RISK COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

Risk Communication Strategies

Risk Communication Strategies

Could this have been avoided?

This attack could have been prevented. The most successful way to prevent terrorist attacks before they occur, then, would be to remove the triggers that cause humans to become terrorists. And, while some instances (such as Kaczynski) are unpreventable, caused by factors naturally occurring with human technological advancement. However, the other two examples are linked, and both are preventable. Risk communication is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion on risk among risk assessors, risk managers, and other interested parties. The best way to prevent future terrorist attacks is not to continue a futile search for al-Qaeda, a crusade against Hamas, or assistance to Israel to counter Hezbollah. Rather, it is more vital to change American attitudes and perceptions of the rest of the world; once Americans drop their sense of superiority, a more benevolent world with less pointed hatred will follow. And while there will always be mentally-disturbed individuals who perform acts of terror, the greater breeding ground for a culture of terrorism will dissipate. (Baker, 2008)

Risk communication is an integral and ongoing part of the risk analysis exercise, and ideally all stakeholder groups should be involved from the start. Risk communication makes stakeholders aware of the process at each stage of the Risk Assessment. This helps to ensure that the logic, outcomes, significance, and limitations of the Risk Assessment are clearly understood by all the stakeholders. Information may be available from the stakeholder. Industry stakeholders may, for example have unpublished data crucial to the risk assessors, which may be an essential part of the data needed for the risk assessment. There is also information that is typically presented to the stakeholders (both industry and consumers), as an integral part of the risk analysis process.

Currently, there are many strategies for communicating risks to stakeholders and the public. They range from lists of ad hoc injunctions borne from bitter experiences in hostile public meetings to elaborate systematic programs involving research phases and iterated implementations. Expert risk perception often differs from that of the public. Prevailing paradigms in risk communication research often assert that expert assessments represent the normative basis of rational perception and that deviant perceptions are irrational in some sense. The goal of risk communication, in this context, is to bring public perception into line with expert risk assessments in order for the public to be able to make rationally informed choices. The idiosyncratic and emotion-laden public response to many risks makes this goal a challenge. (Baker, 2008)

Research in risk perception has been guided by the psychometric paradigm. From its inception, this approach was fundamentally quantitative and empirically driven, with theories arising from analyses of observations and experiments. Agreement exists regarding the importance to risk perception of specific factors such as information context, uncertainty, trust, control, voluntariness, and emotional response. A general theory has to account for these factors with reference to the way that the brain processes information relevant to ...