Risk Communication E-Book

Regina E. Lundgren

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 781

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

A fully updated handbook on effectively communicatingenvironmental, safety, and health risks Written by two well-known risk practitioners with overtwenty-five years' experience in the field, this fully updatedFifth Edition of Risk Communication: A Handbook forCommunicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks offerssound, scientific research with practical, hands-on advice forthose in the public and private sectors. Highly accessible and easy to understand, this must-readincludes real-life examples of such headline-making events as thetsunami and radiation release in Japan in 2011, the BP oil disasterin the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, and extreme weather events, alongwith the lessons learned from them. It offers new chapters onpublic health campaigns, and on the use and effectiveness of socialmedia for risk communication purposes. Risk Communication is divided into five self-containedparts: * Part I provides background information for understandingthe basic theories and practices of risk communication * Part II explains how to plan a risk communicationeffort * Part III describes how to put risk communication intoaction * Part IV discusses how to evaluate risk communicationefforts, including techniques for measuring success * Part V highlights special cases in risk communication,including disasters and other emergencies, international riskcommunication, and public health campaigns An ideal introduction to the field, this book is also a welcomereference for those involved in communicating environmental,safety, and health risks in government, industry, and academia.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

IEEE Press

Title page

Copyright page

List of Figures

List of Tables

Preface

About the Authors

1: Introduction

To Begin

The Risk Communication Process

Audiences, Situations, and Purposes

References

I: Understanding Risk Communication

2: Approaches to Communicating Risk

Communication Process Approach

National Research Council's Approach

Mental Models Approach

Crisis Communication Approach

Convergence Communication Approach

Three-Challenge Approach

Social Constructionist Approach

Hazard Plus Outrage Approach

Mental Noise Approach

Social Network Contagion Approach

Social Amplification of Risk Approach

Social Trust Approach

Evolutionary Theory Approach

Extended Parallel Process Model Approach

Summary

References

Additional Resources

3: Laws that Mandate Risk Communication

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

Executive Order 13045, Reduce Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children

Food and Drug Administration Regulations on Prescription Drug Communication

National Environmental Policy Act

Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Occupational Safety and Health Act

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Risk Management Program Rule

