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 out the best risk communication occurs in contexts where the participants are informed, the process is fair, and the participants can solve whatever communication difficulties arise.
Ideally, risk communication is a two‐way exchange of information and conversation in which an organization informs, and is informed by, affected community members. When the exchange goes well, risk communication provides people with timely, accurate, and credible information. It becomes the starting point for creating a public that is appropriately concerned about the risks they face and that is more likely to engage in risk‐related behaviors. Effective risk communication creates a place for participation and dialog where people can engage in an interactive process that is thoughtful, solution‐oriented, cooperative, and collaborative.
As shown in Figure 2.1, there are three primary goals of risk communication: (1) build trust, (2) promote knowledge, and (3) encourage supportive relationships and constructive dialog.
Figure 2.1 Risk communication goals.
Building trust means building confidence and repairing trust if lost or damaged. It also includes building alliances and partnerships with those perceived to be trustworthy. Promoting knowledge means raising awareness and understanding of risks and dangers; promoting message consistency and transparency; and informing perceptions, attitudes, practices, beliefs, decisions, intentions, and behaviors. Encouraging supportive relationships and constructive dialogue means strengthening existing relationships, building new relationships, promoting participation and involvement by all interested parties, gaining consensus or agreement, promoting mutual aid, and enabling productive conversations. Lundgren and McMakin elaborate on these goals in their discussion of care and consensus risk communication.12
Of the three goals of risk communication, building trust is the most important. It is the first and most consequential step toward effective risk communication.
The functions of risk communication are multifold.13 First, it must communicate the probabilities and consequences of known risks to stakeholders. Second, it must communicate to stakeholders proposals and policies for preventing, avoiding, mitigating, reducing, and managing the risk. Third, it should seek consensus among stakeholders regarding a specific course of response and mitigation.
From a stakeholder perspective, Renn argues the ultimate purpose of risk communication is “to assist stakeholders and the public at large in understanding the rationale for a risk‐based decision, and to arrive at a balanced judgment that reflects the factual evidence about the matter at hand in relation to their own interests and values.”14 A key challenge in risk communication is establishing communication networks and channels where stakeholders can trust each other and work together.
Risk communication is not public or health education. Public and health education requires risk communication skills, but the two tasks are distinct activities. “Education” implies a “teacher/student” relationship, in which the expert transfers and shares knowledge. Risk communication is primarily more of a peer‐to‐peer, two‐way communication.
Risk communication also is not public relations. The typical focus of public relations is attempting to make people see issues the way the client or sponsor wants them seen. By comparison, the assumption of risk communication is that experts and nonexperts
