction of humans to it. When risk analysts attempt to communicate
> their scientific risk messages to people, the human perceptions of
> their audience present great obstacles.

A. **Outrage** is the name given to **the level of public anger and fear
about an**

> **environmental issue that risk managers often face.** Outrage factors
> are those characteristics of a risk situation which cause fear, anger,
> defensiveness and frustration in people. ***(Power Point slide #15)***

B. Outrage, or emotional responses to risk news, plays a bigger role in
public

reaction then the scientific information.

> C. These are the **outrage factors** that can be influencing the
> perceptions of the public. People have an emotional response when they
> perceive a risk to be:

**1. involuntary**

**2. incontrollable**

**3. immoral**

**4. unfamiliar**

**5. dreadful**

**6. uncertain**

**7. catastrophic**

**8. memorable**

> **9. unfair**

**10. untrustworthy**

**(Use *Power Point slides #16 through #21)* to define these outrage
factors.)**

D. Conflicts around risk issues result from groups with vastly different
values

opposing each other. The emotional responses to risk are based on

> psychologically valid factors because when humans become aware of a
> threat, they naturally:

1.  fear the unknown

> 2\. want to keep control
>
> 3\. protect home and family
>
> 4\. are alienated by their dependence on others (government, industry
> officials)
>
> 5\. protect their belief in a just world.
>
> In contrast. technically trained officials trust scientific analysis,
> engineering
>
> solutions and contingency plans and believe that experts know best.
> ***(Power Point slide #22)***

E. Mutually acceptable solutions must be based on the recognition of
outrage

> factors. The valid psychological emotional needs of people are often
> ignored or condemned by those with technical training. Those trying to
> communicate
>
> scientific facts about a risk must first adjust their messages to meet
> the outrage factors of ordinary citizens. ***(Power Point slide \#
> 23)***

**OBJECTIVE 5.7 Review the recommended steps for planning a risk message
and the recommended contents of a risk message to explore how the use of
maps and models might fit into these recommendations.**

**Requirements:**

Emphasize that risk messages are expected to be made up of words
sometimes accompanied by simple, clear graphics. Recommendations for how
to prepare written messages by use of a \"message map\" are found at:
<http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/tutorial6/i/topic_08.html> However, ideas
for guidelines in map use as part of risk messages should be explored.

**Remarks:**

I. Within the strict confines of the established risk communication
field, simplicity and

> clarity of messages is stressed, but messages are traditionally
> messages made up of language or words. Sometimes, simple diagrams,
> cartoons or drawings have also been incorporated into these word
> messages. Currently, maps are not expected to be included in a risk
> message.

II\. A number of the guidelines for written risk messages could easily
apply also to use of maps for communicating risk, especially the goals
of **simplicity, transparency** and **clarity.**

A. Simplicity requires that you know your audience to choose maps at the
right vocabulary/technical level.

> B. Transparency requires that you explain uncertainty and the
> uncertainties in the data used to produce the maps.
>
> C. Clarity means that you do not allow the map to be too cluttered nor
> that you attempt to do too much with one map. ***(Power Point slide
> #24)***

**OBJECTIVE 5.8 Describe the role of maps and models in communicating
risk.**

**Requirements:**

Explain the history of the narrow technological focus of the academic
field of risk communication. Emphasize the profound and lasting effects
a visual or graphic presentation of the location of a threat can have as
mental models change. Along with this, identify the specific roles for
various maps and models.

**Remarks:**

I. Risk communication as an academic endeavor was mainly spawned by the
need to communicate the results of risk assessments of hazardous
chemicals and other

technological hazards. Maps and models were not considered to be a prime
focus

of communications between experts and lay people.

II\. The broad role maps and models can play in communicating risk
include:

-   **hazard maps** - locate threats

-   **risk maps** - depict the range of probabilities in the occurrence
    of a

hazardous event

-   **models** - reveal paths and processes in nature and in hazard
    management

-   **visualization** - offers exploration of the data available on a
    given hazard

***(Power Point slide \# 25)***

III\. The mental processes most people apply when viewing a map can
adjust their

mental models and thus affect their perception of a risk. **Mental
models** are the

diagrams and maps people have stored in their heads from their past
experiences

and learning about how the world works. ***(Power Point slide #26)***

IV\. Location is a key concept in the perception of risk. ***(Power
Point slide #27)*** Mark

