DEFINING PRACTITIONERS' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS
Interim Report
May 31, 1993
Caron Chess
Kandice L. Salomone
Billie Jo Hance
Center for Environmental Communication
• Rutgers University
Cook College
Box 231
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
908-932-8795
-------
-------
BACKGROUND
There is growing evidence of government agencies' interest in risk communication
issues. Because agencies have found themselves enmeshed with [increasing frequency in
environmental, controversies, they have sought to improve the ability of staff to'
communicate with the public. Applying the results of risk communication research is a
useful way to reach this goal.
This project seeks to close the gap between government agencies' risk
communication commitment and their practice by more clearly defining the research
needs of agency practitioners (See Appendix A for project summary). The first phase of
this research sought to define and prioritize environmental risk conimunication research
topics relevant to government practitioners' needs. The second phase of the project (if
chosen for funding) will bring together a symposium of leaders ibjhe risk communication
field to flesh out these topics into research questions. We propose as a third phase more
research to better understand risk communication needs of government agencies and the
barriers to more effective risk communication practices. Finally; as a fourth phase, we
propose development of successful case studies as models for agency risk communication
.efforts. Our goal is to furnish agencies with the inforination needed to make informed
decisions about research directions, not to determine the kinds of research agencies should
conduct.
i
This report describes the progress made in the first year, what we have learned
thus far, and how what we have learned has informed our decisions about how to
proceed in year two. | .
'YEAR QNE -'•'•• , ' ' ' | ', ' ' •
- ' • i ' ' •
In phase one of this project, we proposed to: 1) identify practitioners', risk
communication research needs; 2) identify risk communication research topics academic
researchers saw as most critical to practitioners; 3) identify the commonalities and
differences among practitioners' and researchers' agendas; and 4) seek to develop a
consensus about risk communication research priorities where consensus exists and
identify disparate research agendas where consensus does not exist.
Telephone Interviews
We began this process by conducting short telephone interviews with 12 agency
practitioners and 12 academic researchers regarding their thoughts on the risk
communication problems facing practitioners and the directions j they felt future risk
communication should take. Interviewees were defined as people with considerable
expertise and knowledge in the field of risk :communication~the; acknowledged leaders in
the field among both practitioners and researchers that fit criteria we developed with the
assistance of the project manager (See Appendix B for criteria and Appendix C for list
-------
-------
of interviewees).
The telephone interviews consisted of open-ended .questions designed to yield two
important products (See Appendix D for interview protocols for academic researchers
and practitioners): 1) a list of risk communication problems, successes, and research
questions.for the Delphi questionnaire, and 2) a longer list of risk communication
practitioners and researchers whom we could involve in the follovjing Delphi
questionnaire process.
1 • ' - .-"'/.''
Findings. There were some prominent themes that ran through the interviews with
practitioners. While many felt that agencies had made progress in risk communication
over the past few years, there was also a feeling that there was ccjnsiderable room for
improvement, particularly in the areas of agency acceptance and commitment (There
were certain program exceptions to this, notably, the community Delations efforts in the
Superfund program.) Many practitioners either mentioned explicitly or implied that trust
and credibility are important issues in agency communication. Explaining risk to
laypeople—particularly where uncertainty was involved—was mentioned by many
practitioners as still needing improvement, although several practitioners felt that
agencies had progressed in their written materials in the last few years. Several
practitioners felt one-to-one and small group communication had [improved, and many
expressed that it was on this basis that they had the most success explaining risks to
people. There was a general feeling among practitioners we interviewed that agencies
need answers about who communities are, what their needs are, jpid what concerns they
have. '
Trust and credibility were mentioned by several researchers as well, in as much as
they are important variables to include in a broader model of whkt constitutes successful
risk communication. Researchers did not feel that there were very many clear examples
of risk communication successes in agencies, and there was a general feeling that
successful agency risk management and policy-making would result from processes that
included more participation from community members. There w;as some divergence
among researchers regarding the utility of a persuasion model of j communication versus
that of an informed consent model.
' ' i ' '
Both practitioners and researchers felt that evaluation was! critical, although they
split on whether they felt better evaluation methods needed to be developed or whether
agencies simply needed to employ existing ones. Both groups also felt that there needed
to be more models of successful communication for agency staff to follow. In general,
both practitioners and researchers saw the need to get beyond orie-shot communication
studies and efforts and work towards a broader, more naturalistic? communication model
(for researchers) and more holistic communication programs (foij practitioners).
