Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice

Abstract

Effective communication between interested parties is widely held to be a vital element in health and environmental risk management decision making. There have been three phases in the evolution of risk communication during the last twenty years. Phase I emphasized risk: in a modern industrial economy, we must have the capacity to manage risks at a very exacting level of detail. Phase II stresses communication: statements about risk situations are best regarded as acts of persuasive communication, that is, as messages intended to persuade a listener of the correctness of a point of view. Now, in Phase III, public and private sector institutions increasingly are recognizing their responsibility to deal adequately with both dimensions and to carry out sound risk communication as a matter of good business practice.

Participación pública en la gestión de residuos radiactivos. El emplazamiento del ATC

“…Por un lado, los campos de la comunicación de riesgo, la comunicación de la ciencia y la tecnología y la comunicación de la salud, entre otros, han pasado de los planteamientos más tecnocráticos e instrumentales a otros más inclusivos, incorporando gradualmente el concepto de participación a sus corpus teóricos (Leiss, 1996;Fischhoff, 1995). Ya en 1987, Plough y Krimsky afirmaban que la definición amplia de comunicación de riesgo implicaba un diálogo interactivo y horizontal entre todas las partes interesadas.…”

Communicating uncertainty to policy makers

“…The challenge for communicators, given these observed biases, is to provide information that helps people compare the probabilities of different events, to avoid using emotionladen language that will trigger particular biases, and to help people use the information to calculate optimal strategies. The field of risk communication developed out of these efforts, and is based on the idea that the best way to assist decisionmakers coping with risk and uncertainty is to give them information in such a way as to correct their mistaken beliefs (Leiss, 1996). In order to do so, the communicator needs to understand how the decision-maker is using information to form beliefs, and become a partner with the decision-maker in working with the new information to arrive at actual decisions (Fischhoff, 1995).…”

Protecting Those Who Serve: Strategies to Protect the Health of Deployed U.S. Forces

“…The current guidance provided to commanders and military medical personnel is inadequate because it can result in incomplete and inaccurate descriptions of risk, and thus mismanagement of the risk and insufficient communication about the risk of concern. It does not reflect the most contemporary scientific principles of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication (Fischhoff, 1995;Leiss, 1996;NRC, 1996).…”