Risico-communicatie

Risk Communication
Dr. Henk Mulder,
Science & Society Group/EC-Master
Nijenborgh 4
1
Doel voor stralingsdeskundigen
Informeren omwonenden (geruststellen?)
Opvoeden werknemers?
Informeren management?
2
Understand Risk Perception
Of the “expert”?
 Of the “lay person”?
 Of the policy maker?
 Media
 Communication

Language
 Graphics
 Content

3
Risk perception 1

According to “expert”
Risk = Probability x Impact
(impact ≈ †)
4
Total Effect
Start at environmental side / toxicology
Emissions  Concentration maps
 Dose-effect relations
 Describe demography, ecosystem



eg N persons exposed per concentration area
Expected total effect (acute - chronic)
Death / Chance of dying / Illness
 Lesser (quality) life expectence

Start at health / epidemiology side
5
Experts…

Chance of dying this year
6
Chances †/yr in NL (data 1989)










Dikes
1
x 10-7
Bee sting 2
x 10-7
Lightning 5
x 10-7
Flying
1.2 x 10-6
Pedestrian 1.85 x 10-5
Bicycling 3.85 x 10-5
Car
1.75 x 10-4
Moped
2
x 10-4
Motor
1
x 10-3
Sigarette 5
x 10-3
(ppd)
1 on 10.000.000
1 on 5.500.000
1 on 2.000.000
1 on
814.000
1 on
54.000
1 on
26.000
1 on
5.700
1 on
5.000
1 on
1.000
1 on
200
7
Loss of life
Being unmarried (male): 3500 days
 Being 20% overweight: 900 days
 Coffee: 6 days
 Reactor accidents: 0.02 to 2 days
 Smoke alarm at home: - 10 days
 Airbag in car: -50 days

8
Risk Perception 2

According to the “lay person”?
Gut feeling
 Simple heuristics
 Can be analytical
(focus on parts)

9
Estimate
In US 4 million deaths/ year (1978).
Estimate number of deaths caused each year
by each of the following:
•All cancer
•Botulism
•Diabetes
•Pregnancy
•All diseases
10
Actual number of deaths (1978)
•All cancer: 300,000
•Botulism:
3
•Diabetes:
80,000
•Pregnancy: 800
•All diseases: 1,200,000
11
12
Probabilities?

Small chances: Difficult to cope with



Small numbers: Can happen tomorrow
Random interpretations
Impact, effect, is most important!
13
Peter M. Sandman
1.
Voluntary
Natural vs. artificial!!!
2.

Also moral component
3.
Familiar
4.
Not Memorable
14
Dread & Catastrophe
5. Not “Dreaded”:


No chemical waste dump, nuclear sector, military, AIDS,
cancer
Irreversibele damage is worse than reversibele


AIDS vs gonorroea
Cancer vs other diseases
6. Chronic (instead of Catastrophic)

Not same time, same place
15
7. Knowable
Own knowledge
 (Uniform or controversial) knowledge
with science, authorities
 Visibility


Problem:
Cause-effect, see-what-you-think
16
8. Controllability

Individually
Passenger vs driver
 Own capacities (or perception of those)
 Alternatives present (escape or
control/change)
 Influence on policy
 Trust

17
18
9. Fair & 10. Ethical
Affects me, children, unborn children
 Number of potential victims
9. Fair Allocation benefits - risks

Myself – Collective – NIMBY
 Distortion: If benefit is seen higher, hazard
itself is seen lower

10. Morally irrelevant:


Moral / ethical issues: No trade-off
Which risks are acceptable?
19
11. Trust & 12. Responsive Process
11. Trust or not:





Appearance of dependency; Past experiences!
Openess & don’t ask for trust, but do say sorry if needed
Perception of competence, objective, reasonable,
consistent, good-willing = trustworthy, accountable
Organised unaccountability
Risks on purpose, blameworthy

