The valuable role that science has to play in disaster preparedness and risk reduction is widely recognized and was highlighted during the development of the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action for disaster risk reduction that was adopted in March 2015. However, there are many factors that limit how effectively science can inform both disaster risk reduction policy and practice. Understanding these factors and taking steps to overcome them require a broad view, and a comparative approach can be instructive. We focus on two projects that were independently completed by the authors: earthquake risk management in Bangladesh and flooding and wildfires management in the United States. We use each case to reflect on the implications of recent recommendations made by the Science and Technology Advisory Group (STAG) of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction that attempt to increase the integration of science in disaster risk reduction policy making. We then use the STAG recommendations as a framework for integrating our independent case study findings. Despite the differences in the geographic contexts and hazards being considered, these examples broadly support the STAG recommendations. However, the fine details of the way in which science is used in decision making need to be given careful consideration if science is to fully support disaster risk reduction. Although our collective observations suggest that science is an important part of the disaster risk reduction (DRR) process, suggesting that it is “key to post-2015 DRR efforts” as the STAG recommendations do, may perhaps overstate the role that science is able to play.

Abstract The Middle Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG) is the youngest and smallest continental flood basalt province on Earth, covering over 210,000 km 2 of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho and having a volume of 210,000 km 3 . A well-established regional stratigraphic framework built upon seven formations, and using physical and compositional characteristics of the flows, has allowed the areal extent and volume of the individual flows and groups of flows to be calculated and correlated with their respective dikes and vents. CRBG flows can be subdivided into either compound flows or sheet flows, and are marked by a set of well-defined physical features that originated during their emplacement and solidification. This field trip focuses on the Lewiston Basin, in southeastern Washington, western Idaho, and northeastern Oregon, which contains the Chief Joseph dike swarm, where classic features of both flows and dikes can be easily observed, as well as tectonic features typical of those found elsewhere in the flood basalt province.

The La Grande–Owyhee eruptive axis in eastern Oregon is an ~300-km-long, north-northwest–trending, middle Miocene to Pliocene volcanic belt located along the eastern margin of the Columbia River flood basalt province. The eruptive axis extends from Elgin on the north to Jordan Valley on the south and is juxtaposed between the Chief Joseph dike swarm on the east and the Monument dike swarm and the middle Miocene Strawberry volcanics on the west. Numerous volcanic vents, from which a diverse assemblage of tholeiitic, silicic, calc-alkaline, and alkalic lavas erupted, are contained within or directly adjacent to the La Grande, Baker, and Oregon-Idaho grabens along the length of the eruptive axis. The volcanic rocks that erupted from and are preserved within the eruptive axis form a stratigraphic link between the flood basalt–dominated Columbia Plateau on the north and bimodal basalt-rhyolite vent complexes of the Owyhee Plateau on the south. Volcanism along the La Grande–Owyhee eruptive axis progressed through six stages beginning in the middle Miocene and continuing through the Pliocene. Stage 1 (16.1–15.5 Ma) was characterized by fissure eruptions that produced the Grande Ronde Basalt. Stage 2 (15.5 Ma) was marked by fissure eruptions of highly evolved, tholeiitic lavas (icelandites) and rhyolites. Stage 3 (15.5–14.7 Ma) was distinguished by caldera-forming eruptions of ashflow tuffs and high-temperature rhyolite lavas. Stage 4 (14.7–13.7 Ma) was marked by fissure eruptions that produced olivine basalts. Stage 5 (13.5–10.0 Ma) was characterized by the eruption of calc-alkaline basaltic andesite, andesite, and dacite lavas. Stage 6 (7–1 Ma) was marked by small-volume alkalic eruptions. Mapped field relations and similar timing between emplacement of the Columbia River Basalt Group and volcanic rocks erupted within the La Grande–Owyhee eruptive axis verify a common temporal link between the two successions. This link indicates that chemically diverse volcanic strata exposed along the La Grande–Owyhee axis need to be considered when developing further detailed petrologic and volcano-tectonic models for the Pacific Northwest during the middle Miocene.