Informing and Educating the Public About Risk

The objective of informing and educating the public about risk issues seems easy to attain in principle, but, in practice, may be difficult to accomplish. This paper attempts to illustrate why this is so. To be effective, risk communicators must recognize and overcome a number of obstacles that have their roots in the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the idiosyncrasies of the human mind. Doing an adequate job of communicating means finding comprehensible ways of presenting complex technical material that is clouded by uncertainty and inherently difficult to understand. The problems may not be insurmountable, however, if designers of risk information programs are sensitive to the difficulties.     

Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators

Government agencies often compare contaminant levels to standards and other regulatory benchmarks to convey relative risk to public audiences, as well as for enforcement. Yet we know little of how citizens interpret these risk indicators or factors influencing interpretations. Owners of private residential wells in New Jersey were surveyed by mail. A majority appreciated this comparison, trusted the standard, and could effectively compare the contaminant level to the standard. Most people who recalled that their own well water quality was unsatisfactory simply installed treatment systems. However, there was also a surprising amount of inability to tell whether pollution levels were better or worse than the standard, perhaps exacerbated by confusing institutional language to summarize the comparison (e.g., pollution “exceeds” or is “less than” the standard) and innumeracy. There was also substantial skepticism about the degree to which pollution levels below, or (to a lesser extent) above, the standard are harmless or harmful, respectively. Skepticism was variously due to distrust of standards, disbelief in thresholds for health effects, inability to accurately compare standards and contaminant levels, information processing, and demographics. Discontinuity in reactions below versus above the standard did not exist in the aggregate, and rarely among individuals, contrary to some previous findings. At identical standards and contaminant levels, familiar toxins (mercury, arsenic, lead) elicited higher risk ratings than less familiar ones. Given the wide institutional use of this risk indicator, further research on how to improve the design and use of this indicator, and consideration of alternatives, is warranted.     

Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites

This study integrates previous research methodologies to compare the risk perceptions and responses to risk messages of agency personnel and neighbors of Superfund sites in Michigan. The integration attempted and the focus on risk messages are shaped by a critical review of the social amplification conceptual framework. The study involved all four agency groups and three groups of site neighbors actively involved in Superfund planning across the state. The first part of the study utilized the psychometric techniques of hazard rating and hazard profiles that had not previously been used in studies involving stakeholders. While agency personnel responded similarly to experts in previous studies, the responses of individuals in the neighbor groups reflected experience with toxic sites and were dissimilar to previous ratings by the general public. The second part of the study consisted of a hypothetical toxic site scenario that focused on specific risk messages at different times in the site history. Results indicate that the difference in perception of risk occurs after the first testing at a site, and that dramatic differences arise between agency and resident groups regarding the credibility of information sources and the need for independent testing. A general lack of trust in the Superfund program was demonstrated by all groups. The results indicate that problems of institutional credibility and program adequacy cannot be addressed by better risk communication.     

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.     

Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study

This article offers longitudinal data tracking people who did and did not attend a series of public meetings in an upstate New York rural community grappling with the expansion of an existing solid waste landfill and remediation of an adjacent inactive hazardous waste site. Before and after the public meetings, mailed questionnaires measured risk perceptions and perceived credibility of risk managers (here, the state government agencies and the responsible industry) conducting the meetings. Respondents at each measurement point included meeting attendees and nonattendees, with some fluctuation over time when attendees at one measurement point were nonattendees at the next and vice versa. The results from the first survey indicate that following the first two public meetings, attendees perceived greater risks from the waste sites than did nonattendees; attendees also perceived the risk managers as less credible. After the third public meeting, the results showed that attendees' risk perceptions remained steady; however, perceptions of government agency credibility significantly decreased. After the fourth public meeting, the survey found that attendees' risk perceptions were again not significantly different, whereas perceptions of government agency credibility increased significantly. The industry's credibility also increased, though only among attendees who had attended the most recent public meeting, not among attendees who had attended both the third and fourth public meetings. For nonattendees, risk perceptions and credibility ratings did not change. The discussion examines how distinctive characteristics of communication at each public meeting may have resulted in different effects and proposes hypotheses for future research.     

Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation

To aid in their safety oversight of large‐scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, public utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regulators may be less useful for this purpose than is supposed. These approaches often do not reflect the current state of the art in risk assessment strategy and methodology. This essay explores why utilities and regulatory agencies might embrace risk assessment techniques that do not sufficiently assess organizational and managerial factors as drivers of risk, nor that adequately represent important uncertainties surrounding risk calculations. Further, it describes why, in the special legal, political, and administrative world of the typical public utility regulator, strategies to identify and mitigate formally specified risks might actually diverge from the regulatory promotion of “safety.” Some improvements are suggested that can be made in risk assessment approaches to support more fully the safety oversight objectives of public regulatory agencies, with examples from “high‐reliability organizations” (HROs) that have successfully merged the management of safety with the management of risk. Finally, given the limitations of their current risk assessments and the lessons from HROs, four specific assurances are suggested that regulatory agencies should seek for themselves and the public as objectives in their safety oversight of public utilities.     

