CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 215Public Relations and Crisis CommunicationDisaster Management and ResilienceRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Best practices in risk and crisis communication: Implications for natural hazards management

Open access
Steelman, Toddi A., McCaffrey, Sarah·2013·Natural Hazards
DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0386-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11069-012-0386-z

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London
  2. Cortner HJ, Zwolinski MJ, Carpenter EH, Taylor JG (1990) Public support for fire management policies: what the public expects. J Forest 82(6):359–360 · DOI
  3. Daniel TC, Carroll MS, Moseley C (2007) People, fire, and forests: a synthesis of wildfire social Science. OSU Press, Corvalis
  4. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2007) Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (eds) Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Earthscan, London
  5. Fessenden-Raden J, Fitchen JM, Heath JS (1987) Providing risk information in communities: factors influencing what is heard and accepted. Sci Technol Human Values 12:94–101
  6. Gardner PD, Cortner HJ (1988) An assessment of homeowner’s perceptions of wildland fire hazards: a case study from Southern California. In Whitehead E (ed) Arid lands—today and tomorrow. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 643–657
  7. Knowles MS, Holton EF III, Swanson RS (1998) The adult learner, 5th edn. Gulf, Houston, TX
  8. McCaffrey S (2006b) Prescribed fire: what influences public approval? In: Dickinson MB (ed) Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference. Gen Tech Rep NRS-P-1. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA 304 p
  9. Merriam SB, Caffarella RS, Baumgartner LM (2007) Learning in adulthood, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, p 533
  10. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA
  11. Mileti D (1994) Human adjustment to the risk of environmental extremes. In: Cutter SL (ed) Environmental risks and hazards. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 178–194
  12. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  13. National Research Council (1996) Understanding risk: informing decision in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
  14. Neil RB (1989) Community attitudes to natural hazard insurance: what are the salient issues? In: Oliver J, Britton NR (eds) Natural hazards and reinsurance. Lilyfield, Regents Park, NSW, pp 107–121
  15. Seeger MW, Sellnow TW, Ulmer RR (2003) Communication and organizational crisis. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT
  16. Sutton J, Palen L, Shklovski I (2008) Backchannels on the front lines: emergent uses of social media in the 2007 Southern California wildfires. In: Fiedrich F, Van de Walle B (eds) ‘5th international ISCRA conference proceedings, Washington, DC, USA, pp 624–631
  17. Taylor JG, Gillette SC, Hodgson RW, Downing JL, Burns MR, Chavez DJ, Hogan JT (2007) Informing the network: improving communication with interface communities during wildfire. Human Ecol Rev 14(2):198–211
  18. Vaske JJ, Absher JD, Bright AD (2007) Salient value similarity, social trust and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecol Rev 14(2):223–232
  19. Whyte A (1986) From hazard perception to human ecology. In: Kates RW, Burton I (eds) Geography, resources, and environment: themes from the work of Gilbert F. White. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 240–271
  20. Witte K (1995) Generating effective risk messages: how scary should your risk communication be? Commun Yearb 18:229–254

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 215

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Steelman, T. A., & McCaffrey, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • US Forest Service (US)
Corresponding author
Steelman, Toddi A.
ORCID
Venue
Natural Hazards
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-09-27
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
683-705
ISSN
  • 0921-030X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0840
DOI
10.1007/s11069-012-0386-z
OpenAlex
W2002065222
Cited by
213
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
21.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Natural Hazards (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Joint Fire Science Program
  • Northern Research Station
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
risk communication, crisis communication, natural hazard management, California wildfires

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review