Experiences communicating Landslide Risk to non-technical stakeholders

The language used by practitioners to communicate the concepts and results of a landslide risk assessments can be misunderstood by the end-user of such information. The authors draw on their experiences of how risk assessment outcomes, using language outlined in references such as the Australian Geomechanics Society Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management (AGS 2007c), can be perceived differently by clients.

We explore the definitions and language used by practitioners and clients, and how they can perceive the meaning of the same words differently. Whilst technical practitioners deal in likelihoods, consequences, probability and uncertainty, non-technical end users may understand and perceive risk assessment outcomes to be more precise or definitive than the geoprofessional may intend.

Our aim is to identify issues and misconceptions in the risk assessment process and suggest some clarity to enable better communication of uncertainty and the true meaning of what is a challenging and at times unknowable predictive process. The authors hope the findings and views in this paper can be used to supplement the requirements of AGS (2007c) so that our clients can make informed decisions, and stakeholders have a better appreciation of landslide risks.