Communicating Risk
Risk communication involves assessing and controlling risks and making decisions based on risk information with public and stakeholders. It is no longer just one-way messages but a shared responsibility in decision-making. There are different goals for risk communication, such as changing behavior, solving problems, or informing individuals to make their own decisions. Functional types of risk communication include care communication and consensus communication, which help inform, advise, and work together to manage risks.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Communicating Risk Information with Stakeholders Much technical information is about assessing and controlling risks. Public and other stakeholders are part of process of making decisions based on risk information.
What risk communication is not: It is no longer one-way messages from experts to non-experts
What drives the rethinking of risk communication? . . . decision-making responsibility involving risk issues must be shared with the American people. William Ruckelhaus, 1986 . . . we must ensure that [citizens have] a fuller understanding of the inevitable tradeoffs . . . in the management of risk. Lee M. Thomas, 1986
There are differing goals for risk communication. Some seeks to change people s behavior e.g., procrastinating job , don t put usb flashdisk without scanning in testing pc, give mark on programming Some seeks to solve a problem in most acceptable way e.g., do it according SOP, reuse best practice from COBIT Some seeks to inform, so that people can make up their own mind. Job description remaining, dead line remaining
Functional Types of Risk Communication Lundgren and McMakin, 1998
Care communication seeks to inform and advise. Inform Service Level Agreement and Fault Tolerance Inform workers about potential workplace risks
Consensus communicationhelps groups work together to decide how to manage risk. Stakeholder participation Job Description The most updated of the types leads to a social-constructionist approach.
Craig Waddell, TCQ, 1995
Risk decisions must include values of all stakeholders Risk = Hazard + Magnitude Won t work for public decision-making. Peter Sandman s new formula: Risk = Hazard + Outrage My formula: Risk = Hazard + Values/Emotions
Crisis communication includes both during and after the emergency. Seeks mitigation procedure Even in this type, communicator must understand the audience. Modes of message delivery become very important.
All Risk Communication . . . is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions -- National Research Council, 1989 must include social and cultural values, as well as the technical risk data.
Big problem #1: Stakeholders all speak different languages Engineers speak technical language: How many procedure to be involved in programming. Regulators speak the language of standards- translation: E-government need cross check procedure with proper updateable rate The public speaks the language of personal/social concern: Is the site are secure for procurement process
Some Typical Stakeholders Government federal, state, municipal regulators Scientists/engineers and subject-matter experts (Programming, CIO, Hardware Engineer) Environmental or worker-safety groups Geographical neighbors Community and civic organizations Educational organizations Business and professional associations
Big problem #2: Risk is inherently subjective (qualitative) The risk estimates of experts are based on theoretical models, whose structure is subjective and assumption-laden and whose inputs are dependent on judgment. Risk assessments depend on judgments at every stage of the process, from the initial structuring of a risk problem to deciding which endpoints or consequences to include in the analysis. Paul Slovic 1999
Everyone (even scientists) makes errors in judgment. Inappropriate reliance on limited data Tendency to impose order on random events Tendency to fit ambiguous evidence into predispositions Overconfidence in the reliability of scientific analyses Nat l Research Council, 1989
#3: The risks that frighten people aren t the same ones that kill them. Dichotomy between expert and public rankings of risk. public has until recently ranked hazardous waste as #1 threat. experts rank smoking and diet as #1. Public are like good display in mobile game Expert rank artificial intelligent as rank #1 in mobile game Producer want in app payment more in mobile game
People are more likely to accept risks they perceive as controllable and voluntary. driving a car (controllable) vs. flying in a plane smoking cigarettes (voluntary) vs. possibly breathing radon from landfill
People are more likely to accept risks they perceive as controllable and voluntary. vs. do it database model Do it database programming (controllable) \ working cross jobdescription (voluntary) Vs Working over job description
#4: Risks are difficult to compare across the board. Risk comparisons help people understand quantitative info., but they may cause resentment if seen as suggesting that something should be an acceptable risk. Be careful not to compare apples and oranges: voluntary vs. involuntary risks different consequences of a hazard quantitative vs. qualitative risks Compare risks of same hazard at different times or risks of different options for achieving same purpose.
And then there are all these barriers to successful risk communication: Non-technical stakeholder: Difficulty of understanding uncertainty Difficulty of understanding complex information (physical, chemical, biological mechanisms) Difficulty communicating social and other values Little training in quantitative methods and information Disagreement about terms Engineers and Scientists: Difficulty of handling uncertainty Failure to consider qualitative factors Failure to elicit information on social and cultural values Difficulty of communicating quantitative info. to public Disagreement about terms Many others . . .
To say nothing of these barriers . . . Fragmentation of risk-control decisions: federal, state, local governments Liability -- legal constraints Difficulty in determining acceptable risk, for everyone Lack of trust/credibility (lack of empowerment)
Framing risk options neutrally is a real challenge. Problem: Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual foreign disease that is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Science, January 1981
Frame #1 If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs is best?
Frame #2 If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die. If Program D is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. Which program is best?
So, the research question for me became: If language influences risk perception, which words/terms (common to environmental-risk situations) are perceived as negative or confusing?
Findings These words had positive connotations: expert qualified independent objective unbiased third-party
Survey Findings on Perception of Risks Those in the 40-59 age group are less comfortable with taking risks (both environmental and non) than those over 60. Men are less comfortable than women with taking risks (both environmental and non). Home owners are less comfortable with non- environmental risk than those who rent.
Pre-test risk messages with a focus group. Groups of 6-12 stakeholders. Get representative sample, e.g., local government officials business folks professionals retired folks homemakers Moderator keeps things on track Ask for immediate responses to messages.
Findings on graphical presentation: Graphics MUST be pre-tested on sample audiences. Label every object. Provide explanatory text (where possible), even if only as a caption. Water Table We need more research to develop a grammar of visual design.
Risk-Information Design Graphical presentation can be most effective with these caveats: Order-of-magnitude changes should be shown concretely. Comparison of relative risks requires consideration of audience. Y-axis should start with zero (or indicate change in scale). Use relative rather than absolute terms to express risk numbers (e.g., use ranges).
Findings on Communication and Credibility Overwhelmingly, people want to be informed through face-to-face meetings. Second choice is written materials.
Findings (con.) Many individuals want to see some black-and- white backup to what is communicated in other ways -- they may not read the technical reports, but they want to know where to find them. Brochures are fine, but people also want to see evidence of a scientifically produced study. We need more readable technical reports for ALL stakeholders. Narratives are successful.
