• Home
• Lessons
  • 1. Basic Concepts in Risk Communication
  • 2. Risk Perception, Behavior and Acceptance
  • 3. Risk Communication and Plant Protection
  • 4. Communicating Risk: Who, How, When, Where and How Often
  • 5. Module Case Study
• Topics
  • 1. Constraints to Risk Communication
  • 2. Stakeholders and Risk Communication
  • 3. Available and Appropriate Risk Communication Methods and Technologies
  • 4. Best Practices
  • 5. Best Practices for Using Social Media
  • 6. Lesson Summary
• Resources
  • Help
  • Glossary
  • Documents
  • Acknowledgements

Lesson 4: Communicating Risk: Who, How, When, Where and How Often

Topic 4: Best Practices

Designing the risk communication messages:

• View risk communication as an opportunity to demonstrate trustworthiness and an open, responsible, and caring attitude.
• Listen to audiences concerns before attempting to tell new information.
• Use risk comparisons with caution:
• Test risk communication messages on a limited basis before using them more widely to ensure that they are easily understood and not misinterpreted. This is particularly important in situations of distrust.
• Avoid comparison with risks that are generally viewed as unimportant.
• Consider presenting comparisons of the same risk at different times, comparisons with other causes of similar risks, and comparisons with unrelated risks.
• Look for features of risk information that can pose challenges to audience comprehension. Some possible strategies for dealing with those challenges include the following.
• If using quantification, consider using graphic representations of how small or large an actual probability is.
• Avoid acronyms, unfamiliar terms, or terms with unfamiliar meanings. Ensure that all terms are clearly defined.
• When explaining complex phenomena, use tools such as diagrams, outlines, and analogies to ensure that audiences develop accurate mental models of the phenomenon.
• When presented with audience misconceptions or incorrect instincts, acknowledge the possibility, point out why the view is inaccurate or incomplete, present the correct explanation, and show how it avoids the flaws/weaknesses of the original viewpoint.

Usefulness of Quantification or Metaphors in Risk Communication

In Lesson 1, we learned that there are different definitions of risk communication. Risk communication messages can be delivered using one-way (asymmetrical) communication, or sometimes two-way communication is required for effective risk communication. The effectiveness and impact of risk messages can also depend on the elements included. Effectiveness can also be influenced by the attention paid to the stakeholders that will receive, interpret, comment, or respond to the message.

Research has been published that evaluates whether quantified risk messages are better understood or better received by stakeholders than those that use metaphors or “tell a good story”. In general, the results of this work show that both approaches can be effective depending on the traits of the stakeholder group targeted. In organizations that conduct risk analysis, internal and/or scientific/technical stakeholders could both understand and interpret quantified (numbers, percentages) risk messages or categorization (high risk, negligible risk) to express the level of risk. However, the remaining stakeholders were not comfortable with, or did not understand quantification or categorization of risk. Furthermore, many of these stakeholders focused on the quantification or categorization “figure” (i.e., high risk, 75% likelihood) and ignored the contextual piece of the risk issue. The investigation also found that stakeholders from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, even those with technical/scientific backgrounds, tended to group with those that did not understand, or like risk quantification or categorization. These stakeholders preferred to receive a risk communication message that put the risk into context by embedding it into a compelling, interesting, and true story.

Physical Venues for Risk Communication

You can deliver risk communication messages with a variety of tools, modes, and technologies. It is a good idea to use a “neutral” venue for the meeting where the messages are delivered orally to civil stakeholders, and when these messages are particularly controversial. In this context, a neutral venue is defined as one that physically separates the messenger and the audience from association with an anger-inducing or potentially distrusted organization. A good example of this approach was already discussed in Lesson 3 – Molecular Farming and the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency, but other examples from plant protection are discussed here.

Parks and other outdoor settings can be appropriate venues to deliver risk messages concerning potential pests that can harm the praised resources in those environments. If the pest is already present, you may be able to positively impact the credibility and effectiveness of the message if you choose a setting the stakeholders can appreciate the injury or damage. If the media is in the audience, it provides them with opportunities to document their story with live photographs or footage. In the area of plant protection, other outdoor settings can be orchards, crop fields, or farm-stands. Indoor or urban neutral venues can include: conference/meeting rooms of hotels or convention centers, public squares and libraries, and, perhaps a university classroom or auditorium. For example, in California, USA, the venue to announce the light brown apple moth eradication program to civil society stakeholders was a hotel conference room. Members of the federal and state plant protection services were present at the meeting. However, a science advisory panel delivered the risk communication message. The regulatory authorities assembled the science advisory panel to advise and recommend management strategies for this pest.

To continue, select Topic 5 from the Topics menu above or click here.