Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability

Abstract

Public communication about drought and water availability risks poses challenges to a potentially disinterested public. Water management professionals, though, have a responsibility to work with the public to engage in communication about water and environmental risks. Because limited research in water management examines organizational communication practices and perceptions, insights into research and practice can be gained through investigation of current applications of these risk communication efforts. Guided by the CAUSE model, which explains common goals in communicating risk information to the public (e.g., creating Confidence, generating Awareness, enhancing Understanding, gaining Satisfaction, and motivating Enactment), semistructured interviews of professionals (N = 25) employed by Texas groundwater conservation districts were conducted. The interviews examined how CAUSE model considerations factor in to communication about drought and water availability risks. These data suggest that many work to build constituents' confidence in their districts. Although audiences and constituents living in drought-prone areas were reported as being engaged with water availability risks and solutions, many district officials noted constituents' lack of perceived risk and engagement. Some managers also indicated that public understanding was a secondary concern of their primary responsibilities and that the public often seemed apathetic about technical details related to water conservation risks. Overall, results suggest complicated dynamics between officials and the public regarding information access and motivation. The article also outlines extensions of the CAUSE model and implications for improving public communication about drought and water availability risks.

Addressing grand challenges: perceptions of interdisciplinary research and how communication structures facilitate interdisciplinary research at US research-intensive universities

“…Less is known about how institutional communication structures and processes might facilitate or hinder interdisciplinary research. Some research indicates that while decentralized communication structures might empower employees to participate in and feel responsibility for an organization's communication efforts, the communication function may become deprioritized out of necessity if decentralization is not accompanied by centralized support, expertise, resources, or accountability (VanDyke and King, 2018). Recent studies have begun examining science communication at the institutional level in universities.…”

Expanding the discussion on internal management of risk communication: A critique of the current risk communication literature

“…in-house; consultant; training) should inform how risk communication structures fit in corporate governance and how risk communication is practiced to ensure it is prioritized, practiced with accountability, and able to be evaluated and adjusted in the event objectives are not met. This is particularly important to consider as some research suggests that decentralization of the risk communication function may not be the ideal practice in all situations (VanDyke and King, 2018; Zuidema and de Roo, 2015).…”

“…personnel and/or policies) in organizations because practical limitations often dictate the nature and frequency of an organization’s risk communication planning and programming. For example, VanDyke and King (2018) found that among Texas water district officials working in smaller offices (in some cases offices employed only one person), risk communication programming was decentralized by necessity (rather than a lack of desire) and was often not prioritized due to competing obligations. That is, the risk communication function was often decentralized, informal, and ad hoc, which may have hindered robust risk communication planning and risk manifestation mitigation.…”

“…Thus, the lack of an appropriate skillset and/or training in risk communication within an organization may also necessitate the need for centralized risk communication structures in organizations. VanDyke and King (2018) found that some water district employees whose responsibilities included risk communication did not have formal risk communication or public relations training. One reason for this may be that a background in science frequently has been viewed as the primary prerequisite for being a science communicator (Bucchi and Trench, 2014).…”

The effect of risk communication on the nurses' task and contextual performance in disease outbreak control in Ghana: Application of the cause model

“…Each of these steps, thus form the acronym. The model has been applied in emergency management context 35 ; physician‐patient communication 36 ; a drug manufacturer's medication recall, 37 and water risk context 38 . We, however, employ the model in a health worker context, by assessing the impact of its goals on the nurses.…”