Privacy Rule

Other Government Inducements

Summary

References

Additional Resources

4: Constraints to Effective Risk Communication

Constraints on the Communicator

Constraints from the Audience

Constraints for Both Communicator and Audience

Summary

References

Additional Resources

5: Ethical Issues

Social Ethics

Organizational Ethics

Personal Ethics

Summary

References

Additional Resources

6: Principles of Risk Communication

Principles of Process

Principles of Presentation

Principles for Comparing Risks

Summary

References

Additional Resources

II: Planning the Risk Communication Effort

7: Determine Purpose and Objectives

Factors that Influence Purpose and Objectives

Reference

Additional Resources

8: Analyze Your Audience

Begin with Purpose and Objectives

Choose a Level of Analysis

Determine Key Audience Characteristics

Determine How to Find Audience Analysis Information

Incorporate Audience Analysis Information into Risk Communication Efforts

References

Additional Resources

9: Develop Your Message

Common Pitfalls

Information People Want

Mental Models

Message Mapping and Message Development Templates

Health Risk Communication

Crisis Communication

References

Additional Resource

10: Determine the Appropriate Methods

Information Materials

Visual Representation of Risk

Face-to-Face Communication

Working with the News Media

Stakeholder Participation

Technology-Assisted Communication

Social Media

Additional Resources

11: Set a Schedule

Legal Requirements

Organizational Requirements

The Scientific Process

Ongoing Activities

Audience Needs

Reference

12: Develop a Communication Plan

What to Include in a Communication Plan

Developing Risk Communication Strategies

References

Additional Resources

III: Putting Risk Communication into Action

13: Information Materials

Constructing Information Materials

Guidelines for Specific Types of Information Materials

References

Additional Resources

14: Visual Representations of Risks

Design Visuals for Specific Audiences and Uses

Match the Visual Portrayal to the Information to be Conveyed

Pretest Graphics with Those Who Will Use Them

Using Visuals to Personalize Risk Information

Comparing Risks in Visual Formats

Static versus Interactive Visuals

Depicting Probability and Uncertainty

Warning Labels

Consider Using Action Levels

Ethical Portrayal of Risk Information

Using Visual Information in Group Decision Making

References

Additional Resources

15: Face-to-Face Communication

Constructing Face-to-Face Messages

Guidelines for Specific Types of Face-to-Face Communication

References

Additional Resource

16: Working with the News Media

The Roles of the News Media in Risk Communication

Understanding “Cultural” Differences

Guidelines for Interacting with the News Media

Using Technology

References

Additional Resources

17: Stakeholder Participation

Requirements for Stakeholder Participation

Guidelines for Specific Types of Stakeholder Participation Activities

References

Additional Resources

18: Technology-Assisted Communication

Choosing Technology-Based Applications

Workplace Risk Communication

Web-Delivered and Stand-Alone Multimedia Programs

Traditional Electronic Forums

Interactive Multimedia Programs in Public Places

Technology in Care Communication

Technology in Consensus Communication

Technology in Crisis Communication

References

Additional Resources

19: Social Media

General Principles on Participating in Social Media to Communicate Risk

Sharing Content via Social Media

Engaging with Stakeholders

Monitoring Changes in Perception via Social Media

Guidelines for Specific Types of Social Media

Evaluating Social Media Effectiveness

References

Additional Resources

IV: Evaluating Risk Communication Efforts

20: Evaluation of Risk Communication Efforts

Why Evaluate Risk Communication Efforts?

The Meaning of Success

Types of Evaluations

Conducting the Evaluation

References

Additional Resources

V: Special Cases in Risk Communication

21: Emergency Risk Communication

Understanding Emergency Risk Communication

Planning for the Unexpected

Communicating during an Emergency

Communicating after an Emergency

References

Additional Resources

22: International Risk Communication

Recognize the Similarities

Account for Cultural Differences

Look for “Your” Risk in Other Countries

Plan for Cross-Country Communication

References

Additional Resources

23: Public Health Campaigns

Understand Your Goals

Use Research to Design Campaigns

Use Multiple Methods to Reach People

Evaluate Success

References

Additional Resources

Resources

Glossary

Index

IEEE Press

445 Hoes Lane

Piscataway, NJ 08854

IEEE Press Editorial Board 2013

John Anderson, Editor in Chief

Linda ShaferSaeid NahavandiGeorge ZobristGeorge W. ArnoldDavid JacobsonTariq SamadEkram HossainMary LanzerottiDmitry GoldgofOm P. Malik

Kenneth Moore, Director of IEEE Book and Information Services (BIS)

Technical Reviewer

Tim Sly, Ryerson University

Copyright © 2013 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., and Regina E. Lundgren and Andrea H. McMakin

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. All rights reserved

Published simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Lundgren, Regina E., 1959–

Risk communication : a handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks / Regina E. Lundgren, Andrea H. McMakin. – Fifth edition.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-1-118-45693-4 (paper)

1. Risk communication–Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. McMakin, Andrea H., 1957– II. Title.

T10.68.L86 2013

658.4'08–dc23

2012051127

List of Figures

Figure 1-1.Examples of various types of risk communication.Figure 3-1.Risk communication and public involvement activities associated with the Superfund cleanup process.Figure 7-1.Primary purpose of risk communication related to newness and visibility of the risk.Figure 9-1.Simplified expert model of the risk of infection from Lyme disease.Figure 9-2.Expert model of the risks associated with HIV and AIDS.Figure 10-1.Determining when to use stakeholder participation to communicate risk.Figure 12-1.Outline of a risk communication plan.Figure 12-2.Audience-centered technique for communication planning.Figure 13-1.Information to include in written risk communication messages.Figure 14-1.Illustration from a brochure on health risks of electric and magnetic fields.Figure 14-2.Redesigned map of groundwater contamination on a federal site in 1994.Figure 14-3.“Locator” state map used in conjunction with a more detailed map.Figure 14-4.Time line of dates and events.Figure 14-5.Chart used to help people determine their own radiation dose from various sources.Figure 14-6.Addiction self-test.Figure 14-7.Example “road map.”Figure 14-8.Range of possible radiation doses by category.Figure 14-9.Human figures used in risk estimates.Figure 14-10.Risk estimate in bar graph format.Figure 14-11.Graphical displays of heart disease risk with and without hormone replacement therapy (HRT).Figure 14-12.Added risk of side effects from medical treatment among 100 women.Figure 14-13.A typical “cone-of-uncertainty” graphic used for hurricane warnings.Figure 14-14.Additional graphic for hurricane warnings, showing probability by geographic area.Figure 14-15.Example of a cumulative distribution function.Figure 14-16.Examples of tobacco warning labels shown to be effective.Figure 14-17.Warning symbol for respiratory sensitization, cancer, and other human health hazards.Figure 14-18.Four versions of medication warning labels that were pretested with adolescents.Figure 14-19.Medication warning label with text added to increase understanding.Figure 14-20.Risk ladder for radon.Figure 14-21.Deceptive use of data.Figure 14-22.  Relative versus absolute risks.Figure 18-1.Touch-screen program in a kiosk in Barrow, Alaska.Figure 18-2.Mass casualty response scene in OLIVE, software for creating virtual worlds.Figure 18-3.Virtual reality emergency room exercise.Figure 18-4.Stanford Medical Center, real (a) and virtual (b), for emergency response training.

