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.