Monmonier (1995) explains the blanket perception of risk that often
operates when

> the ordinary citizen views environmental or hazard maps that are
> wide-area (or small scale). These misperceptions arise from lack of
> map reading skills.
>
> A. There is the misperception that the whole geographic scope of a
> wide-area
>
> map indicates an area at risk, even when the actual hazardous site in
> question is a much smaller area on the map.
>
> B. The effort of pinning down risk with a quantitatively developed
> range of
>
> probabilies to map is rarely rendered into an actual map. This dearth
> of true risk mapping results in people viewing any environmental map
> as a risk map.
>
> Location, location, location becomes the key. Through a simple
> judgment of
>
> location and distance, the map reader calculates the distance from
>
> an identifiable hazard to her/his home or place of work as a measure
> of risk.
>
> Hazardous facilities or situations that are nearby are perceived as
> risks while
>
> those farther away are perceived as less of a risk. .

IV\. Abundant mapping is best when trying to communicate a hazard
remediation

strategy to the public. Monmonier (1995) advises that each map prepared
for the

public should:

A. be well-focused

B. have a clear theme

C. have a clear title

D. answer a basic question, such as:

-   Where is it?

-   What do we know about it?

-   What might happen if we do nothing?

-   What are we doing?

-   How much have we done?

-   What should you (local officials, newspaper readers, the public) do?

**(*Power Point slide #28)***

V. ***CHALLENGE FOR STUDENT DISCUSSION: Display Power Point Slide #29
(or* provide one to each student as a handout.)**

> A. **Discuss what misperceptions might arise from public use of this
> map.**
>
> B. **ASK STUDENTS: Can the public viewing this map safely assume there
> are no catastrophic natural hazard risks in the white (uncolored)
> portions of the map?**

B.  **List the catastrophic natural hazards which exist in those white
    spaces:**

-   **WILDFIRES**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **ICE STORMS - WINTER STORMS - BLIZZARDS**

-   **LANDSLIDES**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.68125in" height="5.009027777777778in"}

**OBJECTIVE 5.9 Account for the advantages in applying visualization in
depicting risks.**

**Requirements:**

The very process of risk assessment may be illuminated more fully by the
ability of risk assessors to apply visualization of a risk under study.
Explore the idea that where there are well-endowed community libraries
the capability to offer visualization of local risks to the citizens may
exist.

**Remarks:**

I. In gross terms, visualization involves playing with data. Gahegan
(2000) explains that visualization is a tool for:

A. searching through enormous volumes of data

B. exploratory analysis of data to find unsuspected relationships

C. communicating complex patterns

D. providing a formal framework for data presentation.

***(Power Point slide #30)***

II\. Visualization in practice today means:

A. Geospatial data such as vector and raster maps are being used to
generate

new cartographic products for visualization over the Internet.

B. Digital elevation models (DEMs), orthomosaics and 3D animations are

> replacing traditional techniques for the display of geospatial
> information and
>
> geographical phenomena.
>
> C. Compelling presentations of rendered landscapes with animated
> **fly-throughs** are powerful tools for decision making in fields such
> as hazard identification, environmental protection, safety and
> security, and natural resource management. ***(Power Point slide
> #31)***
>
> (See:
> http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/visualization/results/terrain_visual.html)

III\. Risk assessors normally concentrate on arriving at a mathematical
risk rating for a hazard. Visualization could bring a richer perspective
to the data that make up a risk assessment. Instead of defining a risk
by application of a static map produced from the viewpoint of a risk
expert, visualization of the hazard data and the uncertainties within
the data allows the viewer to explore the results of numerous
manifestations of the data in map form on a computer screen. This is
explorative visualization, as opposed to the more traditional
communicative visualization that employs a single static map, would
provide a risk assessor with a tool for analysis.

IV\. MacEachren and Krack (1997) propose a 4 stage model of
visualization that makes a continuum of steps including data review,
analysis, identifying relationships and presentation of one or more
depictions of the data for communication of the risk being investigated.
***(Power Point slide \# 32)***

**OBJECTIVE 5.10 Examine the maps required to depict the risk of
volcanic**

**hazards from Santa Maria Volcano in Guatemala.**

**Requirements:**

This attempt to map changing hazards from satellite data was funded by
the USGS, the NSF, the Volcano Crisis Assistance Team and Michigan
Technological University. Outline not only the cartographic decisions
made to produce the risk maps, but also discuss the socioeconomic
advantages they afford decision makers.

