Educational strategies to reduce risk: a choice of social responsibility Federica La Longa 1,* , Romano Camassi 2 , Massimo Crescimbene 1 1 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy 2 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Bologna, Italy ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55, 3, 2012; doi: 10.4401/ag-5525 ABSTRACT This study develops the critical reflections of the activities for information, training and education that have been conducted by a group of researchers of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia in recent years. In particular, from an epistemological point of view, our analysis involves: (i) science outreach, the link between science and the world; (ii) science teaching and its role in the contact between science and schools; and (iii) risk education, seen as a process that can develop a culture of risk in relation to the territory in which we live. These issues are critically analyzed on the basis of experience gained since 1995. The educational methodologies tested in ‘peacetime’ (in the absence of seismic events) with the EDURISK Project are compared with those experienced during an emergency in Abruzzo, Italy. Today, we increasingly refer to prevention as the primary strategy of defense against risk. However, very often the responsibility of prevention falls on others, such as the government, institutions and/or local authorities. The citizens then perceive themselves as powerless against the inevitability of natural events, and they refer to these ‘rulers’ for the implementation of effective prevention policies. So, as researchers, what are the most effective actions we can take to influence risk reduction and to motivate the choices of the people? Must the effectiveness of our interventions be based on scientific information or on specific training, or must it be reached through the development of values, actions and awareness? Must our interventions be oriented and developed to inform, to train or to educate? 1. Introduction Over the last few years, there has been increasing de- bate in Italy regarding the social and cultural implications of research in the field of Earth Sciences. This has focused in particular on research endeavors related to the defini- tion of hazards of natural origin, and it has also taken into consideration the significantly increasing correlated risks as a result of a marked increase in both environmental and social exposure and vulnerability. In the face of recurrent disasters caused by geological and meteorological events, the social responsibility of researchers working in different fields of inquiry concerned with the complex processes of defining natural risks (e.g. geological, seismological, vol- canological, and planning) is increasingly evident. This is especially seen in the encouragement of critical analysis of the use of natural resources. There is the need to provide correct information about risks, and to make society in- creasingly aware of the idea of a common and shared ‘ge- ological heritage’, which should foster a social construction of knowledge [Peppoloni 2011]. Reflections on the social responsibility of a researcher can be based on many different points of view; our input is part of the “study of effective teaching tools to develop awareness, values and forms of behavior, with a view to pro- viding information and training”. In this report, we would like to consider some critical reflections on the information- related and educational activities that we have carried out over the past 10 years. These have arisen from our multidis- ciplinary group of researchers at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV; National Institute of Geo- physics and Volcanology) and the Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e Geofisica Sperimentale (INOGS; National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics), as part of a risk education project (EDURISK Project) sup- ported by the Department of Civil Defense. One element that clearly characterizes our contribu- tions with respect to the context in which the role of the geologist in society is mainly discussed is specifically the multidisciplinary dimension of our approach. Indeed, the research team includes all of the disciplines needed to make it possible to specify the various fields that define the complexity of seismic risk: geology, seismology, seis- mic hazard, historical seismology, earthquake engineer- ing, and emergency psychology. What unites the research group in this case is the researcher status and research ob- jectives, which explicitly consist of identifying risk reduc- tion strategies (seismic, volcanic and geological), although what characterizes the research group most are the dif- ferent professional skills of its members. The aim of this report is to provide critical reflection on the priority choices we are called to make as researchers Article history Received December 20, 2011; accepted January 13, 2012. Subject classification: Risk education, Seismic risk, Volcanic risk. 445