Transcript Communicating Risk Information to Stakeholders

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


Some seeks to solve a problem in most
acceptable way


e.g., procrastinating job , don’t put usb flashdisk
without scanning in testing pc, give mark on
programming
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 communication helps 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 standardstranslation:
“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.
Do it database
programming
(controllable) \
working cross
jobdescription (voluntary)
vs. do it database
model
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:
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 . . .
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
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 nonenvironmental 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-andwhite 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.