-------
-------
The Delphi Questionnaire
Although there was commonality among many of the research topics suggested,
there was also great diversity in topics, and the list of topics generated from the
interviews was quite lengthy. Grouping these topics into comrnoa areas, we developed
the first draft of a questionnaire, which we sent to two Rutgers' ijesearchers and the
project officer for feedback. Based on comments by those revievl^ers, the questionnaire
was revised and sent to approximately ten researchers and practitioners not involved in
earlier or later phases of the project for review. Their comments were incorporated into
a final revision of the instrument (See Appendix E for final questionnaire).-
• ' - .''.." -.-'' . j '•'. ' •'' , ' • ' • '.
While our original proposal had called for sending the questionnaire out to a total
of 50 - 75 practitioners and researchers, we felt it would comproinise our methodology to
try to cut back the list of practitioners and researchers generated! by our original group of
24. Therefore, we decided to include as Delphi participants everyone recommended by
our original group of experts, as well as the original group of 24. \ The total number of
participants participating in the Delphi process is 145. !
The survey, which was sent out in three versions to account for order effects, also
includes a list of 18 Likert scale statements. These statements gifew out of issues that
were presented by the initial interviewees which, .while perhaps not directly translatable
into research topics, will yield information critical for setting a context for agency risk
communication research (See part II of questionnaire in Appendix E and the above
discussion of telephone interview findings).
Findings. Thus far, approximately 90 of the 145 questionnaires (J62%) have been
returned. These were received before a reminder notice went out, so we expect an even
greater overall return at the final deadline. The questionnaire has elicited a great deal
of enthusiasm from respondents in EPA, academic institutions, and state and local
agencies. About half of the respondents provided further comments or suggestions. Of
these, most reflected respondents' own experience with risk conunuriication, and ranged
from suggestions for additional research topics to different ways to frame topics in the
questionnaire. Several respondents mentioned the need for agency commitment for risk
communication to work; others mentioned the need for research '{tp be grounded in the
practical concerns of people who are out there every day communicating with the public
about these issues. Judging by the number of people who have already responded to our
questionnaire and the number of additional comments, it seems deair that the
questionnaire provoked both interest and thought about risk communication research.
Analysis of questionnaire data has not yet been conducted but will begin after the
closing date for returns, May 24. Once we examine these resultsj we will be able to look
more thoroughly at next steps for this phase. Our options for the remainder of this
phase of the project include: 1) Continue the Delphi process by creating another
questionnaire based on the results of the first; 2) Send out a questionnaire that asks
-------
-------
different questions than the first questionnaire; or 3) Consider at more qualitative next
step such 'as short or in-depth interviews with some subset of respondents.
Because of the range of issues suggested by our initial interviews, -the final form of
the questionnaire was far longer than we had originally intended it to be. Rather than a
relatively short questionnaire, it was nine pages long arid contained ten categories of
research topics plus the 18 Likert scale items at the end. Also, the group of respondents
was far larger and more diverse than we had originally intended.. As a result, it may not
only be unnecessary to continue the Delphi process for a second round, but it may also
be unreasonable to expect participants to fill out another survey! given considering the
time they have already given us in filling but the first-round questionnaire. Given the
interest the questionnaire has elicited from respondents, we may decide, after we
evaluate the results from the questionnaire, that a more qualitative option such as (3)
above will yield a more useful product. We will be evaluating these steps with the
project officer when we have more data available.
YEAR TWO
Symposium
The proposed second year's research will convene a one-i^ay symposium of
academics and practitioners to 1) examine the implications and .applications of the final
report from phase one; 2) define what research already exists on the priority research
topics; 3) flesh out the priority research topics into meaningful research questions.
i ' • ' - ' • .
The research symposium proposed for year two will be a working session, asking
participants to think through next steps for risk communication research. Based on -
research iii year one, we have set the following goals for the symposium in year two:
1. Develop research questions to flesh out priority research topics identified from year
one. That is, the topics which the questionnaires indicate are priority topics undoubtedly
mean different things to different respondents. The topics need;to be fleshed out more
fully to give life to the research priorities, define potential research questions, and
explore more fully the gaps in current knowledge. j
2. Provide a forum to bring leaders in jthe field together. TJie forum will develop a
critical mass'for momentum and cohesiveness in risk communication research. Because
risk communication is inherently interdisciplinary, and,there is nbta society for risk
communication which brings people together routinely, a meeting of leading academics
and practitioners has not occurred since a conference on evaluation held in 1988. In the
course of this project, many academics have raised concerns to u|s that the field lacks
coherence and is in need of more coherent work in theory-building and empirical
research. In part, these problems reflect the nature of an interdisciplinary'field, but they
may be exacerbated by a lack of opportunities for leaders in the 'field to discuss these
-------
-------
concerns; Similarly, many practitioners expressed concerns about! being isolated frorn
their peers in the field and keeping up with recent developments,:
3. Serve as catalyst for further thinking about improving risk communication in
government agencies. Our analysis of the results of the statements in part two of the
questionnaire, which ask for respondents to indicate the extent of their agreement about
statements related to agencies risk communication practices, will |help to provide fodder,
for further discussion of agencies risk communication needs, in addition to research.
