The contribution of maps to the challenges of risk communication to the public

Figures & data

Figure 1.  (a) Flood and dike breach scenario tool: determining the dike breach location. (b) Flood and dike breach scenario tool: simulation results.

Figure 2.  (a) Risk comparison tool: comparison of all existing hazards. (b) Risk comparison tool: comparison of the risk of flood with a 200 year return period. (c) Risk comparison tool: comparison of the risk of earthquake with a 200 year return period.

Table 1. Frame for map-mediated risk communication to the public.

Objective	Task	Method	Example
Improving risk perception	Increasing knowledge and understanding	Show concrete and emotionally interesting maps Choose vivid presentation form make interactive risk exploration possible Use maps as portal for various information components Offer information related to specific locations	Aerial or satellite images as base layer Animations interactive simulations Interactive maps with clickable Information such as protection measure for flood Information about next shelter
	Enable appropriate risk assessment	Apply different types of cartographic risk comparison Adopt message framing (positive–negative wording, certainty effect, relative frequency)	Risk ladders for depicting relations Maps presenting data against a standard
	Offer good information availability/accessibility	Provide maps via the Internet	Presentation with a map server
Supporting personal risk framing	Create a personal view	Create personalized maps Customize information	Maps centred according to a user's address Location-based information
	Allow confirming information with others through interaction	Apply interactive maps as means for discussion	Allow users to upload additional information pictures/videos
Establishing credibility	Inform objectively	Present accurate maps	Show the exposure to a risk
	Give consistent information	Design matchable maps Symbolize certainty and uncertainty	Similar object model and symbolization Show potential tracks of a hurricane