Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your

Products

Circular 1419

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to 

Improve Your Products

By Suzanne C. Perry, Michael L. Blanpied, Erin R. Burkett, Nnenia M. Campbell, 

Anders Carlson, Dale A. Cox, Carolyn L. Driedger, David P. Eisenman, Katherine T. 

Fox-Glassman, Sherry Hoffman, Susanna M. Hoffman, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Lucile 

M. Jones, Nicolas Luco, Sabine M. Marx, Sean M. McGowan, Dennis S. Mileti, 

Morgan P. Moschetti, David Ozman, Elizabeth Pastor, Mark D. Petersen, Keith 

A. Porter, David W. Ramsey, Liesel A. Ritchie, Jessica K. Fitzpatrick, Kenneth S. 

Rukstales, Timothy L. Sellnow, Wendy L. Vaughon, David J. Wald, Lisa A. Wald, 

Anne Wein, and Christina Zarcadoolas

Circular 1419

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747).

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain 

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Perry, S.C., Blanpied, M.L., Burkett, E.R., Campbell, N.M., Carlson, A., Cox, D.A., Driedger, C.L., Eisenman, D.P., FoxGlassman, K.T., Hoffman, S., Hoffman, S.M., Jaiswal, K.S., Jones, L.M., Luco, N., Marx, S.M., McGowan, S.M., Mileti, 

D.S., Moschetti, M.P., Ozman, D., Pastor, E., Petersen, M.D., Porter, K.A., Ramsey, D.W., Ritchie, L.A., Fitzpatrick, J.K., 

Rukstales, K.S., Sellnow, T.S., Vaughon, W.L., Wald, D.J., Wald, L.A., Wein, A., and Zarcadoolas, C., 2016, Get your 

science used—Six guidelines to improve your products: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1419, 37 p., http://dx.doi.

org/10.3133/cir1419.

ISSN 2330-5703 (online)
 iii

Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................1

Why This Publication?..........................................................................................................................1

Why the Workshop? .............................................................................................................................1

A Strategy to Improve Understanding...............................................................................................2

Additional Recommendations for the NSHM and USGS................................................................4

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................5

The National Seismic Hazard Maps ..................................................................................................5

A Workshop for the NSHM to Reach New Audiences—Motivation for Creating ScienceCommunication Guidelines....................................................................................................6

The Span of Workshop Expertise..............................................................................................6

Workshop Outcomes...................................................................................................................7

A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines..........................................................................7

1. Define Your Goals..............................................................................................................................8

Prioritizing Audiences...............................................................................................................10

2. Know Your Audience......................................................................................................................12

Risk Perception Trumps Reality...............................................................................................13

Emotion is a Wellspring for Action..........................................................................................13

The Mantra is “Concrete, Local, and Current”.....................................................................14

Probability Alone Won’t Get the Message Across...............................................................14

Vivid Content Has Value and Dangers....................................................................................16

Worry, Dread, and A Bias Toward Optimism.........................................................................16

3. Start Where They Are ....................................................................................................................18

Communicate in Ways That Work for Your Audience..........................................................18

Choose the Right Frame............................................................................................................20

Personalize the Risk ..................................................................................................................20

Use Clear and Plain Language ................................................................................................21

Match the Literacy Levels of Your Audience ........................................................................21

Reduce the Literacy Load to Make Your Language More Clear........................................22

Warning! Same Words, Different Concepts..........................................................................23

Best Practices for Useful Maps ..............................................................................................23

4. Work Together, Stay Open.............................................................................................................24

Participatory Processes Can Help..........................................................................................24

What is Design Thinking?.........................................................................................................24

A Workshop That Combines The Two ....................................................................................25

5. Evaluate Early and Often ...............................................................................................................25

Outputs and Outcomes .............................................................................................................26

Types of Questions That Evaluation Can Answer.................................................................26

Evaluation Methods...................................................................................................................26

Evaluation Resources ...............................................................................................................29

6. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat .................................................................................................................30
iv 

Using the Guidelines....................................................................................................................................30

Tips to Get Started With the Six Guidelines ...................................................................................30

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................31

Appendix—About the USGS and SAFRR.................................................................................................36

Contents—Continued

Figures

1. Simplified National Seismic Hazard Map, which was intended for the general public and 

is now being revised based on the six guidelines and other outcomes of a recent workshop to broaden the understanding and use of the National Seismic Hazard Maps .......5

2. Photograph of civil engineer Keith Porter pitching a product idea for homeowners during a 

National Seismic Hazard Map workshop brainstorming session ........................................7

3. Pinwheel diagram showing six guidelines to improve the understanding, use, and effectiveness of science products, such as text, maps, and Web-based tools ................................9

4. Illustration of “stakeholder” orbits....................................................................................................11

5. Seismic hazard map for the Evansville Indiana/Henderson Kentucky urban area based on 

the National Seismic Hazard Maps .........................................................................................15

6. Cartoon showing the finite pool of worry.............................................................................................17

7. Schematic illustration showing the stages of a typical evaluation process..............................29


Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to 

Improve Your Products

By Suzanne C. Perry,1 Michael L. Blanpied,1 Erin R. Burkett,1 Nnenia M. Campbell,2

Anders Carlson,3

 Dale A. Cox,1 Carolyn L. Driedger,1 David P. Eisenman,4 Katherine 

T. Fox-Glassman,5

 Sherry Hoffman,6 Susanna M. Hoffman,7 Kishor S. Jaiswal,1

Lucile M. Jones,1

 Nicolas Luco,1 Sabine M. Marx,8 Sean M. McGowan,1 Dennis S. 

Mileti,2

 Morgan P. Moschetti,1 David Ozman,1 Elizabeth Pastor,9 Mark D. Petersen,1

Keith A. Porter,10 David W. Ramsey,1

 Liesel A. Ritchie,2 Jessica K. Fitzpatrick,1

Kenneth S. Rukstales,1

 Timothy L. Sellnow,11 Wendy L. Vaughon,12 David J. Wald,1

Lisa A. Wald,1

 Anne Wein,1 and Christina Zarcadoolas13

Executive Summary

Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people 

outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those 

whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise.

Why This Publication?

At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probabilistic hazard products, suggested tips, and shared their strategies for 

making products that a targeted audience can understand and use. Although the workshop was 

held to broaden the understanding and use of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the workshop outcomes presented in this report can benefit anyone 

who develops products based on technical information.

Why the Workshop?

In the United States, earthquakes threaten people in 42 of the 50 States, with 16 States at 

high risk. The NSHM, which forecast earthquake ground shaking, are important products for 

earthquake loss reduction and thus are a flagship application of the earthquake hazards research 

done at the USGS. The seismic provisions of U.S. building codes use the NSHM to save lives, 

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder.

3

School of Architecture, University of Southern California.

4

Center for Public Health and Disasters, University of California Los Angeles.

5

Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

6

Designmatters, Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, Calif.

7

Hoffman Consulting, Telluride, Colo.

8

Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

9

Humantific, New York, N.Y.

10University of Colorado Boulder.

11Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida.

12The Graduate Center, University of New York School of Public Health.

13

City University of New York School of Public Health.
2 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

and to date, the main user group has been engineers. However, because the NSHM provide a 

broad view of earthquake ground-shaking hazard across the Nation, they have untapped value 

for planning, risk reduction, and education, and they have potential users as yet unreached.

To expand the use and understanding of the NSHM, the USGS Science Application for 

Risk Reduction (SAFRR) project convened experts from 18 disciplines, representing decades 

of research and practice in earthquake science and risk communication. Participants shared 

understanding from natural, physical, behavioral, and social sciences, as well as from engineering, public health, marketing, communication, and social-impact design. Workshop attendees 

addressed:

•	 The aspects of human thinking and behavior that influence comprehension and use of 

probabilistic information and maps; and

•	 The roles of participatory processes (which engage potential users in product development), evaluation (to understand effectiveness), and design thinking (an approach to 

problem-solving that enables ideas to emerge without preconceptions).

A Strategy to Improve Understanding

Given the number of expert “stovepipes” (disciplines with experts who do not interact or 

follow each other’s work) at the NSHM workshop, participants provided remarkably consistent 

guidelines to improve the understanding and use of science through text, maps, and other products. Their guidelines are based on decades of research and practice. In this report the guidelines 

are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of order, to fit 

each project and your resources:

1. Define your goals.—Who is your audience? What do you want to communicate? What 

do you want them to do with your information? To what benefit? What are you assuming they already know? How will you define success? How realistic are you being? 

Answer these questions at the start, and return to them periodically; your answers will 

likely evolve as your project proceeds.

2. Know your audience.—Because they’re people, your audience will understand, learn, 

remember, and make decisions based on their background, experience, and psychology. 

You can’t fight human nature so learn how to work with it. Different audiences require 

different strategies—communication is not “one size fits all.” Don’t be daunted—contact with even one audience member can help.

3. Start where they are.—Communicate in ways that work for your audience. Always 

strive for plain language and use a literacy level that fits your audience. Build on a 

foundation of their knowledge, expectations, and view—not yours. Don’t expect them 

to change or learn in order to understand you. You can make simple adjustments to 

improve their use of your text, maps, and other products.

4. Work together, stay open.—Use participatory processes—that is, engage members of 

your audience as co-developers; this will increase buy-in and correct preconceptions 

(on both sides) that can limit success. Employ design thinking, a style of problem solving that focuses on “blue sky” thinking, multiple perspectives, and remaining open, 

flexible, collaborative, and inclusive. 

5. Evaluate early and often.—Begin evaluation when a project starts. Many methods exist, 

as do many types of help if you are unsure how to get started or how to reduce costs. 

Much evaluation can be done in-house, with limited expertise. Evaluation will help 

you apply the other guidelines, and vice versa. For example, when you talk with an 

audience member you are conducting evaluation.

6. Repeat, repeat, repeat.—Every aspect of this process is iterative. In particular, keep 

returning to members of your audience for feedback, questions, and insights. Expect 
Executive Summary 3

Start where they are

Kn

wo

your audience

Define your goals

Repeat, repeat, repeat

Evaluate early

an

d

often

Work together, stay

open

1

2

3

4

5

6

Define your goals

• Who is your audience?

• What do you want to communicate?

• What do you want them to do with your info?

• To what benefit?

• What are you assuming they already know?

• How will you define success?

Know your audience

• Use this as your key to success.

• Work with, not against, human nature.

• Connect with at least one audience member.

Start where they are

• Always strive for plain language.

• Tailor your efforts to fit your audience.

• Build on their foundation—not yours.

Repeat, repeat, repeat

• Think “recurring,” not “one time.”

• Keep returning to your audience. 

• Keep reminding about the product and its uses.

Evaluate early and often

• Begin evaluation when a project starts.

• Become familiar with the many types of help.

• Use evaluation to apply the other guidelines.

Work together, stay open

• Engage your audience as co-developers.

• Explore open, "blue sky" thinking.

• Stay flexible.

1 2 3

4 5 6

Pinwheel diagram showing six guidelines to improve the understanding, use, and effectiveness of science products, such as text, maps, 

and Web-based tools. These guidelines are not a checklist, but rather a strategy to enhance the understanding and use of scientific 

information. In this report, the guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of order to fit 

each project and your resources. The guidelines were developed by social scientists, designers, geoscientists, marketers, and journalists who participated in a U.S. Geological Survey workshop.
4 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

to make more than one product handoff—people 

need reminding over the long term about the existence, value, and correct uses of your product.

As a test and proof of concept, SAFRR applied these 

six guidelines to develop this report. To develop future 

NSHM products for new audiences, the NSHM and 

SAFRR teams will follow these guidelines.

Additional Recommendations for the NSHM 

and USGS

Workshop participants made recommendations 

specific to the NSHM that provide helpful examples of 

how to apply the six guidelines, so are included in this 

report. For example, participants demonstrated key steps 

in the thought process behind selecting an audience. They 

discussed pros and cons of various audiences, then recommended that the NSHM team focus on development of 

products for and with (1) local (State/city) officials, (2) 

professional interpreters (the “go-between” experts from 

academia and consulting who interpret USGS science), 

and (3) the general public—with the caveat that these are 

not homogeneous groups and will need further subdivision. Workshop attendees also offered numerous tips about 

presenting probabilistic products like the NSHM to less 

technical audiences without “dumbing it down.”

Some USGS practices could limit the success of new 

products. For example, the USGS carefully distinguishes 

between earthquake hazard and risk, but most of the 

population—from average residents to social scientists—

perceive these words as synonyms. Thus, when the USGS 

presents hazard information, most people are likely to 

interpret it as risk information. When using both concepts, 

the USGS needs to point out this distinction and explain 

the differences between the two concepts.

Tips to Get Started With the Six Guidelines

•	 Start small. Compare the guidelines with the way 

you make products now, and find one change 

that might improve your products. Make that 

part of your routine, then come back and look 

for another change to try.

•	 For most people, answering the questions in 

guideline 1 is the place to start. Don’t worry 

about answering all the questions immediately. 

You’ll add and revise as your project goes along.

•	 If you know members of your target audience, 

talk to a few of them. If you don’t know anyone, 

a colleague might. If you can’t reach your target 

audience, try a related audience—or just use 

people who are outside your field. Ask them 

about the information they already use—how 

they get the information, how they use it, and 

why.

•	 Get their feedback on an existing product—it 

doesn’t have to be one of yours. What resonates? 

What confuses? Did they walk away with the 

author’s intended take-home messages?

•	 Many sections of this report flag aspects of 

human nature that can influence communication. 

Identify which might pertain to your products. 

When you interact with members of your audience, note which come into play.

•	 Before you get attached to a particular idea, stage 

an informal workshop to brainstorm possibilities 

you might not have considered. Try not to steer 

the ideas in one direction or another. Invite publications staff or Web developers and members 

of your target audience to make suggestions.

•	 Write/map/draw with a specific person in mind.

•	 In the References Cited, an asterisk identifies 

references that could be particularly helpful as 

you get started. Most of these are derivative 

publications that combine findings from research 

and practice.

•	 SAFRR is building a collection of online 

resources at http://www.usgs.gov/natural_

hazards/safrr/.

•	 SAFRR (safrr@usgs.gov) is happy to share contacts if you need to seek expert advice.
Introduction 5

Introduction

Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people 

outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those 

whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise.

At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probabilistic hazard products, suggested tips, and shared their strategies for 

making products that a targeted audience can understand and use. Although the workshop was 

held to broaden the understanding and use of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National 

Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the workshop outcomes presented in this report can benefit 

anyone who develops products based on technical information.

The National Seismic Hazard Maps

In the United States, earthquakes threaten people in 42 of the 50 States, with 16 States 

at high risk (Robertson and Peterson, 2014). Most of the risk is in metropolitan areas—which 

also puts local, regional, and national economies at risk. Earthquakes are uncontrollable and 

unpredictable, but people can prepare for them and mitigate their impacts. To aid in such efforts, 

the USGS (appendix), a Federal agency that provides impartial, official scientific information, 

supplies earthquake information including the NSHM (fig. 1), which forecast earthquake ground 

shaking.

% g

Figure 1. Simplified National Seismic Hazard Map, which was intended for the general public and is now being revised 

based on the six guidelines and other outcomes of a recent workshop to broaden the understanding and use of the 

National Seismic Hazard Maps. Colors show peak ground accelerations that have a 2-percent chance of being exceeded 

in 50 years, assuming that the soil type is firm rock. Peak ground acceleration is measured as a percent (%) of g, the 

acceleration of gravity. In the yellow zone, in any 50-year period, there is a 2-percent chance that an earthquake will 

produce peak ground accelerations that exceed 16–32 percent of g.

The NSHM are flagship 

products of earthquake 

hazard research at the 

USGS.
6 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

The NSHM are an important tool for earthquake loss reduction and thus a flagship application of earthquake hazard research at the USGS. The NSHM are used in the seismic provisions 

of building codes, which save lives by minimizing the risk of structural collapse during earthquake ground shaking. The building codes prescribe construction methods that minimize the 

risk of structural collapse of buildings and important specialized structures, including nuclear 

power plants, dams, bridges, schools, hospitals, pipelines, and tall buildings. In addition, most 

earthquake-insurance rate structures use risk models that reference the NSHM. Therefore, the 

NSHM annually influence hundreds of billions of dollars of construction and business decisions.

Currently, the NSHM and their Web pages convey information in ways that are most meaningful to the primary audience—engineers who design or use building codes. Risk modelers and 

earthquake scientists also have the expertise to understand the current maps. However, maps 

that are best suited to engineers are difficult to understand by many who are not engineers. This 

restricts usage and increases misinterpretation and misuse of the NSHM by other audiences. 

Because the NSHM provide a broad view of earthquake hazard across the United States, they 

have other potentially valuable uses for planning, risk reduction, and education. The NSHM—

and the data that go into them—contain information that could benefit a broad array of groups, 

including State and city leaders, the private sector, and individuals.

A Workshop for the NSHM to Reach New Audiences—Motivation for 

Creating Science-Communication Guidelines

To broaden the use and understanding of the NSHM on behalf of the NSHM team, the 

USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction Project (SAFRR, appendix) convened a SAFRR 

“Cadre of Relevant Experts” (SAFRR CORE, see appendix) workshop in June 2014, uniting 

experts from multiple disciplines to exchange knowledge and tackle a common problem.

This workshop, entitled “New Audiences, New Products for the National Seismic Hazard 

Maps,” sought to improve two kinds of accessibility to the NSHM:

•	 Physical accessibility—are the maps easy to obtain?

•	 Intellectual accessibility—are they easy to understand and use?

During the 2 days of the workshop, participants shared understanding from natural, 

behavioral, and social sciences, as well as from engineering, public health, marketing, communication, and social-impact design. Because participants represented decades of research and 

practice, they shared their understanding as summations, overviews, and general findings, rather 

than details of individual research studies.

The Span of Workshop Expertise

The expertise of the 30 workshop attendees spanned 18 disciplines—anthropology, civil 

engineering, decision science, geography, geology, geophysics, hydrology, information design, 

journalism, marketing, medicine, political science, psychology, public health, seismology, 

sociolinguistics, sociology, and structural engineering. About half of the attendees came from 

disciplines outside of the Earth sciences. This breadth of knowledge was stimulating, eyeopening, and revealed communication complications—each discipline had its own jargon; many 

relied on acronyms and others on abbreviations. Perhaps most treacherous were the times when 

attendees used the same words but intended different meanings.

For example, workshop discussion revealed different uses of the word probability. To 

some, a probabilistic map like the NSHM implies that the map includes probable (more likely) 

events and excludes possible (less likely) events. To others—including earthquake scientists—

probability indicates a method of analysis that accounts for uncertainty and which includes 

possible, as well as probable, events.

The 30 attendees 

spanned 18 disciplines, and about half 

came from disciplines 

outside of the Earth 

sciences.

The NSHM could 

benefit a broad array 

of groups, including 

State and city leaders, 

the private sector, and 

individuals.

At times, attendees 

used the same words 

but intended different 

meanings.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 7

Workshop Outcomes

The workshop took advantage of the group’s creativity and expertise to brainstorm potential products, audiences, partnerships, and resources for the NSHM (fig. 2). Throughout workshop activities, participants acknowledged that the workshop outcomes—the product ideas and 

prioritized choices of audiences—could only be preliminary, because few members of potential 

audiences were in attendance. The workshop outcomes provide starting points for conversations 

with new audiences.

This report summarizes workshop discussions and includes a road map for future efforts. 

More importantly, it provides a general strategy for those who seek to improve the understanding and use of science-products—maps, decision-support tools, Web pages, phone apps, technical reports, books and brochures, videos, and more for technical and nontechnical audiences. 

Although the incoming goal of the workshop was new products for the NSHM, the result is a set 

of guidelines that can help to improve any product that is based on technical information.

Figure 2. Photograph of civil engineer Keith Porter pitching a product idea for homeowners during 

a National Seismic Hazard Map workshop brainstorming session. Also shown in this photo are Earth 

scientists, designers, sociologists, psychologists, marketers, journalists, and decision scientists. 

(Photograph courtesy of Elizabeth Pastor.)

A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines

On the basis of research and practice into how people think, use tools, make decisions, and 

understand scientific/technical information, the social and behavioral scientists, marketers, and 

social-impact designers at the NSHM workshop provided remarkably consistent guidelines to 

develop successful science products, such as text, maps, and other products. In this report the 

guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of 

order to fit each project and your resources. If you want someone to understand and use your 

science:

Attendees provided 

remarkably consistent 

guidelines to develop 

successful science 

products.
8 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

1. Define your goals.—Who is your audience? What do you want to communicate? What do 

you want them to do with your information? To what benefit? What are you assuming they 

already know? How will you define success? How realistic are you being? Answer these 

questions at the start, and return to them periodically; your answers will likely evolve as 

your project proceeds.

2. Know your audience.—Because they’re people, your audience will understand, learn, 

remember, and make decisions based on their background, experience, and psychology. 

You can’t fight human nature so learn how to work with it. Different audiences require different strategies—communication is not “one size fits all.” Don’t be daunted—contact with 

even one audience member can help.

3. Start where they are.—Communicate in ways that work for your audience. Always strive 

for plain language and use a literacy level that fits your audience. Build on a foundation of 

their knowledge, expectations, and view—not yours. Don’t expect them to change or learn 

in order to understand you. You can make simple adjustments to improve their use of your 

text, maps, and other products.

4. Work together, stay open.—Use participatory processes—that is, engage members of your 

audience as co-developers; this will increase buy-in and correct preconceptions (on both 

sides) that can limit success. Employ design thinking, a style of problem solving that 

focuses on “blue sky” thinking, multiple perspectives, and remaining open, flexible, collaborative, and inclusive. 

5. Evaluate early and often.—Begin evaluation when a project starts. Many methods exist, as 

do many types of help if you are unsure how to get started or how to reduce costs. Much 

evaluation can be done in-house, with limited expertise. Evaluation will help you apply the 

other guidelines, and vice versa. For example, when you talk with an audience member you 

are conducting evaluation.

6. Repeat, repeat, repeat.—Every aspect of this process is iterative. In particular, keep returning to members of your audience for feedback, questions, and insights. Expect to make 

more than one product handoff—people need reminding over the long term about the existence, value, and correct uses of your product.

The six guidelines are graphically shown in figure 3. When you skip these guidelines, you 

risk creating content that is:

•	 Of little relevance to your audience,

•	 Misunderstood by some,

•	 Misused by others, and

•	 Unusable by the rest.

The sections that follow summarize the scientific findings and decisionmaking that 

underpin each guideline. For examples, see the Case Studies discussed below and asterisked 

references.

1. Define Your Goals

Certain decisions are essential to develop any successful product:

•	 What information do you want to convey?

•	 Why should your product exist and what benefit would it provide?

•	 What audience do you want to reach?

•	 What do you want them to do with your information—what actions should they take?

1. Define your goals:

• Who is your audience?

• What do you want to 

communicate?

• What do you want them 

to do with your info?

• To what benefit?

• What are you assuming 

they already know?

• How will you define 

success?

These guidelines 

can help to improve 

all products that are 

based on technical 

information.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 9

Start where they are

Kn

wo

your audience

Define your goals

Repeat, repeat, repeat

Evaluate early

an

d

often

Work together, stay

open

1

2

3

4

5

6

Define your goals

• Who is your audience?

• What do you want to communicate?

• What do you want them to do with your info?

• To what benefit?

• What are you assuming they already know?

• How will you define success?

Know your audience

• Use this as your key to success.

• Work with, not against, human nature.

• Connect with at least one audience member.

Start where they are

• Always strive for plain language.

• Tailor your efforts to fit your audience.

• Build on their foundation—not yours.

Repeat, repeat, repeat

• Think “recurring,” not “one time.”

• Keep returning to your audience. 

• Keep reminding about the product and its uses.

Evaluate early and often

• Begin evaluation when a project starts.