Fire because of bad safety
12. Responsive process (~ control)
20
Secondary Components
13. Affects average populations (not underpriviliged
groups)
14. Immediate effects (delayed effects are more
frightening)
15. No risk to future generations
16. Victims statistical (instead of personal; 1/r2)
17. Preventable (vs reducable)
18. Substantial benefits (vs foolish risks)

Or unclear benefits, lower than alternative, etc
19. Little media attention
20. Little opportunity for collective action
21
Als Onveilig ervaren
Angstaanjagend
Negatieve herinneringen oproepend
Vrijwillig
Onder controle te houden (zelf/anderen)
Onvrijwillig
Niet onder controle te houden (zelf/anderen)
Veel blootgestelden
Onzichtbaar, uitgesteld effect
Onnatuurlijk
Nieuw
Kennis niet aanwezig (zelf/anderen)
Weinig Nut / Oneerlijke verdeling voor en nadelen
Geen morele kwesties of risico voor
volgende generaties
Weinig media aandacht
Geen mogelijkheid voor collectieve actie
Wel morele kwesties of risico voor komende
generaties
Veel media aandacht
Veel mogelijkheden voor collectieve actie
Vertrouwen aanwezig
Responsief communicatieproces
Geen vertrouwen aanwezig
Geen responsief communicatieproces
Bekend
Weinig blootgestelden
Zichtbaar, direct effect
Natuurlijk
Oud (we zijn er aan gewend)
Kennis aanwezig (zelf/anderen)
Nut / Eerlijke verdeling voor en nadelen
Balans
Slachtoffers ‘statistisch’
Slachtoffers ‘ikzelf’, ‘mijn naasten’, ‘bekenden’
Verspreide effecten (slachtoffers op Catastrofe (slachtoffers op één plaats, tijd)
verschillende plaatsen, gespreid in de tijd)
Proces
Bedreigend
Als Veilig ervaren
Niet angstaanjagend
Geen negatieve herinneringen oproepend
22
Risk perception 2

According to “lay person”
Risk =
Impact (x Probability)
± Perception
(impact > †)
P. Sandman: Risk = Hazard + Outrage
23
Verschil in perceptie leidt tot verschil
in rangorde risico’s
Experts:
1. Ongebalanceerd dieet
2. Microbiologische besmetting
3. Natuurlijke gifstoffen
4. Milieu vervuiling
5. Additieven en contaminanten
Consumenten:
1. Additieven en contaminanten
2. Milieu vervuiling
3. Ongebalanceerd dieet
4. Natuurlijke gifstoffen
5. Microbiologische besmetting
Hankamp en Van Haren, 1998
24
TNO Kwaliteit van Leven
Risicobeeld 3

Volgens beleidsmaker?
1989: Omgaan met risico’s 
2003: Nuchter omgaan met risico’s
25
1989
Rapport “Omgaan met risico’s”
 Objectief: Risico = Kans x effect
 Norm (MTR): 10 -6 (sterfte pp/jr)
Aandacht:
 Grote ongevallen (externe veiligheid;
Seveso-richtlijn)
 “Stoffen” in voedsel, lucht, water: 10 -5
26
27
Risico Contouren
28
Perception:
+ = safe
- = risky
Smoking Radon
Chlorine Floods
Transports
High
Cell
Tension Phone
Wires
Masts
Real †/yr
Catastrophic
Voluntary
Control
Known
(Un)Natural
Collective
Benefit
Distribution
risks/benefits
Number of
exposed
29
Perception:
+ = safe
- = risky
Smoking Radon
Real †/yr
1 : 700
1: 20,000 < 1 : 1M 1 : 10 M 1 : 15 M 0
Catastrophic
+
+
-
-
+
+
Voluntary
+
-
-
-
-
-
Control
+
+
-
-
-
-
Known
+
-
+
+
-
-
(Un)Natural
+
+
-
+
-
-
Collective
Benefit
-
-
+
?
+
+
Distribution
+
risks/benefits
+
-
+
-
-
Number of
exposed
-
+
-
+
+
-
Chlorine Floods
Transports
High
Cell
Tension Phone
Wires
Masts
30
31
32
2003

Beslisprincipes:
Recht (op bescherming) (10-6)
 Nut (efficientie, kosten-baten)
 Technologie (Best Bestaande Technieken,
ALARA)
 Voorzorgsprincipe (precautionary principle)


“where there are threats of serious and irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used to postpone cost-effective measures” (Rio 92)
33
Risicobeeld 3

Volgens beleidsmaker:
Risico =
Kans x Effect ± Perceptie en
risicobeleid binnen financiele
randvoorwaarden; overleg indien nodig
(effect ≈ †; liefst p† < 10-6)
34
Risico’s - Samenvattend
Risico =
Kans
x (vervelend) Effect
± Perceptie
 Afweging: Wat is acceptabel?
Uitleg (frame): Risico is laag
 Uitleg (frame): Risico is acceptabel
 Uitleg (frame): Risico onder controle

35
Risk in Words and Numbers
36
Als Onveilig ervaren
Angstaanjagend
Negatieve herinneringen oproepend
Vrijwillig
Onder controle te houden (zelf/anderen)
Onvrijwillig
Niet onder controle te houden (zelf/anderen)
Veel blootgestelden
Onzichtbaar, uitgesteld effect
Onnatuurlijk
Nieuw
Kennis niet aanwezig (zelf/anderen)
Weinig Nut / Oneerlijke verdeling voor en nadelen
Geen morele kwesties of risico voor
volgende generaties
Weinig media aandacht
Geen mogelijkheid voor collectieve actie
Wel morele kwesties of risico voor komende
generaties
Veel media aandacht
Veel mogelijkheden voor collectieve actie
Vertrouwen aanwezig
Responsief communicatieproces
Geen vertrouwen aanwezig
Geen responsief communicatieproces
Bekend
Weinig blootgestelden
Zichtbaar, direct effect
Natuurlijk
Oud (we zijn er aan gewend)
Kennis aanwezig (zelf/anderen)
Nut / Eerlijke verdeling voor en nadelen
Balans
Slachtoffers ‘statistisch’
Slachtoffers ‘ikzelf’, ‘mijn naasten’, ‘bekenden’
Verspreide effecten (slachtoffers op Catastrofe (slachtoffers op één plaats, tijd)
verschillende plaatsen, gespreid in de tijd)
Proces
Bedreigend
Als Veilig ervaren
Niet angstaanjagend
Geen negatieve herinneringen oproepend
37
Priority
Deal with outrage
 Empower audience
 Understand what they want to know

What is (not what is not)
 Health vs Engineering
 Magnitude vs probability
 Measures instead of status
 … or ask them! (even at the start of a
meeting!)

38
Key for composing the
messages





•
•
What does the community know/feel
already?
What does the community want to know?
What does the community need to know?
What do you want the community to know?
Can the information be misunderstood?
Don’t have more than three key messages
Try out your messages with reliable
members of your public
39
Language (Sandman)
If the word is there to impress – cut it
If it needs defining, do so. Then cut it.
If you need jargon, introduce the concept before the
term
4. When tension is high, use less jargon
5. Ask audience to stop you if you use jargon they don’t
understand
6. Keep your sentence structure simple
7. Try it on a non-technical person and ask comments
8. Run a readability check
9. Warn your audience about difficult material
10. Be careful with words that have different technical
meanings than their common meanings
1.
2.
3.
40
Examples of inconsistent, confusing risk
communication
•Terms used to qualify soil pollution
•Smog alerts
41
Agree or disagree?
“If you are exposed to a
toxic chemical substance, then you
are likely to suffer adverse health
effects”
(Kraus et al., 1992)
• 32.3% Toxicologists agreed
• 85.5% Public respondents agreed
42
Exposure for toxicologists:
Complex assessment of presence of chemical
in human or animal:
Measures
of chemicals
Transportation through compartments
Uptake pathways
Toxicity
Interaction with other factors
43
Type of arguments (1)

Casuistic - Statistics
Examples (qualitative) instead of
quantitative
 More lively, more impact (“closeness”)

Higher retention
 Easier to recall
 More visual, easier to take up
 Emotionally more attractive


But: research is complicated (confounders)
44
Types of arguments (2)

Alternative explanation: statistics are just plain
difficult
 Leave out statistics?

