Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice

The dynamics of organizational risk communication is an understudied topic in risk research. This article investigates how public officials at six government agencies in Sweden understand and relate to risk communication and its uses in the context of agency organizational work on policy and regulation. Qualitative interviews were used to explore the practitioners’ views on some key topics in the academic literature on risk communication. A main finding is that there is little consensus on what the goals of risk communication are; if, and how, uncertainty should be communicated; and what role is to be played by transparency in risk communication. However, the practitioners agree that dissemination (top down) to the public of robust scientific and expert knowledge is a crucial element. Dialogue and participation is used mainly with other agencies and elite stakeholders with whom agencies collaborate to implement policy goals. Dialogue with the public on issues of risk is very limited. Some implications of the findings for the practice of risk communication by government agencies are suggested.     

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.     

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.     

Risk Assessment for Invasive Species

Although estimates vary, there is a broad agreement that invasive species impose major costs on the U.S. economy, as well as posing risks to nonmarket environmental goods and services and to public health. The domestic effort to manage risks associated with invasive species is coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), which is charged with developing a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with the introduction and spread of invasive species. Various international agreements have also elevated invasive species issues onto the international policy agenda. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement establishes rights and obligations to adhere to the discipline of scientific risk assessment to ensure that SPS measures are applied only to the extent required to protect human, animal, and plant health, and do not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable technical barriers to trade. Currently, however, the field of risk assessment for invasive species is in its infancy. Therefore, there is a pressing need to formulate scientifically sound methods and approaches in this emerging field, while acknowledging that the demand for situation-specific empirical evidence is likely to persistently outstrip supply. To begin addressing this need, the Society for Risk Analysis Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty Group and the Ecological Society of America Theoretical Ecology Section convened a joint workshop to provide independent scientific input into the formulation of methods and processes for risk assessment of invasive species to ensure that the analytic processes used domestically and internationally will be firmly rooted in sound scientific principles.     

A Look at State‐Level Risk Assessment in the United States: Making Decisions in the Absence of Federal Risk Values

State environmental agencies in the United States are charged with making risk management decisions that protect public health and the environment while managing limited technical, financial, and human resources. Meanwhile, the federal risk assessment community that provides risk assessment guidance to state agencies is challenged by the rapid growth of the global chemical inventory. When chemical toxicity profiles are unavailable on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System or other federal resources, each state agency must act independently to identify and select appropriate chemical risk values for application in human health risk assessment. This practice can lead to broad interstate variation in the toxicity values selected for any one chemical. Within this context, this article describes the decision‐making process and resources used by the federal government and individual U.S. states. The risk management of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the United States is presented as a case study to demonstrate the need for a collaborative approach among U.S. states toward identification and selection of chemical risk values while awaiting federal risk values to be set. The regulatory experience with TCE is contrasted with collaborative risk science models, such as the European Union's efforts in risk assessment harmonization. Finally, we introduce State Environmental Agency Risk Collaboration for Harmonization, a free online interactive tool designed to help to create a collaborative network among state agencies to provide a vehicle for efficiently sharing information and resources, and for the advancement of harmonization in risk values used among U.S. states when federal guidance is unavailable.     

Improving fire risk communication between authorities and micro-entrepreneurs: A mental models study of Ghanaian central market fires

This study conceptualizes how fire management authorities can empower nonexpert public to participate in fire risk communication processes and increase their own responsibilities for managing fire preventive, protective and recovery processes effectively. Drawing narratives from 10 disaster management experts working at government institutions and nine micro-entrepreneurs operating self-sustaining businesses in different merchandized lines in Ghana, we analyzed the data thematically and explored new insights on mental models to generate a two-way fire risk communication model. The findings suggest that fire management authorities planned fire disasters at the strategic level, collaborated with multiple stakeholders, disseminated information through many risk communication methods, and utilized their capabilities to manage fire at the various stages of fire risk communication, but the outcomes were poor. The micro-entrepreneurs sought to improve fire management outcomes through attitude change, law enforcement actions, strengthened security and better public trust building. The study has implications for policymakers, governments, and risk communication authorities of developing countries to strengthen their fire disaster policies to minimize commercial fire incidents and address the damaging effects of fire on people's livelihoods, businesses, properties, and environments. Our proposed two-way fire risk communication model is a new theoretical lens for experts and the nonexpert public to assess each other's beliefs about risk information and manage fire risk communication effectively at all stages.     

EDB: A Case Study in Communicating Risk

This is a report on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) efforts to communicate with the public about the risks of ethylene dibromide (EDB), what the agency said it was doing about these risks and what information the public actually received through television and newspapers. Although special in many ways, the EDB case illustrates the problems that regulatory agencies have when they must take regulatory action and assure the public that the risks in question are being dealt with adequately. It also illustrates issues that the press faces. Above all, it illustrates the barriers to communication presented by the different perspectives of regulatory agencies and individuals and the types of information they each are most interested in.     