• Become familiar with the many types of help.

• Use evaluation to apply the other guidelines.

Work together, stay open

• Engage your audience as co-developers.

• Explore open, "blue sky" thinking.

• Stay flexible.

1 2 3

4 5 6

Figure 3. Pinwheel diagram showing six guidelines to improve the understanding, use, and effectiveness of science products, such 

as text, maps, and Web-based tools. These guidelines are not a checklist, but rather a strategy to enhance the understanding and use 

of scientific information. In this report, the guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of 

order to fit each project and your resources. The guidelines were developed by social scientists, designers, geoscientists, marketers, 

and journalists who participated in a U.S. Geological Survey workshop.
10 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

•	 Is there information that you are currently omitting that would be relevant to your audience and could be added easily?

•	 How realistic are you being?

•	 What are you assuming your audience already understands?

How will you define success—what should the product accomplish to be successful?

Make decisions at the outset of the project, then expect these decisions to evolve. Remain 

flexible and open, and when talking with audiences, be prepared to change what you have 

planned or thought about your project up to this stage. Your audience may need something quite 

different than what you expected or even nothing from you whatsoever.

USGS science is impartial. USGS’s Fundamental Science Practices require that “USGS 

information products do not recommend or appear to advocate or prescribe a particular public 

policy . . .” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). Some attendees at the NSHM workshop thought 

that aspects of guideline 1—“What do you want them to do with this information?” and “How 

will you define success?”—could conflict with these policies. However, many attendees said 

that these aspects of guideline 1 are essential to developing successful products (Frisby and 

others, 2014; Wickline and Sellnow, 2013; Wood and others, 2012; Alfred E. Alquist Seismic 

Safety Commission, 2010). This potential conflict is one reason why it is important for the 

USGS to develop products in concert with emergency managers and others who do recommend 

actions. Certainly, USGS hazard products can reasonably encourage noncontroversial actions, 

such as “discuss flood safety priorities” or “understand your local landslide risk.” In general, 

the USGS aims to make people aware of its science and products so that they can make wellinformed decisions based on solid, unbiased science. Using these guidelines is a way to increase 

this awareness.

Prioritizing Audiences

Many groups at the USGS, including those producing the NSHM, have more potential 

audiences than they have the resources to reach. In the case of the NSHM, workshop participants recommended that to focus efforts and prioritize audiences, the NSHM team should 

initially reach out to representatives within the following groups:

•	 Local (State/city) officials,

•	 Professional interpreters (the “go-between” experts—including science writers, museum 

educators, and academics—who interpret USGS science for the public, legislators, and 

others), and

•	 The general public.

This recommendation came with the caveat that you cannot know what an audience wants 

until you talk with them—and some of the listed audiences may want nothing from you. It is 

also important to recognize that the term “general public” is a misnomer. In fact, the general 

public is a heterogeneous audience, and it is rarely possible to create a single product to reach 

all segments of it. Application of guidelines 2 and 3 will help you recognize when an audience 

is too diverse to be reached by a single product.

As the NSHM team completes its application of guideline 1 and defines its goals, it may 

opt to revisit the choice of audiences, and this is a common outcome when defining goals. 

Financial and other practical considerations will always influence the prioritizing.

Using an objective method for audience prioritization may provide direction and ensure 

that all potential stakeholders are considered in the planning process. For example, as shown in 

figure 4, one objective way to prioritize audiences is to think of potential stakeholders as orbits 

around your product (Creighton, 2005). At the center is your product. Potential audiences in the 

first ring, closest to center, are those most deeply involved, and as you move out from center, 

the involvement decreases. For example, if the product reduces earthquake risk, the first and 

closest ring holds those most at risk, as well as co-decisionmakers who can veto or approve 

the project or who must be involved such as by government mandate; the second ring would 

include active participants who will commit time and energy to participate; the third ring might 

Make decisions at the 

outset of the project, 

then expect these 

decisions to evolve.

How realistic are 

you being?

Using an objective 

method for audience 

prioritization may 

provide direction and 

ensure that all potential stakeholders are 

considered.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 11

contain technical reviewers and other agencies who must be involved in any product; the fourth 

ring would comprise commenters—people who are interested but may not have time or attention to commit; the fifth ring would hold observers—people who will probably be silent unless 

they develop concerns, but who can be important to public opinion generally; and the sixth ring 

would comprise what Creighton calls “unsurprised apathetics”—people you have told, who are 

not interested. Creighton recommends focusing on a product’s inner orbits and being careful to 

include everyone who has a stake in the outcome of a product.

Lundgren and McMakin (2013) put forth examples of several methods to prioritize at-risk 

audiences and stakeholders, including Sandman’s work for the California Governor’s Office of 

Emergency Services (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, 2001), which segmented vulnerable populations into communities according to their interest in the risk:

•	 The residential community containing vulnerable populations or others concerned for 

their relatives, 

•	 The business and commercial community with financial assets,

•	 The industrial community,

•	 Agency internal staff and management who must support the effort, and

•	 Other organizations in the partnership.

Co-decision makers

Active participants

Technical reviewers

Commentors

Observers

Unsurprised apathetics

Your

product

Figure 4. Illustration of “stakeholder” orbits; a visual aid to categorize and prioritize audiences from all potential 

stakeholders (adapted from Creighton, 2005). Co-decisionmakers (first ring, closest to center) are those most deeply 

involved. Active participants (the second ring) are those who will commit time and energy to participate. Technical 

reviewers (third ring) might include technical reviewers and agencies that must be involved in any product. Commenters 

(fourth ring) are people who are interested but may not have time or attention to commit. Observers (fifth ring) are people 

who will probably be silent unless they develop concerns, but who can be important to public opinion generally. What 

Creighton calls “unsurprised apathetics” (sixth ring) are people you have told but who are not interested.
12 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

In some situations, a single product might serve several of these communities. Again, 

application of guidelines 2 and 3 will enable you to determine when these communities need 

different products, formats, or channels of delivery and thus constitute separate audiences that 

may need to be prioritized.

2. Know Your Audience

Understanding your audience can be just as important as the content of your product (Maibach and others, 2009). Providing more and better information does not equate with increased 

use of the information or with better decisionmaking, and the expert view does not always align 

with the public’s perception. That’s because people, including members of an audience:

•	 Are selective when attending to information;

•	 Evaluate options using both cognitive and what the psychologists call affective (emotional) processes;

•	 Are influenced by the context within which a decision is made (individually, in a group, 

at work, at home, and so forth); and

•	 Are influenced by cultural values, beliefs, goals, and prior experience.

To understand your audience, consider:

•	 Does your audience subdivide into segments with different needs?

•	 What are their concerns, worries, goals, needs? Are there some of these that may not 

directly relate to your hazard/issue, but which can be linked to it indirectly?

•	 Which communication channels are most likely to reach your audience?

•	 What kinds of products or tools are they most likely to use?

•	 What is their experience with your hazard/issue?

•	 What are their expectations and beliefs about your hazard/issue?

•	 What are their expectations about your science products?

•	 What are their fundamental and science literacy levels?

•	 How is their role important to public safety?

•	 Will they serve as advocates, helping to convey messages?

•	 Are they an existing, cohesive social group?

Sometimes, an interim or go-between audience is important. For example, partners in 

disaster mitigation and response may need earthquake hazard maps when they give preparedness information to people in a certain community. If you want to tailor a hazard map for that 

community, a good approach is to ask your disaster mitigation and response partners what kinds 

of maps they need to do their job effectively.

An excellent way to know an audience is to establish a long-term conversation with 

members of that audience, which facilitates trust building, understanding of needs, and ongoing 

evaluation. However, even brief, one-time contact with members of your audience can help to 

improve the products you make for that audience. When it comes to knowing your audience—or 

applying the other guidelines—make the level of effort that’s feasible for you.

The sections that follow summarize aspects of human nature that can impede understanding of probabilistic hazard products such as the NSHM. Many of these aspects of human nature 

also pertain to understanding other types of technical information. The sections also indicate 

ways, based on social science, to work around the impediments.

2. Know your audience:

• Use this as your key to 

success.

• Work with, not against, 

human nature.

• Connect with at least one 

audience member.

Providing more and 

better information 

does not equate with 

increased use of the 

information or with 

better decisionmaking.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 13

These summaries won’t substitute for getting to know members of your target audience. 

Rather, they flag issues you may need to explore with your audience members.

Risk Perception Trumps Reality

Risk perception is subjective, personal, and important, because subjective perceptions of 

risk influence what people pay attention to in complicated situations and define how people 

approach and solve problems. In fact, perceptions often matter more to people than scientific 

facts. The best way to align perception with reality is to understand your audience and their 

concerns and their goals (Sellnow and others, 2014; Mileti and Peek, 2000).

Risk perceptions are part of a person’s mental model—a person’s individual understanding 

of the surrounding world and how something works. To make a successful product, or encourage risk-wise behavior, you have to understand a person’s mental model, because it serves as 

the framework into which that person will fit new information. For example, many people who 

experienced the 1994 Northridge California earthquake (magnitude 6.7) have as part of their 

mental models that any damaging earthquake will be a lot like Northridge.

A mental model (Morgan and others, 2001; Kempton, 1991):

•	 Is an individual belief system formed through culture, experience, and personal perceptions;

•	 Is based on often incomplete facts, past experiences, and intuitive perceptions;

•	 Includes relevant knowledge and beliefs that help to interpret new information in order 

to reach conclusions; and

•	 Often serves as a filter during searches for and uptake of information. For example, it 

is common for people to notice only the information that supports their beliefs; this is 

called confirmation bias.

Emotion is a Wellspring for Action

Risks can be perceived as feelings, and this is not necessarily a conscious process. Subjective feelings of being at risk influence judgments of the riskiness of an event or situation in 

ways that go beyond objective consequences. Affect—“emotion that gives a positive or negative quality to the stimulus”—controls action and can do so even when the emotional trigger is 

subtle (Lowenstein and others, 2001). In the face of risk and uncertainty, a person’s perception 

of risk and the resulting decisions and actions are driven by affect, that is, by how a person feels 

about the situation. Thus, effective communication of scientific/technical information combines 

affective information with analytic information.

That emotion plays an incredibly important role in decisionmaking and action has been 

recognized for centuries and was discussed by Plato. According to one recent model of this 

dynamic (Kahneman, 2011), humans reason with dual processes:

•	 System 1 reasoning is quick, emotional, heuristic; and 

•	 System 2 reasoning is slow, deliberative, and analytic.

With many kinds of decisionmaking, emotion drives action because system 1 reasoning operates faster and is a better motivator for action. System 2 reasoning can and does drive 

action, but because it tends to be slower and more deliberate, judgments and decisions are often 

made through system 1 before the more rational system 2 has had the chance to kick in. Thus, 

it is often true that to inspire action an appeal to system 1 is necessary, although in cases where 

people are prepared to look at the situation analytically and deliberately—and in the absence 

of a scary/affective threat—system 2 reasoning can work quite well. People usually run probabilities through system 2 reasoning. However, you can also engage system 1 reasoning when 

communicating probabilities, and this can boost understanding:

To make a successful 

product, or encourage 

risk-wise behavior, you 

have to understand a 

person’s mental model.

Emotion plays an 

incredibly important 

role in decisionmaking 

and action.
14 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

•	 Use proportions not percentages (Visschers and others, 2009; Garcia-Retamero and 

Galesic, 2009). Simply saying 1 in 10 chance instead of 10-percent or 10% chance

improves the understanding of risk, because 1 in 10 helps people think about it more 

personally. They relate to and become the “1” in the ratio. However, be aware that with 

fractions, people tend to ignore the denominator. For example, people intuitively feel 

that 4/25 is greater than 2/5.

•	 Include vivid, emotional context. However, the vivid should not seek to scare, because 

that can have negative consequences, as discussed below. How do you know whether 

your vivid is too vivid? Try it on members of your audience.