List of Tables

Table 4-1.Example organizational roles in risk communicationTable 4-2.Reasons the audience can be hostileTable 5-1.Advantages and disadvantages of involving the public in risk assessment, management, and communicationTable 5-2.Stages when audience concerns and perceptions can be factored into the risk assessment or risk communication effortsTable 5-3.Matching spokespersons to audience characteristicsTable 6-1.Acceptability of risk comparisonsTable 7-1.Risk communication purposes based on job relationshipsTable 8-1.Key audience characteristics for the baseline audience analysisTable 8-2.Key audience characteristics for the midline audience analysisTable 8-3.Key audience characteristics for the comprehensive audience analysisTable 8-4.Less-direct sources most useful for audience analysis for various types of risk communicationTable 8-5.Using audience analysis information to tailor risk messagesTable 9-1.Sample message map. Stakeholder: General Public. Question: How contagious is smallpox?Table 14-1.Considerations for showing visuals in various mediaTable 14-2.Options for portraying various aspects of risk visuallyTable 14-3.Home radon risk for smokers and corresponding recommendationsTable 16-1.Questions to ask before an interviewTable 17-1.Advantages and disadvantages of stakeholder participation in risk communicationTable 17-2.Effective stakeholder participation for care, consensus, and crisis risk communicationTable 18-1.Communication objectives and corresponding technology-based applicationsTable 18-2.Some organizations that provide online risk-related informationTable 19-1.How social media can be used for various types of risk communicationTable 20-1.Evaluation factors to consider for care, consensus, and crisis communicationTable 20-2.  Advantages and disadvantages of using various evaluatorsTable 21-1.Characteristics of emergency risk communicationTable 21-2.Typical staff roles in the emergency risk communication processTable 21-3.Examples of stakeholders and their concerns in an emergencyTable 21-4.Communication actions in the first 48 hours of an emergencyTable 21-5.Phased message dissemination for hurricanes and floodsTable 23-1.Evaluation in public health campaigns

Preface

The first edition of this book came about because Regina Lundgren had always been fascinated with communication. She started writing novels in the third grade. When she was asked on her first day at the University of Washington what she hoped to do with her degree in scientific and technical communication, she replied, “I want to write environmental impact statements.” When Patricia Clark hired her to work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to do just that, she was overjoyed.

Her fascination with communication led her to pursue an interest in risk communication. That in turn took her from leading the public relations function for an 800-person environmental research and development organization to developing her own consulting and training firm. Since then, she has been on a panel for the first workshop on risk communication for weapons of mass destruction events; developed the risk communication plan for the most sophisticated cancer cluster investigation in the nation's history; crafted one of the first state-level risk communication plans for public health preparedness; and taught countless scientists, engineers, and communicators to share complex scientific and technical information among other projects for clients in government, industry, and academia.

Her earlier work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory put her in contact with Andrea McMakin, an accomplished risk communicator who had led environmental risk communication efforts that touched several states. Andrea's master's degree in communication, experience in training scientists and engineers to communicate, and first-hand knowledge of working with the news media as both writer and facilitator made her the perfect coauthor from the second edition of this book to this fifth edition.

