issues and that these different perspectives need to be heard, acknowledged, and respected.
At the heart of risk communication are efforts to understand and appreciate the perceptions and worldviews of others. If people perceive that their stress, concerns, worries, and fears are not being heard, acknowledged, respected, and addressed, they may lose trust in experts and risk management authorities. An effective response to these concerns is to engage in dialog, listen to concerns, and have a transparent discussion of what the scientific data about the risk show, including uncertainties. A key concept of risk communication is that the overall risk management process is seen differently from those who live with the risk than those who generate or manage the risk.
2.4 Risk Communication and Its Relationship to Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is a set of scientific methods for identifying risks, evaluating the likelihood and consequences of the risks occurring, and deciding how best to prevent, avoid, mitigate, reduce, manage, and communicate the risk.15 Modern, formal risk analysis has four components: hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication.16 The first component, hazard identification, comprises methods for identifying hazards and the conditions and events under which they potentially produce adverse consequences. The second component, risk assessment, comprises methods for organizing and evaluating information about the nature, strength of evidence, likelihood, and magnitude of adverse outcomes. The third component, risk management, comprises methods for analyzing, selecting, implementing, and evaluating actions to reduce risk. The fourth component, risk communication, comprises methods for communicating results from hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk management. As shown in Figure 2.2, risk communication interacts with all components of a risk analysis.
Figure 2.2 Components of risk analysis.
Formal quantitative risk analysis methods have been applied to a wide variety of issues. For example, health, safety, and environmental researchers have applied risk analysis principles, strategies, approaches, and methods to:
1 Cancer risks: Cancer risks resulting from exposures to chemicals, heavy metals, and other substances proven or suspected to be human carcinogens.
2 Noncancer health risks: Noncancer risks resulting from exposures to toxic substances in the environment that can cause adverse health effects on the heart, kidneys, liver, brain, and reproductive system.
3 Ecological risks: Ecological risks to natural ecosystems resulting from both habitat modification and environmental pollution.
4 Natural hazard risks: Natural hazard risks resulting from extreme events that originate in the natural environment, including (1) meteorological hazards, such as severe storms, heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, climate change, and wildfires; (2) hydrological hazards, such as floods, storm surges, and tsunamis; (3) geophysical hazards, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and landslides; and (4) biological hazards, such as epidemics, disease outbreaks, insect infestations, animal attacks, and food contamination incidents.
5 Technological risks. Technological risks resulting from events that originate in human‐controlled processes, including industrial accidents, transport accidents, dam collapses, mining accidents, and other types of technology‐based accidents or incidents (e.g., accidents resulting in the release of toxic, flammable, explosive, radiological, or nuclear materials).
6 Human conflict risks. Human conflict risks resulting from events such as terrorist bombing, active shooter incident, mass shooting incident, and cyberattack.
The line between these types of risks is often blurred. One example is Hurricane Katrina, which struck three US states – Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Problems caused by the natural hazard were increased by technological failures (e.g., by the failure of the levees and flood control systems); by the lack of coordination and conflict between public and private sector organizations at the federal, regional, state, and local level; and by huge operational and communication failures during the pre‐crisis, crisis, and post‐crisis phases of the disaster.17
2.5 Defining the Concepts and Terms High Concern and High Concern Communication
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word concern means “an interest or stake in something; a matter with which a person is occupied.” The word comes from Latin, Anglo‐Norman, Middle French, and French words meaning to relate, regard, or consider. For this book, a high concern issue is a problem of great interest. The problem becomes more intense when it has high consequences (stakes), occurs repeatedly (frequency), has lasted for a significant amount of time (duration), affects many people (scope or range), disrupts personal or community life (disruptive), deprives people of their perceived legal or moral rights (equity), and has negative effects perceived to be serious enough to require attention (severity).
High concern issues can vary from individual to individual, group to group, and place to place. They may also change over time because of factors, including history and sociodemographic conditions. Understanding these factors is needed to ensure that communication strategies, messages, materials, and activities are appropriately designed and implemented.
Levels of concern about an issue can be determined through a variety of means, including surveys and interviews with stakeholders. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an agency within the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommends the following questions to determine levels of community concern about exposure to a toxic chemical.18
Is exposure to the chemical involuntary, as opposed to voluntary (e.g., an accidental chemical spill vs. a workplace exposure)?
Is exposure to the chemical perceived to be controlled by others, as opposed to under an individual’s control (e.g., in the water supply for a town vs. a place that can be easily avoided)?
Is the exposure perceived to be unfairly distributed (e.g., affecting a certain part of town or a certain population vs. the entire town equally or randomly)?
Is the exposure human‐made and/or deliberate (e.g., the act of terrorism or vandalism)?
Does the exposure have dramatic, long‐lasting effects on the community (e.g., people can no longer live in a certain neighborhood or property was destroyed vs. something that can be cleaned up)?
Is the source of exposure perceived to be an untrusted source (e.g., an industrial plant with a history of problems)?
Does the exposure appear to affect children more than adults?
Have there been deaths or serious illnesses that are perceived to be directly caused because of the chemical exposure or are deaths or serious illnesses expected?
Does the media and/or the public perceive the event as the “first,” “worst,” or “biggest” of its type?
Does
