Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice. Vincent T. Covello

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ denied them the opportunity to give their “informed consent” to management decisions that affect their lives or property;

      4 have imposed or want to impose upon them facilities that provide few local economic benefits;

      5 have imposed or want to impose upon them facilities that entail high costs to the community (e.g., adverse health, safety, wildlife, recreational, tourism, property value, traffic, noise, odor, scenic view, and quality of life effects);

      6 have imposed or want to impose on them facilities that provide most of the benefits to those other than the community hosting the facility; and

      7 have dismissed their opinions, fears, and concerns as irrational and irrelevant.

      Critical to resolving NIMBY, LULU, and related risk‐related controversies is the recognition that a fairly distributed risk is more acceptable than an unfairly distributed one. A risk entailing significant benefits to the affected parties is more acceptable than a risk with no benefits. A risk where no alternatives exist is more acceptable than a risk an alternative technology could eliminate. A risk the affected have control over is more acceptable than a risk beyond their control. A risk that the parties at risk assess and decide voluntarily to accept is more acceptable than a risk that is imposed upon them.

Risk is multidimensional; size is only one of the relevant dimensions. If the validity of this point is accepted, then many risk communication strategies present themselves. Factors such as fairness, benefits, and voluntariness are often equal or more important to the public in judging the acceptability of a risk than the risk data provided by technical, engineering, and scientific professionals. Therefore, efforts to engage stakeholders and make a risk more fair, beneficial, or voluntary are as appropriate in making a risk more acceptable as efforts to make a risk technically smaller. Similarly, because control is important in determining the acceptability of a risk, efforts to engage people and share power, such as by establishing citizen or worker advisory committees or by supporting third‐party research, audits, inspections, and monitoring, are as appropriate in making a risk more acceptable as efforts to make a risk technically smaller.

      In summary, deciding what level of risk ought to be acceptable is not a technical question but a social, cultural, and value question. People vary in how they assess risk acceptability. They weigh the various factors according to their own values, sense of risk, and perceived stake in the outcome. Because acceptability is a matter of values and opinions, and because values and opinions differ, debates about risk are often debates about values, accountability, and control.

3.5 Risk Communication Principles and Guidelines

      Given increasing demands by stakeholders for timely, credible, accurate, and relevant information about risks and threats, the development of improved risk communications strategies and practical tools will continue to be the focus of increasing attention in years to come. The observations reported here and in later chapters are samples of the growing area of risk communication research and practice.

      From the literature on risk communication, several crosscutting principles and guidelines can be extrapolated. They are described below. Although many of these principles and guidelines may seem obvious, they are so often violated in practice that it is useful to ask why they are so frequently not followed.

Figure 3.4 is a toolbox for putting these risk communication principles into practice. The toolbox contains templates and tools that will be discussed in later chapters of this book.

Figure 3.4 Communication templates and tools for risk, crisis, and high stress situations.

      3.5.1 Principle 1. Accept and Involve All Interested and Affected Persons as Legitimate Partners

      Two basic tenets of risk communication in a democracy are generally understood and accepted. Communities have a right to participate in decisions that affect their lives, property, and the things they value. Next, the primary goal of risk communication should not be to diffuse concerns or avoid action. It should be to produce informed individuals, groups, and populations that are solution‐oriented and collaborative. Success is measured largely by whether information has been exchanged and whether stakeholders have been informed and understand each other’s points of view.

      Guidelines:

      1 Show respect and sincerity by involving those interested or affected early, before important decisions are made.

      2 Clarify you understand the appropriateness of basing decisions about risks on factors beyond only the magnitude of the risk.

      3 Involve all interested parties and stakeholders.

      3.5.2 Principle 2. Plan Carefully and Evaluate Performance

      Different goals, audiences, and media require different risk communication strategies and practical tools. Risk communication will be successful only if carefully planned and designed for the specific situation and audience.

      Guidelines:

      1 Begin your planning with explicit objectives, such as: informing decision‐making by individuals and groups; motivating individuals and groups to engage in constructive action; or contributing to conflict or dispute resolution.

      2 Evaluate the information you have about risks and know its strengths and weaknesses.

      3 Identify different subgroups among your target audience and customize information to address their information needs.

      4 Determine the specific subgroups in your audience and design your communication for each.

      5 Recruit spokespersons with strong presentation skills, emotional intelligence, and personal interaction skills.

      6 Provide risk communication training and skills for your leaders, managers, and technical staff.

      7 Reward outstanding performance.

      8 When possible, pretest your messages.

      9 Carefully evaluate your efforts and learn from your mistakes.

      3.5.3 Principle 3. Listen to Your Audience

      People are often more concerned about issues such as trust, credibility, control, competence, voluntariness, fairness, caring, and compassion than about mortality statistics and the details of quantitative risk assessment. If you do not listen to people, you cannot expect them to listen to you. Communication is most effective when there is an exchange of information and active listening.

      Guidelines:

      1 Don’t assume what people know, think, or want to be done.

      2 Determine what people are thinking: use techniques such as interviews, focus groups, face‐to‐face meetings, open houses, and surveys.

      3 Acknowledge СКАЧАТЬ