Regarding earthquakes occurring on active faults, the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion has published evaluations of the long-term earthquake occurrence potentials and strong ground motion. Since the frequency of large earthquakes on active faults is very low, and the quantity and quality of information obtained from active fault surveys are limited, the long-term evaluation of active faults has sometimes large uncertainty.

Therefore, when disseminating long-term evaluations of active faults and evaluation of strong ground motion to the residents as earthquake risk information, it is necessary to consider the appropriate content and transmission method from various viewpoints. The viewpoints are such as scientific validity, understanding and utilization of information in disaster prevention administration, and understanding of local residents who receive the information. Opinions of experts in active faults and earthquakes are reflected in the work process of long-term evaluation and evaluation of strong ground motion. In addition, surveys are conducted on the residents and local governments regarding the published results. On the other hand, regarding the published results, the degree of recognition and evaluation as a group of experts including non-committee members has not been clarified. Therefore, in this research, we conducted a questionnaire survey targeting the members of Japanese Society for Active Fault Studies and Seismological Society of Japan to collect opinions based on the scientific validity about information that should be conveyed to residents and about the proper method regarding evaluations of active faults and strong ground motion. As a result, it was found that the experts have high expectations for local government officials to have a wide range of information on active faults. In addition, they tended to think that the following are necessary: (1) Improvement of dissemination method of published results, (2) Cooperation with other institutions, (3) Incorporate external knowledge in improving the expression of published results and in public relations, (4) Scientific validity and reliability of information, (5) State the relationship between the assessment and the disaster, (6) Refer to how to use the published results. In addition, it was clarified that there are issues where such opinions were divided depending on the experience of the committee members, for example, in the issue whether the information of active faults are specialized to the category of the receiver (e.g., residents, local governments, companies). The above opinions were compared with the results of a questionnaire survey of the general public and local governments. As a result, there were many opinions in common with experts, such as the point that residents emphasize predicted disasters rather than knowledge, and the point that local governments demand the reliability of information sources and improvement of dissemination methods. These issues need to be solved from multiple perspectives in the future.