The previous editions of this book have been used by practitioners, students, and teachers of risk communication across the United States and in at least 20 other countries. Readers' suggestions and new experiences have helped us make the new edition even more useful in terms of content. We added new information on research and lessons learned from some of the major disasters in the last decade. We updated and ex­­­panded information on social media, technology-based applications, and public health campaigns.

This book was not written in a vacuum. We owe much of our own knowledge to our forebears in risk communication, including Vince Covello, Peter Sandman, Billie Jo Hance, Caron Chess, Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic, Roger Kasperson, and Jim Creighton. Several other experts in science, management, and communication have inspired us by personal example: Pete Mellinger, Emmett Moore, Jack Robinson, Lori Ramonas, Bob Gray, Judith Bradbury, Kristi Branch, Geoff Harvey, Bill Hanf, Marilyn Quadrel, Dan Strom, Darby Stapp, Barb Wise, and Randal Todd.

Regina would like to thank Laurel Grove, who brilliantly edited the first edition, and Kristin Manke, who provided a professional index for the book. She would also like to thank Ann Lesperance for her invaluable insights into the use of social media in emergency contexts. Most of all, Regina would like to thank her husband Larry and sons Ted and William, who always support her in all she does.

Andrea wishes to acknowledge the advice and review of several experts, including L.A. Times reporter David Shaw; science journalists Bill Cannon, Karen Adams, and Mary Beckman; radio reporter Charles Compton; media specialists Geoff Harvey, Greg Koller, and Staci West; Portland State University professor Char Word; statistician Greg Piepel; graphic artist Mike Perkins; and information technology specialist Don Clark. She also thanks the many communication and public health researchers and information specialists who answered questions and corrected errors.

Regina and Andrea gratefully acknowledge peer review of the second edition by two luminaries in the risk communication field: Caron Chess, Director of Rutgers University's Center for Environmental Communication, and Susan Santos, founder and principal of the health and environmental management and risk communication consultancy FOCUS GROUP. Their insights and suggestions helped us think through several issues while staying true to the experiences of our readers.

We also thank Steve Welch for having the vision to continue publishing the book, Mary Hatcher for requesting the fifth edition, the other staff at Wiley-IEEE Press for their help and encouragement, and the reviewers from the IEEE who provided suggestions to improve this edition.

We welcome comments and suggestions from readers; please send them to us in care of our publisher, Wiley-IEEE Press, at [email protected].

Regina E. LundgrenAndrea H. McMakin

About the Authors

Regina E. Lundgren is an independent consultant in risk communication, public involvement, and science and strategic communication. For over 25 years, she has specialized in communicating environmental, safety, and health risks to lay audiences. Her communication materials have won national and international awards. She serves her clients in government and industry in a variety of roles, from consultant to trainer to project manager. She developed the risk communication plan for the most sophisticated cancer cluster investigation in the nation's history and consulted on the first state-level system to communicate disaster risks to the public. She conducted research on the mental models approach to risk communication. She is a frequent speaker and trainer to industry groups, professional societies, and government organizations. She has a degree in scientific and technical communication from the University of Washington and a certificate in regulatory analysis from the Harvard School of Public Health. You can learn more at her website at http://www.rlriskcom.com.

Andrea H. McMakin is a marketing communication specialist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory in Richland, Washington. For more than 20 years, she has been involved with risk communication programs in national and global security, climate change, health and environmental impacts, worker chemical exposure, and risk perception research. Her work has been published and cited in technical journals, scientific and trade publications, and major regional newspapers. She holds a Master of Arts degree in Communication from Washington State University.

1

Introduction

Risk communication encompasses many types of messages and processes. It is the poster warning food workers to handle food safely to prevent the spread of Escherichia coli bacteria. It is the emergency response worker rallying a community to evacuate in the middle of the rising flood. It is the community representatives sitting down with industry to discuss the siting and operation of a hazardous waste incinerator. Risk communication involves people in all walks of life—parents, children, legislative representatives, regulators, scientists, farmers, industrialists, factory workers, and writers. It is part of the science of risk assessment and the process of risk management.

