LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Risk is created by a hazard. For example, a toxic chemical that is a hazard to human health or an endangered species does not constitute a risk unless humans or endangered species are exposed to the hazard. However, a hazard – be it radioactive, chemical, biological, mechanical, or otherwise – can pose a wide variety of risks to the environment. Since no analysis can address all potential risks of a hazard, a key element in risk analysis is to explicitly identify the specific risk of concern.

      The definitions provided above assume that risks and hazards have an objective existence. As a result, a primary goal of risk communication should be to transmit objective information to nonexperts who often see risks subjectively through a veil of emotions, culture, and subjective experiences.

Many social and behavioral scientists take a broader view of the term risk. They view the term as a social construct, an idea that has been created and accepted by society. According to this subjectivist view, what technical and nontechnical experts mean by the word risk is often radically different. For technical experts, risk means probability multiplied by magnitude. For nontechnical experts, risk means what technical experts mean by risk (i.e. probability time magnitude) plus numerous subjective emotional and perceptual factors, including trust, benefits, personal control, voluntariness, dread, and familiarity. These additional factors are sometimes called “outrage” factors,⁴ and they are seen as influential to how people respond to risks.

Social and behavioral scientists, such as Beck and Giddens, argue this broader view of risk as a social construct helps explain why risk has become the overarching obsession of the modern world and has become a focus point for modern fears and anxieties.⁵ Fears and anxieties about the potential dangers of global warming, nuclear power plants, genetically modified organisms, nanotechnology, and a host of other risks and threats transcend national and international boundaries. Transboundary risks and threats are hotly debated on global stages occupied by multiple sets of players competing for attention. The players include policymakers, scientists, experts, activist groups, government agencies, corporations, political parties, the traditional broadcast and print media, social media, and the public. According to Beck and Giddens, inequalities multiply as rich and powerful players offload risks and dangers to less fortunate players.

2.3 Defining the Concept and Term Risk Communication

Risk communication can be defined as the transfer and exchange of information among interested parties about the nature, magnitude, significance, or control of a risk.⁶ Information about risks can be communicated through a variety of channels, including, but not limited to, fact sheets, websites, webcasts, reports, texting, emails, social media postings, warning labels, billboards, bulletin boards, public meetings, and public hearings.

      ^{Modern understandings of risk and risk communication differ greatly from the past. For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, ca. 3200 BCE, there lived in the Tigris‐Euphrates valley a group called the Asipu. One of their primary functions was to serve as risk, high concern, and crisis communication consultants. Members of the Asipu could be consulted about any high concern issue. Example issues included the cause of a disease outbreak, the need for a declaration of war, an alliance with another state, a change in the economic system, the selection of a leader, a proposed marriage, a suitable building site, a legal ruling, or the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal. The Asipu would identify the important dimensions of the problem, identify alternative actions, collect information on the issue and the likely outcomes of each alternative, and consult the best data. From their perspective, the best data were signs from the gods, which the priest‐like Asipu were especially qualified to interpret. The Asipu would then create a report with spaces empty for each alternative. A plus sign was added if the signs from the gods were favorable and a minus sign if unfavorable. The Asipu would communicate these results to their client, etched upon a clay tablet. The clay tablets of the Asipu appear to be among the first recorded instance of risk communication.}

One of the first formal definitions of risk communication in the health, safety, and environmental literature was offered by Covello, Slovic, and von Winterfeldt.⁷ According to these authors, risk communication is the act of conveying or transmitting information among parties about levels of health, safety, or environmental risks; the significance or meaning of data about health, safety, or environmental risks; and decisions, actions, or policies aimed at managing or controlling health, safety, or environmental risks. Interested parties include government, agencies, corporations, industry groups, unions, the media, scientists, engineers, technical professionals, professional organizations, public interest groups, and individuals.

      Covello, Slovic, and von Winterfeldt focused their definition of risk communication on the sharing and exchange of information about health, safety, and environmental topics. However, the authors noted their definition does not exclude the study of other risks, such as financial or legal risks. Nor does their definition exclude the study of secondary and tertiary effects triggered by the risk communication process, including psychological, social, economic, legal, and political repercussions.

In 1989, the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) offered one of the longest definitions of risk communication.⁸ According to the NAS/NRC, risk communication:

      is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions. It involves multiple messages about the nature of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, that express concerns, opinions, or reaction to risk messages or to legal or institutional arrangements for risk management.

Additionally, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defined risk communication as “the exchange of information and opinions concerning risk and risk‐related factors among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers and other interested parties.”⁹ The FAO definition, as does the NAS/NRC definition, highlights that risk communication is, ideally, an interactive, two‐way, multi‐dimensional exchange of information. Risk communication is therefore a process rather than a single product. It is a tool to help people make an informed decision about managing risks. The tool is effective because it creates trusting relationships, raises the level of understanding of relevant issues or actions for those interested or affected, and satisfies stakeholders that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge.

On its website, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines risk communication as “the process of informing people about potential hazards to their person, property, or community.”¹⁰ The EPA also cites the broader definition of risk communication offered by scholars in the field: “risk communication is a science‐based approach for communicating effectively in situations of high stress, high concern or controversy.”

      In 2019, the EPA identified risk communication as one of the top priorities of the agency. The EPA administrator said:

Risk communication goes to the heart of EPA’s mission of protecting public health and the environment. We must be able to speak with one voice and clearly explain to the American people the relevant environmental and health risks that they face, that their families face and that their children face.¹¹

      According to the EPA, the purpose of risk communication is to help people understand the processes of risk assessment and management, to form scientifically valid perceptions of the likely hazards, and to take part in deciding how risk should be managed. The EPA points

Скачать книгу