(The extent to which we have time to deal with important issues-raside from research
topics-will be determined by whether we attract sufficient funding for a two-day
workshop. Additional funding would also be useful to assess the jneeds of government
practitioners in addition to defining their research. I
, •. i i" '
4. Increase understanding between practitioners and academics: Although there are
some similar concerns and interests expressed by those in government agencies who deal
with the public and those who conduct related research, there are; also some
communication gaps that will be easier to overcome when practitioners and researchers
meet. Preliminary review of comments on the questionnaires suggests that researchers
have some skepticism about the expertise and commitment of thclse dealing with the
public and practitioners have expressed concerns that the research sometimes does not
meet their needs. - :
5. Increase communication among government agencies. We are also finding in our
first year research that practitioners in different agencies, share sclme similar frustrations,
concerns, and interests. But they also realize that they know relatively little about what
people in other agencies are doing. This adds to the sense of frustration and results in
re-inventing the risk communication wheel. : !
While our original proposal called for a smaller group for the symposium, our
year one research has made it clear that the symposium participants should reflect the
range of disciplines and diversity in the field. This will include academics involved in
risk communication research tied to psychology, sociology, mediation, environmental
equity, communication, and health promotion. We will seek the same diversity among
practitioners, including state, federal, and local practitioners dealing with a range of
environmental issues and communication problems. We would also Hike to involve a
limited number of representatives from industry, consulting firms,land environmental
groups. " " " ' ' "1 . "• . •••-''
As a result, we feel we need participation from at least 50 people to reflect the
field's diversity and to develop the critical mass needed for productive thought. With
fewer than this number, we are concerned that the symposium will lack the ferment that
will come from going beyond those who have defined the field thus far. We anticipate
inviting our original group of 24 interviewees as well as others from'the additional 121
practitioners and academics who received our questionnaire on risk communication
-------
-------
research. Because those who received the questionnaire were recommended by our
. original list of 24, we feel it is the best list of "top" people in the field that can be
developed without significant additional (and costly) effort.
Needs 'assessment
The original proposal suggested the need in year two of this research for an
assessment of practitioners' risk communication needs in addition; to their research needs
(e.g., resources, management policies, etc.). The options for this phase of research would
range from an extensive survey of practitioners at all levels of government; a more in-
depth focus on one or two agencies; or a combination of approaches, and our approach
would depend on results from earlier phases, funding availability, jand input from the
project officer. ^ | '
As the first year of this project has progressed, it has become apparent to us that
the needs assessment has already become an integral part of the research. The Likert
scale items we included in the questionnaire grew out of interviewees' explicit concerns
about these issues, and our analysis of these data will give us a better sense of how to
proceed in further defining the needs of practitioners.
There does not appear at this point to be funding for a formal and extensive
needs assessment in addition to the symposium, and our feedback! from respondents
indicates that they feel it is more important to meet and discuss these issues with others
in the field. The larger size of the year two symposium will allowjus to explore
practitioners' needs more extensively than we would have,been able to do with the
originally proposed smaller symposium, and we will also be able to discuss with
participants their feeling about the value of a large scale needs assessment in their
agencies. We feel the needs assessment effort is an important element and hope that
funding can be secured for that effort. However, at this point, the symposium is a higher
priority. l
7
-------
-------
THE SIA1E UNIVERSITY OF MEW JERSEY
Cook College
Environmental Communication Research Program '
; . A Program oflhe Agricultural Experiment Station • .'' ' " •'"''
P.O. Box231 • New Brunswick • .How Jersey 08903-0231 t 908/932-8795 / FAX: 908/932-7815
Now Namo as of 2/1/93: Center for Environmental! Communication
. Assessing Risk Communication Research Needs of Government Agencies
Project Summary,
Caron Chess, Kandice L. Salomone, and Bil'lie Jo Hance
,„ ' -' ' " March 1993 ...
