Effective Risk Communication: Hazards Posed by Ol Production or Operation - Assignment Example

DRAFT PLEASE REVIEW AWARENESS-RAISING PROJECT CRUDE CAN BE RUDE Mind Your Safety 1. Rationale In one article on the web about emergency crews training on potential crash threat, “Dubai faces an increasing risk of a disastrous fire because of the popularity of liquid petroleum gas”. Consequently, citizens are warned of a potential disaster if one of the trucks carrying this type of petroleum products overturned in urban areas. However, this potential disaster is considerably small compared to the disaster posed by oil refineries. For one thing, oil refineries produce a wide range of air and water emissions that can be hazardous to the environment. Some of these are contaminants in the original crude oil, while others are a result of refinery processes and operations. Refinery operations are complex systems and there are numerous dangers associated with inhalation, chemical exposures, fire and explosions. It is therefore necessary that people working in and around this area are aware of prevention and control procedures. 2. Aims and Objectives The awareness-raising campaign intends to inform and educate the population about the hazards posed by oil production or operation. It is also to promote disaster and safety consciousness. Through media, the campaign, hoped to reach its objective such as increased participation or collaborative action, effective information sharing and learning, and reduce the likelihood of disaster. 3. Target Audiences The most important targets of ‘CRUDE CAN BE RUDE’ are the people working and living near the installation. They are adult and children, workers, disabled or senior citizens living in their homes, and those who are frequently visiting the area for business or for other reasons. 4. Discussion of Need to Raise Awareness Institutions and public education programs are vital to reducing losses from disasters. Risk assessment is an essential component of any hazard or disaster management planning. Disaster forecasting and warning, and dissemination of this information play a pivotal role for saving lives, property, and crops. Accuracy is vital element of forecasting to maintain public confidence since inaccurate or partially accurate forecasting can cause more damage that reduction of losses (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, p.346). According to Spiteri (1997, p.6), disaster reduction can only be demonstrated by practical activities in organizations and communities where people, companies, and customer alike, are threatened by disaster risks. Therefore, specific programmes are needed to be identified and pursued. These include hazard and risk assessments, public education and awareness, transfer of existing knowledge and technology, use of information, early warning and communication systems, development and coordination of relationships among policy-makers, managers, and technical capacities, mobilization and sustained commitment of human and material resources. Reductions are normally focused specifically on all aspects of preventive action. These range from general awareness-raising for the need for disaster reduction and promotional activities at all levels, to improved research, scientific and technological institution building and networking, as well as to the development of improved methodologies for impact assessment, risk analysis, early warning and application of preventive measures. The constructivist approach in communication sciences reinforces the idea that the citizen creates his or her own information on environmental issues, thus also putting the meaning of large-scale campaigns into a certain perspective. Existing awareness-raising campaigns do not set people thinking or talking. Their value may be translated into agenda setting but novelty is an important aspect if this is to be achieved. However, many environmental messages are no longer novel, meaning that in the long-term citizen commitment cannot be guaranteed. Thus, in order to guarantee, citizens have to be approached in a different way, where they assume a more active role (Bartels and Nelissen 2002, p.34). There is a need for better risk perception and public awareness raising measures, couple with close community participation, to inform and enable citizens to be active and supportive partners in all risk management programmes (Thorne et. al. 2007, sp.484). 4.1 Risk Perception Risk has been a highly topical term for more a decade and it is related to technological developments, working conditions, residential settings, private activities, public health, environmental hazards, global ecological changes and so on. Talking about risks faces the immediate danger that everybody talks about something different. In fact, the understanding of the concept of ‘risk’ differs widely across sciences and scientist. There is no commonly accepted definition for the term ‘risk’ neither in the sciences nor in public understanding. However, most risk concepts have one element in common, the distinction between reality and possibility. If the distinction between reality and possibility is acknowledged, the term ‘risk’ is then associated with the possibility that an undesirable state of reality or adverse effects may occur as a result of natural events or human activities (Renn and Rohmann 2000, p.13). “Something is a risk, solely by virtue of it being perceivable” (Petersen and Wilkinson, p.62). According to this author, the durability of a risk perception is directly linked to its stabilization within networks of articulations. Although