Communicating Hazard Risk ( Wilson and Crouch, in Cutter: Ch 18 )

1. Geography 106bHazards Communicating Hazard Risk(Wilson and Crouch, in Cutter: Ch 18) • communication scenarios • forms of risk communication • message-focused • source-focused • audience/context-focused • limitations Geog 152b

2. Risk Communication Scenarios low risk – low concern • much historical hazard event data • little communication effort low risk – high concern • much historical hazard event data, relatively low risk but high public concern to regulate high risk – low concern • risk exists, but behaviour change slow uncertain risk – mixed concern • benefits typically better understood than risks, stakeholder disagreement and conflict Geog 152b

3. Exercise:Selecting Hazards Deserving of Risk Communication Resources Which of the following deserves more resources for warning people about the seriousness of the hazard to humans?: • aflatoxin • dioxin Geog 152b

4. The Social Context of Risk Communication Spending • while aflatoxin is at least as serious a threat as dioxin, dioxin risk communication typically receives more attention and funding • why? Health Canada’s current position on dioxins (detailed) Health Canada’s current position on aflatoxin (buried – 15 ppb in inspected food) Geog 152b

5. Message-Focused Communication • technical risk information • focus on getting the numbers right • scientific experts deliver message • typically impersonal (single audience) • non-local • contains both factual and inferential information (see last day) • emphasis on risk comparisons to get the message across • e.g, EPA Citizen’s Guide to Radon Risk Geog 152b

6. Risk ComparisonsInvoluntary Risk: Deaths Per Person Per Year • create a mental picture of the risk of natural hazards impacts from the next few tables Source: http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm Geog 152b

7. Risk Comparisons: Various Hazards: Risk of Death Per Million Persons Source: http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm Geog 152b

8. Risk Comparisons:Hazards That Increase Risk of Death by 1 in 1 Million/Year Source: http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm Geog 152b

9. Risk Comparisons: Technological/Natural: Probability of Disaster Killing 100 or 1000 Persons Source: http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm Geog 152b

10. Exercise:Uncertainty and Decision-Making from the following table: • select the 3 hazards most in need of further regulation • select the 3 hazards least in need of further regulation Source: http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm Geog 152b

11. Limitations of Message-Focused Communication • impersonal • context independent • condescending and patriarchal • lack of historical event data for key hazards Geog 152b

12. Source-Focused Communication • focus on ensuring the source is believable • basis in social engineering/marketing • more personalized (re: source) • more localized • contains both factual and inferential but also cultural symbolic information (see last day) • risk comparisons still used • e.g, local physician, an expert who is a resident of area affected by the hazard, similar to audience Geog 152b

13. Trusted Sources of Information? Who will be your message source for: Americans, Canadians, Japanese for the following message:? “Canada’s beef is safe for human consumption.” Geog 152b

14. Confidence in Information Source for Health Risk Information 1992 Geog 152b

15. Confidence in Information Source for Health Risk Information 2004 • “a lot” of confidence increased 1992-2004: • medical doctors, university scientists • “a lot” of confidence decreased 1992-2004: • public environmental groups, government Geog 152b

16. Limitations of Source-Focused Communication • still impersonal (source-centered not audience centered) • manipulative and “clever” • potentially subversive of message content • credible sources hard to find • understanding of sources of audience concern potentially ignored Geog 152b

17. Audience-Focused Communication • focus on understanding the meaning of hazard risk for audience • trust in “sources” (but, now more two-way communication) built slowly • trust built outside of crisis situations • attention to conflict and controversy • more personalized (re: audience) • often very localized • contains both factual, inferential information (see last day) • risk comparisons rare • e.g.s, ? Geog 152b

18. Limitations of Audience-Focused Communication • trust is difficult to develop • if trust is lost, very difficult to regain • costly to implement “tailored” messages (since single message, single source, single audience unrealistic) Geog 152b

19. Technical vs Narrative Messages • Risk Communication Experiment: Golding et al. (1992) Risk Analysis, 12(1): 27-35 • hypothesis: narrative message better than technical at gaining attention, increasing knowledge, and altering behaviour • radon messages in three communities via • 1) technical newspaper (Clinton) • 2) narrative newspaper (Fitchburg) • 3) no messages by experimenters (Worchester) • subdivision of sample: • dependent = baseline and follow-up survey • independent = only follow-up survey Geog 152b

20. Technical vs Narrative Messages:Results • getting attention: readership higher for technical messages • retaining attention: readership declined slower for narrative messages Geog 152b

21. Technical vs Narrative Messages:Results • enhanced concern: for readers of technical information • reduced concern: for readers of narrative information • how message is delivered matters! Comparison had no specific information about radon from researchers Geog 152b

22. Message Effectiveness • Which message do you feel is the most effective? • radon rooftops • radon person on the street • Why (try to use terminology from recent lectures)? Geog 152b