Characterization and Analysis of Risks - Risk Communication - Case Study Example

Characterization and Analysis of Risks – Risk Communication Risk assessment is integral to any framework which does govern the overall security of anorganization and inherent underlying activity. Within the paradigm of risk perception and terrorism (Clinton, 2006), risk assessment seeks to identify the though process and the activity that will damage normal operations. Risk assessment is important for a number of reasons. Primarily however, risk assessment enables the identification of areas to which breaches activity potentially exists.

Another example of a risk assessment though pertaining to regulatory law (JCAHO) within a military acute care facility are hospital compliance, and safety programs to which protocols established by the hospital are identified by a risk assessment to reveal where the facility is lacking in compliance. Given the example, risks are classified by either a set of known criteria as established via benchmark, or a set of unknowns, labeled as ‘threats’ to which one of any number of risk activity exists that must be planned for and mitigated.

The view on quantitative risk assessment from Hertz-Picciotto et al (1995) identifies the qualitative approach as a means to derive the qualitative information, which is a function of the quantitative data that identifies the specific ordinal data for classification purposes. “Quantitative risk assessment provides formalized scientific input to regulatory agencies that set occupational and environmental standards for potentially toxic exposures.” (Herz-Picciotto et al, 1995) The consultancy issue with regard a strategy to change the public perception and acceptance of a new weapons support facility near a mid-sized city initially involves addressing the “misinformation”.

Primarily, the strategy will focus on two important areas, lack of WMD’s and a lack of traffic and congestion. To appease the public of concern, the strategy must address the most compelling areas of argument to which the public has the misconception. Additionally, the benefits of a weapons support facility were not addressed to the public and therefore there is no positive information expressing to the public from the military regarding the facility. The key factors presented include the psychological framework that outlines risk within the parameters of Homeland Security (Jenkin, 2006).

These include, risk perception and political attitudes, risk perception and behaviors, risk amplification and attenuation, risk perception and communication, situational factors, personal factors, psychometric paradigm, and the dimensions and factors of risk (Jenkin, 2006). The key factors collectively provide a comprehensive risk analysis that demonstrates the proper level necessary in addressing the scope of risk assessment. Risk perception and political attitudes address risk in the sense that perception of danger spurs public reaction regarding safety.

Therefore, political intervention is a function of public perception surrounding a perceived threat, whether one actually exists or not, is rendered irrelevant. The aforementioned perception therefore influences individual behavior to which planning activity can be planned via the study of behavior. Risk amplification and attenuation addresses the level of individual behavioral response within a given environment based on the perception regarding the level of personal safety. Risk communication win the risk assessment process is important due to the critical nature of information within the overall framework of the risk identification and assessment process.

Communication is the link between agents of risk management and the information necessary to mitigate and respond accordingly. ReferencesHertz-Picciotto, I., Wartenberg, D., & Simon, R. (1995). Epidemiology and quantitative risk assessment: A bridge from science to policy. American Journal of Public Health, 85(4), 484-484-91. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215110827?accountid=13044Jenkin, Clinton M. “Risk Perception and Terrorism: Applying the Psychometric Paradigm.” Homeland Security Affairs II, no.

2 (July 2006) http://www.hsaj.org/?article=2.2.6)