The Mantra is “Concrete, Local, and Current”

One reason people have difficulty with probabilistic hazard is because the concepts are psychologically distant; that is, they are uncertain, far away in space, and far away in time. Psychological distance leads to abstract thinking, which does not inspire action. People are motivated 

by psychologically close threats, which leads to concrete thinking, which inspires action (Trope 

and Liberman, 2010). Disasters that may happen in the future can be made more concrete. With 

earthquakes, for example:

•	 Focus on the details of what the earthquake will be like—such as through hazard drills 

like the ShakeOut drills (http://www.shakeout.org); or

•	 Connect future outcomes with past experiences. Adding photos of real earthquakes, such 

as of shaking damage, can make future potential hazards more concrete.

The scale or extent of a map, graph, or other graphic can influence psychological distance 

(Trope and Liberman, 2010):

•	 To increase psychological closeness, zoom in;

•	 Use pie charts with caution. Pie charts make rare events seem even rarer;

•	 Community-scale maps are psychologically closer than national-scale maps. For 

example, urban-scale seismic hazard maps (fig. 5), which provide NSHM data and 

other information at a city scale, have a better chance of capturing attention than a map 

of the Nation.

Long time frames reduce people’s willingness to take action, because people discount

future outcomes—they value them less than outcomes now. This makes it hard to get people 

engaged about future risks. In some situations, a work-around is to get them to precommit to an 

action—for example, making a decision to begin paying for insurance 1 month from now will 

cause discounting to act on that insurance payment, as well as on the uncertain future damage, 

making the insurance feel less expensive. As another example, more people will get earthquake 

insurance if the “default” on an insurance form is to get it. In fact, across many different types 

of choices, people are more likely to stay in than opt out.

People give most weight to recent observations. Rare events have generally not occurred 

recently and thus their likelihood and severity are underweighted. However, if a statistically rare 

event occurs or has recently occurred, people will initially overreact to it. This helps to explain 

anecdotes from those engaged in public outreach about “teachable moments.”

Probability Alone Won’t Get the Message Across

When given a probability, people tend to:

•	 Misinterpret it.—Even when given additional information about how to use it correctly, 

people don’t (Budescu and others, 2009);

People are motivated 

by psychologically 

close threats, which 

leads to concrete 

thinking, which 

inspires action.

Long time frames 

reduce people’s 

willingness to take 

action.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 15

Ground motions with a 2-percent chance of exceedance in 50 years

Peak Ground

Acceleration (g)

38.2° N

38.1° N

38.0° N

37.9° N

37.8° N

37.7° N

87.8° W 87.7° W 87.6° W 87.5° W 87.4° W 87.3° W

0.650

0.624

0.599

0.575

0.552

0.530

0.509

0.489

0.469

0.451

0.433

0.415

0.399

0.383

0.368

0.353

0.339

0.325

0.312

0.300

Figure 5. Seismic hazard map for the Evansville Indiana/Henderson Kentucky urban area based on 

the National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM; Haase and others, 2011). Such localized, “urban” seismic 

hazard maps incorporate NSHM information, as well as other information like local soil conditions, 

to provide a more accurate representation of potential ground shaking. Similar, localized maps 

can be made for other hazards. More people will pay attention to a map that has been specifically 

tailored to show their community rather than their entire country, because the larger area is more 

psychologically distant.

•	 Ignore it.—Optimism bias kicks in, a belief that bad things won’t happen (Shepperd and 

others, 2002);

•	 Misuse it.—Earthquake scientists have based earthquake “forecasts” on weather forecasts, perhaps not realizing that people fail to understand weather forecasts (Gigerenzer 

and others, 2005);

•	 Distort it.—People put too much weight on the chance of rare events occurring (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) but put too little weight on the impacts, based on their own 

experience (Hertwig and Erev, 2009). 

The uncertainties in hazard-communication messages create obstacles to understanding. 

For example, the typical probabilistic earthquake-hazard statement is usually not the most effective way to communicate. Typical probabilistic earthquake-hazard statements present multiple 

kinds of uncertainties, each of which can change—or abort—the decisionmaking process. 

Consider the statement “There is an 82-percent chance of one or more magnitude 7 or greater 

earthquakes somewhere in southern California in the next 30 years.” This statement provides a 

quintuple whammy of obstacles to understanding:

1. Probability (82 percent),

2. Uncertainty about the severity (magnitude 7 or greater) of earthquakes,

Focus your message on 

concrete facts.
16 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

3. Uncertainty about the number of earthquakes (one or more),

4. Spatial uncertainty (somewhere in southern California), and

5. Temporal uncertainty (in the next 30 years).

For statements involving so much (and so many kinds of) uncertainty, it may be more 

effective to focus your message on concrete facts, such as what the effects are likely to be when 

an event does occur and the fact that it will happen in due course. When you do communicate 

probabilities, acknowledge that people may have their own intuitive estimates of that probability 

based on their own experience. Point out that the probabilities for the future are different than 

what one might estimate based on what has happened in an area over the past 10 or 20 years, 

the span of most people’s experience. Address any experience-description disparity directly, and 

explain why it exists. And, again, a proportion like 1 in 1,000 (called an absolute risk estimate

in the field of public health) will be understood better than a percentage like 0.1 percent.

People often use the existence of uncertainty to justify inaction or business-as-usual policies. Fortunately, they will forego these tendencies when you:

•	 Employ the precautionary principle, which can reframe a potentially paralyzing uncertainty into a justification for strong, protective action. This is the “better safe than 

sorry” concept—for example, the flood will happen someday, so be ready for it.

•	 Explain the value of developing contingency plans and adopting adaptive-management 

strategies, just in case that rare event does occur.

Vivid Content Has Value and Dangers

Include personally relevant context and vivid examples. However, beware the overuse of 

emotional appeals and don’t focus too strongly on the enormity of the consequences. Overloading people with frightening or hopeless-sounding information can lead to emotional numbing 

and paralysis—People may think, “this is too big and there is nothing I can do, so I am going to 

disengage from the topic.” In addition, people cannot maintain a constant, heightened state of 

alert.

The key is to find a good balance between grabbing attention and “fear mongering.” 

Combine vivid information about potential consequences with advice on how people could take 

control of some aspect of their situation or reduce their risk. Feelings of instrumentality—feeling that there are actions to take that would influence a situation—associate with higher belief 

in the risk and greater likelihood of action (Spence and others, 2011). As always, the way to be 

sure you have the right level of vivid content is to try it out on members of your target audience.

Worry, Dread, and A Bias Toward Optimism

What people worry about, and how much, influences how well they attend to risk (Slovic, 

2000, 2010; Sjöberg and others, 2004): 

•	 Different people worry about different things and may perceive the same risk as more 

or less threatening and manageable and therefore worry about it to a different extent 

(Slovic and others, 2004).

•	 Worry erodes over time, so plan to get people’s attention repeatedly (Brickman and 

Campbell, 1971).

•	 The sense of risk diminishes over time, which also requires reengaging people’s attention (Brickman and Campbell, 1971).

•	 People have an optimism bias—they think the bad thing won’t happen to them (Weinstein, 1980).

People often use the 

existence of uncertainty to justify inaction 

or business-as-usual 

policies.

Feeling that there are 

actions to take that 

would influence a 

situation associate 

with higher belief in 

the risk.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 17

•	 People have a finite pool of worry—there is only so much they can attend to (fig. 6), but 

one way around this is to find connections among apparently unrelated goals (Hansen 

and others, 2004; Linville and Fischer, 1991). For example, is there a way that preparing for wildfires near a person’s home satisfies another goal?

•	 Many people downplay unfamiliar hazards such as earthquakes by comparing them to, 

say, skateboard accidents. Saying “as likely as dying in a skateboarding accident” will 

have different resonance for skateboarders versus nonskateboarders. The first step in 

fighting misleading comparisons is to understand your audience (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973).

•	 How catastrophic something is, how close, and how well understood it is all feed into a 

dread scale. The level of dread influences willingness to act (Slovic and others, 1986).

Figure 6. Cartoon showing the finite pool of worry. People have a finite pool of worry—there is only so 

much they can attend to, but one way around this is to find connections among apparently unrelated 

goals (Hansen and others, 2004; Linville and Fischer, 1991). Humor increases attention and retention of 

information. (Illustration by Ian Webster from Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, 2009; 

used with permission.)
18 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

3. Start Where They Are

After you get to know members of your potential audience, you’ll find it easier to adjust 

communication tactics and products to build on what they already know and believe—which 

could be quite different from what you want or expect. To help them understand what you 

know, your products—both in content and in format—must “meet them where they are.” This 

is a catch phrase from public health education and leadership training that describes a situation 

where experts forgo top-down models of talking at people and don’t require people to change or 

learn before they can understand.

Communicate in Ways That Work for Your Audience

Every audience has different, preferred methods of getting information (for example, see 

the Case Study—Finding Out Where They Are). Thus, the same information will need to be 

packaged differently for different audiences. Business people might want training, tutorials, or 

inservice (learning through direct participation); engineers might prefer webinars or conferences 

that satisfy continuing education requirements; and some segments of the general public might 

gravitate to popular media, such as television, video, magazines, games, and social media. To 

find out what your audience prefers, engage with members of that audience.

There is diversity within every audience. For example, the “general public at the household level” includes renters and homeowners, who often require distinct messaging conveyed 

through different media. Multinational corporations and small businesses are distinct subsegments in the “private sector” audience. Within each audience subsegment, what makes a message or a medium successful depends on education level, income level, cultural perspective, and 

more. For example, according to some NSHM workshop attendees, low-income members of 

the public may be more likely to reach the Internet using smart phones rather than computers. 

Where that holds true, a phone app that provides your information may be more suitable than 

pages of Web site text—and a mobile-friendly Web page would be essential.

The knowledge base about reaching different audiences varies. Most peer-reviewed 

research about reaching a targeted audience focuses on communicating with the general public 

at the individual and household levels. The NSHM workshop discussions touched on the following aspects of communication with some common audiences:

•	 Individuals will not conduct household mitigation and preparation if all they hear about 

is hazard and risk. Instead, they respond to information about what actions to take 

(Wood and others, 2012);

•	 Businesses and organizations may make decisions differently than individuals, based 

on anecdotes (attendees saw this as an area in need of research);

•	 For individuals messaging must be repetitive, received over multiple “channels,” and 

heard from multiple sources, such as the USGS and its partners (Alfred E. Alquist 

Seismic Safety Commission, 2010);

•	 Visuals and a compelling story are key for news media and social media, as are concise and catchy statements that summarize “what’s new” about your science and “so 

what”—why should people care about this, how might it affect them?;

•	 When the USGS provides information to legislators, such as members of Congress and 

their staffers, less information is more. Legislators are often crisis- and news-driven 

and locally focused—the information must matter to the legislator’s State or constituency;

•	 Unintended audiences. You will reach a trickle-down audience—a secondary audience—which may be unknown at the outset but discovered in the evaluation process. 

Communication with local officials, for example, may trickle down to the public or to 

legislators.

3. Start where they are:

• Always strive for plain 

language.

• Tailor your efforts to fit 

your audience.

• Build on their foundation—

not yours.

What makes a message 

or a medium successful 

depends on education 

level, income level, 

cultural perspective, 

and more.
Case Study—Finding Out Where They Are 19

Case Study—Finding Out Where They Are

[This case study shows the six guidelines in action. Numbers in brackets indicate the applicable guideline.]

As Yogi Berra once noted, “You can observe a lot just by watching.” A compelling 

demonstration of why it helps to involve members of the targeted audience in the 

development process [4] for science products occurred at the recent National Seismic 

Hazard Maps (NSHM) workshop. Wendy Vaughon presented a video of usability testing 

[5], part of a project being conducted with Dr. Christina Zarcadoolas that includes a contract to develop NSHM Web content for segments of the general public [1].

Workshop participants saw a video of a usability-testing [5] session, where a man 

with emergency-management experience and a college education [2] was asked to 

imagine that he was a staffer for a Congressman who needed information about the level 

of earthquake hazard in his district in upstate New York. The testers asked the participant 

to get the information from the NSHM Web pages, with revealing results:

• When the participant tried the NSHM interactive mapping tool, his expectation 

was that it would function like Google Maps [2], and as a result, he could not 

figure out how to select his area of interest. Such a result is extremely common in 

usability tests. How someone actually uses and understands your product may be 

different than what you—or participants—expect.

