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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. This is the year of the earliest uses of the phrase “risk communication,” according to the references listed in Bernd Rohrmann, Peter M. Wiedemann, and Helmut U. Stegelmann, eds., Risk Communication: An Interdisciplinary Bibliography, 4th ed. (Jülich, Germany: Research Center Jülich GmbH, 1990), pp. 26, 56, 111.
2.
2. William Leiss, “On the Vitality of Our Discipline: New Applications of Communications Theory,”Canadian Journal of Communication, 16:291-305 (1991).
3.
William D. Rowe , An Anatomy of Risk (New York: John Wiley, 1977). Any such separation of a dynamic process into phases and dates is somewhat arbitrary; the activities in each phase overlap.
4.
4. The seminal work is Vincent T. Covello, Detlof von Winterfeldt, and Paul Slovic, Risk Communication: Background Report for the National Conference on Risk Communication (Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation, 1986).
5.
5. Baruch Fischhoff, “Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process,”Risk Analysis, 15:137-145 (1995).
6.
6. See, for example, Ernest Siddall and Carl R. Bennett, “A People-Centered Concept of Society-Wide Risk Management,” in Environmental Health Risks: Assessment and Management, ed. R. Stephen McColl (Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo Press, 1987), p. 272.
7.
7. A good summary of the errors in judgment to which experts are prone is National Research Council, Improving Risk Communication (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989), pp. 44-47.
8.
8. Another way of putting this point is to say that “risk is a construct,” that is, an understanding of a risk-type situation that is related to the situation of each participant. See Bayerische Rück, ed., Risk Is a Construct (Munich: Knesebeck, 1993). This transition represents a complete change of emphasis within the components of the phrase “risk communication”: in Phase I, the emphasis is on the adjective; in Phase II, on the noun.
9.
9. Paul Slovic and Donald J. MacGregor, “The Social Context of Risk Communication” (Paper, Decision Research, Eugene, OR, 5 May 1994), p. 17.
10.
10. In this period, institutional risk managers (government and industry) were often told that up to 75 percent of message content—as received by audiences—was based on the nonverbal dimensions of the message delivery format itself: body posture, hand gestures, style of dress, facial expression, and so forth.
11.
11. See William Leiss, “ `Down and Dirty': The Use and Abuse of Public Trust in Risk Communication,”Risk Analysis15:685-692 (1995).
12.
12. The best guide is Slovic and MacGregor, “Social Context of Risk Communication.”
13.
13. The only published case study of this type of which I am aware is Caron Chesset al., “The Organizational Links Between Risk Communication and Risk Management: The Case of Sybron Chemicals, Inc.,”Risk Analysis, 12:431-438 (1992).
14.
14. John Hicks and Stephen McColl, “Final Report: Exposure Assessment of Airborne Dioxins and Furans Emitted from the EDC/VCM Facility at the Dow Chemical Canada Fort Saskatchewan Site” (Report, Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo, ON, 31 Mar. 1995).
15.
15. The actual percentages depend on which section of the Institute for Risk Research report is being referred to.
16.
16. Ertugrul Alpet al., “CanadianOxy North Vancouver Plant: Quantitative Assessment of Safety Risks” (Report, Bovar-Concord Environmental, Downsview, Ontario, Aug. 1994). CanadianOxy changed its name to CXY Chemicals in 1995.
17.
17. MIACC criteria suggest a buffer zone around a risk source and various types of restricted land uses up to the point where the annual fatality risk is no greater than one in a million.
18.
18. Cf. Wil Leplowski, “Chemical Companies Make Public Worst Case Accident Scenarios,”Chemical & Engineering News, 20 June 1994, pp. 22-26.
19.
19. Grant Ledgerwoodet al., Implementing an Environmental Audit: How to Gain Competitive Advantage Using Quality and Environmental Responsibility (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1994).
