Transcript What is risk perception?

”Enhance Health” - European Union project
Risk communication strategy
National Institute of Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland
What is risk communication?
Risk communication is defined by
exchange or sharing of information
about risk
between
risk manager and interested parties.
Definition 2
Risk communication is a necessary tool in
order to have a correct and successful
management process
and a good decision taking process.
Decision making process concerning
construction or extension of the controversial
from ecological point of view plant
requires engagement of different participants
including politicians, society and NGO’s
especially ecological organizations.
Incineration Plant
Decision making process
POLITICIANS
PROBLEM
DECISION
qu
ts
jec
doubts
EXPERTS
answers
s
on
ini
pro
est
io
op
an
ns
aly
(ri
sk sis re
ass
s
ess ults
me
nt)
AUTHORITIES
PUBLIC OPINION
NGOs
Graphic: A. Poznańska
What is risk perception?
Risk perception is owns opinion of the
likelihood of risk (the probability of
facing harm) associated with
performing a certain activity or
choosing a certain life style.
Risk is a normal part of everyone's daily
life
Environmental
Risk assessment
Public
Risk perception
Politicians
Risk communication
Scientists
Public
Managers
What is public participation?
Until now administration used to defined what is
good or bad for the community to prevent the
people from harm.
Nowadays it is necessary to go some steps foreword:
to inform in time about planned changes and to listen to the
wishes and needs of the people directly, that means a
private-official-political-economic partnership.
The aim is to improve the quality and acceptance of
decisions.
People have rights and opinions; they have fears and
expectations,
Mediation systems have shown that in most cases there can be
found a way, or even several ways, to bring these objectives
together.
Public involvement is the basics for sustainability!
Risk Communication*/
There are no easy prescriptions for effective
risk communication. There are no magic
bullets, no “cookbook” approaches. However,
those who have studied and debated risk
generally agree on seven cardinal rules
(see Covello and Allen, 1988).
*/ by Vincent T. Covello, Peter M. Sandman, and Paul Slovic (EPA adopted)
Rule 1.
Accept and Involve the Public as a
Legitimate Partner.
First, people and communities have a
right to participate in decisions that
affect their lives, their property, and the
things they value.
Rule 2.
Plan Carefully and Evaluate Performance.
Different goals, audiences and media require
different risk communication strategies.
Risk communication will be successful only if
carefully planned.
Rule 3.
Listen to Your Audience.
If you do not listen to people, you cannot
expect them to listen to you. Communication
is a two-way activity.
Rule 4.
Be Honest, Frank and Open.
In communicating risk information, trust and
credibility are your most precious assets. Trust
and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once lost
they are almost impossible to regain.
Rule 5
Coordinate and Collaborate with Other
Credible Sources.
Allies can help you to communicate risk
information effectively. Few things make risk
communication more difficult than conflicts
or public disagreements with other credible
sources.
Rule 6
Meet the Needs of the Media
The news media are prime transmitters of
information on risk; they play a critical role
in setting agendas and in determining
outcomes
Rule 7
Speak clearly and with compassion.
Technical language and jargon are useful as
professional shorthand. But they are barriers to
successful communication with the public.
Benefits:
•
•
•
•
for the citizens:
for politicians:
for officials:
for industrial
management:
• for interest groups:
• for all:
• possibility to give inputs and
considerations.
• knowledge about the needs and
interests of the citizens,
• Fewer complaints and increasing
trust in the governmental inst.
• Avoid delays in project realization
• increase the trust in the institution.
• strengthening of the democratic
competence of the citizens
Limits:
•
•
•
•
•
•
If the members do not participate voluntaryly
do not trust in this instrument
not supported by the decision makers
decisions are already done
if there are legal borders
wrong target groups are invited (e.g. highly
educated people which are not directly affected
instead of fringe groups directly affected)