Risk Communication Issues - Essay Example

23 October 2008 Risk: An Annotated Bibliography Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff. B, Bostrom, A., Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press. Morgan et al. broadly touches on the context of risk and the different kinds of risk and also about the goals of risk communication. Their mental models approach describes the need for a systematic approach using influence diagrams, questionnaires, interviews, etc. The book also gives information on development and evaluation of communications. The book treats the topic of risk communication generally and does not make distinctions for risks of varying natures, like environmental hazards and risks related to technology. The approach is described in non-technical terms for risk communicators to help them serve the public in making informed decisions. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15 (2). Retrieved October 19, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ppo/fischoff.pdf The author follows the evolution of the research on risk communication over the years, the mistakes made and the lessons learnt. This essay provides a brief history of risk communication organized around certain developmental stages, with each stage characterized by a focal communication strategy. The essay, however, has not provided comprehensive illustrations or examples. Communication is like an insurance policy in that it is a fixed cost that can keep a larger damage at bay. Powell, D. A. & Leiss, W. (1997). Mad cows and mother's milk: The perils of poor risk communication. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP. Receiving relevant information on environment and health risks and on the safety of modern technologies is a very important need of modern man, but he seldom receives it. The authors, making use of case studies, give an overview of the critical role of risk management in dealing with public controversies and an insight into the risk communication practices and malpractices. The book leaves scope for the concerned authorities to devise ways to check the malpractices and inadequacies in risk communication. The failure of institutions in adequately communicating about risks result in inadequate management of risks leading to heavy financial loss. Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 17(1). Retreived October 20, 2008, from http://www.centerforriskcommunication.org/pubs/crc-p2.pdf The study examines a very important and subtle aspect of risk communication, which is trust and credibility. An important hypothesis tested in this study regarding perceptions and determinants of trust and credibility is that they are dependent on three factors, namely perceptions of knowledge and expertise, perceptions of openness and honesty, and perceptions of concern and care. The responses to surveys are mostly in the predictable lines in that they mostly reflect general perceptions. A significant finding is that defying a negative stereotype leads to improved perceptions of trust and credibility. O'Connor, A.M., Legare, F., & Stacey, D. (2003). Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. BMJ 327(7417) 736-740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.736. The authors examine the effectiveness of the communication of risks, benefits and options by clinicians in helping patients make an informed decision regarding their healthcare. Different decisions require different strategies for communication. Effective services are those in which benefits/harm ratio is large, and those in which the ratios are uncertain are preference sensitive services. The article does not explain how to equip the support service system to handle the diverse plans of diverse patients. The goal of decision-making is to choose options that are most beneficial and the least harmful. Decision support should take into account a patient's personal values, resources and determination. Croyle, R.T. & Lerman, C. (1999). Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. JNCI Monographs 1999(25). Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://jncimono.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1999/25/59 The paper reviews risk communication and risk perception as important aspects of genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility. Three important aspects of risk communication are examined, namely communication of individual risk, communication of natural risks of genetic testing and family communications regarding risk. Majority of the information available has been derived from studies of attitudes and intentions to be tested and not from studies of actual participants in testing programs. A critical need in this area of research is to evolve and apply new theoretical models and to conduct new theoretically guided experiments for more insight into risk perception and communication. Sjoberg, L (1999). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review 6(2). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her62/62sjoberg.pdf The author examines the gap between risk assessment by the experts and that by the public, especially environmental risks like the ones posed by nuclear power, toxic waste, etc. The author classifies experts as two types - protectors and promoters. Protectors are those who warn people against risks and promoters are those who try to convince people that risks are worth taking. It is difficult to gauge how far people's bias and everyday knowledge that is most likely unscientific will influence their assessment of issues. The author offers the solution of creating the office of an ombudsman for tackling specific issues. Jones, R. N. (2001). An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climate change impact assessments. Natural Hazards 23. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/transdisciplinary-concepts-and-methods/favaia/workspace/documents/jones_2001.pdf Environmental risk management involves identifying, evaluating, selecting and implementing measures to reduce risk to human health and ecosystems. Climate change poses two kinds of environmental risks. One is the direct risk due to the climate change and the other is the risk due to the environmental change caused by the climate change. The framework presented by the author is difficult to be executed due to the diversity of stakeholders and the uncertainty of climate change. Climate change is only one of the drivers of global change. Other drivers will also have to be considered for adaptation to climate change. