1	7^th U.S./Japan Workshop on Urban Earthquake Hazard Reduction Working Group 2: Risk Communication
2	Members Robert Olson, Co-Chair, Robert Olson Associates, Folsom, California Masayuki Kohiyama, Dr. Inf., Co-Chair, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan James D. Goltz, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Pasadena, California Taro Ichiko, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo Toshiko Kikkawa, Ph.D., Keio University, Tokyo Jacqueline R. Meszaros, Ph.D., University of Washington, Bothell, Washington Tsutomu Suzuki, Dr. Eng., University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan Katsuya Yamori, Nara University, Nara, Japan Miho Yoshimura, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Ping Zhu, Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society, Tokyo, Japan
3	Conclusions We need to revisit the definition of “Risk Communication” because of differences in the term and concept used by various professions. The goal of communicating risk has moved from more of a passive general information mode to a more focused decision-support mode. We must recognize great variability in the range of mitigation decisions made by individuals and organizations and the factors that affect such decisions. Good risk communications may result in decisions to invest in mitigation or not, depending on other needs and resources. Good risk communications helps users choose mitigation strategies appropriate to their situations. Improved risk communications tools support more informed and creative decision-making.
4	Conclusions, cont’d Gaming simulations help promote consensus and shared understandings about risks and solutions. Rational risk information needs to be coupled with information having emotional impacts. Capturing rich personal histories and experiences from earthquake victims helps educate future generations and helps build a culture that lives better with earthquake risk. Decision-makers need customized risk information to support their decisions to invest in mitigation, and improved technology can help. We need better means to get feedback from the public about what it perceives about and what it needs from risk information. New protocols are needed to facilitate excellent web-based communications between computers to support pre- and post-earthquake decisions.
5	Conclusions, cont’d. Improved human-machine interfaces are needed to assure excellent risk evaluations and communications. Special efforts are needed in both countries to inform and convince homeowners to mitigate risk to their homes, damages to which are a major category of losses and social impacts. People who provide risk information must be trustworthy. There are issues to be addressed associated with the private and proprietary nature of some risk information important to public safety.