Government agencies at all levels—federal,'state, county and' municipal—are'
increasingly concerned.about how to.deal with the public more effectively about
environmental issues. One source of this concern is the policy paralysis'that frequently
traps environmental initiatives in unresolvable conflicts among agencies, communities,
and other .competing interest groups. More and more, government officials are turning
.to the field of risk communication for help in determining how best to alert the public to
environmental risks and to minimize the potential for unwarranted conflict. •
'•-. •- . • ' ' • '•' ' . i- - ' '' • ..''-'. •''.,'
There is a growing body of literature suggesting how agencies should communicate
with the public about controversial risk issues and a number of studies .that seek to
determine what are the most effective ways to alert laypeople to environmental risks.
However, despite numerous research efforts aimed at improving risk communication
processes, there is also evidence suggesting that agencies' risk communication practices
lag behind their interest and commitment. 1
As a step toward improving agency risk communication practice, the first phase of
this project—funded as a cooperative agreement with EPA-keeks -to define and
prioritize environmental communication research topics relevant tp the needs of
government practitioners. Our expectation is that more coherent risk communication
research agendas that address specific needs of practitioners iwill more.quickly result in
the improvement of agency risk communication practices. Tb this end, phase one of "the"
project will seek to:
«- Identify practitioners' risk communication needs;
« Identify the risk communication topics academic researchers consider most critical
Jo.practitioners, and; ,
•Identify the commonalities and differences among the} priorities of practitioners '
and researchers. .-.'•• ' • . •
" t \
Because of the nature of practitioners' needs and researchers' concerns, we believe it
is unlikely that the project will yield one definitive agenda, instead, we anticipate that
the project will yield multiple agendas, providing agencies wiih options, not prescriptions'
-------
-------
Our goal is to furnish agencies witii ihc information needed to make informed decisions
about research directions, not to determine the kinds of-research" agencies should
conduct. ' .'-"•.'.
Several important factors guided our'thinking while developing a research approach
for phase one, including: a) project credibility with practitioner^ and the research
community; b) inclusion of a diversity of perspectives within the; inherently
interdisciplinary field of risk communication; c) seeking consensus while also allowing for
diversity of views; and d) collecting .quantitative data to form the general .list of research
needs and qualitative data for richer understanding of the perspectives in the field.
Keeping these factors in mind, we concluded that a modified Delphi method would
be most effective for meeting our objectives. Generally, the Delphi technique is a ••.
method of structuring communication among a group of content experts aimed at
eliciting ideas and developing consensus among people who are] geographically separated
and may have diverse views. This communication process is usually implemented using
an iterative process of mailing questionnaires to experts, analyzing data from these
questionnaires, and distributing additional questionnaires that include, summary data
from earlier rounds. The method compensates for the process loss; of face-to-face ' * '.
meetings due to dominating personalities and deferral to seniority and offers an opportu-
nity for participants to answer frankly since responses are nof attributed to specific
.individuals. < . , .
The modified Delphi technique designed for this project includes six stages: 1)
Telephone interviews conducted with 12 practitioners and 12 researchers who are
acknowledged by their colleagues as experts in risk communication. 2) Based on the
results of phase one, development, pretesting, and revision :of a questionnaire. 3)
Distribution of this questionnaire to the initial 24 interviewees and to approximately 75 '
additional practitioners and researchers they nominated for inclusion in this process.-4)
Distribution of a second-round questionnaire that includes summary results from the first,
round and asks for responses that reflect this added informatioij. 5) Analysis of data to'
clarify the similarities and differences found between the research needs of practitioners
and what academics believe are practitioners' research priorities;. 6) Follow-up interviews
with participants that hold distinct minority views on topics andiwith a representative
group of participants that reflect the views where consensus is found. ,
-•- T • . . " ' -• \- . • • .. •
The modified Delphi technique designed for the project will-be useful for eliciting a
range of views about the research needs and priorities of agency practitioners-and for
developing consensus. However, this technique will not enable participants to offer '
much .detail on any particular research need or topic they suggest. To compensate for
this shortcoming, a fa.ce-to-face'mccting of participants is proposed for phase two of the
project.
2
-------
-------
TO: ' Lynn Ludcrer ' •
FROM: ' Caron, Kandice, arid BJ -
RE: List of Ton Practitioners .
