What is Risk Communication?
Risk communication is defined by the Society for Risk Analysis as, “an
interactive process of exchanging of information and opinion among
individuals, groups, and institutions.”
History of Risk Communication
The area of risk communication has developed from psychometric risk
perception studies. In the beginning risk communication research
was seen primarily as a tool to help develop information programs
that would increase knowledge of environmental health and technological
hazards to the public. This initial “top-down risk
communication” approach was later refined to reciprocal or “two-way
risk communication” to promote dialogue between the public,
stakeholders and experts to derive consensus solutions for decision
making (Otway and Wynne, 1989; Ferudenberg, 1988, Pidgeon et al.,
1992; Gould et al., 1988).
What is Risk Communication?
Risk communication can express concerns, opinions, or reactions
to risk messages and risk issues. It often involves multiple messages
about the nature of risk. Moreover, it can provide information
for legal and institutional arrangements used to further effective
risk issue management (Covello and Sandman, 2001). As a process
it provides the public with information that serves to reduce anxiety
and fear. Risk communication can provide suggestions for planning
(with aspects of preparedness and precaution) that will assist the
public in responding appropriately to some crisis (or impending crisis)
situation. Typically the crisis situation has the potential
to impact large groups of people or it may be catastrophic in nature.
A second definition of risk communication describes it as the flow
of information and risk evaluations back and forth between academic
experts, regulatory practitioners, interest groups and the general
public. This approach is used to communicate effectively to the public
about a number of risk issues including:
- Real or perceived risks with high uncertainty or dread factors
(risks
with other social dimensions)
- High stress issues
(economic losses, catastrophic events)
- Emotionally charged
and value laden issues
(inequity, lack of empathy)
- Controversial situations due to
high uncertainty
(emotionally polarizing debates )
- Low probability, long term,
highly technical issues.
(emerging scientific risks) (Leiss,
1996, 2001)
Risk communication can assist public professionals in their roles
to prevent or minimize ineffective, fear-driven, and potentially
damaging public responses to serious crises.
References
Gould L.C., Gardner G.T., DeLuca D.R., Tiemann A.R., Doob L.W. and
Stolwijk J.A.J. 1988.
Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. Russell Sage Foundation,
New York, United States. pp. 277.
Leiss W. 1996. Three phases in the evolution of risk communication
practice. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science. 545:85-94.
Leiss W. 2001. In the Chamber of Risks: Understanding Risk Controversies.
McGill Queen’s University Press. Montreal. pp. 388.
Otway H. and Wynne B. 1989. Risk Communication: Paradigm
and Paradox, Risk Anal. 9(2): 141.
Pidgeon N., Hood C., Jones D., Turner B. and Gibson R . 1992. Risk
perception. Risk: analysis, perception and management. London: Royal
Society. pp. 89-134.
Covello V. and Sandman P.M. 2001. Risk communication: Evolution
and Revolution”, In: Solutions to an Environment in Peril.
Anthony Wolbarst (ed.) John Hopkins University Press. pp 164-178.
W.R. Freudenberg. 1988. Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science
and the Art of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Science. 242(4875):
44-9.
|