Chapter 11 Risk Communication Key Terms and Definition Evolution of Risk Communication Ethical use of Risk Communication Outrage and Risk Communication

Key Terms Hazards are “events or physical conditions that have the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural loss, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss” (Multihazard, 1997).

Key Terms Risk is the potential to do harm or more generally the potential exposure to loss. The “potential” of a risk can be quantified as a threat. Risk = Likelihood X Consequences

Key Terms Risk assessment are efforts to quantify the risk.

Types of Risk Natural risks such as severe weather. Actions of others such as producing hazardous waste. Lifestyle choices such as unsafe sex.

Sandman’s Take on Risk Risk = Hazard + Outrage Hazard involves the statistics that quantify the risk in terms of likelihood and consequences (what other experts termed risk). Outrage is all the other elements that constituents link to the risk. The point: risk evaluation has strong subjective element to it.

Risk as Part of Life We face many risks each day. Risk communication enters the equation when people are or should be thinking about the risk threats they face. You are a risk bearer when you are exposed to a particular risk.

SARA: Birth of Risk Communication 1984: chemical release from Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India kills over 3,800 people. 1986: U.S. passes the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). SARA includes a requirement for risk communication, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of Certain corporations in U.S. must engage in risk communication.

Risk Communication Defined “a community infrastructure, transactional communication process among individuals and organizations regarding the character, cause, degree, significance, uncertainty, control, and overall perception of risk” (Palanchar, 2005, p. 752).

Exploring the Definition Risk communication is a dialogue between organizations creating risks and the constituents that must bear the risk. The community infrastructure approach seeks to build and maintain the risk discussion. Risk bearers have a say in decisions and feel they are a viable part of the process.

Key Factors in Risk Communication Support for an organization even when it creates risk. Uncertainty about the risk. Seek information when risk is somehow personal. Acceptance of a risk. Knowledge about the risk.

Key Factors in Risk Communication Trust in the parties involved in risk communication. Control of the risk. – Constituents have some control over risk. – Constituents believe management of organization have some control over the risk.

Risk Communication Evolution Three stages of risk communication: 1.Source-oriented 2.Persuasion 3.Dialogue

Source-oriented Source-oriented or technical information model with an emphasis on quantifying risk estimates. If people understand the risk they would accept the risk. Focus on technical information about risks. It failed.

Persuasion Persuade risk bearers to increase their acceptance of the risk and support for the organization. Realization of the importance of risk bearers. Community concerns ignored, they were targets not partners.

Dialogue Seeks understanding between organizations and risk bearers. Effort to understand what risk means to risk bearers and the community concerns. Community is part of decision making about the risk.

Ethical Use of Risk Communication Develop emergency response measures designed to mitigate severe outcomes from a possible risk event. Appreciate and try to understand that people will want to exert control over potentially negative effects. Acknowledge that risk assessments are uncertain. Community members should be active participants in decision-making systems about risk assessment and risk management.

Ethical Use of Risk Communication Trust with community members is built over time through collaboration and community outreach. Communications should address both the harms and benefits involved. Develop an appreciation of how the community values and how they are experiencing the risks. Try to understand how community members are approaching the decision making process and adjust the risk assessment frame to match their perspective.

Risk Communication Outcomes 1.Awareness of risk. 2.Protective actions. 3.Correct overestimates of risk.

Awareness Constituents must know the risks they face. Sometimes people do not know they are at risk.

Protective Actions Constituents must know what to do when the risk occurs. People learn how to protect themselves. Protective actions add to a sense of control. Constituents realize there are actions they can take to reduce their threat from the risk.

Protective Action in Action Shelter-in-place People learn – What it is – When it is needed – How to do it properly

Overestimation of Risk Constituents see a risk as much greater than it really is. Produces outrage. Goal is outrage management through reducing the perceived threat from the risk. Must listen to understand why the problem exists. Seek to have risk evaluation of people match the technical evaluation.

Dynamic of Outrage Management Constituents outraged over a risk. Some factor has started the outrage. Risk creating organization makes substantive changes designed to address the outrage. Changes are communicated to the constituents. Outrage lessens if organization meets the demands of its critics.

Risk Communication Best Practices Involve constituents as partners in the risk communication process by granting them power in the decision making process. Listen to the constituents to understand their concerns about the risk. Find out what they know about the risk, how they feel about the risk, and what they want done about the risk. Part of listening involves validating the emotions the risks evoke from constituents. Their emotions are real and should not be dismissed or ignored.

Risk Communication Best Practices Acknowledge when there is uncertainty about the risk. There are times when science cannot provide specific risk assessments. Be honest when the science is unclear or perhaps contradictory. The uncertainty provides an opportunity to engage constituents because uncertainty is motivator for seeking information and being involved in the risk communication process (Covello, 2003).

Risk Communication Best Practices Be honest and open with information. Do not try to minimize or exaggerate a risk and release all information as soon as possible (Communicating, 2002; Palanchar & Heath, 2007). Avoid technical language. Present the risk information in ways constituents can understand. Graphs and other visuals can help to explain risk information (Covello, 2003).

Individual Risk Why do people engage in risky behavior? Answer: sensation seeking. Some people are driven by the need for novel, varied, complex, and intense experiences.

Problem Behavior Theory Risky behaviors are a function of the interaction between three systems: personality, environment, and behavior. Sensation seeking is a key component of the personality system. The environment system includes peers and parental approval. The behavior system includes specific actions including problem behaviors and conventional behaviors.

Reflection Points When is risk communication not pro-social? What are the ethical implications for overhyping a risk? Is it ever justifiable? What are the ethical implications of underplaying a risk? Is it ever justifiable?

Reflection Points What are half-truths and how are they used/misused in risk communication? How are worlds and symbols used to manipulate perceptions of risk? How can risk bearers use risk communication to fight against risks?

Reflection Points What is environmental injustice? What is environmental justice and why is it needed? How can risk communication help to improve society and the lives of constituents?