DATE:. November 24, 1992
' ' /" , "
We have re-evaluated the list of ten based c|n the creation
of a matrix that adhered to the .following criteria that we
developed for generating the first list (see attajched matrix) :
Across .the top are the .relevant agencies'thalt deal with risk
communication (state, federal, local) and thjeir
communication context (health or environmental).
1 -. ' .,'.'''•' ^ '•'.".
On the other axis are the issues practitioner's deal with
(e.g., superfund, air, water, etc.), These| categories come
from the list in the EPA report- "Reducing Risks " . (Sept.
1990) that established major types of human |exposure. We
did not include on this matrix worker-exposure, although it
appears on the- EPA list. (Please see questipns. below on
•this -item.) , . ;
Infilling in the-boxes, we superimposed on these! choices 'other
criteria from the .original list:. . . [.'.-.
' - • - j" • ' •
• : Practitioners must have first hand experience in
communicating environmental health risks tp the public; On
the other hand; we also want practitioners who have thought
about the field of .risk communication broadly enough so that
;they can. not only speak about their experiences, but also
contribute their ideas.on what practitioners; need from risk
communication-research. In other words, we want "down 'in
the trenches", types who also go to risk communication
conferences, attend .workshops, write articles, .or are in
other ways involved in raising the level of Awareness about
risk-communication in their agencies.- ! -.;
" ' ' ' . ' - • • • I - ' .. . .
.The list should include agencies .that have tjaken a. lead in
risk communication as-well as agencies that are less active.
We felt it' less important to apply to this Ijist different
types of communication (public participation, behavior change,
education, information) because most practitioner^ engage in a'
range of these activities and generally do not see themselves as
specializing in one particular area. .
1.
2.
3,. /
4.
So,, the current list, based on these criteria:
An EPA person-who specializes in air - Because our state and
local, people.-tend to deal with water concern^, ...we could use
someone in this category.
John Perrecone - EPA Superfund Region V j •
Judy Morgan or Jeanne Morosco - MJ DEPE,'a range of
environmental issues including air and water} /
Ken Cobb — Cooperative Extension, Cornell University (or
-------
-------
6.
7.
8.
9.
10".
other Extension person) . : .'[••'.' ' .
Max Lum - ATSDR-(a range of environmental Issues on the '
federal health level) | " ' •
Sharyn Sutton - NCI' (specific health communjication on the
federal health level') . • . • . i
Peter Galbraith - CT Department of1 Health Services and
representative of ASTHO ,- . .[ .
Crystal St,owe - Director, Public Informatiop, .North Carolina
Low Level Radioactive Waste^Management Authority (minority
person who deals with "impact of this issue pn minority
communities) ."..-' • j _ ' ' . .•
Heidi Klein - National Association of County Health.
Organizations (NACHO) or her designate from; local county-
agency • •' | - "[
A person ,who represents pesticide/herbicide' communications
from the state or federal level
Questions
As we mentioned above, we decided to leave off worker
communications from our list, as this field! is speqific and
generally, not dealt with by other risk communication
practitioners. How do you feel about this? •
2.
.Can you recommend someone from the .EPA who
with air issues?
deal specifically
3. Can you recommend a state or federal pesticides person?
-------
-------
-------
-------
.MEMORANDUM '. • . -
November 30, 1992
TO: Lynn Luderer
FR:' Caron, Kandice, and BJ
RE: List of ten researchers.
Based on recent "feedback from you and others, we have redone
our procedures for selecting the ten researcherjs. Basically, •-
we've selected two criterion variables to guidel our selection of
participants using-quota-sampling. The two criterion variables
are: '
• • risk communication research area, (primary variable);
• . • . • ' • ; - ' _ ' i \
U.S. risk communication research centers (secondary
variable). . • .'.':•• '
Because our primary goal is to make sure that all major
research areas are included, we were not able t!o include .
participants from all major research centers. If you feel this
is a serious problem, we may need to consider expanding the list
past ten, participants. . ' .--.
These two criteria were used in conjunction with three
others: , ' / ,
_• , Researchers shoul'd be acknowledged.experts'in their
research specialty by other risk communication •
researchers and/or their disciplinary colleagues. ~
Researchers should come from a wide-variety of
disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., psychology, .economics,
communication, etc.) and represent ajwide-variety of
content specialties (e.g., biotechnology, radon, etc.).