• He gave up on his assignment after he read introductory material on the NSHM 

pages, where he did not understand the vocabulary, concepts, or names of 

page links [2]. However, there was a more basic problem. With evident frustration, he explained, “I’m trying to find out about earthquakes, but this is showing 

me ground shaking, not earthquakes.”

• This usability test uncovered perceptions that the NSHM would need to 

address before this user could use its products [3]. Map tools should behave 

like Web applications such as Google Maps—interactive and intuitive—and the 

participant needs to know that earthquakes produce ground shaking.

A different kind of usability problem arose in another usability test [6], this time 

with a woman who actually is a congressional staffer [2]. Given the same imaginary 

assignment, this staffer’s first reaction was disbelief, because she said that she would 

never go to a Web site for information like this [2] but would instead phone a trusted 

expert, an academic who would interpret the science for her.

Take-Home Messages.—(1) Usability testing allowed the research team to identify 

user perceptions and preferences and recommend revisions to elements in the presentation of the NSHM. (2) If the NSHM team wants to provide information to decisionmakers who don’t use Web pages, the team needs to be on their lists of trusted experts or 

make sure that those trusted experts understand and use the NSHM. Based on anecdotal 

experience of multiple workshop attendees, many decisionmakers rely on trusted experts 

to serve as “interpreters” of technical information.

“I’m trying to find out 

about earthquakes, 

but this is showing me 

ground shaking, not 

earthquakes.”
20 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

Choose the Right Frame

The way information is presented influences decisions (Plous, 1993; Scheufele and Nisbet, 

2007). This is called the framing, which is setting an issue within an appropriate context. Different people will respond to different framing. The best way to find the correct frame for a product 

is to work with members of your target audience to understand their mental models and their 

cultural and demographic influences. Based on that understanding, try a few different ways of 

framing an issue with members of your target audience and compare their responses.

There is always a frame, so it is important to choose one consciously and to choose a frame 

that resonates with the intended audience. For example, the frame 2-percent chance of being 

exceeded in 50 years is appropriate for building code engineers but likely to be wrong for other 

audiences. Another frame for the same information would be the number of damaging earthquakes that could happen in 5 years. Yet another frame would be to indicate locations that could 

experience damaging earthquake shaking in a person’s lifetime. NSHM workshop attendees 

emphasized the importance of using risk instead of hazard as a frame. A risk framing emphasizes effects such as injury or economic impacts. Remember, successful messages are personalized and concrete—and risk is more concrete than hazard.

Personalize the Risk

When hearing about risk, people refer to known, familiar phenomena that they think are 

related, and they make associations with their own experience (Paton and others, 2008; Mileti 

and O’Brien, 1992) to decide if they find the risk threatening or manageable and whether they 

should pay attention. When people have no prior experience with a rare negative event, they 

ignore descriptive warnings about it (Barron and others, 2008; Halpern-Felsher and others, 

2001; Miron-Shatz and others, 2010).

To get an audience’s attention and translate scientific/technical data into meaningful information, employ strategies that personalize it:

•	 Relate it to the audience’s past experiences, or present others’ experiences that can create 

a vivid “second-hand” experience;

•	 Use story telling;

•	 As much as possible, link the hazard with potential impacts;

•	 Use imagery that shows impacts, especially personal impacts; and

•	 Use value-based messaging, which links listeners’ existing values to an issue and 

addresses their underlying needs and motivations (Harris Interactive, 2012).

If the risk is not translated into localized or personally relatable problems and impacts, 

people don’t take it seriously. In new research about warnings for tsunamis and nuclear tests, 

maps that showed zones of risk and included a “you are here” flag increased understanding, 

belief, and personalization of the risk compared to maps with the zones but no “you” flag. In 

fact, without the personalizing “you” flag, the map was less effective than plain text (Bean and 

others, 2015).

Note that the “you are here” research pertains to crises. Research about communication 

during crises sometimes—but not always—overlaps with research about communication for 

long-term planning and awareness. Citations in this report pertain to crisis messaging when 

NSHM workshop participants thought that the results could be carried over to noncrisis situations. For example, techniques to make messages clear, simple, and direct are similar in the two 

situations.

If people in a community do not believe they face risk from a hazard such as earthquakes, 

there is no point lecturing them or warning them about it. Instead, personalize what you want 

them to know about the hazard by finding out what matters to them and what they are concerned 

about, and connect your information to that.

The way information is 

presented influences 

decisions.

If the risk is not translated into localized or 

personally relatable 

problems and impacts, 

people don’t take it 

seriously.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 21

Use Clear and Plain Language

We all benefit from plain language and clear communication. There is a growing mismatch 

between levels of public understanding and information produced, especially technical information. It is vital that crucial information such as hazard and disaster communications be designed 

with plain-language principles in mind. Recognition of this by experts across many fields led 

to the recent and far-reaching Plain Writing Act of 2010 (http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/

index.cfm).

Over recent years, communication about science has changed, as have the mediums that 

communicate such information. Information and society have become more complex. In fact, 

complex information has become so common that it is sometimes hard for professionals to 

recognize the barriers that this information presents to the public or even to people from another 

academic discipline.

If you want to reach your audience, use language that they are comfortable and familiar 

with. This is not “dumbing down.” A common myth when talking about literacy and plain 

language is that experts must “dumb down” information so everyone can use it. That is not the 

case and, in fact, efforts to write dumbed-down sentences backfire and reduce communication 

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014)!

Over the years, many highly regarded communicators have shared the philosophy of plain 

language, including investor Warren Buffett (Plainlanguage.gov, [n.d.]a):

Write with a specific person in mind. When writing Berkshire Hathaway’s annual 

report, I pretend that I’m talking to my sisters . . . Though highly intelligent, they are 

not experts in accounting or finance. They will understand plain English, but jargon 

may puzzle them. My goal is simply to give them the information I would wish them 

to supply me if our positions were reversed.

Match the Literacy Levels of Your Audience

Literacy is more than just understanding of vocabulary or the ability to read something. 

According to the National Council of Teachers of English, “Literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups” 

(National Council of Teachers of English, 2013).

One type of literacy is health literacy, which, among other things, influences how people 

prepare for, cope, and respond to natural disasters (National Institutes of Health, 2015). The 

field of public health has decades of experience in communicating to different literacy levels, 

and several models of health literacy exist. A model of health literacy relevant for natural disasters was developed by Zarcadoolas, Pleasant, and Greer (2003, 2005, 2006).

Fundamental literacy is a cornerstone of literacy. It involves reading, speaking, writing, 

and interpreting numbers, also called numeracy. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy 

(Institute of Education Sciences, 2003), which is a nationally representative survey of English 

literacy among American adults age 16 and older, has consistently found that roughly half of 

adults in the United States read at an 8th grade level or below. Other studies put the level as 

high as 10th or 12th grade, but all are averages. In places with large underserved populations, 

including those with limited English skills, the fundamental literacy level is lower (National 

Network of Libraries of Medicine, 2013).

Below is the current text on the NSHM postcard (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005), which 

is intended as an information product for the general public. Although this text has not been 

formally evaluated for literacy load, a rough estimate puts the text at a graduate level of literacy:

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazard Map for the United States showing 

earthquake ground accelerations (horizontal) having a 10 percent probability of being 

exceeded in 50 years for a firm rock site condition. This map is based on seismicity 

and fault-slip rates and takes into account the frequency of occurrence of earthquakes 

of various magnitudes. Locally, hazard may be greater than that shown, because site 

geology may amplify ground shaking. Maps for other parameters and probabilities of 

exceedance may be found on the Internet at http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/.

Complex information 

erects barriers to the 

public or even people 

from another academic 

discipline.

Literacy is more than 

just understanding of 

vocabulary or the ability to read something.

Roughly half of adults 

in the United States 

read at an 8th grade 

level or below.
22 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

The NSHM team wants this product to be understandable to the majority of Americans, so it is 

in the process of adjusting the content by applying the six guidelines to a revision. 

The majority of people in America have low science literacy (National Science Foundation, 2004). To be science literate means understanding the scientific method, basic science 

technologies, and scientific evidence. Science literacy includes:

•	 An ability to comprehend technical complexity,

•	 An understanding of technology, and

•	 An understanding that there is uncertainty in science and that changes in the accepted 

science are possible given new information derived through the scientific method.

Fewer than 30 percent of adults in the United States are science literate (National Science 

Foundation, 2004). In other words, 2–3 out of 10 are able to read most of the stories in the Science section of the New York Times or to understand an episode of the NOVA public television 

program. A National Science Foundation telephone survey of the American public (National 

Science Foundation, 2004) reveals that:

•	 Most know that the Earth travels around the Sun,

•	 Few can successfully define “molecule,”

•	 Most do not understand the scientific process of hypothesis/testing/evidence,

•	 About half know antibiotics don’t kill viruses, and

•	 More than half believe the earliest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

Reduce the Literacy Load to Make Your Language More Clear

Online calculators that evaluate literacy levels give inaccurate results. They can provide 

a quick ballpark estimate—grade school versus college level—but they do not consider all the 

elements that go into literacy; they primarily assess vocabulary.

What does your material or message assume or require of the user? NSHM workshop 

participants Vaughon and Zarcadoolas conduct a literacy-load analysis to answer this question, 

by examining the complexity of the material and the demands it places on the reader/user. A 

literacy-load analysis considers not just vocabulary, but also sentence structure and positioning, 

labels, sophistication of concepts, cultural appropriateness, and visual clarity.

Even without a literacy-load analysis, there are simple techniques that you can follow to 

make your language more clear and plain (PlainLanguage.gov, [n.d.]b):

•	 Limit use of synonyms.—People, including the smart and well-educated, need some 

knowledge of a field to recognize words as synonyms. For example, a person unfamiliar with earthquake science is likely to take the following phrases to mean different 

things:

• Earthquake ground motion,

• Ground motion,

• Ground shaking,

• Earthquake ground shaking,

• Strong ground shaking, and

• Ground vibration,

and a typical reader or listener quickly becomes overwhelmed when there seems to be 

that much new terminology to understand. In that case, people tend to give up or skip 

over the overwhelming material. Solution? Choose one term and stick with it. 

Fewer than 30 percent 

of the American public 

understands that there 

is uncertainty in science or that changes 

in the accepted science are possible.

On-line calculators that 

evaluate literacy levels 

give inaccurate results.

To make your text more 

clear, limit your use 

of synonyms, repeat 

key concepts, and 

don’t overload a single 

sentence with multiple 

concepts.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 23

•	 Use repetition.—When you repeat key concepts throughout an article and repeat subjects 

or other nouns within a paragraph, it increases understanding. 

•	 Don’t overload sentences.—Often you’ll need many more words to write in plain 

language. The more concepts and points you cram into a single sentence, the harder 

it becomes to understand. When possible, finish talking about one concept before you 

introduce the next.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has information, including an interactive 

widget, to help apply these and other techniques of plain language (see http://www.cdc.gov/

ccindex/index.html).

Warning! Same Words, Different Concepts

Even when the language or the word is simple, the core concepts may be unfamiliar, or 

received meanings may differ from intended meanings. For example, when natural scientists 

and engineers use the word uncertainty, people hear error (Hassol, 2008). Avoid this misunderstanding by using range instead of uncertainty.

As another example, the USGS carefully distinguishes between hazard (such as the likelihood of earthquake ground shaking ) and risk (such as the likelihood of damage or injury). 

Hazard and risk are sophisticated concepts that for most of the population (including many 

social scientists at the NSHM workshop) are synonyms. Thus, when the USGS presents hazard 

information, most people interpret it as risk information. Acknowledge this and adjust your 

messaging—introduce and educate as to the difference between the two concepts.