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.     

Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks

Human beings have always been intuitive toxicologists, relying on their senses of sight, taste, and smell to detect harmful or unsafe food, water, and air. As we have come to recognize that our senses are not adequate to assess the dangers inherent in exposure to a chemical substance, we have created the sciences of toxicology and risk assessment to perform this function. Yet despite this great effort to overcome the limitations of intuitive toxicology, it has become evident that even our best scientific methods still depend heavily on extrapolations and judgments in order to infer human health risks from animal data. Many observers have acknowledged the inherent subjectivity in the assessment of chemical risks and have indicated a need to examine the subjective or intuitive elements of expert and lay risk judgments. We have begun such an examination by surveying members of the Society of Toxicology and the lay public about basic toxicological concepts, assumptions, and interpretations. Our results demonstrate large differences between toxicologists and laypeople, as well as differences between toxicologists working in industry, academia, and government. In addition, we find that toxicologists are sharply divided in their opinions about the ability to predict a chemical's effect on human health on the basis of animal studies. We argue that these results place the problems of risk communication in a new light. Although the survey identifies misconceptions that experts should clarify for the public, it also suggests that controversies over chemical risks may be fueled as much by limitations of the science of risk assessment and disagreements among experts as by public misconceptions.     

Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue

Nanotechnologies operate at atomic, molecular, and macromolecular scales, at scales where matter behaves differently than at larger scales and quantum effects can dominate. Nanotechnologies have captured the imagination of science fiction writers as science, engineering, and industry have leapt to the challenge of harnessing them. Applications are proliferating. In contrast, despite recent progress the regulatory landscape is not yet coherent, and public awareness of nanotechnology remains low. This has led risk researchers and critics of current nanotechnology risk communication efforts to call for proactive strategies that do more than address facts, that include and go beyond the public participation stipulated by some government acts. A redoubling of nanotechnology risk communication efforts could enable consumer choice and informed public discourse about regulation and public investments in science and safety.     

Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies

The communication and regulation of risk has changed significantly over the past 30 years in Europe and to a noticeable but lesser extent in the United States. In Europe, this is partly due to a series of regulatory mishaps, ranging from mad cow disease in the United Kingdom to contamination of the blood supply in France. In the United States, general public confidence in the American government has been gradually declining for more than three decades, driven by a mix of cultural and political conflicts like negative political advertising, a corrosive news media, and cuts in regulatory budgets. While the former approach is based on an objective assessment of the risk, the latter is driven more by the perception of the risk, consumer sentiment, political will, and sectoral advocacy. In this article, the author examines three U.S.‐based food case studies (acrylamide, bisphenol A, and artificial food colorings) where regulations at the local and state levels are increasingly being based on perceived risk advocacy rather than on the most effective response to the risk, be it to food safety or public health, as defined by regulatory interpretation of existing data. In the final section, the author puts forward a series of recommendations for how U.S.‐based regulators can best handle those situations where the perceived risk is markedly different from the fact‐based risk, such as strengthening the communication departments of food regulatory agencies, training officials in risk communication, and working more proactively with neutral third‐party experts.     

Judgments of Chemical Risks: Comparisons Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public

Nineteen Senior Managers of a major chemical company in the United Kingdom participated in a survey to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. Similar surveys had previously been conducted with toxicologists and members of the general public in the United States and Canada. In general, the Senior Managers tended to judge risks to be quite small for most chemicals. Moreover, they had lower risk perceptions than did members of the British Toxicological Society and even far lower perceptions of risk than a comparison group of members of the Canadian public. The managers held views that were similar to British toxicologists working in industry and government and dissimilar to the views of toxicologists working in academia. The observed differences between views of managers, toxicologists, and the public must be recognized and understood in order to facilitate communication and constructive efforts to manage chemical risks.     

Risk Analysis for Invasive Species: General Framework and Research Needs

A joint workshop was convened by the Society for Risk Analysis Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty Group and the Ecological Society of America Theoretical Ecology Section to provide independent scientific input into the formulation of methods and processes for risk assessment of invasive species. In breakout sessions on (1) the effects of invasive species on human health, (2) effects on plants and animals, (3) risk analysis issues and research needs related to entry and establishment of invasive species, and (4) risk analysis issues and research needs related to the spread and impacts of invasive species, workshop participants discussed an overall approach to risk assessment for invasive species. Workshop participants agreed on the need for empirical research on areas in which data are lacking, including potential invasive species, native species and habitats that may be impacted by invasive species, important biological processes and phenomena such as dispersal, and pathways of entry and spread for invasive species. Participants agreed that theoretical ecology can inform the process of risk assessment for invasive species by providing guidelines and conceptual models, and can contribute to improved decision making by providing a firm biological basis for risk assessments.     

