Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 153–156 | Cite as

The Perception and Communication of Risk: A Guide for the Local Health Agency

  • Timothy Sly
Article

Abstract

A local public health agency is expected to respond to a wide spectrum of health concerns, the management of which usually requires effective communication of information, and dialogue with concerned communities. Local health departments have not always found this to be a smooth process. This paper begins by reviewing the public’s construction and perception of risk, and examines the changing popular view of the health agency with respect to trust and credibility. The health agency’s role and responsibilities in the area of risk communication are addressed in the form of a checklist drawn from a wide range of field-tested sources.

Abrégé

On s’attend à ce qu’un service local de santé publique réponde à un vaste éventail de questions de santé dont la gestion exige une communication efficace de l’information et un dialogue avec les collectivités concernées. Cela ne se déroule pas toujours sans heurt pour les services de santé locaux. L’article commence par un examen de l’interprétation et de la perception des risques par le public, puis se penche sur l’évolution de la réputation générale des services de santé aux chapitres de la fiabilité et de la crédibilité. Le rôle et les responsabilités des services de santé en matière de sensibilisation aux risques y sont abordés sous la forme d’un aidemémoire, compilé à partir d’une gamme étendue de sources vérifiées dans la pratique.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderly D, Shepherd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis 1996;16(4):473–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hance BJ, Chess C, Sandman P. Improving Dialogue With Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government. New Brunswick, NJ: New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 1988;1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185:1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geuter G, Stevens AL (Eds.). Mental Models. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 1969;163:1232–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sjöberg L. Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sciences 1979;11:39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandman PM, Miller P. Outrage and Technical Detail: The Impact of Agency Behavior on Community Risk Perception. Division of Science and Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slovic P. Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CN: Praeger, 1992;117–52.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sandman, PM. Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal November 1987;21–22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Fischhoff B, et al. Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1978;4:551–81.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kasperson JX (Eds.), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992; 91–125.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan G, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, et al. Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science Technology 1992;26(11):2048–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischhoff B. Risk: A Guide to Controversy. In: National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989;211–98.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wynne B. May the sheep safely graze? In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B. Risk, Environment, and Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996;59.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burger, EJ. Health as a surrogate for the environment. Daedalus 1990;114(4):133–53.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Covello, VT. Informing people about risks from chemicals, radiation, and other toxic substances: A review of obstacles to public understanding and effective risk communication. In: Leiss W (Ed.), Prospects and Problems in Risk Communication. University of Waterloo Press, 1989;7–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Covello, VT. Risk Perception and Communication: Tools and Techniques for Communicating Risk Information. [Proceedings of Workshop] “Environmental Risk: Unpacking the Black Box.” McMaster University, Ontario, November 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sly T. Risk Perception in the Sensitized Community. [Doctoral Thesis] University of Teesside (UK) 1997;81–82.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Public meeting, Etobicoke, June 1996. Videotape recording courtesy of Rogers Cablesystems Ltd, Toronto.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Powell D, Leiss W. Mad Cows and Mothers’ Milk. Montreal, McGill-Queen’s Press, 1997;31–34.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rhodes R. Deadly Feasts. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Picard A. The Gift of Death: Confronting Canada’s Tainted Blood Tragedy. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Zabala F. Public reliance on risk communication channels in the wake of a cryptosporidium outbreak. Risk Analysis 1998;18(4):367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keenan RE, Finlet BL, Price, PS. Exposure assessment: Then, now, and quantum leaps into the future. Risk Analysis 1994;14(3):225–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    For an excellent review of the semantic problems in risk communication, see Jardine CG, and Hrudey SE, Mixed messages in risk communication. Risk Analysis 1997;17(4):489–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Covello, VT. Informing people about risks from chemicals, radiation, and other toxic substances: A review of obstacles to public understanding and effective risk communication. In: Leiss W (Ed.), Prospects and Problems in Risk Communication. University of Waterloo Press, 1989;2–3.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC, 1989; 129–31.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lundgren R, McMakin A. Risk Communication (2nd ed.) Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Analysis 1995;15(2):137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Occupational & Public HealthRyerson Polytechnic UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations