Toward Improved Communication about Wildland Fire: Mental Models Research to Identify Information Needs for Natural Resource Management

The management of natural- and human-induced wildland fires is an intricate process that must balance two considerations: that of fire as a necessary natural disturbance and that of the risks that fire poses. Reconciling tradeoffs between these risks and benefits is contingent upon informed, directed, and two-way communication between wildland fire managers and stakeholders. In an effort to aid with the design of such a communication effort, this study used mental models research to determine the unique wildland fire information and decision-making needs of stakeholders living at the wildland-urban interface of a fire-prone area. While the analysis revealed many similarities in how stakeholders conceptualized the risks and benefits of wildland fire, many misconceptions and important gaps in understanding on the part of both expert and nonexpert respondents were identified.     

Risk Perception in the U.K. Oil and Gas Production Industry: Are Expert Loss‐Prevention Managers' Perceptions Different From Those of Members of the Public?

This article investigates potential differences in risk perception between experts (loss-prevention managers in the U.K. oil and gas production industry) and nonexperts (managers and students). Extant research on expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk is reviewed, followed by the present study concerning risk perceptions of seven pen-picture scenarios involving the occurrence of hazardous events in the U.K. oil and gas production industry. In contrast to many of the earlier studies of expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk, the present analysis concludes that experts did not judge the overall riskiness of the portrayed hazardous events as less risky than the nonexperts. Nevertheless, the experts believe more strongly than our nonexperts that the risks portrayed in the scenarios pose little threat to future generations, are more precisely known, and are relatively controllable. Use of multiple regression analysis to help uncover the basis of overall riskiness assessments for expert and lay respondents was inconclusive, however. Finally, little evidence was found that nonexperts were any more heterogeneous in their risk perceptions than experts. It may be that the nature of the risks assessed in the present study may account for the general lack of clear expert versus nonexpert differences in overall perceptions of the riskiness of hazardous events in the North Sea. Earlier findings of strong expert versus nonexpert differences in risk perception assessed hazards of major public concern. It is inferred that using such extreme hazards may have resulted in an exaggerated view of differences in expert versus public (nonexpert) perception of risk.     

The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms “risk” and “hazard.” The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four‐fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders’ perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.     

Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.     

Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources

Wildfire is a persistent and growing threat across much of the western United States. Understanding how people living in fire‐prone areas perceive this threat is essential to the design of effective risk management policies. Drawing on the social amplification of risk framework, we develop a conceptual model of wildfire risk perceptions that incorporates the social processes that likely shape how individuals in fire‐prone areas come to understand this risk, highlighting the role of information sources and social interactions. We classify information sources as expert or nonexpert, and group social interactions according to two dimensions: formal versus informal, and generic versus fire‐specific. Using survey data from two Colorado counties, we empirically examine how information sources and social interactions relate to the perceived probability and perceived consequences of a wildfire. Our results suggest that social amplification processes play a role in shaping how individuals in this area perceive wildfire risk. A key finding is that both “vertical” (i.e., expert information sources and formal social interactions) and “horizontal” (i.e., nonexpert information and informal interactions) interactions are associated with perceived risk of experiencing a wildfire. We also find evidence of perceived “risk interdependency”—that is, homeowners’ perceptions of risk are higher when vegetation on neighboring properties is perceived to be dense. Incorporating social amplification processes into community‐based wildfire education programs and evaluating these programs’ effectiveness constitutes an area for future inquiry.     

Role for Risk Communication in Closing Military Waste Sites

Lessons learned from environmental and occupational hazard risk management practices over the past 30 years have led the Department of Defense to explore alternative risk management approaches. Policies for cleanup of environmentally hazardous waste sites are undergoing examination and are being reframed. A Demonstration Risk Communication Program is described which incorporates principles that integrate risk-based scientific information as well as community values, perceptions, and needs in a democratic process that includes the public as an active participant from the earliest stages. A strong scientific foundation for assessment and characterization of risk is viewed as necessary but not sufficient; the public's values must be actively integrated into the negotiated criteria. The Demonstration Program uses a model to prepare the participants and to guide them through the process. A five-step process is presented: (1) create risk communications process action team including at least one member of the specific site audience; (2) professionally train participants on team dynamics including interpersonal communication skills; (3) train risk communicators to deliver a cogent presentation of the message to secure a decision acceptable to both the government and the public; (4) identify existing biases, perceptions, and values held by all participants; and (5) develop risk message incorporating science and values. The process action team approach assumes the participants enter into the effort with the goal of improved environment and safeguarded public health. The team approach avoids confrontational or adversarial interactions and focuses on a dialogue from which a negotiated team response develops. Central to the program is the recognition that communication is only effective when the dialogue is two-way.     

