Advertisement

The Role and Nature of Risk Communication in Europe

  • Philip C. R. Gray
  • Richard M. Stern
  • Peter M. Wiedemann
Chapter
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 11)

Abstract

The identification, estimation, reduction and proper control of the risks associated with modern technology is one of the most important challenges of our times. In an open and pluralistic society, the implementation of many technological projects and innovations — from the siting of industrial facilities to the development of new technologies, materials and consumer products — depends on public acceptance. Communication between and among the scientists and administrators who manage risks, the affected public, politicians, special interest groups and the media is therefore necessary at all stages of the development of technologies to make mutual understanding and informed consent possible. Although communication is commonly supported and practised in most of Europe, there are specific needs in areas within the European Region. One such area is the countries of central and eastern Europe and the newly independent states of the former USSR, which currently face particular challenges in providing adequate health and environmental information to their populations and in creating the conditions for equitable participation in risk decisions.

Keywords

Risk Management Risk Perception Nuclear Energy Risk Communication Waste Incineration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chemical Manufacturers’ Association (1988). Title III community awareness workbook. Washington, DC, Chemical Manufacturers’ Association.Google Scholar
  2. Chess, C. et al. (1989). Planning dialogue with communities: a risk communication workbook. New Brunswick, NJ, Environmental Communication Program, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  3. Collins (1992). Collins concise English dictionary. 3rd ed. Glasgow, Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Covello, V.T. (1989). 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. Waterloo, University of Waterloo Press, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
  5. Covello, V.T. & Allen, F.W. (1988). Seven cardinal rules of risk communication. Washington, DC, US Environmental Protection Agency (Leaflet OPA-87–020).Google Scholar
  6. Covello, V.T. et al. (1987). Communicating scientific information about health and environmental risks: problems and opportunities from a social and behavioural perspective. In: Davies, J.C. et al., ed. Risk communication: proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication, Washington DC, January 29–31, 1986. Washington, DC, The Conservation Foundation, pp. 109–173.Google Scholar
  7. Kasperson, R.E. & Stallen, P.M. (1991). Risk communication: the evolution of attempts. In: Kasperson, R.E. & Stallen, P.J.M., ed. Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krimsky, S. & Plough, A. (1988). Environmental hazards: communicating risks as a social process. Dover, MA, Auburn House Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. National Research Council (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Neidhardt, F. (1993). The public as a communication system. Public understanding of science, 2: 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Renn, O. & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson, R.E. & Stallen, P.J.M., ed. Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Risk management in chemical safety (1986). Science of the total environment,51: special issue.Google Scholar
  13. Rohrmann, B. (1992). The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta Psychologica, 81: 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wiedemann, P. (1991). Öffentlichkeitsarbeit bei Krisen. Ein Leitfaden zur besseren Kommunikation [Public relations in crises: a manual for better communication]. Eschborn, RKW.Google Scholar
  15. Wiedemann, P. (1992). Five levels of risk communication: a helpful framework for the improvement of risk communication. In: Ball, D.J. & Stern, R.M., ed. Risk communication: dealing with the spectrum of environment and health risks in Europe. Report of a WHO consultation. Norwich, Environmental Risk Assessment Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (Research Report No. 11 ).Google Scholar
  16. Schütz, H. & Wiedemann, P.M. (1995). Implementation of the Seveso directive in Germany — an evaluation of hazardous incident information. Safety science, 18: 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip C. R. Gray
  • Richard M. Stern
  • Peter M. Wiedemann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations