• 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. Framework, Terminology and Definitions
  • 2. Risk Communication and Plant Protection
  • 3. Why Risk Communication?
  • 4. Historical Strategies Used in Risk Communication
  • 5. Risk Communication in the 21st Century
  • 6. Lesson Summary
  • 7. Lesson Assessment
• Resources
  • Help
  • Glossary
  • Documents
  • Acknowledgements

Lesson 1: Basic Concepts in Risk Communication

Topic 1: Framework, Terminology and Definitions

What is Risk Communication?

In its broadest sense, risk communication is the process of explaining risk. Risk communication is one of the three components of risk analysis, which are: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. We will review how these components are related to one another later in this lesson. Risk communication is a tool to affect, facilitate, and improve understanding of risk. It is an essential part of risk analysis. Depending on the context or the circumstance, risk communication can vary considerably. It can:

• include a different number of individuals, from one to several thousand
• be informal or involve considerable planning and formality
• be unidirectional or bi-directional
• be proactive or reactive
• be composed of one unique or several closely related messages
• be written, verbal, or visual statements containing information about risk

You might remember the technical definition of risk from earlier modules: “the probability of an event or events multiplied by a series of consequences that range from mild to severe.”

However, this is not how the public calculates risk. Instead, the public uses their knowledge and previous experience to judge risk. Personal perceptions and perceived risk also affect the public’s views. When planning risk communication strategies it is important to consider the difference between what risk technically means and how the public actually calculates risk. There are ways to help you successfully communicate public risk.

Some examples include:

• “The process of informing people of potential hazards to their person, property, or community.” (FEMA)
• “Science-based approach for communicating effectively in situations of high stress, high concern, and controversy.” (Covello, V. T. Risk Communication Slides [PowerPoint Presentation]. Retrieved from Online Web site: http://www.centre4riskman.com/resources.html)
• “Exchange of information and opinions, and establishment of an effective dialogue, among those responsible for assessing, minimizing, and regulating risks and those who may be affected by the outcome of those risks.” (BusinessDictionary.com)
• “Exchange of information and opinions concerning risk and risk-related factors among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, and other interested parties.” (FAO, 1995)

The first two definitions highlight the “here are the facts” approach and are mainly one-way in nature. The third and fourth definitions include two-way information exchange. These last two consider factors such as risk perception and cost/benefit assessments of risk.

In the United States, the history of risk communication for large industries and regulatory agencies began in the late 1970s. During this time, the nuclear and chemical industries were trying to combat public concern about the risks of their industries. These industries believed that clear and understandable information was enough to convince the public that these technologies were safe.

To this day, many still believe that risk communication is simply about making information understandable. This is particularly true in scientific and technical fields. However, most risk communication experts agree that such an approach is not enough.

Many factors influence how people understand and communicate risk. These can include:

• perception of risks
• the behaviors resulting from these perceptions
• our cultural and ethnic backgrounds
• our prior experiences
• and our personal feelings, instincts, and life circumstances

Risk communication that offers only facts and fails to account for the personal side of our risk perceptions is incomplete. Lesson 2 in this Module will discuss this more.

Communicators should deliver a message that leads to making wise choices. Each communicator must understand the nature of the particular risk he or she is trying to communicate. For each particular situation, the communicator should understand:

• what information needs to be communicated and/or exchanged
• who to communicate it to
• how to effectively deliver the message
• at what point risk communication should occur
• which communication methods are appropriate to deliver the message

This definition says that risk communication must account for emotion in people’s perceptions of risk. It also says that risk communication will be more effective if it is thought of as dialogue instead of instruction. Information alone may not be enough to convince the audience. Communicators must be careful about what to expect. The audience may not think and do as the communicators wish. In order to convey the message, the communication must be a dialogue that is sensitive to emotions. This approach recognizes findings in the fields of neuroscience and psychology. These findings have established that risk perception is a dual process of fact and feeling. We use the facts we have, and a set of feelings that help us measure how risky something feels.

What is the Relationship Between Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Communication in Pest Risk Analysis?

A good representation of this relationship is given below.

Pest risk assessment is science-based, and requires analytical skills to place scientific facts in their proper risk context. Pest risk management also requires knowledge of science and regulatory policy. In contrast, risk communication might have technical, scientific, and policy messages. Creating and delivering a message requires knowledge of many fields. 

Risk communication might involve only a few people, such as communication between risk assessors and risk managers. It might also include much larger groups, such as communications campaigns aimed at customers. Risk Communication should utilize best practices (see Lesson 4, Topic 4 for more information). However, internal communication can be informal and highly technical while still being effective. Risk communication with large groups can be much more complex.

To continue, select Topic 2 from the Topics menu above or click here.