A 2008 article in the New York Times News Blog (Lyons, 2008) indicates that Science 

writers at the New York Times also misunderstand the USGS terminology. The article includes 

a NSHM ground-shaking hazard map and refers to it as a relative risk map. Because so many 

people of all literacy levels use words such as risk and hazard differently, USGS and other hazard scientists fight a battle that is already lost when they use words with special meanings and 

expect others to detect the difference. (Note that the NSHM workshop included many practitioners in the field of risk communication, but based on a Google search, there is no field of hazard 

communication.)

Best Practices for Useful Maps

Understanding the “language of maps” may be even more challenging than fundamental 

literacy—requiring the map reader to measure, calculate, compare, and draw on prior knowledge and experience to make meaningful interpretations (Clarke, 2003; Haynes and others, 

2007). Pickle (2003) writes, “Every map imposes some cognitive burden on the reader. The 

trick is to minimize this burden while facilitating the use of the map . . .” How to accomplish 

this depends on who will be using the map. Different audiences need different maps—a single 

map can’t be all things to all audiences. What is plain and clear to one audience may not be so 

for another audience.

However, there are basic conventions you can follow that will make your maps easier to 

understand and use for all audiences:

•	 Maps should have a title. A title helps orient the user, gives context to what the user is 

about to see, and manages expectations about what the map can and cannot provide.

•	 Choose colors that are:

• Appropriate for the medium (for example, Web versus print,);

• Suitable for color blindness; and

• Consistent with color conventions (for example, red means high or danger, and green 

means safe).

•	 Each symbol and term must be familiar or intuitive. If it is neither, explain it.

When the USGS presents hazard information, most people 

interpret it as risk

information.

A title helps manage 

expectations about 

what a map can and 

cannot provide.
24 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

•	 The map explanation should not explain everything. Adding obvious information to 

legends can cause confusion. People know some conventions so well they do not need 

explanation—for example, adult audiences generally know that dots are cities and the 

words next to the dots are city names.

•	 Work with editors, geographic information systems (GIS) professionals, and graphics 

experts who understand good design.

•	 Provide a map scale and indicate to what scale the map is accurate.

•	 Instruct on proper map usage.

4. Work Together, Stay Open

 Successful products don’t provide unsolicited information, they develop in a reciprocal 

process with members of the audience, through participatory processes and design thinking, 

discussed in the sections that follow.

Participatory Processes Can Help

In a participatory process (Peterson and others, 2010; Creighton, 2005; Zarcadoolas and 

others, 2001), members of the audience work with experts. An audience member can make a 

request that the expert will consider and respond to, while recognizing that people may think 

they need something that is not actually appropriate. Using participatory processes was a recurring theme of the NSHM workshop. Through participatory processes, members of the target 

audience become project participants, and their opinions and needs shape the evolution of 

the research, product, or evaluation. Participatory processes involve members of the audience 

repeatedly—probably in groups that fluctuate as tasks change—and include “market testing” of 

end products, much like the sneak previews of movie producers. Participatory processes help to 

get and keep attention, engage an audience, and tailor the products to the intended audience. As 

one NSHM workshop participant advised, “No products should be developed without soliciting 

input, informed and tested by audiences who are potential users. The sooner scientists learn to 

solicit users’ input, the better.”

Several NSHM workshop participants have led—and strongly recommend—participatory mapping projects, where they put members of the target audience on the teams to design, 

develop, or revise maps. The resulting maps have a strong user base among the participants.

An important tangential benefit of participatory processes is that they provide additional 

opportunities to get to know members of the audience. Also, sometimes people think they 

understand when they don’t, and during the participatory process, test questions and exercises 

can check their understanding. The primary objective is to engage people—as partners, not as 

experimental subjects.

Engaging audience members is always an iterative process that involves multiple meetings 

and likely requires soliciting input in multiple ways—some qualitative and some quantitative. 

Keep testing content with members of your audience. Follow every revision with more fieldwork to test new changes. Don’t assume you know how your audience will respond to your 

changes—you can’t assume you know your audience’s response at any stage of the process.

What is Design Thinking?

The designer’s approach to product development stresses the need to understand members 

of the target audience and thus has much overlap with the participatory approaches of social and 

behavioral scientists.

When Earth scientists hear “design” they typically think of graphic design and although 

many believe that a sketch or picture can often communicate more effectively than pages of 

4. Work together, stay 

open:

• Engage your audience as 

co-developers.

• Explore open, “blue sky” 

thinking.

• Stay flexible.

Participatory mapping 

projects result in maps 

that have a strong user 

base.

Don’t assume you know 

how your audience will 

respond.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 25

text, few realize that design has a second component. The first component is that commonly 

recognized artistic/design skill. The second and arguably more important component is design 

as an approach to thinking and problem solving. Design thinking has as many subdisciplines as 

any scientific research field and in no way is this style of thinking limited to designers. Design 

thinking:

• Gathers information from multiple perspectives;

• Generates new ideas, builds on them, then iterates;

• Is human-centered, focused on people’s experiences, behaviors, perceptions, and needs;

• Is visual and tangible;

• Is collaborative;

• Produces products and services but only when they are warranted—your audience may 

not need the products you have in mind; and

• Starts with the decisions in guideline 1, “Define your goals.”

A Workshop That Combines The Two

A brainstorming workshop called a design-thinking workshop combines elements of 

participatory processes and design thinking. Some meeting facilitators have experience in leading design-thinking workshops, which bring together potential audience members with a mix 

of experts for knowledge sharing and research. It is beneficial when attendees do not have the 

same expertise; they bring a perspective that is closer to that of the audience than to that of other 

experts at the workshop.

Such a workshop begins with sharing of knowledge among participants and then moves 

into divergent thinking. This is big picture, “blue sky,” open thinking and generates ideas that 

start with I wish . . . I wonder . . . Imagine if . . . What if . . . Divergent thinking defers judgment 

and spotlights commonalities between ideas rather than differences. The intent is to generate 

lots of ideas, so as to have a range to evaluate and select from. A simple but effective tool to 

proceed during this phase is to respond to ideas with “yes, and . . . ,” which expands and builds 

on starting points, rather than “yes, but . . . ,” which shuts down and stops the flow of new ideas. 

Gradually, the activities move from divergent toward convergent thinking. In this phase, individual ideas are grouped according to commonalities to extract emergent themes.

Once clustered, the groupings of ideas are assigned to teams who explore them further. 

Trying to move beyond what is known, it is effective to ask the team assigned to one idea 

cluster to “cross-pollinate” or merge with another. After this, a design-thinking workshop often 

proceeds to developing prototypes of products, which then get brought to members of the target 

audience for testing, discussion, and additional development.

5. Evaluate Early and Often

Efforts to target an audience, learn their needs, understand their mental models, identify 

desired outcomes—and more—all fall within the purview of evaluation, which can focus on a 

process or a product. Many within the USGS call it assessment, but assessment actually refers 

to just one kind of evaluation.14

Design is an approach 

to thinking and problem 

solving.

Divergent thinking 

defers judgment and 

spotlights commonalities between ideas 

rather than differences.

5. Evaluate early and 

often:

• Begin evaluation when a 

project starts.

• Become familiar with the 

many types of help.

• Use evaluation to apply 

the other guidelines. 14For Federal agencies, including the USGS, evaluations that involve the collection of information or opinions from 

10 or more members of the public must conform to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended 1995 (Office 

of Management and Budget, [n.d.]). Many professional evaluators are familiar with the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and can help you understand what’s required. Additionally, the USGS Office of Communications can 

provide USGS staff with guidance on this topic. More information can also be found on the following USGS Web page: 

http://www.usgs.gov/customer/research.html. For USGS staff, there is also an internal Web page: http://internal.usgs.

gov/oei/oiim/oiim-home/information-management/paperwork-reduction-act/.
26 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

Case Study—The Cascades Volcano Observatory Outreach Program

[This case study shows the six guidelines in action. Numbers in brackets indicate the applicable guideline.]

In the mid-1990s, Carolyn Driedger at the USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO) established the “Living 

with a Volcano in Your Backyard” outreach program, using the insights of social science (Mileti and Sorenson, 1990; 

Perry and Lindell 1990; Paton and others, 2008) and working hazard communicators. Since then, she has involved 

stakeholders in application of the science [4], by:

• Having a long-term, ongoing conversation [6] with stakeholders and people at risk;

• Inhabiting the stakeholders’ worlds, that is, spending time where they live and work [2];

• Meeting the specific needs of each audience [3];

• Working with established social groups [4];

• Providing audiences with a clear image of what will happen when a volcano hazard event occurs—and 

simple steps for mitigation [3];

• Using consistent and value-based messaging [3] (Bean and others, 2015), which addresses the underlying 

needs and motivations of the listener [2]; and

• Understanding that trusted sources will be the most effective [3] in conveying hazard messages and eliciting protective action.

The long-term conversations [6] include participation in large, formal efforts such as coordination plans and 

exercises, as well as engagement with smaller focus groups. General volcano hazard messaging and many products are 

developed collaboratively [4], including emergency coordination plans, school curricula and teacher trainings, and a 

media guidebook. Other products, including community interpretive signs, maps, Web pages, and community events, 

are developed with local input [4] by the use of focus groups, semistructured interviews, reviews by surrogate 

audiences, and questionnaires [5].

Requests from teachers [3] launched CVO’s most popular [5] products (including Eruptions in the Cascade 

Range During the Past 4,000 Years), which were honed iteratively in multiple rounds [6] of user reviews [5].

Image of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Cascades 

Volcano Observatory’s most 

popular public information 

product (USGS General 

Information Product 63, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/63/), 

developed at the request and 

with the participation of local 

educators.
Case Study—The Cascades Volcano Observatory Outreach Program 27

Driedger has also learned much from [4] “professional interpreters,” such as museum exhibit designers and 

guides, about how to:

• Attract and hold a “noncaptive” audience. Even the best map, graphic, or photo can elicit a “so what” if you do 

not convey value and connectedness to the viewer [3].

• Use simple design that conveys only what is important [3]. Scientists always know more than any single map 

needs to convey—show only what meets the purpose of that map.

• Show meaning [3], allowing a visitor to make personal connections to the work. Stories and pre- and postevent graphics make a hazard feel real [3].

• Use tangibles, intangibles, and universal concepts wisely to convey and connect your message [3] to the life 

of the reader [2].

Staff at CVO have used a pragmatic approach to stakeholder interactions at Mount Rainier, Washington. With 

limited resources at hand and a general USGS mandate to maintain a principal focus on science, outreach staff placed 

stakeholders into three main groups [2] and prioritized interactions with them by their ability to enact community risk reduction measures and to articulate volcano hazard messages proficiently to local vulnerable 

populations [1]. Listed here by priority, these stakeholder groups are (1) policymakers/emergency officials/informal 

and formal community leaders, (2) professional information distributors (emergency and school educators, media, park 

interpreters), and (3) vulnerable populations (to be reached in partnership with groups 1 and 2). CVO seeks to meet the 

information needs of the first two groups with the aim of supplying them with knowledge and co-developed products 

and services to reach the third group, the vulnerable population, which also provides input and necessary feedback 

(Pierson and others, 2014). CVO relies on leaders in groups 1 and 2 [4] to introduce them to a long chain of missioncritical agencies and individuals and to key community influencers in group 3. A matrix that displays stakeholder

needs and approaches [3] has aided prioritization of products and services development [1].

Sample of matrix that has aided prioritization of products-and-services development at the U.S. Geological Survey 

Cascades Volcano Observatory.

Potential 

audience

Audience 

need

Potential 

cooperating 

agencies/

resources

Potential 

communication 

products

Desired 

outcome

Likelihood of 

successful 

outcome

Payoff/

importance of 

success

Emergency management, educators

Public—high influence 

community leaders

Public—low literacy

Public—school kids

Local officials
28 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

To those unfamiliar with evaluation, the concept often connotes a negative, judgmental 

scrutiny. In reality, evaluation provides crucial benefits in a nonjudgmental way and:

•	 Defines and clarifies a project.

•	 Enables you to connect with and understand your audience.

•	 Identifies the “secret sauce” to success. What made the difference, what facilitated the 

outcome, what did you do this time that you want to repeat because it worked?