**Remarks:**

I. The purpose of this risk map research was to illustrate a methodology
for the

development of a Volcanic Risk Map which may be used for:

-   forecasting the cost of volcanic activity

-   planning mitigation expenditures

II\. The volcanic risk map produced shows the cost of the volcano to the
Guatemalan government to be between 3.3 and 8.4 million dollars U.S. per
year.

III\. Results of the research and steps in the methodology applied have
been made

available through an internet world-wide web vehicle which facilitates
some complex overlays.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/santamaria/volcrisk/

IV\. Direct students to study this site then write a plan for
preparation of a volcanic

risk map for Mt. St. Helens in Washington state. The plan should include
all of

the same categories of information needed for the Santa Maria Volcano
Risk Map and should follow exactly the same methodology for its
design**.**

**Class Activity: Elicit from students opinions about the effectiveness
and content of this session on use of maps and models in communicating
risks.**

**Requirements:**

Promote a free-wheeling atmosphere for a free exchange of opinions about
Session 8.

Cooperatively evaluate this session.

I. Set the classroom atmosphere for a free exchange of opinions about
Session 8.

II\. Discuss the apparent gulf between the use of formal risk
assessments as the basis for messages about risk from the academic field
of risk communication and the need for FEMA to communicate risk by use
of maps before, during and after an emergency event.

III\. Evaluative questions to pose to the class:

> A. What subject covered in this Session 8 would you have liked to
> spend more time on?

B. What other improvements can you suggest in the design of this Session
8?

IV\. Examples of risk mapping ***(Power Point slide \# 33-36).***

**REFERENCES**

Bertin, J. 1983. *Semiology of Graphics.* Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.

Covello. V.T. 2002. \"Message Mapping\". Geneva: WHO - Workshop on
BIo-Terrorism and Risk Communication.

Cutter, S.L. 1993. *Living with Risk.* New York: Routledge, Chapman and
Hall, Inc.

Dymon, Ute and Nancy L. Winter. 1993. \"Evacuation Mapping: The Utility
of Guidelines\", *Disasters* 17, pp.12-24.

Gahegan, M. 2000. Visualization as a Tool for Geocomputation, in
Openshaw, S.,

and Abrahart, R. J. (Editors) *Geocomputation.* London: Taylor and
Francis. pp. 253-274.

Kasperson, Roger E. 1986. *Six Propositions for Public Participation and
Their Relevance for Risk Communication.* Worcester, MA: Clark
University. Reprint No. 54, Center for Technology, Environment, and
Development (CENTED), Jeanne X. Kasperson Library.

Kates, Robert W, Christoph Hohenemser and Jeanne X. Kasperson. 1985.
*Perilous*

*Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology.* Boulder: Westview Press.
pp.25-42.

Monmonier,l Mark. 1997. *Cartographies of Danger*. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Monmonier, Mark. 1995. *Drawing the Line.* New York:: Henry Holt and
Co., Inc.

Monmonier, Mark and George A. Schnell. 1992. \"Natural Hazard Mapping
Status and Review,\" in S.K. Majumdar, G. S. Forbes, E. W. Miller, and
R.F\> Schmaltz, eds., *Natural and Technological Disasters: Causes ,
Effects and Preventive Measures.* Easton, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of
Sciences. pp. 440-454.

Lundgren, R. 1994. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating
Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.

MacEachren, A. M. 1994. *Visualization in Modern Cartography.* London:
Pergamon Press.

Radke, J., Cova. T. J., Sheridan, M.F., Troy, A., Lon, M., and R.
Johnson. 2000. Application Challenges for Geographic Information
Science: Implications for Research,

Education, and Policy for Emergency Preparedness and Response*. URISA
Journal*. 12, 4.

Slovic, P. 1997. \"Risk Perception and Trust\", in: Malak, V. (Editor),
*Fundamentals of* *Risk Analysis and Risk Management*. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.

**WEBSITES**

Earthquake Probability Maps (EPM)s at -
<http://equint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/cgi-bin/eqprob.cgi>

NOAA\'s RVAT at - <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/rvat/hazid.html>

Visualization at -
<http://www.geovista.psu.edu/sites/icavis/icavis/poland1.html>

Volcanic Risk Maps -
<http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/santamaria/volcrisk>