This book was written for those who communicate health, safety, and environmental risks in the United States, primarily:

The writers, editors, and communication specialists who prepare the messages, coach the speakers, and facilitate public involvementThe scientists, engineers, and health care professionals who must communicate the results of risk assessmentsThe organization representatives who must present a risk management decisionThose new to the field of risk communication and anyone being asked to communicate risk for the first time

Because each of these readers may have different needs and questions concerning risk communication, we have divided the book into five parts. Each part or chapter within a part is relatively self-contained; a reader can choose to read some chapters and to skip others of less interest. Part I gives background information necessary to understand the basic theories and practices of risk communication and provides a basis for understanding information in the other parts. Part II tells how to plan a communication effort. Part III gives more in-depth information on different methods of communicating risk and describes how each differs from its counterparts in other areas of communication. Part IV discusses how to evaluate risk communication efforts, including how to measure success. Part V offers advice on special cases in risk communication: emergencies, public health campaigns, and international communication. A list of additional resources, a glossary, and an index are also provided. To emphasize key points, each chapter concludes with a summary section. Chapters that discuss how to apply risk communication (as opposed to those that deal with more theoretical aspects like principles and ethics) end with a checklist, which can be used to help plan and develop your risk communication efforts.

To Begin

Many of the terms used in this book are defined in ways that differ slightly from usage in other branches of science or communication. A glossary is provided, but as a beginning, we want to explain exactly what we mean by risk communication and how it differs from other forms of technical communication.

Technical communication is the communication of scientific or technical information. Audiences can range from children in a sixth-grade science class, to workers learning a new procedure on a piece of equipment, to scientists reviewing the work of peers. The purpose of technical communication can be to inform, educate, or even occasionally persuade.

Risk communication is a subset of technical communication. As such, it has its own characteristics. At its most basic, it is the communication of some risk. (In this book, it is used to mean the communication of health, safety, or environmental risks.) The audience can be similar to those described for technical communication, but it can also be a wide cross section of the United States. For example, information to present the risk of not wearing seatbelts could have as an audience anyone who will ever ride in a car.

Sometimes, the risk being communicated is frightening to a particular segment of the audience. Other times, the audience is unaware of or even apathetic to the risk. In still other cases, the organization communicating the risk is not credible to a portion of the audience or the audience finds the way the risk is being managed to be unacceptable. The strong emotions, or the lack thereof, audiences associate with a risk can make it difficult to communicate.

The purpose of risk communication can also differ from that of technical communication. In dangerous situations, such as floods and tornadoes, risk communication may have to motivate its audience to action. In other situations, the purpose is more appropriately to inform or to encourage the building of consensus (more on this in Chapter 5). Another difference between risk communication and technical communication is that risk communication more often involves two-way communication, that is, the organization managing the risk and the audience carry on a dialogue. In technical communication, most efforts are designed to disseminate information, not to receive information back from the audience or to include the audience in the decision-making process. An example of two-way technical communication is scientists reviewing the work of peers.

Risk communication comes in many forms (see Figure 1-1). In this book, we generally divide risk communication along functional lines, distinguishing between care communication, consensus communication, and crisis communication, which are described in more detail later in this chapter. While these three forms have elements in common with other forms of technical communication, they always have circumstances that require different tactics, or ways of communicating, to effectively deliver their messages to and involved their respective audiences. For example, consensus communication involves much more audience interaction than do care or crisis communication. Risk communication can also be divided topically: for example, into environmental, safety, and health risk communication.

Figure 1-1. Examples of various types of risk communication.

Care communication is communication about risks for which the danger and the way to manage it have already been well determined through scientific research that is accepted by most of the audience. An­­other distinguisher is that, generally, those charged with communicating have little return on investment other than the betterment of human lives. Think of the American Heart Association and local public health agencies.

Two subsets of care communication are health care communication (sometimes called health education or health marketing), which seeks to inform and advise the audience about health risks such as smoking or AIDS, and industrial risk communication, which involves informing workers about potential safety and health risks in the workplace. Industrial risk communication can be further divided into ongoing communication about industrial hygiene and individual worker notification, which informs workers of the findings of retrospective mortality studies, in which the mortality rates of a set of workers have been evaluated against standards. Examples of these are the longitudinal studies to determine whether painting radium watch dials was hazardous to the workers (that is, whether they had a higher rate of mortality compared with standards).