A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers

A deliberative method for ranking risks was evaluated in a study involving 218 risk managers. Both holistic and multiattribute procedures were used to assess individual and group rankings of health and safety risks facing students at a fictitious middle school. Consistency between the rankings that emerged from these two procedures was reasonably high for individuals and for groups, suggesting that these procedures capture an underlying construct of riskiness. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their groups' decision-making processes and the resulting rankings, and these reports were corroborated by regression analyses. Risk rankings were similar across individuals and groups, even though individuals and groups did not always agree on the relative importance of risk attributes. Lower consistency between the risk rankings from the holistic and multiattribute procedures and lower agreement among individuals and groups regarding these rankings were observed for a set of high-variance risks. Nonetheless, the generally high levels of consistency, satisfaction, and agreement suggest that this deliberative method is capable of producing risk rankings that can serve as informative inputs to public risk-management decision making.     

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.     

Risk Communication,Values Clarification,and Vaccination Decisions

Many health‐related decisions require choosing between two options, each with risks and benefits. When presented with such tradeoffs, people often make choices that fail to align with scientific evidence or with their own values. This study tested whether risk communication and values clarification methods could help parents and guardians make evidence‐based, values‐congruent decisions about children's influenza vaccinations. In 2013–2014 we conducted an online 2×2 factorial experiment in which a diverse sample of U.S. parents and guardians (n = 407) were randomly assigned to view either standard information about influenza vaccines or risk communication using absolute and incremental risk formats. Participants were then either presented or not presented with an interactive values clarification interface with constrained sliders and dynamic visual feedback. Participants randomized to the risk communication condition combined with the values clarification interface were more likely to indicate intentions to vaccinate (β = 2.10, t(399) = 2.63, p < 0.01). The effect was particularly notable among participants who had previously demonstrated less interest in having their children vaccinated against influenza (β = –2.14, t(399) = –2.06, p < 0.05). When assessing vaccination status reported by participants who agreed to participate in a follow‐up study six months later (n = 116), vaccination intentions significantly predicted vaccination status (OR = 1.66, 95%CI (1.13, 2.44), p < 0.05) and rates of informed choice (OR = 1.51, 95%CI (1.07, 2.13), p < 0.012), although there were no direct effects of experimental factors on vaccination rates. Qualitative analysis suggested that logistical barriers impeded immunization rates. Risk communication and values clarification methods may contribute to increased vaccination intentions, which may, in turn, predict vaccination status if logistical barriers are also addressed.     

Ex Ante and Ex Post Values for Changes in Risks

In this paper, I take risk to mean a composite of the probability of an adverse event and the severity of the consequences of the event. I explore two issues in the economic valuation of changes in individual risks brought about by public policies. These are: (1) the relationship between the values of risk prevention (i.e., the lowering of the probabilities of adverse events) and risk reduction (i.e., the reduction of the severity of the consequences of adverse events); and (2) the relationship between ex ante and ex post measures of the value of changes in 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.     

A Value Measure for Public‐Sector Enterprise Risk Management: A TSA Case Study

This article presents a public value measure that can be used to aid executives in the public sector to better assess policy decisions and maximize value to the American people. Using Transportation Security Administration (TSA) programs as an example, we first identify the basic components of public value. We then propose a public value account to quantify the outcomes of various risk scenarios, and we determine the certain equivalent of several important TSA programs. We illustrate how this proposed measure can quantify the effects of two main challenges that government organizations face when conducting enterprise risk management: (1) short‐term versus long‐term incentives and (2) avoiding potential negative consequences even if they occur with low probability. Finally, we illustrate how this measure enables the use of various tools from decision analysis to be applied in government settings, such as stochastic dominance arguments and certain equivalent calculations. Regarding the TSA case study, our analysis demonstrates the value of continued expansion of the TSA trusted traveler initiative and increasing the background vetting for passengers who are afforded expedited security screening.     

Summarizing Risk Using Risk Measures and Risk Indices

Our society is fascinated with risk in many different areas and disciplines. One of the main ways to describe and communicate the level of risk is through risk indices, which summarize risk using numbers or categories such as words, letters, or colors. These indices are used to communicate risks to the public, understand how risk is changing over time, compare among different risks, and support decision making. Given the different methods to construct risk indices, including flawed methods such as risk matrices, this article develops specific steps that analysts can follow to create a risk index. This article emphasizes the importance of describing risk with a probability distribution, developing a numerical risk measure that summarizes the probability distribution, and finally translating the risk measure to an index. Measuring the risk is the most difficult part and requires the analyst to summarize a probability distribution into one or possibly a few numbers. The risk measure can then be transformed to a numerical or categorical index. I apply the method outlined in this article to construct a risk index that compares the risk of fatalities in aviation and highway transportation.     