Interactions among the human and organizational factors within the public sector regarding epidemic prevention and control

The management of human and organizational factors (HOFs) within the public sector directly concerns the efficacy of epidemic prevention and control (EPC). Insufficient examination of such HOFs has led to defective countermeasures. This study attempts to comprehensively identify the HOFs within the public sector critical to EPC and investigate their interactions with the weighted network theory. A total of 55 HOFs were identified, and their interactions were assessed and visualized in the Chinese context. Then, the established weighted network was analyzed to investigate the interactions and diagnose critical factors and sectors. The analysis shows that there are strong interactions among HOFs, and that the human and organizational risks emerging from administrative departments of public health, centers for disease control and prevention, and medical institutions act as the key risk sources in the complex interconnected EPC system, exacerbating risk and causing a significant domino effect. It is recommended that the authorities devote more resources to the core sectors and endeavor to reinforce those critical HOFs by implementing closer risk communication, collaboration, and response. This study may deepen and broaden the authorities’ awareness and understanding of interactions among HOFs regarding epidemic mitigation, and strengthen their capacity to perceive, evaluate, and manage these factors in a proactive and effective way, thereby facilitating the success of EPC.     

Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty

Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision‐making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web‐based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade‐offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk‐ and environmental‐management processes.     

Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability

Public communication about drought and water availability risks poses challenges to a potentially disinterested public. Water management professionals, though, have a responsibility to work with the public to engage in communication about water and environmental risks. Because limited research in water management examines organizational communication practices and perceptions, insights into research and practice can be gained through investigation of current applications of these risk communication efforts. Guided by the CAUSE model, which explains common goals in communicating risk information to the public (e.g., creating Confidence, generating Awareness, enhancing Understanding, gaining Satisfaction, and motivating Enactment), semistructured interviews of professionals (N = 25) employed by Texas groundwater conservation districts were conducted. The interviews examined how CAUSE model considerations factor in to communication about drought and water availability risks. These data suggest that many work to build constituents’ confidence in their districts. Although audiences and constituents living in drought‐prone areas were reported as being engaged with water availability risks and solutions, many district officials noted constituents’ lack of perceived risk and engagement. Some managers also indicated that public understanding was a secondary concern of their primary responsibilities and that the public often seemed apathetic about technical details related to water conservation risks. Overall, results suggest complicated dynamics between officials and the public regarding information access and motivation. The article also outlines extensions of the CAUSE model and implications for improving public communication about drought and water availability risks.     

Opportunities and Impediments for Risk-Based Standards: Some Views from a Workshop

Techniques for performing scientific risk assessments for a wide variety of chemical and radiological hazards present in the environment and workplace are available. Speakers at a workshop sponsored by the Environmental and Public/Occupational Health Standard's Steering Group addressed both the state-of-the-art in risk assessment and areas of difficulty that require further research. The Steering Group concluded that within the limits of the available data, risk-assessment techniques are a useful tool in decision-making. In the past, many government agencies have not been effective either in listening to public concerns or in communicating technical or scientific information about risks. This has been true at all levels of government. Workshop speakers discussed some ways that government agencies can more effectively communicate with the public. The Steering Group concluded that major efforts must be made to ensure that two-way communication takes place. Thus the results of the workshop show that effective management of risk requires both a scientific assessment of risk and a responsive consideration of the public's perception of risk. Intensive efforts must be made to ensure that effective two-way communication takes place between members of the public and the appropriate government agencies.     

Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change

Believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts, according to current risk communication theory. Although the public recognizes the dangers of climate change, and is deluged with lists of possible mitigative actions, little is known about public efficacy beliefs in the context of climate change. Prior efficacy studies rely on conflicting constructs and measures of efficacy, and links between efficacy and risk management actions are muddled. As a result, much remains to learn about how laypersons think about the ease and effectiveness of potential mitigative actions. To bring clarity and inform risk communication and management efforts, we investigate how people think about efficacy in the context of climate change risk management by analyzing unprompted and prompted beliefs from two national surveys (N = 405, N = 1,820). In general, respondents distinguish little between effective and ineffective climate strategies. While many respondents appreciate that reducing fossil fuel use is an effective risk mitigation strategy, overall assessments reflect persistent misconceptions about climate change causes, and uncertainties about the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies. Our findings suggest targeting climate change risk communication and management strategies to (1) address gaps in people's existing mental models of climate action, (2) leverage existing public understanding of both potentially effective mitigation strategies and the collective action dilemma at the heart of climate change action, and (3) take into account ideologically driven reactions to behavior change and government action framed as climate action.     