Researchers should reflect the social, cultural, and
geographic diversity 'inherent in the risk communication
areas of greatest importance to agencies. ,
Although it was our initial 'intent to create a matrix for
researchers that parallelled the practitioners''-matrix, there
were not enough overlapping cells for this method, to be useful
for generating a list of researchers. Therefofe, research areas
and centers are presented in list form, followed by a list of
representatives that we feel best reflect all the criteria
described above. -I
1
-------
-------
Appendix ±j
Main research areas related to risk communication.
. • • . . [
' ' • ' """ " ' !
Areas reflected in current list: •[
1. psychometric paradigm .1
2. social amplification of risk I
3. . econpmic decision analysis
4. public participation
5. health communication
6.. organizational analysis
7. analyses of self-protective behavior
8. risk education
9. • science communication
10. social/cultural paradigm
list:
Other areas of, related importance not represented in current
11. information-systems paradigm
12. marketing paradigm
13. environmental equity
14\ conflict resolution
Man or research centers working in these area's.
Major 'centers represented in current list:
1. Carnegie Mellon University
2. Clark University
3. Rutgers University
4. . Tufts University -
5. University of Pennsylvania
Other institutions represented in current list:
6. Cornell University .' •
7. University of California
8. University of .Wisconsin
9. Stanford University
10. University of. North Carolina
Centers not represented in current list:
'
11. Columbia University j
12. Decision Research (University of Oregon)
13. Pennsylvania State University
14. Virginia Polytechnic Institute (not considered because
of parallel EPA cooperative agreement)
15. University of Michigan
-------
-------
Appendix B
. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.7.
8.
9.
10.
the current list based on these criteria:
University?hh°ff " Ps^chometrlc Paradigm-/ Carnegie Mellon
"" S°cial amPlificdtion or. risk, Clark
analysis, University
"" Public •Participation, 'university of North
~~ health communication, Stanford University.
of WiscoSnf g ""• Or^anizational analysis, University
Neil Weinstein — analyses of self-protective behavior
Rutgers University. . . . | ^•"^"dvior,
Barbara Tinsley — risk/education, University of California
den"MCD°nald " SCl Cornel 1 '
~" 'SQcial/cultural paradigrt, '-Tufts
Clearly, we could substitute other names in many of these
categories One thing to keep in mind, however, is that this
group will be suggesting the names of other participants for
later stages of. the research. At this point, the lingering
question seems to be: I -LJ-nyering
- Should this short-list be expanded to include others'areas
of research and/or participants from other{major research
wGJltGjjS - - '
-------
-------
lobert D. Bullard
)epartment of Sociology
Mversity of California
liverside, CA 92521-0419
Appendix C
Baruch Fischhoff
Social & Decision Scierices
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 !
Vnn N. Fisher
department of Agricultural
Economics & Rural Sociology
Hie Pennsylvania State University
07-B Armsby Building
Jniversity Park, PA 16802
June Flora I
Department of Communication
McClatchy Hall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Jheila Jasanoff
Science & Technology Studies
Cornell University
132 Clark Hall
thaca, NY 14850
Roger E. Kasperson
CENTED
950 Main St.
Clark University
Worcester, MA 01610
iheldon Krimsky
)epartment of Urban & Environmental Policy
"ufts University
'7 Talbot Ave.
Bedford, MA 02155
)avid B. McCallum
Center for Risk Communication
Columbia University
000 Pptomac Ave. NW
Vashington DC 20005
lip W. Viscusi
)epartment of Economics
!ox 90097
)ufce University
)urham, NC 27708-0097
Francis Lynn - . }
Environmental Resource? Program
University of North Cai'olina
Miller Hall, CB 8165 I
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-^8165
Larry Susskind
Department of Urban Sludies & Planning
Room 7-338 ?
Massachusetts Institute of T'schnology
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
Neil Weinstein
Department of Human Ecology
Box 231; Cook College'
Rutgers University ;
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231
-------
-------
Appendix C
Elinor Blake
Community Relations Specialist
California Department of Health Services
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Branch
5900 Hollis St. ' .
Emeryville, CA 94608;
> . /
Jill Lipoti •
Assistant Director
Environmental Safety, Health
and Analytical Programs '
NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
CN 415 • " •
729 Alexander Rd.
Trenton, NJ 08625
Peter D. Galbraith
Chief
Bureau of Health Promotion
Connecticut Department of Health Services
150 Washington St.
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
KenCobb
Waste Management Institute
Cornell University
168 Hollister Hall j
Ithaca, NY 14853 \
Max Lum ~ I
Director I
Department,of Health Education
ATSDR j-
1600 Clifton Rd. | .
Atlanta, GA 30333 |
Alvin Chun
Office of the Regional Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne.Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
John Perrecone
Community Relations Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs
US Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode P-19J
77 W. Jackson Blvd. .
Chicago, IL 60604
Sharyn Sutton
Chief
Information Projects Branch
National Cancer Institute
9000 Rockville Pike
Bldg. 31-10A11
Bethesda, MD 20892
William T. Dixon
Program Manager
Westinghouse-Hanford Co.