•	 Tests your ideas with members of your audience. Even simplistic testing is better than 

none. Testing can compare one product to another, or new products to existing, or 

identify the gap between what a product intends to communicate and what the user 

understands from it.

•	 Articulates the process. In most organizations or groups, people are not entirely on the 

same page, and even small nuances in understanding can change results.

Outputs and Outcomes

To evaluate a product’s success, you first must clearly define success. Evaluators think in 

terms of measurable changes called outputs and outcomes. Often, an output indicates something 

created as part of an engagement process, such as the materials that a group produces, and an 

outcome measures how the materials influence the behavior of individuals, such as whether 

the materials changed mitigation levels. Determining outputs and outcomes leads to metrics to 

measure success at each stage of a product’s development.

Every effort has outcomes in mind; it helps to voice them. For example, the USGS is interested in long-term reduction in deaths from natural hazards, better communication during crises, 

changed land-use practices related to hazards and climate change, and increases in certain types 

of hazard preparedness. These are all potential outcomes (although each would need to be more 

concretely defined to be measurable).

Outcomes—like everything else—vary with the audience. There can be unintended outcomes, for good and bad, and an evaluation always needs to be on the lookout for these. For 

example, a tool for homeowners to decide whether they need hazard insurance might have an 

unintended outcome in low-income neighborhoods, if the user decides that they can’t afford the 

insurance and therefore stops trying to mitigate for the hazard entirely.

Types of Questions That Evaluation Can Answer

Evaluation can answer many types of questions. For example, an evaluation can give 

insight into an organization’s effectiveness, a user’s attitudes, or a product’s value. Figure 

7 shows the stages of a typical evaluation process and the kinds of questions that might be 

answered during evaluation of a product.

Evaluation Methods

Methods to conduct evaluations are diverse and include (with examples):

•	 Quantitative (large-sample written surveys) and qualitative (focus groups);

•	 In-person (face-to-face interviews) and remote (surveys conducted through mobile 

devices);

•	 With groups (testing labs) and with individuals (usability testing at a computer);

•	 Proactive (stakeholder discussion) or by watching (tracking social-media messages).

Evaluators think in 

terms of measurable 

changes . . . Outcomes 

—like everything 

else—vary with the 

audience.
A Strategy to Improve Understanding—Six Guidelines 29

Your choice of evaluation method can depend on audience, product type, desired outcomes, time frame, and resources. A mix of methods helps to capture diversity in every aspect, 

from language and literacy to Internet bandwidth and platform.

Evaluation is an iterative process that continues throughout the project and will likely 

change methods along the way. Ideally, it begins during the onset of a project. Evaluating early 

helps to define your project goals, can improve the effectiveness of future evaluation, and also 

helps the evaluators get to know the project. Even if there is no formal evaluation until the end 

of a project, getting the evaluators to the table early helps to avoid lengthy catch-up. The best 

evaluations are integrated into a project from beginning to end. Most importantly, you can’t add 

a criterion for success and evaluate it after the fact—it needs to be built into the project from the 

beginning.

Evaluation Resources

Evaluation can be expensive and may seem intimidating if you’re unfamiliar with it, but 

evaluation can proceed on a shoestring budget. Although some kinds of evaluation require 

substantial expertise and training, other kinds can be done with limited knowledge. You’ll need 

to do some groundwork:

•	 If you’re working with an evaluator, be specific and candid about funding to allow for 

appropriate evaluation design;

•	 Academics are often in a position to help with evaluation design without being fully 

funded;

•	 A grad student may see your project as a good dataset for a dissertation and be willing to 

help you with evaluation;

•	 USGS Office of Communications provides evaluation related to (1) whether news media 

and social media highlight USGS key messages, (2) quantitative statistics on viewerDefine goals, 

set criteria for 

evaluation

Are project goals clear? Know the targeted 

audience.

Who uses the product? Is dissemination plan 

being used?

What value do users 

get from this product?

Did this product succeed/ 

meet project goals?

How often is the 

product used?

For what reasons?

What did users expect 

from this product?

Do users understand it 

and use it correctly?

What is user satisfaction level?

Are there unmet user 

needs?

How does this product 

compare to another 

product or version?

Explore existing 

products that have 

similarity.

Do project goals fit the 

larger agenda and plans 

of the organization?

Is the deliverable clear?

What are criteria for 

success and metrics for 

measuring success?

Is there a dissemination 

plan?

Precursory 

research

Evaluate utility 

and application Evaluate benefits

Figure 7. Schematic illustration showing the stages of a typical evaluation process. Each stage has questions to answer 

or other actions to take.

Starting evaluation 

early helps to define 

your project.
30 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

ship of USGS outreach materials, and (3) overview reports of news media stories that 

result from science-communication efforts;

•	 Many schools have internship requirements and so, for relatively small amounts of 

money, interns can help with evaluations, but it is important that the student have a 

strong mentor;

•	 The American Association of Evaluators (http://www.eval.org) provides free evaluation 

tools and many resources including interns; 

•	 Usability.gov (http://www.usability.gov) has evaluation templates;

•	 SAFRR (safrr@usgs.gov) can share contacts with evaluators;

•	 SAFRR is building a collection of online resources at http://www.usgs.gov/natural_

hazards/safrr/.

6. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat

Every aspect of the process to develop successful products is iterative. In particular, you 

can never assume you know what members of your audience will think or want. Even when you 

revise a product based on their input, you need to bring it back to them to get their feedback in 

an iterative and often co-creative process.

People need reminding on a systematic basis about warning (and presumably other) messages intended for the long-term (Greenfield and others, 1999; Szybillo and Heslin, 1973; Wan, 

2004). “Teachable moments” are one excellent means of reminding. Absent these, plan to do 

routine reminding.

For all products, a single handoff to your audience will limit use and understanding. As 

you continue to work with members of that audience, expect to remind them of a product’s 

existence, value, and correct uses.

Using the Guidelines

You’ve just read a lot of detail about how people take in information and make decisions. You don’t need to remember all of this. Instead, come back to these pages periodically, 

especially when you start to develop or revise a product. Then, after you engage with audience 

members, compare the information in this report to your experience.

You now know the six guidelines, a strategy that a variety of communication experts use to 

develop products that people can understand and use. It’s easy to follow guideline 1 and define 

your goals for every project that you undertake. When and how you apply the other guidelines depends on you. It’s unlikely that you’ll make sudden, sweeping changes to the way you 

develop products. Start slowly, and just make a start. Try one or more of the tips to get started 

(see below). Improving products is a cumulative process. Each effort you make to improve a 

single product will give you benefits you can apply to future efforts.

Tips to Get Started With the Six Guidelines

The following are several tips to help you get started using the six guidelines for creating 

successful and effective products:

•	 Start small. Compare the guidelines with the way you make products now and find one 

change that might improve your products. Make that part of your routine, then come 

back and look for another change to try.

6. Repeat, repeat, repeat:

• Think “recurring,” not 

“one time.

• Keep returning to your 

audience.

• Keep reminding about the 

product and its uses.

You can never assume 

you know what members of your audience 

will think or want.
References Cited 31

•	 For most people, answering the questions in guideline 1 (Define your goals) is the place 

to start. Don’t worry about answering all the questions immediately. You’ll add and 

revise as your project goes along.

•	 If you know members of your target audience, talk to a few of them. If you don’t know 

anyone, a colleague might. If you can’t reach your target audience, try a related audience—or just use people who are outside of your field. Ask them about the information 

they already use—how they get the information and how they use it and why.

•	 Get their feedback on an existing product—it doesn’t have to be one of yours. What 

resonates? What confuses? Did they walk away with the author’s intended take-home 

messages?

•	 Many sections of this report flag aspects of human nature that can influence communication. Identify which might pertain to your products. When you interact with members 

of your audience, note which come into play.

•	 Before you get attached to a particular idea, stage an informal workshop to brainstorm 

possibilities you might not have considered. Try not to steer the ideas in one direction 

or another. Invite publications staff or Web developers and members of your target 

audience to make suggestions.

•	 Write/map/draw with a specific person in mind.

•	 In the References Cited, an asterisk identifies references that could be particularly helpful as you get started. Most of these are derivative publications that combine findings 

from research and practice.

•	 SAFRR is building a collection of online resources at http://www.usgs.gov/natural_

hazards/safrr/.

•	 SAFRR (safrr@usgs.gov) is happy to share contacts if you need to seek expert advice.

References Cited

[Asterisks (*) indicate publications that could be especially helpful as you get started with using the six guidelines.]

*Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission, 2010, The study of household preparedness—

Preparing California for earthquakes: Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission report to 

the California State Legislature, March 5, 2010, 22 p.

Barron, G., Leider, S., and Stack, J., 2008, The effect of safe experience on a warnings’ 

impact—Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v. 106, no. 2, p. 125–142.

*Bean, H., Liu, B.F., Madden, S., Mileti, D.S., Sutton, J., and Wood, M.M., 2015, Final report—

Comprehensive testing of imminent threat public messages for mobile devices: College Park, 

Md., National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), 

159 p.

Brickman, P., and Campbell, D.T., 1971, Hedonic relativism and planning the good society, in

Apley, M.H., ed., Adaptation-level theory—A symposium: New York, Academic Press, p. 

287–302.

Budescu, D.V., Broomell, S., and Por, H.H., 2009, Improving communication of uncertainty in 

the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Psychological Science, v. 20, 

no. 3, p. 299–308.
32 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

*California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, 2001 [reissued 2006], Risk communication guide for State and local agencies: Sacramento, Calif., California Governor’s Office of 

Emergency Services, 87 p.

*Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014, Health literacy—Develop materials: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web page, accessed October 8, 2015, at http://www.

cdc.gov/healthliteracy/developmaterials/.

*Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, 2009, The psychology of climate change 

communication—A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public: New York, Columbia University, 54 p.

Clarke, D., 2003, Are you functionally map literate?: Proceedings of the 21st International Cartographic Conference, Durban, South Africa, August,10–16, 2003, p. 713–719.

Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council, 2000, 

How people learn—Brain mind experience and school: Washington, D.C., National Academy 

of Sciences, chapters 1–5, p. 3–127.

*Creighton, J.L., 2005, The public participation handbook—Making better decisions through 

citizen involvement: San Francisco, John Wiley and Sons, 304 p.

Frisby, B.N., Veil, S.R., and Sellnow, T.L., 2014, Instructional messages during health-related 

crises—Essential content for self-protection: Health Communication, v. 28, no. 4, p. 347–

354.

Garcia-Retamero, R., and Galesic, M., 2009, Communicating treatment risk reduction to people 

with low numeracy skills—A cross-cultural comparison: American Journal of Public Health, 

v. 99, p. 2196–2202.

Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., Van Den Broek, E., Fasolo, B., and Katsikopoulos, K.V., 2005, “A 

30 percent chance of rain tomorrow”—How does the public understand probabilistic weather 

forecasts?: Risk Analysis, v. 25, no. 3, p. 623–629.

Greenfield, T.K., Graves, K.L., and Kaskutas, A., 1999, Long-term effects of alcohol warning 

labels—Findings from a comparison of the United States and Ontario, Canada: Psychology 

and Marketing, v. 16, no. 3, p. 261–282.

Haase, J.S., Bowling, T., Nowack, R.L., Choi, Y.S., Cramer, C.H., Boyd, O.S., and Bauer, R.A., 

2011, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment including site effects for Evansville, Indiana, 

and the surrounding region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1231, 29 p., 

accessed July 23, 2015, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1231/.

Halpern-Felsher, B.L., Millstein, S.G., Ellen, J.M., Adler, N.E., Tschann, J.M., and Biehl, M., 

2001, The role of behavioral experience in judging risks: Health Psychology, v. 20, no. 2, p. 

120–126.

Hansen, J., Marx, S., and Weber, E.U., 2004, The role of climate perceptions, expectations, and 

forecasts in farmer decision-making—The Argentine pampas and south Florida: International 

Research Institute for Climate Prediction Technical Report 04–01, accessed September 2, 

2015, at http://iri.columbia.edu/~jhansen/RoleOfClimatePerceptions.pdf.

