v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste May 1988
and Emergency Response
Report of a Conference on
Risk Communication and
Environmental Management
Technical Assistance Bulletin 4
Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention
-------
-------
RISK COMMUNICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Following for your information is a summary of presentations and a way to
access further information from a Risk Communication and Environmental
Management Conference held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at Temple
University. The conference, sponsored in part by the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, included
presentations from leading academic researchers and professionals in the
field.
The presentations reflect the opinions and judgments from the "experts" in
the field and do not necessarily reflect EPA policy. However, the
presenters offered tips and common-sense advice that we think you may
find valuable. The presentations have special application to issues
involving the implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, Title 111) at the State and local levels as well as to other
environmental issues
EPA thanks Temple University for preparing this conference summary.
May 1988
-------
COMMUNICATING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
On November 18, 1987, Temple University hosted a conference* titled
"Risk Communication and Environmental Management." Leading academic
researchers, experienced and innovative professionals, and concerned
community activists came to Philadelphia for a day of talks and
discussion. They agreed substantially on what were the major problems
involved in effective risk communication and how to solve them. This
bulletin presents highlights from the conference, and should be useful to
those working in this field. •
HAVING THE RIGHT ATTITUDE
A pervasive view at the conference was the importance of getting beyond
the "rational expert-irrational public" attitude. Some community activists
are technically trained or have become well-informed on specific issues.
"Average" members of the public know how and why they feel upset by a
situation and this is useful to environmental managers. All those involved
in the risk communication process know some things well, though they
may have inadequate or biased views of other things. i
Communication breakdowns come from three sources: (f)
failure to understand the psychology of individuals, (2}
complexities of communicating information about risk,
and (3) the nature of institutions in which communication
takes place.
* Conference'Chairpersons: Dr. Grant Krow, PhD., Chemistry, Temple U. - Dr.
Robert Mason, Ph.D., Geography, Temple U. - Dr. Robert Patterson, Sc.D.,
Environmental Health Engineering, Temple, U. - Dr. Gerald Zeitz, Ph.D.,
Human Resource Administration, Temple, U.
-------
L UNDERSTANDING HUMAW PSYCHOLOGY
A. How people behave:
• People usually process information best when not upset.
In a crisis, communication about health hazards is often
distorted.
• What upsets people as much as potential hazards is not
having any control or input in situations involving them
or their families.
• People learn things selectively: they "filter" what they
hear based on their experience, information, and
interests. For example:
Journalists focus on what they feel is
controversial, relatively easy to cover, and has
appeal to the general public.
Community members are most concerned about the
well-being of themselves and their families. They
often rank issues other than environmental risk as
more important to their lives.
Risk professionals concentrate on technical
estimates of risk, often forgetting that the
scientific basis for these estimates may be
uncertain and contested.
• Those who must communicate about risk, such as plant
managers, are often not trained communicators.
Messages get "garbled" and do not come out as intended.
B. How People Estimate Risks:
What average community members see as highly risky is usually different
from what poses the greatest actual danger to health. This happens
because some risks trigger strong emotional responses while others don't.
Extensive news coverage can stir emotion and enhance the "riskiness" of a
given hazard.
-------
People are more upset by risks which are associated
with dramatic events (like accidents In which lots of
people are killed at one time), or which they feel result
from unfairness or immorality.
People underestimate risks that are very familiar to
them (like driving), or those they have some control over.
People are more tolerant of a risk (such as air pollution
from smokestacks) if they feel they receive some benefit
from it (needed jobs).
2. THE COMPLEXITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT RISK
A. Probability of health risks:
Explaining something abstract like "probability," and especially very low
probability, is inherently difficult. Furthermore, a given hazard may have
different probabilities of causing harm to different groups of people. It is
the risk communicator's job to explain these probabilities so that the
community can make decisions about how environmental protection
resources should be allocated. Tips for the communicator:
• Compare risks: people may understand unf am i 1 lar risks
by comparing them to ones experienced more often.
• Involve the public right from the beginning in risk
assessment and management so they are part of the
decision and understand it better.
• L fsten to what people say and make them aware of the
consequences of choices. This will help produce fairer
and more rational decisions. :
B. Technical.assessment of hazards:
The following guidelines should help the lay public better understand
expert risk assessments and more readily accept management decisions.
• Bui Id trust People won't believe what you say unless
they have confidence in you and your organization.
-------
Develop a reputation ror openness and nonesty witnin
your community long before an important event occurs.
Be "up front." Acknowledge your organization's stake in
the issues. Provide all of the information that is asked
for and understand that how it is used is up to the
community.
Simplify your language. Use clear, straightforward lay
person's language, host people don't have much
scientific training and won't understand technical
jargon. Don't use abbreviations, technical terms, and
other insider shortcuts in documents handed out to the
public.
3. IMPROVING INSTITUTIONS
A. Organizational barriers to effective communication:
• The multiplicity of organizations and local government
jurisdictions means that it is difficult to standardize
information and develop centralized data-banks.
• Different professional groups, even located in the same
organization, will have different interests and attitudes
toward a given risk situation. For instance, lawyers tell
companies to avoid saying anything that might lead to
litigation, and marketing personnel want to block
information that might harm sales.
• People who are called on for answers in a crisis
situation frequently do not have first-hand knowledge of
the technical issues involved and may not have good lines
of communication with those who do know.
Barriers such as these are hard to get rid of completely, but awareness
can help minimize them, it is important for risk professionals to try to
give speedy and complete information, develop multiple sources of
information for the public, work in inter-disciplinary teams when
possible, and be very patient with those seeking information.
-------
B. Building better Institutions:
Ultimately, good communication depends on genuine respect and sharing of
control between the parties involved. This requires new institutions.
• "Bridging organizations," made up of industry,
government, and community members, play a vital role by
encouraging open discussion of issues, preparing
unbiased reports, and stimulating action.
• Local Emergency Planning Committees:need to involve all
the categories of people required by law in the process
of emergency planning. Yet most do not fully understand
what is expected of them. Industry needs to help in
providing key information for plans.
• Complying with the letter and spirit of right-to-know
legislation will greatly enhance risk communication but
requires some changed practices. Industry must let go of
control over information and will have to take the
initiative as bridge-builder with the community. The
public must educate themselves on risk choices and
alternatives. They must agree on acceptable risk and
give up the goal of "zero risk now."
-------
Featured speakers
BARUCH FI5CHOFF, Ph. D., Carnegie Mellon University
Managing Risk Percepty'
-------
------- |