Consensus communication is risk communication to inform and encourage groups to work together to reach a decision about how the risk will be managed (prevented or mitigated). An example would be a citizen advisory panel and the owner/operator of the local landfill working together to determine how best to dispose of hazardous chemicals found at the landfill. Consensus communication of risk is also a subset of stakeholder participation, which encourages all those with an interest (stake) in how the risk is managed to be involved in consensus building. Often, the agency or organization with the greatest financial stake funds this process. (Stakeholder participation is also generally called public engagement, public involvement, public participation, stakeholder involvement, public consultation, and audience interaction.) Stakeholder involvement, however, can go far beyond risk communication, into the realms of conflict resolution and negotiation. These realms encompass entire disciplines in themselves and, hence, are beyond the scope of this book.

Crisis communication is risk commu­nication in the face of extreme, sudden danger—an accident at an industrial plant, the impending break in an earthen dam, or the outbreak of a deadly disease. This type can include communication both during and after the emergency. (Communication during planning on how to deal with potential emergencies would be either care or consensus communication, depending on how much the audience is involved in the planning.)

The Risk Communication Process

An overview of the risk communication process will also help explain the concepts presented elsewhere in this book. The process begins with a hazard, a potential or actual danger to the environment or human health or safety. Examples include an oil spill (environment), cigarette smoking (health), and a loose stair tread in an office building (safety). Usually by law but sometimes by commitment, some organization is responsible for managing the risks posed by this hazard, that is, preventing or mitigating any damage (decreasing the probability or lessening the consequences). In the case of a land-based oil spill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among other organizations, must develop regulations to prevent occurrence and oversees cleanup if preventive measures fail. The American Lung Association has a commitment to eradicate cigarette smoking. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that organizations maintain safe work environments.

Risk management usually begins with a risk assessment. Just how dangerous is the risk? How much of a hazardous chemical has to spill into a river before the water's natural self-cleansing ability is overwhelmed? Can AIDS be spread by contact with infected health care practitioners? How does the way workers use a forklift affect their risks of being injured or of injuring another? Risk assessment is a scientific process that characterizes risk and assesses the probability of occurrence and outcomes. Based on probabilities, it usually tries to answer questions such as the following:

Who, or what ecosystems, will be harmed?How many of them will be harmed?How will they be harmed and by how much?How long will the harm continue?

Sometimes the risk assessment has a benefit component attached (risk/benefit analysis). This kind of analysis seeks to determine whether any benefits attached to the risk would balance against the harm caused. For example, does the benefit of the potential advancement of science balance against the potential harm of experimenting with radioactive materials? This kind of analysis may or may not include factors other than the strictly scientific evaluation of the risk and benefit.

Information from the risk assessment is used by risk managers to decide what to do about the risk. Their decisions, and often the process by which they decide, are usually communicated to the people who would be or are affected by the risk or to those interested in the risk for other reasons (ethical issues, for example). Sometimes the risk managers try to encourage this audience to take action (care or crisis communication), sometimes they need to educate the audience about the risk so that the audience has the information needed to make a decision (care communication), and sometimes they need to discuss the risk with the audience so that a consensus on a course of action can be reached with all parties speaking the same language (consensus communication).

In the case of consensus communication, the decision about how risks are to be managed is made through stakeholder involvement. This type of management requires risk communication that seeks to:

Determine stakeholder perceptions of a variety of factors including the risk, the organization in charge of managing the risk, and the process being used to reach the decisionInform, not persuade (except in the context of an agreed-upon negotiation)Balance the needs of competing stakeholdersAssist in reaching a resolution that all parties can live with

For example, the process of using an environmental impact statement to evaluate a set of alternative actions often begins with a series of stakeholder meetings to encourage individuals and groups to help define what should be evaluated (this part of the process is called scoping). Care communication and crisis communication also need to identify stakeholder perceptions and concerns; however, in these cases, the information is used to develop messages that will inform the audience and will encourage them to take some course of action. An example of this is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's program to communicate the dangers of radon in the home (for example, Weinstein and Sandman 1993).

Where potential personal harm is concerned, the believability of information provided depends greatly on the degree of trust and confidence in the risk communicator. If the communicator is viewed as having a compromised mandate or a lack of competence, credence in information provided tends to be weakened accordingly. Or if the particular risk has been mismanaged or neglected in the past, skepticism and distrust may greet attempts to communicate risks.

—Roger E. Kasperson (1986, p. 277).