P. O. Box 1970
Mailstop B217
Richland, WA 99352
Richard F. Williams \
Food and Drug Administration
HHF-301
200 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20204
Crystal Stowe
Director
Public Information
North Carolina Low Leivel Radioactive
Waste Management Authority
116 W, Jones'St. '
Suite 2109 J
Raleigh, NC 27603-80
-------
-------
Ci j_x L):
Assessing Practitioners' Risk Communication Researbh Needs:
Questions for Short Interview with Researchers
1. a. What do you feel are. the top three risk communication problems' currently
facing agency practitioners?
b. On the other hand, what are the three risk communication areas you feel
agency practitioners have the most success with? I :' '
2. a. What research do you think will most effectively address
noted in la? ,
the problems you
b. Can you suggest specific research questions that will be critical to the risk
communication research you noted in 2a? j
c. Why do you see these research questions as critical? [For example: Because
they address specific gaps in our knowledge? Because practitioners will be able
to implement the results? Because the results have a good probability of
adding to general knowledge about risk communication processes? Other
reasons?] , |
d. What theoretical perspectives and related literatures will help inform the
examination of these questions? , ;
Briefly, are there other areas of risk communication research! arid/or practice .that
you feel are being overlooked?
Could you suggest the names of other risk communication researchers or
practitioners you think we should include in this process? ' j ,•
-------
-------
Assessing Practitioners' Risk Communication Research Needs:
Questions for Short Interview with Practiticlners
1. a. What do you feel are the top three risk communication problems currently
facing agency practitioners? . , - '
b. On the other hand, what are the three risk communication areas you feel
agency practitioners have the most success with?
a. What risk communicatipn research has been most helpful to you? Can you
name specific topics, publications?
b. In what three risk communication areas do you feel more research needs to be
, conducted?
c. Can you suggest specific questions you would like research in these areas to
answer? ..'"'•. ••.,•' i
d. Why do you see these questions as critical? [For example: Because they
address specific gaps in our knowledge? Because practitioners will be able to
implement the result? Because the results have a goo
-------
-------
Please return by May 3, 1993.
Appendix E
ASSESSING RISK COMMUNICATION RESEARCH NEEDS
OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
• - ." ' ' . i i ''•.'.'
* Please note: Although the questionnaire may appear long, our pretest results suggest that it takes no more
than 30 minutes to complete. ;
Section I: Research Topics - pp. 1-7 i
I
L For each of the following research topics/please CIRCLE A NUMBER on Ihe iicale that reflects your
sense of how important RESEARCH ON THE TOPIC is to improving risk communication by
government agencies. . ';
' ••-•-!-". •
If you have no opinion on the research importance of a topic, check the NO OPINION option rather
than selecting a number to the middle of the scale. Except for "1" - whicli reflects a response of "not
at all important" - numbers along the scale represent an increase in the level of importance you attach
to a research topic. None of the numbers on the scale represents "neutral" or "no opinion."
Anchors at each end of the scales - "not at all important" and "extremely important" - are provided
for your convenience and should not be circled as a response. , i
2. On page seven (K. Comments and Other Priority Topics), please give us ybur ideas for any additional
research topics you feel are very critical to improve agency risk communication efforts.
Any other comments are welcome. j
Your responses will be confidential.
SECTION!: RESEARCH TOPICS j
. ' - ! • s
A. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-AWAKING
' •' . '' -
1. Building community consensus beyond active participants
- - • "" . - / ;
not at all extremely | [ ]
important 1 2 3 45 6 important j no opinion
, i •• r
2. Usefulness of different approaches to shared decision-making
not at all extremely ! [ ]
important 1 2 34 56 important
3. Effectiveness of mediation in resolving environmental disputes
not at all extremely
important 1 2-3 4 5 6 important
no opinion
I.]
no opiiuon
A-l
-------
Mease cirtJe the number that reflects your sense of bow important research qn
each topic is to improving risk communication by government agencies.