science often provides a powerful set of articulations, which can strengthens or undermine the durability of a risk, it does not have a monopoly of risk-definition. In other words, whereas the allocation of risk-subjects, that is as subjects of risk or subjects at risk, is ultimately a deeply political issue, the ability to maintain lasting risk-perceptions and risk-definitions rest on a range of other factors, many of which many not appear to be political at all. In risk management, the situation is complicated by the fact the legitimisation of ideas tends to be within the scientific discourse, because of the the boundaries between the tight scientific use and the more general use often become blurred. This is particularly true in the word ‘risk’, which can take on many meanings. The initial research into risk perception was done in the late 1970s and 1980s and this research posited that people judge ‘risk’ in terms of psychological dimensions other than probability and harm. In particular, perceived control, the extent to which a risk was perceived to be taken on a voluntary basis, dread, and catastrophic potential were found to be important psychological determinants of people’s responses to risk (Belton 2007, p.57). Normally the selected risk sources are to be judged by respondents according to a set of predefined characteristics. The core variables in risk perception research are the perceived magnitude of the risk and risk acceptance. However, in most studies, some variables include risk level aspects, qualitative features of hazards comprising a variety of factors, which increase or decrease the perceived riskiness and acceptability of hazard, benefit aspects, personal relation to the hazard, and acceptability aspects (Renn and Rohmann 2000, p.20). One important distinction that affects people’s reports of their subjective risk perception is whether the activities involved are voluntary or involuntary. According to Liberatore (1999, p.6), the public is willing to accept ‘voluntary’ risk roughly 1000 times greater than ‘involuntary’ risk. Many people feel they are in control, the average risk experience as estimated by experts is not relevant to them (Sloan et. al. 2003, p.95). According to risk perception and risk outrage theory, the concerns that people have and their perceptions of risks are often determined more by outrage and emotional factors than by the potential for actual, typically physical, harm or hazard. For instance, in America, fatalities of traffic accident is ten times more that those who died in the World Trade Centre in 2001 but the attacks elicited far more outrage (Frumkin 2005, p.990). The failure to perceive risk or recognize its magnitude removes the possibility of appropriate preventive action, and leads to imminent danger in the danger build-up phase and injury and or damage in the danger release phase. Problem solving and decision-making are influenced by cold cognition such as memory, learning and perception, and hot cognitions such as moods, emotions and motivations (Lingard and Rowlinson 2005, p.73). 4.2 Risk Communication It is generally accepted that one of the best ways of dealing with controversies is to find some forms of communication between people holding different views (Liberatore 1999, p.8). The very purpose of communication is not seen in the same manner by everyone as if it is assumed that experts know better than anybody else what the risks really are, risk communication will be regarded as a one-way process aimed at ‘enlightening’ the public. Risk communication is the presentation of information to a population in a community regarding that population’s level of risk in relation to a potentially harmful agent. During the risk communication, health and safety practitioners attempts to exchange information with community stakeholders regarding the nature, magnitude, significance, and control of a community risk. Risk communication is thus the effective exchange of information to community members in a low-trust but high concern context (Porche 2004, p.272). Risk can be defined broadly as a condition in which there is a possibility that people or property could experience adverse consequences. Some people, by virtue of their access to data or their specialized expertise in interpreting that data, have more information than others do about the risk of a particular hazard and about ways in which that risk can be managed. The decision-makers to whom the analysis communicate this information can either the population at risk or hazard managers who are responsible for protecting the population at risk. In either case, the principal reason for risk communication is to initiate and direct protective action (Lindell and Perry 2002, p.1). A risk communication effort that addresses the imminent threat of an extreme event is referred to as a ‘warning’ whereas one that addresses the potential for such events to occur is often know as a’ hazard awareness program’. Risk communication programs about the long-term threat of natural or human activity hazards generally sought to increase public concern, but risk communication programs about long-term threat of technological hazards have more frequently sought to decrease public concern. Research on technological risk perception has sought to explain why some hazards elicit more concern that others, and it appears that the difference in response is due or at least in part to such hazard characteristics as the voluntariness and controllability of hazard exposure and the degree of dread about its consequences. One important function of risk