At any point during the process, the organization that has been communicating may evaluate its risk communication effort to determine successes and failures. What should be changed next time? What was most effective for this audience, in this situation? Is there anything that can be generalized to apply to other situations and audiences?

Audiences, Situations, and Purposes

The ideas and techniques given in the rest of the book are tools. They are what we and other risk communicators have found to work for a given audience in a given situation with a given purpose. While a growing body of research lays out guidelines for effective risk communication, the differing dynamics among audiences, situations, and purposes makes finding the one “right solution” impossible, even if there is one right solution to find. Wherever possible, we have cited the work of others as confirmation of our own findings and those of other practitioners in the field. Citations for the research discussed in the text can be found at the end of each chapter. Other sources of information in the area of risk communication can be found in the Resources section at the back of the book.

Many of the resources listed discuss such issues as credibility of the organization communicating or managing the risk, fairness of the risk in the audience's eyes, and trust among parties. These issues will be dealt with only as they relate to specific points in the rest of this book; however, they are important issues that heavily affect the ability to communicate risk effectively. Unfortunately, they are often outside the control of most of us who actually communicate risk. When we step in front of an audience, policies made by those far above us and sometimes years in the past have already either forged a bond of trust with the audience or broken it. Likewise, our credibility as risk communicators will depend on the credibility of other risk communicators who previously faced the same audience.

Although we cannot change the past, we can be aware of past mistakes or successes and make sure that our own efforts are trustworthy, credible, and fair, insofar as we have the authority to make them so. And we must champion the cause of trustworthy, credible, and fair risk management decisions in our own organizations, both because it is ethical and because it is the only way to ensure successful communication.

References

Kasperson, R. E. 1986. “Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication.” Risk Analysis, 6(3):275–281.

Weinstein, N. D. and P. M. Sandman. 1993. “Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages.” Risk Analysis, 13(1):103–114.

I

Understanding Risk Communication

To understand risk communication, you will need to understand the approaches to communicating risk, the laws that shape the way we communicate risk today, the constraints to effective risk communication, the ethical issues, and the basic principles of risk communication, which have evolved out of the approaches, laws, constraints, and ethics. Additional sources of information are listed in Resources at the back of the book.

Learning about risk occurs not in isolated individuals but in a social dynamic, with multiple sources of information, channels of information flow, confirmatory and challenging mechanisms, and linkage with other social issues.

—Roger E. Kasperson (1986, p. 131).

2

Approaches to Communicating Risk

There are a number of approaches to the process of risk communication and its components, including how messages are sent and received, how conflicts are managed, and how decisions are made. Some of these approaches are communication research methods in themselves, some grew out of research in fields other than communication, and still others are based on traditions across disciplines.

Why should those who are communicating risks learn about the various approaches? Each approach views risk communication from a slightly different perspective, just as different audiences view a risk from different perspectives. The more risk communication perspectives the communicators understand, the more likely they will be able to choose approaches that will meet the needs of their particular situation and audience, and the more likely that their risk communication efforts will succeed.

Are all approaches equally valid? Each approach was developed to illuminate a particular perspective on risk communication. Depending on how broad that perspective is, the approach may be applicable to a variety of situations and audiences. Some approaches, although still widely used in communicating risk, may be outdated given the situations and audiences that face communicators today. For example, the traditional communication method developed by Claude Shannon in 1948 is still used occasionally today to structure risk communication efforts despite the fact that more sophisticated models have been developed, which include the two-way communication that is important to risk communication.

The following discussion of approaches to risk communication presents an overview of 14 of the most common approaches as well as implications for those who are communicating risk and how the approach might be used in various situations.

Communication Process Approach

Risk communication is a form of communication that, like other forms, is represented by the traditional model of communication (Shannon 1948). That is, there is a source of communication that generates a message that goes through a channel to a receiver. For example, a regulatory agency (the source) may decide that a chemical poses an unacceptable risk to the (the message) and issue a press release (the channel) published as a story by the news media (another channel) that is read by members of the local community (the receivers). Various studies in risk communication have looked at individual components of this model (sources, messages, etc.) to see how changes in any component affect the others. For example, researchers at the Center for Mass Media Research at Marquette University found that the receiver relied more heavily on different channels for information based on personal emotions such as worry in the wake of a parasite outbreak in drinking water in Milwaukee ( 1994).