Institutions: full disclosure required by law

Adding ‘very small’, ‘extreme’ etc:
 No observable impact
 Case-experiment by Gutteling

Additional technical/quantitive information has no
influence / gets lost, too complex

LFG
45
Graphics (Sandman)
26.53-32.20
One point per graphic
 Conclusion is on the graphic
 Use step-through graphics to simplfy
complex information
 Bar and Pie Charts instead of Scatter
Plots
 Stand in front & look at graphic with your
audience
 Use colour; remember colour-blindness

46
47
Furthermore
Pie en bar-charts: emphasise smallness
of risk
 Risk ladders depend on axis/scaling

48
49
Numbers
0.00005 Ci/kg is a much more severe contamination of
radioactivity compared to 63,000 Bq/kg.
50
Concentration analogy

One part per million:



One part per billion:



One minute in a year,
One cent in 10.000 euro
Sheet of paper of a toilet roll of a lenght from New York
to Londen
One second in 32 years
One part per trillion:

One drop of detergent in enough dishwater to fill a line of
railroad tanks of 15 km length
51
Peanut Butter

living next to a nuclear power plant =
1/4 table spoon peanut butter/yr
Voluntary?
 Benefits?
 Secondary effect: general doubt towards
quantitative messages in general
 > outrage!

52
Risk Comparisons ?
Make statistical data easier to
understand
 Risk assessment based on knowledge
that is available (“new, exotic”  “old,
familiar”)
 Beware: mortality or more?
 Beware: persuasive use?

53
Good Risk Comparisons? (Sandman)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Clarification or showing up your opponent?
If you were at the receiving end, would you find it
useful?
Do you seem to try to preemt a decision?
Is it homey, snide, humerous (rols of toilet paper
around the world, etc?
Is it likely to be seen as self-serving? If so, have
you acknowledged that up front?
How sensitive is your relation to the audience?
On balance, do you think the audience may reject
or resent it? If yes, why use it?
54
Simplifying Information (Sandman)







Stick to your main points
Three levels of complexity
Include only details that are needed to explain
main points or to avoid losing credibility later
Pay attention to non-technical information your
audience already knows
Tell stories – use concrete language
Personalize
Check for understanding
55
Orienting the audience (Sandman)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Tell where you are in the presentation
Use graphic organisers for raod maps
Use inductive reasoning, not deductive
Distinguish major from minor points
Test technical explanations against mental models
Acknowledge preconceptions
Use confidence limits in your rhetoric as well
Use more reasoning, less evidence
Use non-technical aids: examples, anekdotes,
quotations, comparisons, etc
56
Uncertainty (Sandman)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Acknowledge uncertainty up front
Put bounds on it (what is credible?)
Clarify what you’re more certain about and what not
Explain what you do to decrease uncertainty
Don’t overpromise on reduction of uncertainty
Explain “conservatisness” (worst case)
Report all estimates, not just your own
Don’t hide behind uncertainty
Don’t perpetuate uncertainty
Never say ‘there is no evidence of’ when you haven’t studied if
Stress that taking action now is better than finding out with
certainty
Acknowledge that people disagree about what to do under
uncertainty
Get people involved in reducing uncertainty themselves
57
Be clear…
58
The relevance of context
Conclusions
know your audience
know the situation
before
starting to communicate the risk information
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_shsRfXqk
60

Download Report