communication is explicitly or implicitly to promote appropriate protective behaviour by those to whom the information is directed. One can view this as adjusting to long-term threats by modifying the hazards, modifying the hazard’s impact by preventing specific effects, moving to another location, changing the land use to reduce hazard vulnerability, sharing the loss, or bearing the loss. Alternatively, one can view this as responding to an imminent threat by, for instance, evacuating, sheltering in-place, expedient respiratory protection, or food interdiction (Lindel and Perry 2002, p.4). The purpose of risk communication changes according to the nature of the issue. In some cases, its purpose is to inform and to disseminate information about risk. In other cases, its purpose is to involve people in a two-way communication process designed to build consensus. Whatever the issue, the overarching goals of risk communication are knowledge and understanding, trust and credibility, and cooperation and constructive dialogue. Effective risk communication provides the public with timely, accurate, clear, objective, consistent, and complete information about risk. It creates an informed population that is involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented, cooperative, collaborative, and appropriately concerned about the risk involved, and takes suitable actions and engages in appropriate behaviour (Frumkin 2005, p.989). The elements that make up risk communication are the message, messenger, audience, and context. The message is one of uncertainty or risk. The medium and format of the message must be given careful consideration. The messenger must be a trusted individual in the community. The culture, language, and education level of the audience must be considered in planning the risk communication intervention. The context of the situation must be assessed during the planning of the risk communication message, to the point of delivering the information. The assessment, at a minimum, must include an examination of the amount of the community’s anger or outrage or the outrage factor, the employment situation in the community, the socioeconomic status of the community, and any history or previous relationship of public health professional with the community or trust factor. The lack of communication or incorrect communication could lead to wrongful perception of another’s motives or actions. Emotions are fuelled by interactions, situational circumstance, and previous experiences. Incongruence between emotions can cause conflict to develop. Escalation of emotions can fuel a conflict that is in progress or create the perseverance to resolve the conflict (Porche 2004, p.274). Communicating with citizens about risk can increase their desire to participate in or otherwise influence decisions about the control of those risks, thereby making risk management more convenient. 4.3 Public Information Sources Most studies on risk management conclude the need for improved risk communication by government agencies. However, some participants believed that risk communication problems arise primarily from the information sources, for instance, limitations of risk communicators and risk experts, while others believed that risk communication problems arise primarily from message design, the delivery channel or the media, and target audiences or the intended recipients of risk communications (Covello 2004, p.4). The problems encountered by the sources and recipients of risk messages centre on establishing and recognizing credibility, making the messages understandable, preparing messages in an emergency, capturing and focusing attention, and getting information. Lack of credibility alters the communication process by adding distrust and acrimony. The most important factors affecting the credibility of a source and its messages relate to the accuracy of the messages and the legitimacy of the process by which the contents were determined, as perceived by the recipients. Recipient’s views about the accuracy of the messages are adversely affected by first, real or perceived advocacy by the source of a position in the message that is not consistent with a careful assessment of the facts. Second, a reputation for deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion on the part of the source. Third, previous statements or positions taken by the source that do not support the current message. Fourth, self-serving framing of information in the message. Fifth, contradictory messages from other credible sources, and actual or perceived professional incompetence or impropriety on the part of the source (National Research Council 1989. p.7). 4.4 Marketing Strategies In some cases, communities understanding of the links between risk and disaster are limited, and awareness-raising efforts can help generate demand for vigilance and risk consciousness. In many other instances, however, people have simply pursued other investments in a rational priority-setting process. Awareness campaigns may need to take greater advantage of modern marketing strategies, focusing on basic human emotions, such as pride, shame, and competition to make real progress in risk awareness campaigns (Lenton et. al. 2005, p.60). An awareness-raising campaign should focus on educating the public about the problems caused by disasters and inform them of the management options available for solving or preventing the problems. Social marketing can provide the tools to approach the problem with well-tested techniques to influence human behaviour. Social marketing is a systematic approach to motivate the specific people or stakeholders to take some specific, measurable action or actions for the good of the community. It is analogous to commercial marketing, where the objective is to get a targeted set of consumers to buy a specific product. Public awareness or education is the work of making people aware of a certain set of facts, ideas, or issues. Social marketing often utilizes public awareness or education campaigns to inform key audiences and predispose them to appropriate action, but takes this process further to get people to act on their new awareness. The success of any social marketing effort depends largely on the quality of its initial assessment, partnership, marketing strategy, research, marketing plan, monitoring and evaluation, and review of the process (Wittenberg and Cock 2001, p.15). 