Defining Susceptibility for Microbial Risk Assessment: Results of a Workshop

An interdisciplinary workshop was convened by the George Washington University in June 2001 to discuss how to incorporate new knowledge about susceptibility to microbial pathogens into risk assessment and management strategies. Experts from government, academic, and private sector organizations discussed definitions, methods, data needs, and issues related to susceptibility in microbial risk assessment. The participants agreed that modeling approaches need to account for the highly specific nature of host-pathogen relationships, and the wide variability of infectivity, immunity, disease transmission, and outcome rates within microbial species and strains. Concerns were raised about distinguishing between exposure and dose more clearly, interpreting experimental and outbreak data correctly, and using thresholds and possibly linearity at low doses. Recommendations were made to advance microbial risk assessment by defining specific terms and concepts more precisely, designing explicit conceptual frameworks to guide development of more complex models and data collection, addressing susceptibility in all steps of the model, measuring components of immunity to characterize susceptibility, reexamining underlying assumptions, applying default methods appropriately, obtaining more mechanistic data to improve default methods, and developing more biologically relevant and continuous risk estimators. The interrelated impacts of selecting specific subpopulations and health outcomes, and of increasing model complexity and data demands, were considered in the contexts of public policy goals and resources required. The participants stated that zero risk is unattainable, so targeted and effective risk reduction and communication strategies are essential not only to raise pubic awareness about water quality but also to protect the most susceptible members of the population.     

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.     

Improving Health Risk Assessment as a Basis for Public Health Decisions in the 21st Century

One-fifth of the way through the 21st century, a commonality of factors with those of the last 50 years may offer the opportunity to address unfinished business and current challenges. The recommendations include: (1) Resisting the tendency to oversimplify scientific assessments by reliance on single disciplines in lieu of clear weight-of-evidence expressions, and on single quantitative point estimates of health protective values for policy decisions; (2) Improving the separation of science and judgment in risk assessment through the use of clear expressions of the range of judgments that bracket protective quantitative levels for public health protection; (3) Use of comparative risk to achieve the greatest gains in health and the environment; and (4) Where applicable, reversal of the risk assessment and risk management steps to facilitate timely and substantive improvements in public health and the environment. Lessons learned and improvements in the risk assessment process are applied to the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century such as, pandemics and climate change. The beneficial application of the risk assessment and risk management paradigm to ensure timely research with consistency and transparency of assessments is presented. Institutions with mandated stability and leadership roles at the national and international levels are essential to ensure timely interdisciplinary scientific assessment at the interface with public policy as a basis for organized policy decisions, to meet time sensitive goals, and to inform the public.     

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.     

The impact of leader communication on free-riding: An incentivized experiment with empowering and directive styles

Organizations often appoint leaders to foster cooperation. This paper studies the effect of leader communication on free-riding behavior using controlled and incentivized experiments. Leaders are asked to choose public messages from a set that induces a particular leadership style and to send them to subjects matched in groups to play a repeated, finite-horizon public good game. Using a between-subjects design, empowering and directive message sets are studied. Treatments are implemented with and without opportunities for two-way leader follower communication to study the impact of free-form communication. In the absence of opportunities for two-way leader follower communication, leaders assigned to the empowering messages treatment are more effective in mitigating free-riding than leaders assigned to the directive messages treatment. In its presence, contributions in both treatments are higher. The design allows for the study of a more interactive form of directive leadership by combining directive public messages with two-way leader follower communication.     

Public planning and political strategy

Planning theory and practice derived from corporate experience, management science and rational decision theory have had little influence on decision-making in the public sector. The political environment and organizational complexity of public decision making render conventional approaches to objective, rational, comprehensive planning of limited value in government agencies and in private corporations involved in public policy making. A more effective approach to strategic planning and management must be based on an understanding of the political dynamics through which policies are made. It must adopt a variety of styles directly related to major functions in the policy making process and use a variety of political intervention and influence techniques that facilitate the implementation of plans and policies.     

公众社区参与意愿对危化品危害利益相关者感知的影响

面对危化品危害,政府及相关单位面临着日益严峻的既要保证公众知情,又要避免信息过度传播的难题,"信任"是导致这种沟通困境的重要因素。为解决危害信息有效沟通问题,从重构公众与政府之间信任关系的角度入手,以公众利益相关者感知衡量信任,探究公众社区参与意愿对利益相关者感知的影响关系,并将社区参与分为代表单向沟通的仪式性参与和代表双向沟通的实质性参与。研究结果表明:公众社区参与意愿有利于提升公众危化品危害利益相关者感知,特别是仪式性参与意愿的直接作用效果更为显著;实质性参与意愿和危害利益相关者感知的关系中,预决策过程起到完全中介的作用;危化品危害知识在社区参与意愿和利益相关者感知的影响关系中起到显著的正向调节作用,特别是在预决策过程与利益相关者感知的影响路径中。研究结论为构建公众和政府之间的信任关系,进而为缓解危化品危害信息沟通难题提供理论支撑和实践价值。