Risk Communication in Environmental Restoration Programs

The author advocates adoption of a convergence model in place of the traditional source-receiver model of communication for communicating with members of the public who have a stake in remediation of a nearby site. The source-receiver model conceives of communication as the transmission of a message from a risk management agency (sender) to a target audience of the public (receivers). The underlying theme is that the sender intends to change the perception of the receiver of either the issue or the sender of information. The author draws on her experience at a Department of Energy (DoE) site undergoing remediation to illustrate why the convergence model is more appropriate in the context of cleanup. This alternative model focuses on the Latin derivation of communication as sharing or making common to many (i.e., as involving a relationship between participants who engage in a process of communication). The focus appears to be consistent with recently issued DoE policy that calls for involving the public in identifying issues and problems and in formulating and evaluating decision alternatives in cleanup. By emphasizing context, process, and participants, as opposed to senders and receivers, the model identifies key issues to address in facilitating consensus concerning the risks of cleanup. Similarities between the institutional context of DoE and Department of Defense (DoD) suggest that a convergence model may also prove to be an appropriate conceptual foundation for risk communication at contaminated DoD sites.     

Risk Perception and Disaster Preparedness in Immigrants and Canadian‐Born Adults: Analysis of a National Survey on Similarities and Differences

Research has documented that immigrants tend to experience more negative consequences from natural disasters compared to native‐born individuals, although research on how immigrants perceive and respond to natural disaster risks is sparse. We investigated how risk perception and disaster preparedness for natural disasters in immigrants compared to Canadian‐born individuals as justifications for culturally‐adapted risk communication and management. To this end, we analyzed the ratings on natural disaster risk perception beliefs and preparedness behaviors from a nationally representative survey (N = 1,089). Factor analyses revealed three underlying psychological dimensions of risk perception: external responsibility for disaster management, self‐preparedness responsibility, and illusiveness of preparedness. Although immigrants and Canadian‐born individuals shared the three‐factor structure, there were differences in the salience of five risk perception beliefs. Despite these differences, immigrants and Canadian‐born individuals were similar in the level of risk perception dimensions and disaster preparedness. Regression analyses revealed self‐preparedness responsibility and external responsibility for disaster management positively predicted disaster preparedness whereas illusiveness of preparedness negatively predicted disaster preparedness in both groups. Our results showed that immigrants’ risk perception and disaster preparedness were comparable to their Canadian‐born counterparts. That is, immigrant status did not necessarily yield differences in risk perception and disaster preparedness. These social groups may benefit from a risk communication and management strategy that addresses these risk perception dimensions to increase disaster preparedness. Given the diversity of the immigrant population, the model remains to be tested by further population segmentation.     

Hot Potato: Expert-Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second-Generation Novel Food

Novel foods have been the object of intense public debate in recent years. Despite widespread efforts to communicate the outcomes of risk assessments to consumers, public confidence in risk management has been low. Social scientists have identified various reasons for this, including a disagreement between technical experts and consumers over the nature of the hazards on which risk assessments should focus. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the ways in which experts and consumers understand the benefits and risks associated with a genetically modified example crop. Two qualitative studies were conducted. In Study 1, mental models were elicited from 24 experts by means of a three-wave Delphi procedure. In Study 2, mental models were elicited from 25 consumers by means of in-depth interviews. As expected, the expert mental models were focused on the types of hazards that can realistically be addressed under current regulatory frameworks, whereas the consumers were often more concerned about issues outside the scope of current legislation. Moreover, the experts tended to define risk and benefit in terms of detailed chains of cause-effect relationships between variables for which clear definitions and measurement rules exist. The concepts the consumers used when reasoning about biological processes were very abstract, suggesting that the participants had, at most, a holistic understanding. In line with this, issues of uncertainty played a prominent role for the consumers.     

Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters,Public Officials,and Media Broadcasters in Boulder,Colorado

Timely warning communication and decision making are critical for reducing harm from flash flooding. To help understand and improve extreme weather risk communication and management, this study uses a mental models research approach to investigate the flash flood warning system and its risk decision context. Data were collected in the Boulder, Colorado area from mental models interviews with forecasters, public officials, and media broadcasters, who each make important interacting decisions in the warning system, and from a group modeling session with forecasters. Analysis of the data informed development of a decision‐focused model of the flash flood warning system that integrates the professionals’ perspectives. Comparative analysis of individual and group data with this model characterizes how these professionals conceptualize flash flood risks and associated uncertainty; create and disseminate flash flood warning information; and perceive how warning information is (and should be) used in their own and others’ decisions. The analysis indicates that warning system functioning would benefit from professionals developing a clearer, shared understanding of flash flood risks and the warning system, across their areas of expertise and job roles. Given the challenges in risk communication and decision making for complex, rapidly evolving hazards such as flash floods, another priority is development of improved warning content to help members of the public protect themselves when needed. Also important is professional communication with members of the public about allocation of responsibilities for managing flash flood risks, as well as improved system‐wide management of uncertainty in decisions.     

Managing Risk: A Joint U.S.-German Perspective

Ideas from a USA-FRG conference on risk management are presented. In general, the difficulties confronted by risk management authorities in the two countries are similar, from discovering important risks at an early stage to setting acceptable goals. Government regulation is overburdened and somewhat inefficient in both countries, leading to greater search for alternatives. The many differences in approach between the two countries can inform both. German risk management is done largely through negotiations among the affected parties; when this does not resolve a dispute, a specialized administrative court takes charge. In both countries nonregulatory methods of managing risk should be enhanced and given a larger role. A matrix of risk management method versus criteria proved stimulating in comparing and ranking approaches. The conceptual differences between managing discrete events (auto crashes, boiler explosions, etc.) and chronic exposures have not been appreciated. Although uncertainty and probability are involved in both, there are qualitative differences in both analysis and management. Public perceptions of risk and the role these should play have been characterized by "objectivist" and "subjectivist" positions. In the former view, risks are subject to analysis, are calculable, and the public must be educated to accept the conclusions of experts. In the latter view what people perceive is what is most important, both psychologically and politically, and the risk experts must understand public fears and desires. These are important opportunities for cross cultural studies.     

Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research

Flood hazards are the most common and destructive of all natural disasters. For decades, experts have been examining how flood losses can be mitigated. Just as in other risk domains, the study of risk perception and risk communication has gained increasing interest in flood risk management. Because of this research growth, a review of the state of the art in this domain is believed necessary. The review comprises 57 empirically based peer‐reviewed articles on flood risk perception and communication from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The characteristics of these articles are listed in a comprehensive table, presenting research design, research variables, and key findings. From this review, it follows that the majority of studies are of exploratory nature and have not applied any of the theoretical frameworks that are available in social science research. Consequently, a methodological standardization in measuring and analyzing people's flood risk perceptions and their adaptive behaviors is hardly present. This heterogeneity leads to difficulties in comparing results among studies. It is also shown that theoretical and empirical studies on flood risk communication are nearly nonexistent. The article concludes with a summary on methodological issues in the fields of flood‐risk perception and flood‐risk communication and proposes an agenda for future research.     

Engaging with Comparative Risk Appraisals: Public Views on Policy Priorities for Environmental Risk Governance

Communicating the rationale for allocating resources to manage policy priorities and their risks is challenging. Here, we demonstrate that environmental risks have diverse attributes and locales in their effects that may drive disproportionate responses among citizens. When 2,065 survey participants deployed summary information and their own understanding to assess 12 policy‐level environmental risks singularly, their assessment differed from a prior expert assessment. However, participants provided rankings similar to those of experts when these same 12 risks were considered as a group, allowing comparison between the different risks. Following this, when individuals were shown the prior expert assessment of this portfolio, they expressed a moderate level of confidence with the combined expert analysis. These are important findings for the comprehension of policy risks that may be subject to augmentation by climate change, their representation alongside other threats within national risk assessments, and interpretations of agency for public risk management by citizens and others.     

Improving Risk Communication

This paper explores reasons for difficulties in communicating risks among analysts, the laypublic, media, and regulators. Formulating risk communication problems as decisions involving objectives and alternatives helps to identify strategies for overcoming these difficulties. Several strategies are suggested to achieve risk communication objectives like improving public knowledge about risks and risk management, encouraging risk reduction behavior, understanding public values and concerns, and increasing trust and credibility.