Harris Interactive, 2012, Message Research Executive Summary: Harris Interactive, 16 p.

Hassol, J.S., 2008, Improving how scientists communicate about climate change: EOS (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union), v. 89, no. 11, p. 106–107.

Haynes, K., Barclay, J., and Pidgeon, N., 2007, Volcano hazard communication using maps—

An evaluation of their effectiveness: Bulletin of Volcanology, v. 70, no. 2, p. 123–138.
References Cited 33

Hertwig, R., and Erev, I., 2009, The description-experience gap in risky choice: Trends in Cognitive Sciences, v. 13, no. 12, p. 517–523.

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003, National assessment of adult literacy (NAAL): National Center for Education Statistics Web page accessed 

August 20, 2015, at https://nces.ed.gov/naal/.

Kahneman, D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow: New York, Farrar, Straus Giroux, 512 p.

Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.,1979, Prospect theory—An analysis of decision under risk: 

Econometrica, v. 47, no. 2, p. 263–291.

Kempton, W., 1991, Lay perceptions on global change: Global Environmental Change, v. 1, no. 

3, p. 183–208.

Kreps, G.L. and Kunimoto, E.N., 1994, Effective communication in multicultural health care 

settings, in Communicating effectively in multicultural contexts: Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage 

Publications, p. 72–95.

Linville, P.W., and G.W. Fischer, 1991, Preferences for separating or combining events: Journal 

of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 60, no. 1, p. 5–23.

Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., and Welch, N., 2001, Risk as feelings: Psychological Bulletin, v. 127, no. 2, p. 267–286.

*Lundgren, R.E., and McMakin, A.H., 2013, Risk communication—A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks, 5th ed.: New Jersey, IEEE Press, 416 p.

Lyons, P.J., 2008, A earthquake rattles the Midwest: The Lede, The New York Times 

News Blog, accessed August 10, 2015, at http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/

an-earthquake-rattles-the-midwest/.

Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., and Leiserowitz, A., 2009, Global warming’s six Americas 

2009—An audience segmentation analysis: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication 

and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, 140 p., accessed 

July 30, 2015, at http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/climatechange6americas.pdf.

Mileti, D.S., and O’Brien, P.W., 1992, Warnings during disaster—Normalizing communicated 

risk: Social Problems, v. 39, p. 40–57.

Mileti, D.S. and Peek, L., 2000, The social psychology of public response to warnings of a 

nuclear power plant accident: Journal of Hazardous Materials, v. 75, p. 181–194.

Mileti, D.S., and Sorenson, J.H., 1990, Communication of emergency public warnings—A 

social science and state-of-the-art assessment: Oak Ridge, Tenn., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 128 pages.

Miron-Shatz, T., Barron, Greg, Hanoch, Y., Gummerum, M., and Doniger, G., 2010, To give or 

not to give—Parental experience and adherence to the Food and Drug Administration warning about over-the-counter cough and cold medicine usage: Judgment and Decision Making, 

v. 5, no. 6, p. 428–436.

Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., and Bostrom, A., 2001, Risk communication—A mental models 

approach: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 366 p.

National Council of Teachers of English, 2013, The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies: 

National Council of Teachers of English Web site, accessed August 5, 2015, at http://www.

ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition/.
34 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

National Institutes of Health, 2015, Clear communication—Health literacy: National Institutes 

of Health Web site, accessed August 5, 2015, at http://www.nih.gov/clearcommunication/

healthliteracy.htm.

National Network of Libraries of Medicine, 2013, Health literacy: National Network of Libraries of Medicine Web page, accessed September, 30, 2014, at http://nnlm.gov/outreach/

consumer/hlthlit.html.

National Science Foundation, 2004, Science and technology; public attitudes and understanding—Public knowledge about S&T: National Science Foundation Web page, accessed July 

30, 2015, at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm.

Office of Management and Budget, [n.d.], Federal collection of information: Office of Management and Budget Web page, accessed October 22, 2015, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

inforeg_infocoll#PRA.

Paton, D., Smith, L., Daly, M., and Johnston, D., 2008, Risk perception and volcanic hazard 

mitigation—Individual and social perspectives: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal 

Research, v. 172, p. 179–188.

PlainLanguage.gov, [n.d.]a, Why Plain Language? Testimonials—Preface by Warren E. Buffett from Security and Exchange Commission, A plain English handbook, 1998: PlainLanguage.gov Web site, accessed October 6, 2015, at http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whyPL/

testimonials/buffet.cfm.

PlainLanguage.gov, [n.d.]b, Tips and tools: PlainLanguage.gov Web site, accessed August 26, 

2015, at http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/wordsuggestions/index.cfm.

Perry, R.W., and Lindell, M.K., 1990, Predicting long-term adjustment to volcano hazard: International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, v. 8, no. 2, p. 117–136.

Peterson, N.D., Broad, K., Orlove, B., Roncoli, C., Taddei, R., and Velez, M.-A., 2010, Participatory processes and climate forecast use—Socio-cultural context, discussion, and consensus: 

Climate and Development, v. 2, no. 1, p. 14–29.

Pierson, T.C., Wood, N.J., and Driedger, C.L., 2014, Reducing risk from lahar hazards—Concepts, case studies, and roles for scientists: Journal of Applied Volcanology, v. 3, no. 16, 25 

p., doi:10.1186/s13617-014-0016-4.

Pickle, L., 2003, Usability testing of map designs, computing science and statistics, vol. 35: 

Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on the Interface, Salt Lake City, Utah, 15 p.

Plous, S., 1993, The psychology of judgment and decision making: McGraw Hill, 352 p.

Robertson, J., and Peterson, M., 2014, New insight on the Nation’s earthquake hazards: U.S. 

Geological Survey Science features—Top story Web page, July 17, 2014, accessed July 28, 

2015, at http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/new-insight-on-the-nationsearthquake-hazards/.

Scheufele, D.A., and Nisbet, M.C., 2007, Framing, in Kaid, L.L., and Holz-Bacha, C., eds., 

Encyclopedia of political communication—Volume 1: Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications, p. 254–257.

Sellnow, D.D., Lane, D., Littlefield, R.S., Sellnow, T.L., Wilson, B., and Beauchamp, K., 2014, 

A receiver-based approach to effective instructional crisis communication: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, accessed March 3, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-

5973.12066.

Shepperd, J.A., Carroll, P., Grace, J., and Terry, M., 2002, Exploring the causes of comparative 

optimism: Psychologica Belgica, v. 42, no. 1/2, p. 65–98.
References Cited 35

Sjöberg, L., Moen, B.E., and Rundmo, T., 2004, Explaining risk perception—An evaluation of 

the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research: Trondheim, Norway, Rotunde, 39 p.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1986, The psychometric study of risk perception: 

Risk Evaluation and Management, v. 1, p. 3–24.

*Slovic, P., 2000, The perception of risk: New York, Earthscan, 512 p.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G., 2004, Risk as analysis and risk as 

feelings—Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality: Risk Analysis, v. 24, no. 

2, p. 311–322.

Slovic, P., 2010, the feeling of risk—New perspectives on risk perception: New York, Earthscan, 456 p.

Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C., and Pidgeon, N.F., 2011, Perceptions of climate change 

and willingness to save energy related to flood experience: Nature Climate Change, v. 1, p. 

46–49.

Syzbillo, G.J., and Heslin, R., 1973, Resistance to persuasion—Inoculation theory in a marketing context: Journal of Marketing Research, v. X, p. 396–403.

Trope, Y., and Liberman, N., 2010, Construal-level theory of psychological distance: Psychological Review, v. 117, no. 2, p. 440–463.

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1973, Availability—A heuristic of judging frequency and probability: Cognitive Psychology, v. 5, no. 2, p. 207–232.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Ground-shaking hazard from earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product 5, postcard, accessed August 5, 2015, at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/gip/2005/05/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, Guidance on Advocacy and Recommendations in USGS 

Information Products: U.S. Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices Web page, 

updated March 2014, accessed July 28, 2015, at http://www.usgs.gov/fsp/advocacy_and_

recommendation_guidance.asp.

*Visschers, V.H.M., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.W.F., and De Vries, N.N.K., 2009, Probability information in risk communication—A review of the research literature: Risk Analysis, v. 

29, no. 2, p. 267–287.

Wan, H-H., 2004, The relative effectiveness of inoculation, bolstering, and combined 

approaches in crisis communication: Journal of Public Relations Research, v. 16, no. 3, p. 

201–328.

Weinstein, N.D., 1980, Unrealistic optimism about future life events: Journal of Personality and 

Social Psychology, v. 39, p. 806–820.

Wickline, M., and Sellnow, T.L., 2013, Expanding the concept of significant choice through 

consideration of health literacy during crises: Health Promotion Practice, v. 14, no. 6, p. 

809–815.

Wood, M.M., Mileti, D.S., Kano, M., Kelley, M.M., Regan, R., and Bourque, L.B., 2012, Communicating actionable risk for terrorism and other hazards: Risk Analysis, v. 32, p. 601–615.

Zarcadoolas, C., Timm, E., and Bibeault, L., 2001, Brownfields—A case study in partnering 

with residents to develop an easy-to-read print guide: Journal of Environmental Health, v. 64, 

no. 1, p. 15–20.

Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A., and Greer, D.S., 2003, Elaborating a definition of health literacy—A commentary: Journal of Health Communication, v. 8, supplement 1, p. 119–120.
36 Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products

Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A., and Greer, D.S., 2005, Understanding health literacy—An 

expanded model: Health Promotion International, v. 20, no. 2, p. 195–203.

*Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A.F., and Greer, D.S., 2006, Advancing health literacy—A framework for understanding and action: New York, Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 396 p.

Appendix—About the USGS and SAFRR

The USGS is a science organization that provides reliable, impartial information on the 

health of ecosystems and environment, natural hazards, natural resources, and the impacts of 

climate and land-use change. The USGS serves the Nation by providing timely, relevant, and 

usable information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property 

from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance 

and protect quality of life.

Within the USGS, the Natural Hazards Mission Area coordinates USGS response following disasters and oversees USGS emergency-management activities. The mission area also 

coordinates long-term planning across the full USGS hazards science portfolio, including earthquakes, volcano crises, coastal erosion, and landslides, as well as other disasters that involve 

other agencies in research or response and which include tsunamis, floods, geomagnetic storms, 

hurricanes, severe storms, and wildfires.

The USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Project was created to innovate the application of hazard science for the safety, security, and economic well being of the 

Nation. SAFRR helps communities reduce their risk due to natural hazards by:

•	 Expanding capabilities through partnership;

•	 Sharing knowledge and needs among researchers and practitioners, other government 

agencies, public and private utilities, private companies and nonprofit organizations, 

emergency response and management agencies, policymakers, and the public;

•	 Connecting the producers of scientific information with users who need their products;

•	 Directing new and existing scientific research toward addressing gaps and vulnerabilities 

in current hazard mitigation and response capabilities; and

•	 Producing products that are successfully used and understood.

The SAFRR Project is the continued evolution of the successful Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project (MHDP), which started in 2006 and was limited to a 5-year demonstration.

In 2014, SAFRR established a style of partnership called the SAFRR Cadre of Relevant 

Experts (SAFRR CORE), recognizing that SAFRR collaborates with many external experts 

whose knowledge and experience could benefit numerous USGS communication efforts. The 

SAFRR CORE is a rotating group of experts, mostly from outside the USGS, brought together 

with USGS scientists to share expertise and ideas in order to tackle a common problem. The 

workshop for the NSHM was the first SAFRR CORE workshop, and the authors of this report 

are the second group of SAFRR CORE experts (one earlier group of experts conducted a 

SAFRR CORE session by telephone).
Menlo Park Publishing Service Center, California

Manuscript approval date December 9, 2015

Edited by James W. Hendley II

Design and layout by Vivian Nguyen and Jeanne DiLeo

Cover by Jeanne DiLeo
Perry and others—Get Your Science Used —Six Guidelines to Improve Your Products—Circular 1419

ISSN 2330-5703 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1419