A good question. We all stay in the ivory tower and neglect reaching the people and inform them in a way they can understand, which is certainly not with a map like GSHAP in units of m/s/s. You have to find your own way. I think scenario calculations of losses in eqs that inevitable will come (only we do not know when) could help, but my work is stuck in scientific journals, so I also do not know how to reach the population. Perhaps you might consider the thoughts in these publications:

Wyss, M. (2012). The Earthquake Closet: Rendering Early-Warning Useful. Natural Hazards, 62(3), 927-935. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0177-6

Wyss, M. (2015). Do probabilistic seismic hazard maps address the need of the population? In M. Wyss & S. Peppoloni (Eds.), Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences (pp. 239-249). Waltham, Massachusetts: Elsevier.

Wyss, M. (2005). Human losses expected in Himalayan earthquakes Natural Hazards, 34, 305-314.

Wyss, M. (2006). The Kashmir M7.6 shock of 8 October 2005 calibrates estimates of losses in future Himalayan earthquakes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference of the International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Newark.

The real problem, as previously claimed by Max Wyss, is how to reach the population or better how to engage the society in the risk reduction and the connected actions. Probably the better choice to reach the claimed objective is to orient our action towards the risk acceptance.

The risk perception not includes necessarily a responsability assumption, the acceptance yes.

Even though the perception implies cognitive aspects of the risk, it has more psycological implications than the acceptance, which, differently in my opinion, implies a real taking in charge of a comportamental choice (social in latu sensu).

The risk acceptance is an evaluation of the advantages / disadvantages of some actions (scientific, technical, psycological, social, economical) in order to proceed towards an operative choice finalized to the risk reduction and to the consequent taking of the social-economic risk.

In my opinion the acceptance should include a real engagement of the public which is subject to the risk condition through different level of an information program, oriented to the cognitive and psycological risk perception (risk assessment, risk exposition, modification of the life quality), and mainly finalized to the risk acceptance (responsible decisions and actions in the risk condition)

Probably in this condition, the public could partecipate effectively to a program of risk reduction.

For example a scenario or a simulation, which includes also social and economical effects does not inform the citizen how his life could be modified in terms of his responsabilities and consequent actions. Basically it is useful to furnish important information to the decision/policy makers. But, how much information contained in a scenario or in a simulation are useful for a citizen in order to protect himself and to contribute to the reduction of its real risk? Or best, how the important information contained in them becames useful to enhance the responsibility of a citizen community?

Until the risk reduction programs will be only the result of a top-down process from scientists and/or decision makers and/or legislators to social community, this community will not understand why it is important a politics for risk reduction and why it should take in charge part of the cost (social and economical) connected to its reduction before, during and after an event.

The risk reduction is basically similar to that of a network problem with distributed users over different levels, each level of network contributes to the real risk reduction.

The taking the social-economic risk in distributed form is a factual way to distribute the environmental-risks at each user level through its acceptance of a part of risk (technological-social-economic choices and actions).

A trivial example: when we assure our car we are informed about our part of the assured risk and accept it and the risk taking correspond to a comportamental responsibility and action (the acceptance).