Public Reliance on Risk Communication Channels in the Wake of a Cryptosporidium Outbreak

In the spring of 1993, about 39% of Milwaukee-area residents suffered through a nationally publicized illness brought about by cryptosporidium, a parasite that had infested the metropolitan drinking water supply. Our study, based on a telephone survey of 610 local adult residents, indicates that worry about becoming ill in the future with cryptosporidiosis relates more strongly and consistently to public reliance on, and use of, media for cryptosporidium information than do a range of risk perception and experience variables. We propose that more studies should take an audience-centered approach to understanding risk communication.     

Multiattribute Risk Analysis in Nuclear Emergency Management

Radiation protection authorities have seen a potential for applying multiattribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management and planning to deal with conflicting objectives, different parties involved, and uncertainties. This type of approach is expected to help in the following areas: to ensure that all relevant attributes are considered in decision making; to enhance communication between the concerned parties, including the public; and to provide a method for explicitly including risk analysis in the process. A multiattribute utility theory analysis was used to select a strategy for protecting the population after a simulated nuclear accident. The value-focused approach and the use of a neutral facilitator were identified as being useful.     

Facts and Values in Risk Analysis for Environmental Toxicants

The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy describes toxic substance regulation as composed of two stages. Stage I (facts) uses empirical data and scientific judgment to characterize human exposure and risk. Stage II (values) uses social and political judgment to decide regulatory action based on significance of the risk, benefits of the agent, and costs of its control. This paper argues that such a view represents an unrealistic and unattainable goal. We present examples showing how values enter virtually every part of risk analysis, and we review work on the vagaries in human judgment concerning both facts and values. These issues indicate that U.S. regulatory policy needs reconsideration.     

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.     

Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities

Despite the increased interest in risk communication among government agencies, there is evidence that agencies'risk communication practices lag. We conducted a study to explore which risk communication research would be most important to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. Qualitative interviews and a survey of 145 risk communication experts based in academic institutions and government agencies explored how important research on each of 48 topics would be to improving agencies'risk communication efforts. Respondents identified topics within three areas as priorities for further research: 1) involving communities in agency decisionmaking; 2) communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and incomes; and 3) evaluating risk communication. Both practitioners and researchers responded to additional statements about agencies'risk communication practices with reservations about staff and managers'commitment to effective communication about environmental issues. We discuss the implications of these findings.     

Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation

This article investigates possible differential levels of trust in government regulation across five different risk contexts and the relationship between a number of concepts that might be thought of as comprising distinctive "dimensions" of trust. It appeared that how people perceive government and its policies toward risk regulation was surprisingly similar for each of the five risk cases. A principal-component analysis showed that the various trust items could best be described by two dimensions: a general trust dimension, which was concerned with a wide range of trust-relevant aspects, such as competence, care, fairness, and openness, and a scepticism component that reflects a sceptical view regarding how risk policies are brought about and enacted. Again, the results were surprisingly similar across the five risk cases, as the same solution was found in each of the different samples. It was also examined whether value similarity has an additional value in predicting trust in risk regulation, compared to the more conventional aspects of trust. Based on the two independent trust factors that were found in this study, a typology of trust is proposed that ranges from full trust to a deep type of distrust. It is argued that for a functioning society it could well be more suitable to have critical but involved citizens in many situations.     

Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception

A mail survey on ecological risk perception was administered in the summer of 2002 to a randomized sample of the lay public and to selected risk professionals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The ranking of 24 ecological risk items, from global climate change to commercial fishing, reveals that the lay public is more concerned about low-probability, high-consequence risks whereas the risk professionals are more concerned about risks that pose long-term, ecosystem-level impacts. To test the explanatory power of the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory for risk perception, respondents were questioned about their personal values, spiritual beliefs, and worldviews. The most consistent predictors of the risk rankings are belief in the new ecological paradigm (NEP) and Schwartz's altruism. The NEP and Schwartz's altruism explain from 19% to 46% of the variance in the risk rankings. Religious beliefs account for less than 6% of the variance and do not show a consistent pattern in predicting risk perception although religious fundamentalists are generally less concerned about the risk items. While not exerting as strong an impact, social-structural variables do have some influence on risk perception. Ethnicities show no effect on the risk scales but the more educated and financially well-off are less concerned about the risk items. Political leanings have no direct influence on risk rankings, but indirectly affect rankings through the NEP. These results reveal that the VBN theory is a plausible explanation for the differences measured in the respondents' perception of ecological risk.