5. How to get the message across People’s perception may be categorical and based on their interpretations of the world, experiences, and beliefs. Everybody is engaged with risk perception most of the time, whether driving a car or thinking about health care or deciding financial matters. Perceptions of a particular hazard are strongly influenced by how disastrous a negative consequence would be and how commonplace exposure to risk is. For instance, an asteroid destroying life on earth would be a catastrophe but is so outside people’s everyday experience that it is very difficult for them to hold any objective judgement on it. Early studies of risk perception demonstrated that the public’s concern could not simply be blamed on ignorance or irrationality but attributed to uncertainty in risk assessments, perceived inequity in the distribution of risks and benefits and aversion to being exposed to risks that were involuntary, not under one’s control or dreaded (Hillier 2006, p.38). One of the most effective methods in achieving campaign goals or getting the message across was the use of media. According to a research conducted in Poland in 2001, the social reception or visibility of the media messages was high. The television commercial was seen by 66 percent of the population, one third or 33 percent noticed the billboard and 20 percent saw the poster displayed at bus and tram stops (Sajkowska 2004, p.17). Successfully getting the message across depends on the ability of the target audience. Awareness-raising approach to children, senior citizens, disabled, and untaught individual varies considerably. For instance, a message in a leaflet is of no use to a person who cannot read or blind. A child cannot possibly understand a message written using scientific terms or too complex slogan. An older person may not hear or see messages from radio, television, or poster due to partial disabilities. For this reason, the proposed awareness campaign would use three different forms of medium- web pages, poster, leaflets, and DVDs. The poster and DVD can carry messages for both adult and children- see APPENDIX A. The leaflets and web pages containing basic prevention and control messages are intended for the reading public and those with internet skills- see APPENDIX B. The DVD that contains audio and visual messages can provide awareness-raising materials for the partially disabled, illiterate members of the community and senior citizens. 6. Bibliography Bartels Gerard and Nelissen Wil. 2002. Marketing for Sustainability: Towards Transactional Policy-making. IOS Press, Netherlands Belton P. S. 2003. Food, Science, and Society: Exploring the Gap Between Expert Advice and Individual Behaviour. Springer, Germany Covello Vincent T. 2004. Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Springer, US Frumkin Howard. 2005. Environmental Health: From Global to Local. John Wiley and Sons, US Hillier Dawn. 2006. Communicating Health Risks to the Public: A Global Perspective Gower Publishing, Ltd., UK Lenton R. L., Wright Albert M., Lewis Kirsten. 2005. Health, Dignity and Development: What Will It Take?. Earthscan, UK Liberatore Angela. 1999. The Management of Uncertainty: Learning from Chernobyl. Routledge, Netherlands Lindell Michael K. and Perry Ronald W. 2003. Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. SAGE, US Lingard Helen and Rowlinson Stephen M. 2005. Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management. Taylor & Francis, UK Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Island Press, US National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. National Academies Press, 1989, US Petersen Alan R. and Wilkinson Iain. 2007. Health, Risk and Vulnerability: Health, Risk, and Insecurity. Routledge, UK Porche Demetrius James. 2004. Public & Community Health Nursing Practice: A Population-based Approach. SAGE, US Renn Ortwin and Rohrmann Bernd. 2000. Cross-cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Springer, Netherlands Sajkowska Monika. 2004. Protecting Children Against Corporal Punishment: Awareness-raising Campaigns. Council of Europe, France Spiteri Anna. 1997. Remote Sensing '96: Integrated Applications for Risk Assessment and Disaster Prevention for the Mediterranean : Proceedings of the 16th EARSel Symposium, Malta, 20-23 May 1996. Taylor & Francis, Netherlands Sloan Frank A., Smith Vincent Kerry, Taylor Donald H. 2003. The Smoking Puzzle: Information, Risk Perception, and Choice. Harvard University Press, US Thorne C., Evans Edward P., Penning-Rowsell Edmund C. 2007. Future Flooding and Coastal Erosion Risks. Thomas Telford, UK Wittenberg Rüdiger, Cock Matthew J. W. 2001. Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. CABI, UK 7. Appendix A. Poster and DVD B. Leaflet and Banner Read More