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://communityrisks.cornell.edu/BackgroundMaterials/Slovic-Science1987.pdf The study attempts to support risk analysis and policy-making by finding a basis for anticipating public responses to hazards and improving risk communication. The author examines the results of psychometric studies of risk perception and their implications for risk communication and management. Quantitative estimates, qualitative assessments and comparisons of risks give inadequate consideration to the differences in the nature of risks. Though there is both error and wisdom in public perceptions, the perception of the public is very relevant as compared to that of experts, as the public has genuine concerns that are not duly considered by the experts. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/trust_emotion_ra.pdf A combination of science and judgment, risk assessment is essentially subjective with psychological, social, cultural and political aspects to it. Public perception of risk plays a major role in determining priorities with the result that more attention and expenditure is invested into less hazardous issues than those that deserve higher priority. The author calls for more public participation in risk management, but does not specify how to solve the inappropriate prioritization of hazards that it would lead to. With a new approach that involves more public participation in risk assessment and decision-making, there may emerge more satisfying ways of management. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis 24(2). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.kent.ac.uk/scarr/events/finalpapers/Slovic%201.pdf The authors look at the three different ways risk is dealt with in today's world - risk as feelings, risk as analysis and risk as politics. Risk is comprehended in two ways - by the analytical system, which uses logic, and the experiential system, which is intuitive. The authors examine in detail the role of affect, which also plays an important role in thinking, knowing and information processing. The study points to the need for more research into affective rationality to help humans better in their risk management. Rationality, it is proved, is both a product of analytical mind as well as experiential mind. Ramanan, T. (2002). Risk management in India: Some thoughts [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from www.ficci.com/media-room/speeches-presentations/2002/sep/sep-insurance-risk.ppt Ramanan describes risk management as a systematic way of protecting the concern's resources and income against losses in order to ensure the achievement of the business goals without interruption. He goes through the risk management steps of risk identification and risk analysis. He looks at risk management from the standpoint of insurance in developed countries and in India today and in ancient times. The author suggests the drawing up of a risk management survey before every renewal of policy. Five steps to risk assessment (2008). Retrieved October 21,2008, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/fivesteps.htm The article looks at risk assessment as an important step in protecting the workers of a business, who have a right to be protected, as well as in complying with the law. The five steps include identifying the hazards, deciding who might be harmed, evaluating risks, deciding on precautions and implementing them and updating assessment. The article points out to the need for staff participation but does not delve into the aspect of risk perception. In risk assessment, a hazard is anything that may cause harm and the risk is the chance that somebody could be harmed by it. McNamara, C. (1997). Basic considerations in risk management. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.managementhelp.org/legal/rskmgmnt.htm The author describes risk management as attempting to identify and then manage threats that could adversely affect or bring down the organization. The author emphasizes the importance of good management, review of personnel policies and keeping them up-to-date, and having a well-designed insurance coverage. The article does not mention anything about environmental risk management. With increasing regulations and employee- and resources-related issues, risk management, like financial management, is becoming a very important management practice. Crouhy, M., Galai, D. & Mark, R. (2000). Risk management. McGraw Hill Professional. Banks are becoming more involved in risk shifting activities with customers looking for ways sometimes to reduce their risk exposure and sometimes to assume greater risks for appropriate compensation. The authors describe the historical evolution of the risk assessment approaches of the banks and the lessons learnt. Financial risks are categorized as market risks, credit risks, liquidity risks, operational risks, legal and regulatory risks and human factor risks. The subject, though handled extensively by the authors, is still in its state of infancy. The book, however, still gives an effective, comprehensive study of risk management from the banking point view. Norrman, A. & Lindroth, R. (2004). Categorization of supply chain risk and risk management. In C. Brindley (Ed.), Supply chain risk (14-27). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Supply chain risk management is the management of external risks and the supply chain risks through the coordinated efforts of the supply chain members. The article gives a three-dimensional approach to supply chain risk management, including the logistics unit of analysis, the type of uncertainty and the risk management process. The study reveals that only nine percent of the companies that have outsourced activities insisted on their outsource suppliers having Business Continuity Plans, which highlights the need for more development in this sector. The framework can be used on different managerial actions and research contributions. Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2004). Risk characteristics of the supply chain - A contingency framework. In C. Brindley (Ed.), Supply chain risk (28-42). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. There are three important developments which warrant increased attention to risk management in supply chains. They are evolving strategies and structures, technological changes, and increased exposure to global competition. Risks pertaining to supply chains are categorized along a continuum as operational disturbance, tactical disruption and strategic uncertainty. An important point to be noted relating to risks in the supply chain is that the setting in which decisions are made is changing and evolving continuously. The book does not deal with this subtle issue separately. This work has laid the foundation for future research in this developing area. Gallati, R. R. (2003). Risk management and capital adequacy. Mc-Graw-Hill Professional. The author gives an insight into the different approaches to market, credit and operational risks faced by financial institutions. This book helps facilitate screening and comparison of risk areas, assess past losses, develop improved risk management and generate future risk indicators. The book gives an in-depth study and simple guidelines, which would call for a difficult and dramatic change from the practices followed by institutions thus far. While banks have an institutional interest in risk management, it is also in their competitive interest to use minimum capital to offset these risks. Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J. M. & Heath, D. (2002). Coherent measures of risk. In Dempster, M. A. H (Ed.), Risk management: Value at risk and beyond (145-175). Cambridge University Press. The authors, in this paper, define market and non-market risks and provide a framework for analysis of risk and the construction and implementation of measures of risk. The measures of risk are extra capital requirements. The authors argue that, as risk is associated with changes in the future value, it is more advisable to consider future values only. However, to consider the actual change in future values, it would be necessary to consider changes in several other related economic and other factors. The coherent measures are not based on completeness of markets and can be used to allocate existing capital. Petersen, D. (2002). Risk communication in action: Environmental case studies. DIANE Publishing. The book informs us about a wide range of data visualization and data interpretation tools that have been effectively used in EMPACT projects for environmental risk communication. The importance of choosing the right distribution method is emphasized, the television, the newspaper, the Internet and the schools being the most common sources of public information. Several case studies have been described where these tools have been implemented. The book, however, should presume some education and awareness in the use of the tools for their effective utilization. Nevertheless, the information is thorough and comprehensive, and should provoke further research in this field. Covello, V. T. McCallum, D. B. & Pavlova, M. (2004). Principles and guidelines for improving risk communication. In V. T. Covello (Ed.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations (3-18). Springer. Risk communication is a two-way activity based on mutual respect and trust and, in a democracy, the goal of risk communication is to produce an informed public that is solution-oriented. Disregarding risk communication would lead to unpleasant and protracted conflicts, public outrage, diversion of attention of the society at large from more important to less deserving problems, and unnecessary human suffering. The authors present a perfect set of standards, which might however pose challenges while application. However, the fact that risk communication is not a neglected topic within the government is a cause for optimism. Upton, A. C. (2004). Communicating with the public on health risks. In V. T. Covello (Ed.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations (27-30). Springer. The author discusses the difficulties of communicating health risks with the public in terms of cause-effect relationship, uncertainties about the magnitude of the risk, disparity in assessment between the experts and the public and the nature of the context in which the communication is presented. The author points to the importance of specifying the uncertainties, conveying the information in the right perspective and proper context, and indicating the potential implications in a communication. However, the limitations in conveying the actual gravity of a risk still prevail. It is high time that we devised more effective strategies for risk communication. Hattis, D. (2004). Scientific uncertainties and how they affect risk communication. In V. T. Covello (Ed.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations (117-126). Springer. In modern times, there has been demand for more scientific and more extensive and detailed risk assessment. The biases relevant to risk assessment are overconfidence in the reliability of subjective predictions and lack of strong information regarding prior probabilities of various outcomes. In a context of uncertainty, the audience may be asked to apply their own value standards in decision-making. However, the public's bias, lack of information and misinformation would affect its decision-making and defeat the essential purpose of communication. The article stresses the need for conquering the difficulties of risk assessment for more effective communication. Sandman, P. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Risk communication is the process of alerting people and reassuring them. The author very simply and precisely states that during an outrage about a particular hazard, the public often misperceives the hazard while the experts misperceive the outrage with the public caring too little about the hazard and the experts too little about the outrage. The author looks at the variables associated with an outrage. The approach is so simple that one tends to doubt its practicability. According to the author, the outrage is as real, as measurable, as manageable and as much a part of risk as the hazard. Berry, D. (2004). Risk, communication and health psychology. McGraw-Hill International. As against the paternalistic tradition where the doctors made all the decisions, today the emphasis is on shared decision-making where the patient needs reliable and comprehensive information. Emotional factors affect risk judgments and people are unrealistically optimistic when assessing own risk. The factors to be considered when managing risk are the certainty and evidence of risk, the choices for the patient and the magnitude and acceptability of risk. These factors are so subtle and intangible that they themselves might pose a challenge to effective management. Trust is very important in communication, and negative events carry more weight than positive ones. Improving risk communication (1989). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Formulating and comprehending risk communication can be difficult because of the uncertainty in the underlying knowledge, disagreements among the experts and lack of knowledge of the non-experts. This study looks at the issue of risk communication in a new perspective - as an interactive process of exchange of information rather than a one-way message. The study also recommends making Government officials accountable for the decisions they make; however one wonders if this might not lead in their taking the safest way out. Improving risk communication should involve improving the procedures as well as the content of the risk communication. Sandman, P. M. (2008). Simplification made simple. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.psandman.com/col/simplify.htm Sandman tries to simplify the process of simplification of risk communication. He examines why experts make their messages complex and offers strategies for creating a simple communication. He gives the option of providing both technical and simplified versions of the same communication, allowing the audience to choose what they read. However, it still remains a fact that certain technical issues, when simplified, tend to dilute the import. He points out that whether the communicator decides to simplify or not, what the audience learns will be simplified. So it is better for all that the communicator himself/herself does the simplifying. Theoretical aspects of risk communication (2001). Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/riscomm/riscomm_ch2e.shtml Public attitudes are a critical aspect of risk management, and they are far from static and evolve over time. The media plays a major role in risk communication and formation of public opinion on an issue. The dramatic style of the media does not suit risk communication, and heavy coverage of an issue can cause availability bias to risk perception. Participation of citizens in risk management decision-making can help improve trust. However, emotional factors, lack of knowledge and bias and prejudice can, again, affect public decision making. Trust, perception and dread value are important factors that affect risk communication. Risk communication: Theory to application (2001). Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/riscomm/riscomm_ch5e.shtml The article stresses the importance of the efficacy of risk communication and states though risk communication may not solve all risk management problems, inadequate communication may lead to wrong policy decisions. Trust, public input and source credibility are key factors to be considered for effective risk communication. The credibility of experts is also a factor that will affect risk communication, especially when the general public has a tendency to mistrust science. The article does not delve into means of anticipating and guiding these subjective factors. Government staff should be given adequate training and education to engage in effective risk communication. Thomson, R., Edwards, A. & Grey, J. (2005). Risk communication in the clinical consultation. Clinical Medicine 5(5). Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/college/PIU/piu_risk_thomson.pdf Recently, the emphasis has been more on shared and informed decision-making, rather than the paternalistic approaches of the past where the doctor alone made decisions. It has been proved that patients who participated in decision-making are more informed, more compliant to treatments and showed better results. The authors stress the importance of doctors showing care and willingness to discuss patients' fears and expectations, creating an environment for decision-making based on trust. The study does not discuss the issues of dealing with patients' personal values, experiences and beliefs. A balanced representation of information is necessary, using standardized terminology to avoid ambiguity. Travaline, J. M., Ruchinskas, R. & D'Alonzo, G. E. (2005). Patient-physician communication: Why and how. JAOA 105(1). Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/reprint/105/1/13.pdf Effective patient-physician communication can improve a patient's health as quantifiably as some drugs. Though efforts to improve communication is on, the authors anticipate increasing hurdles in effective communication due to increasing linguistic and cultural differences. The doctor should assess what the patient knows and what he/she wants to know, be empathetic, and be slow and simple and truthful. The authors discuss a general rule; however, as individuals differ there are bound to be exceptions to the rule. Improving communication skills can help in improving the patient-physician bond which will help not only decision-making but the treatment course as well. Covello, V.T., Peters, R. G., Wojtecki, J. G. & Hyde, R. C. (2001). Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: Responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. Journal of Urban Health 78(2) 382-391. