The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco

The U.S. Congress has designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only potential site to be studied for the nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository. People in Nevada strongly oppose the program, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Survey research shows that the public believes there are great risks from a repository program, in contrast to a majority of scientists who feel the risks are acceptably small. Delays in the repository program resulting in part from public opposition in Nevada have concerned the nuclear power industry, which collects the fees for the federal repository program and believes it needs the repository as a final disposal facility for its high-level nuclear wastes. To assist the repository program, the American Nuclear Energy Council (ANEC), an industry group, sponsored a massive advertising campaign in Nevada. The campaign attempted to assure people that the risks of a repository were small and that the repository studies should proceed. The campaign failed because its managers misunderstood the issues underlying the controversy, attempted a covert manipulation of public opinion that was revealed, and most importantly, lacked the public trust that was necessary to communicate credibly about the risks of a nuclear waste facility.     

"Down and Dirty:" The Use and Abuse of Public Trust in Risk Communication

Many recent contributions to risk communication research stress the importance of the element of "trust" in the process of successful communication. This paper uses that theme in considering risk communication within the context of seeking consensus on matters of health and environmental risk controversies through stakeholder negotiation. It suggests that there are very good reasons, based on historical experience, for the parties to mistrust each other deeply in such settings. For example there is abundant evidence involving episodes in which risk promoters have concealed or ignored relevant risk data or simply have sought to advance their own interests by selective use of such data. These well-established practices compound the difficulties other stakeholders face, in all such negotiation, by virtue of the inescapable uncertainties (as well as absence of needed data) inherent in risk assessments. These factors encourage the participants to treat such negotiations as poker games in which bluffing, raising the ante, and calling the perceived bluffs of others are matters of survival. In the end we should recognize the genuine dilemmas that citizens face in trying to figure out who and what to believe in making sensible decisions among the range of risks, benefits, and tradeoffs that confront us.     

The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study

This study examines a key component of environmental risk communication; trust and credibility. The study was conducted in two parts. In the first part, six hypotheses regarding the perceptions and determinants of trust and credibility were tested against survey data. The hypotheses were supported by the data. The most important hypothesis was that perceptions of trust and credibility are dependent on three factors: perceptions of knowledge and expertise; perceptions of openness and honesty; and perceptions of concern and care. In the second part, models were constructed with perceptions of trust and credibility as the dependent variable. The goal was to examine the data for findings with direct policy implications. One such finding was that defying a negative stereotype is key to improving perceptions of trust and credibility.     

Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication

New societal obligations for communicating risk information are emerging in a variety of contexts. This article draws upon the lengthy societal experience with citizen participation programs to identify how risk communication efforts may be effectively structured and implemented. Six major propositions address such themes as means/ends differences in expectations, the timing of the program, the role of credibility and trust, the need for technical and analytical resources, differing thresholds of public involvement, and limitations upon current understandings. Key conclusions for the design of risk communication programs are set forth.     

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.     

Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food-Related Hazards

The psychometric approach developed by Slovic and his co-workers has been effectively used to assess risk perceptions associated with different food-related hazards. However, further examination (using questionnaire data and partial correlation techniques) has indicated that technological hazards are highly differentiated from lifestyle hazards, in terms of both hazard control and knowledge about the hazard. Optimistic bias was also seen to vary between hazards. Further research has focused on a particular hazard, genetic engineering. Risk perceptions associated with genetic engineering are underpinned by ethical concern and questions relating to perceived need for the technology, as well as perceptions of risk or harm. However, increasing the specificity of hazard stimuli was found to alter the factor structure of underlying risk perceptions. The utility of preference mapping procedures in determining individual differences in trust in risk regulators is also discussed.     

Setting a Context for Explaining Risk

Agency representatives often believe that if they could only find ways to explain risk data more clearly, communities would accept risk that scientists see as minimal, and take seriously risks scientists see as serious. While explaining the data effectively is important, agencies and industries need to place a greater priority on understanding community concerns, involving communities in risk decisions, and developing trust and credibility.     

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.     

Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs,Attitudes, and Intentions

We test here the risk communication proposition that explicit expert acknowledgment of uncertainty in risk estimates can enhance trust and other reactions. We manipulated such a scientific uncertainty message, accompanied by probabilities (20%, 70%, implicit [“will occur”] 100%) and time periods (10 or 30 years) in major (≥magnitude 8) earthquake risk estimates to test potential effects on residents potentially affected by seismic activity on the San Andreas fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (n = 750). The uncertainty acknowledgment increased belief that these specific experts were more honest and open, and led to statistically (but not substantively) significant increases in trust in seismic experts generally only for the 20% probability (vs. certainty) and shorter versus longer time period. The acknowledgment did not change judged risk, preparedness intentions, or mitigation policy support. Probability effects independent of the explicit admission of expert uncertainty were also insignificant except for judged risk, which rose or fell slightly depending upon the measure of judged risk used. Overall, both qualitative expressions of uncertainty and quantitative probabilities had limited effects on public reaction. These results imply that both theoretical arguments for positive effects, and practitioners’ potential concerns for negative effects, of uncertainty expression may have been overblown. There may be good reasons to still acknowledge experts’ uncertainties, but those merit separate justification and their own empirical tests.     

Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence

Risk communication is fundamental in ensuring people are equipped with the knowledge needed to navigate varied risks. One generally well‐regarded framework for the development of such communications is the mental models approach to risk communication (MMARC). Developed during the 1990s, the MMARC has been applied to a range of health, technological, and environmental risks. However, as yet, we know of no attempt to collate and review articles that evaluated communications developed using the MMARC. This article took a first step at addressing this gap by conducting a scoping review that aimed to begin to explore the fidelity with which the approach has been applied, explore whether there appeared to be sufficient studies to warrant a future systematic review, and identify future research questions. Although the initial search found over 100 articles explicitly applying the MMARC, only 12 of these developed a risk‐related communication that was tested against a control (and thus included in the current review). All studies reported a positive effect of the MMARC versus control communication for at least some of the outcome measures (knowledge being the most prevalent). However, there was wide variation between studies including type of control, outcomes assessed, and only five studies reported adopting a randomized design. The review highlights both the need for greater fidelity in the way future studies operationalize the MMARC approach, and suggests that a full‐scale systematic review of the MMARC literature appears justified, especially given the possibility of a large gray literature in this area.     

Industry Response to SARA Title III: Pollution Prevention, Risk Reduction, and Risk Communication

This paper reports results from a survey designed to: (1) evaluate changes in industrial pollution prevention practices since the passage of the landmark environmental legislation, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, also known as SARA Title III, and (2) identify those factors that may contribute to an industrial facility engaging in pollution prevention and risk communication activities. The survey was conducted under a Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Columbia University Center for Risk Communication. Evidence from the survey indicates that a wide variety of waste and pollution reduction activities have been undertaken since passage of the Act. Virtually all facilities surveyed in the pulp and paper, chemical, and petroleum and refining industries reported that they had reduced pollutants or wastes on at least one often measures, including reducing toxic air emissions. Most facilities indicated paying more attention to pollution prevention activities as a result of SARA Title III and half reported that their communication activities have also increased.     

Organizational Theory and the Stages of Risk Communication

The evolution of risk communication has been described as a series of communication strategies. This article suggests that organizational theory provides another dimension to understanding the evolution of risk communication, and that risk communication can be seen as an organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressure. Following the tragedy in Bhopal the chemical manufacturing sector's loss of legitimacy led to destabilization of its authority and to increased uncertainty in its external environment. Risk communication was one means to increase legitimacy, thereby decreasing uncertainty and potential impact on resources. However, although risk communication may evolve from crises of legitimacy, the concept of "isomorphism"--conformance to norms within a corporate sector--predicts this need not be the case.     

Customer Perceptions of Agency Risk Communication

A government agency commissioned a baseline study of how its customers view the agency's risk information. The 70% response rate to a mail survey allows analysis by subgroups representing customers'primary interests. Although this agency traditionally has been responsible for ensuring plant and animal health at the farm gate (or where imported), responses emphasized emerging customer concerns about the environment and human health. Customers think many risk communication activities are important, but that the agency is not especially effective in conducting those activities. Customers are moderately satisfied with much of the risk information they receive, although many have little contact from or interaction with the agency. Customers identified other sources they use, which suggest potentially effective channels for this agency's risk messages. The study provides a baseline for measuring change in the agency's risk communication effectiveness. It also can be a model when other organizations plan their own risk communication evaluations.     

Trust and Risk Communication in High-Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research

This study explored the effects of open communication about occupational risks on workers' trust beliefs and trust intentions toward risk management, and the resilience of these beliefs and intentions to further risk information. An experimental survey of 393 student nurses showed the importance of open communication in the development of worker trust in risk management. Consistent with the trust asymmetry principle, we found that the increase in trust beliefs following open communication was weaker than the reduction in trust following a lack of communication. Further, the level of trust developed through communication (or lack of) influenced the way that subsequent risk information was processed. Negative risk information reduced trust beliefs in nurses with already low levels of trust while positive risk information increased trust beliefs only in those with already high levels. A similar pattern of results emerged for nurses' trust intentions, although the magnitude of these effects was weaker. The implications of these findings for occupational risk management are discussed.     

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.     

Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies

A national symposium of risk communication practitioners and researchers was held in 1994 to discuss next steps to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. The symposium focused on three issues which a survey of researchers and practitioners indicated were priorities for risk communication research: integrating outside concerns into agency decision-making; communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds and incomes; and evaluation of risk communication. There are indications that the working assumptions underlying these issues are shifting in several distinctive ways. For example, a shift from simply communicating risk to forging partnerships with communities was clearly evident throughout the symposium. Communicating with different social, ethnic, and racial groups gained recognition as a vital component of the risk communication research agenda. Agencies themselves should be the subject of study, according to many symposium participants who were concerned less about the so-called irrationality of the public and more about the reluctance of agencies to encourage risk communication.     

Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments

Three experimental studies were conducted employing hypothetical news stories to compare the effects on reader risk perceptions of two situations: when agency communication behavior was reported to be responsive to citizens' risk concerns, vs. when the agency was reported to be unresponsive. In the first two experiments, news stories of public meetings filled with distrust and controversy led to ratings indicating greater perceived risk than news stories reporting no distrust or controversy, even though the risk information was held constant. This effect appeared clearly when the differences in meeting tone were extreme and subjects made their ratings from their recall of the stories, but it was much weaker when the differences were moderate and subjects were allowed to go back over the news stories to help separate risk information from conflict information. In the third experiment, news stories about a spill cleanup systematically varied the seriousness of the spill, the amount of technical information provided in the story, and the agency behavior and resulting community outrage. The outrage manipulation significantly affected affective and cognitive components of perceived risk, but not hypothetical behavioral intentions. Seriousness and technical detail had very little effect on perceived risk.