Abstract
This paper reports on the research of mental models of uncertainties management in an emergency situation which was carried out in the framework of the European CONFIDENCE (COping with uNcertainties For Improved modelling and DEcision making in Nuclear emergenCiEs) Project. The methodology included the mapping of mental models among several emergency preparedness and response experts and then performing interviews based on structured protocol with lay people in five countries: Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain. The aim of these investigations was to trace the concepts and understandings of emergency preparedness and response and to identify possible gaps between experts and lay people. The article presents the main results of this research and suggestions for the improvement of EP & R planning.
Highlights
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP & R) plans (IAEA, 2015) are prepared for many nuclear or radiological threats at different levels: national, regional, local, off-site, onsite, for individual organization, for facilities etc
This paper reports on the research of mental models of uncertainties management in an emergency situation which was carried out in the framework of the European CONFIDENCE (COping with uNcertainties For Improved modelling and DEcision making in Nuclear emergenCiEs) Project
The methodology included the mapping of mental models among several emergency preparedness and response experts and performing interviews based on structured protocol with lay people in five countries: Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain
Summary
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP & R) plans (IAEA, 2015) are prepared for many nuclear or radiological threats at different levels: national, regional, local, off-site, onsite, for individual organization, for facilities etc. The mental models of lay people for the emergency management are influenced by many factors, among which intuition and emotions, personal interest and involvement in the topic, existing widespread images (cultural icons) and interpretations (social representations), (mis)understanding of scientific facts, educational background, access to and understanding of information, credibility of information and communication processes, trust in information sources and communication partners, and more broadly, confidence in the governance of ionizing radiation risks. All these factors are inputs for forming of own representations – mental models which are constantly being (re/mis)interpreted, and internalized into explicit or
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call