|
|
|
|
|
Background and some general considerations |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Concept
of risk communication |
Stages of evolution of risk communication |
Elements of a plan for risk communication |
The Source |
The message |
The media |
The audience |
Situations requiring risk communication |
Components of risk communication |
Cardinal rules for risk communication |
References
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The countries
of Latin America and the Caribbean are in a period of transition toward
a culture of citizen participation. This implies that public institutions
responsible for reporting to social sectors on the process and results
of their activities must show transparent accounts and promote participatory
activities.
The concern regarding environmental risks that can affect health on a daily basis increases the public’s demand for information and puts greater pressure on authorities to take into account the population that is affected by their decisions. Under these circumstances, it would seem that a valuable conclusion conducive to success is that the programs to be executed should be designed jointly by the government and the people working together from the outset. This will involve anticipating conflicts and preparing to face them. Methodologies will have to be developed that will build bridges between government authorities in charge of health and the environment and the different social sectors in order to establish effective lines of communication and participation for the management of environmental risks.
It is important to identify risk communication as a process of interaction and exchange of information and opinions among individuals, groups and institutions from three standpoints:
Over the past 20 years, authors have recognized that the evolution of risk communication has passed through seven chronological stages, which are characterized by strategies of focal communication recognized as effective by their practitioners. The evolution is marked by the progress of each approach. The successive stages build on one another, but they do not replace one another.
As we can see from this wry depiction of the history of risk communication, facts and perceptions, and both empirical and non-empirical data help form public judgment on risk issues. It has been suggested that in an ideal project, risk management should be guided by facts alone; facts concerning not only the sizes of the risk and benefits involved, but also the changes in the political and social status that arise from the risk management process. According to Covello and Sandman, risk communication has evolved in four stages: Sin embargo, en cualquiera de las dos cronologías mencionadas es evidente la importancia de la participación de la ciudadanía como un legítimo, necesario, obligado e insoslayable colaborador. Stage 1: Ignore the
public What both the above lists of stages include is the importance of the citizens as legitimate, necessary, obligatory and irreplaceable cooperating partners.
When drawing up a plan for risk communication, we need to consider four principal elements:
1) The source
Work with the audience is explained in the chapter on Community Participation.
In the evolution of risk communication
there are myths that often detract from the communication and prevent
its implementation. It is relevant to take these myths into account,
not only to avoid them, but also to define strategies to counteract
them.
In risk communication the importance of following certain guidelines has become apparent. These guidelines ensure more successes than errors in the communication of the pertinent information on the part of all concerned: official spokespersons, the media, and the affected and spectator population itself.
Most practitioners of risk communication will agree that, even when effectively applied, risk communication will not solve all problems, nor will it avoid conflict on issues. Nevertheless, the contrary could be worse: poor or absent risk communication will undoubtedly lead to a failure to manage risk effectively. Participatory approaches to risk communication may lead to better consensus but cannot guarantee absolute harmony. From the perspective of government, risk communication respects the public (by being participatory) and its right to know (by being as transparent as possible) while also appreciating the limitations of responsible government.
Three essential components
of risk communication are trust, perception, and the important factors
that mold public perception which may be described as “dread
values”. Risk information sources, such as government, need to understand that trust is a very important factor in the acceptance and effectiveness of risk-based messages to the public. Most research confirms that government is in fact considered by the public to be a less-than-trusted source of risk information. The public tends to view government risk-based information as distorted, biased and probably incorrect. The memory of wrong government decisions about risk tends to linger in the public consciousness, adding fuel to the skepticism. In spite of that distrust, the public wants and needs to trust in its decision-makers and regulators. In today’s society people and organizations have few options but to trust the systems in place to address hazards, simply because many hazards cannot be dealt with by the individual. Establishing a trusting relationship with its audience and, more important, continuing to maintain it, is becoming one of the major tasks of government communicators.
The experience demonstrates that the population will distance themselves form the process if they perceive that those responsible for the regulation do not show any interest. Health messages about risks owing to life style face significant challenges because the audience may be apathetic and a heuristic or value bias may arise. It is said, then, that fatalism rationalizes apathy. Sometimes, however, people will find good reasons to take risks only if they perceive social benefits Another major challenge in risk communication is the intangibility of the benefit. People are often asked to trust the source of information, whether it be the government or the private sector, when it comes to the benefit of a risk management measure, a benefit that is often intangible. For that reason, trust building has become a focal point in risk communication. To keep the trust of the population must be a priority in the design of any communication strategy. In this regard, the responsibility and permanent commitment of the Government play a decisive role.
Citizen involvement in decisions about risk management can help build trust on both sides. However, if trust is to be maintained, the public should perceive that their participation is taken seriously enough to have an impact on the development of policies.
There are no easy recipes for successful risk communication. However, experts who have participated in debates on the topic recommend the following seven rules which, although they may seem obvious, are commonly broken in practice. It is important to identify the reasons for noncompliance with these rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