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.centerforriskcommunication.com/pubs/crc-p1.pdf Effective communication is critical in solving any kind of health, safety or environmental issue. Such situations may create strong emotions like fear, anxiety, distrust, anger, outrage, helplessness, frustration, etc. among the people. These situations call for a different set of rules for effective communication. The authors have offered several models and approaches for effective communication in such situations. Devising strategies and plans for application in such emergent situations is the need of the hour and the authors call for immediate action. Jardine, C. G. & Hrudey, S. E. (1999). Promoting active public participation. In Briggs, D. J., Stern, R. M. Tinker, T. L. (Eds.).Environmental health for all: Risk assessment and risk communication for National Environmental Health Plans (157-168). Springer. Active and timely participation is essential for the success of any environmental health initiative. The five objectives for ensuring full public participation are: getting the science right, getting the right science, getting the right participation, getting the participation right and developing an accurate and balanced informative synthesis. Public attitudes and values will be a major influencing factor. It is imperative that reliable information be made available to ensure public participation in an equitable and effective manner. Risk communication: Working with individuals and communities to weight the odds (1995). Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/prevrpt/Archives/95fm1.htm Risk communication is a complex multidisciplinary, multidimensional, and evolving process of informing the public and involving them in decision-making. It also includes conflict resolution, risk assessment and risk management. The benefits of risk communication include improved decision-making and better informed public. The barriers are the discrepancies in the measurement, description and perception of risk among individuals. The article does not give insight into dealing with the barriers. A clear vision and consensus is necessary about the role of risk communication in management and prevention of risks and hazards. Ryan, P. B. (1998). Historical perspective on the role of exposure assessment in human risk assessment. In Newman, M. C. & Strojan, C. L. Risk assessment: logic and measurement (23-44). CRC Press. The author describes hazard identification as the association of an activity, pollutant or location with a hazard. The author looks at assessment from various aspects like dose-response and exposure. If exposure to a hazardous substance or location is noted, steps should be taken to control the risk posed to the population by the contaminant. Factors affecting decision-making for the management of such risks are the number of individuals affected, the economic considerations and the specifics of the affected population. An essential question in this context would be the accuracy of these measures. Hallenbeck, W. H. (1993). Quantitative risk assessment for environmental and occupational health. CRC Press. The book throws light on the details of the process of risk assessment. Risk assessment refers to the selection and implementation of regulatory measures based on goals, social and political factors, available control technology, cost and benefits and acceptable risk. The book elaborates on several models for assessment. There are a number of limitations in the process of assessment associated with the discrepancies in the age groups, smoking habits, etc. Control of public health risks has been taken up by major federal health and safety statutes. Botterill, L. & Mazur, N. (2004). Risk & risk perception: A literature review. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/04-043.pdf The report examines risk and risk perception across a range of disciplines. How people respond to risk depends upon various factors like how risk is perceived and various psychological factors that affect decision-making. The report attempts to offer an improved understanding of risk perception for improved policy-making and improved communication of policies and decisions. The subject of risk is vast and relates to numerous disciplines. The report calls for improved risk communications and more public participation programs. Risk perception (2004). Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.nstmop.psu.edu/PrintTaskSheets/2.2%20Risk%20Perception.pdf The article defines risk as the chance you take of becoming injured by a hazard. Judgments on risk are based on several factors like how familiar we are with a hazard, whether we are voluntarily interacting with a hazard or not, and how much attention a hazard brings if its hurts someone. Consequences of severity of risk exposure can be categorized as catastrophic severity, critical severity, marginal severity and negligible severity. Factors like personal biases are not mentioned in this article. Risk is a measure of expected damage or injury. Sjoberg, L., Moen, B. E. & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satelliteblobcol=urlvedleggfil&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=Vedlegg&blobwhere=1117550367307&cachecontrol=5%3A0%3A0+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true The authors discuss the dominance of psychometric paradigm in psychological research on risk perception, which has been successful in explaining and predicting perceived risk. Risk is the likelihood that an individual will experience the effect of danger. Risk perception is the subjective assessment of the probability of an injury happening and the concern about the consequences. The authors question the high degree of importance given to risk. The article concludes that risk is a major factor that influences attitude. People are more sensitized to risk than safety and they are more eager to avoid risks than to pursue chances. Lipkus, I. M. & Hollands, J. G. (1999). The visual communication of risk. JNCI Monographs 1999(25) 149-163. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://jncimono.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1999/25/149 The authors emphasize the advantages of using visual displays graphs and pictures instead of numbers to aid effective communication of risk. Visual displays can enhance the understanding of both qualitative and quantitative measures. Graphics render a message conspicuous. The risk ladder has been very extensively and highly effectively used to describe environmental hazards, asbestos, radon, etc. This is because it can communicate both risk magnitude and relative risk. Though visuals have been used extensively in communication, not much research has gone into studying the efficacy of the topic. Visuals are not known to communicate uncertainty effectively. Read More