4. Integrating social, political, economic, and values-based concerns into agency decision-making
extremely [ ]
23456 important no opinion
not at all
important 1
5. Effective ways for citizens to access information
not at all
important 1234
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
6. Basis of public opposition to specific environmental policies
not at all extremely
important 12345
6 important
no opinion
B. TRUST AND CREDIBILITY
1. Determining how and why individuals and societal and cultural groups confer (or withdraw) trust in people
and organizations
not at all extremely [ ]
important 12345
6 important
no opinion
2. Determining how trust can be regained
not at all
important 123
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
3. Effect of scientific uncertainty on credibility
not at all
important 123
extremely
5 6 important
[ 1
no opinion
C. IMPACT OF RISK COMMUNICATION ON INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR
1. Factors that influence individual willingness to heed advice
2.
not at all
important 1
2 3 4
extremely
5 6 important
[ 1
no opinion
Impact of new and competing information on attitudes and behavior
not at all
important 1
234
extremely
5 6 important
[ 1
no opinion
A-2
-------
Appendix E
Please circle the number that reflects your sense of how importaciTre^earcfa on
each topic is to improving risk communication by government agencies.
3.
Communication that encourages environmentally responsible but unpopular behavior by individuals (e e
reduced automobile use) . [ '*"'
not at all
important' 1
extremely
6 important
no opinion
4.
Effect of risk communication efforts on the dynamics among perceptions, alttirudes, and behavior
not at all
.-'-..- extremely |
important 1 2 3 4 56 important
[ J
no opinion
D. THEORY-BUILDING
1. Development of a theoretical model for community decision-making based oh sociological research
not at all .''-,.
extremely
important 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 important !
no opinion
2.
Development of a theoretical model for risk communication that integrates psychological social and
communication constructs
3.
'
not at all
important
Development of a
-
not at all
important
1 2
theoretical model
1 2
Development of a theoretical model
3
for
3
for
4
5
risk communication
4
individual
5
6
extremely
important
based on comm
6
extremely
important
decision-making based on
no
opinion
mication research
no
psychological
[ ]
opinion
research
not at all
important 1
extremely
5 6 important
E. CONVEYING INFORMATION
1. Using audience assessment information to develop .communication strategies
no opinion
2.
not at all
important
Methods to increase
not at all
important
1 2
audiences'
1 2
3
overall
3
4
understanding
. 4
5
of
5
6
science
6
extremely
important
extremely
important
M'.'.
no opinion
; :' ' ' ; -
• _ • \
M
no opinion
A-3
-------
Please circle the number that reflects your sense of how important researca on
each topic is to improving risk communication by government agencies.
3. Evaluating the effectiveness of comparing lifestyle risks to technological risks
not at all extremely
important 12345
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
4. Determining the informational wants and needs of audiences
not at all extremely
important 123456 important
[ 1
no opinion
5. Relative effectiveness of different ways of expressing probability
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
I 1
no opinion
6. The impact of explanations of economic benefits on perception of environmental issues
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
F. RISK COMMUNICATION WITH SOCIAL AND CULTURAL GROUPS
1. Ways to sensitize agency staff to the needs of minority communities
extremely
23456 important
not at all
important 1
no opinion
2. Defining needs of minority communities for participation in environmental problem solving
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
3. Communicating effectively to different social groups in the US, e.g., cultural, ethnic, or racial groups
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
4. Effect of culture on individuals' perception of risk
not at all
important 1234
extremely
6 important
I ]
no opinion
5. Factors that influence agencies' environmental protection of different communities
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
A-4
-------
Appendix E
Please circle the number that reflects your sense of how important research on
each topic is, to improving risk communication by government agencies.
G. RISK PERCEPTION
1. Public perception of government agencies that manage risks
hot at all extremely
important 12 3 4 5 6 important
2. How laypeople process risk communication messages
not at all
important 12 34 5
extremely
6 important
[ ]
no opinion
no opinion
3. The impact of media messages on risk perception
not at all
important 1 23 4
extremely
6 important
no opinion
'4. Effect of communication strategies on individuals with strongly held beliefs v. those without strongly held
beliefs ,
not at all
important 1
extremely
45 6 important
.1 1
no opinion
5.
(
The process of individuals' knowledge formation and how that impacts their environmental decision-
making j
, .not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
M
no opinion
6.
The process of individuals' clarifying their values and how that impacts their environmental decision-
making ... . .
ivi;
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
..['I
no opinion
H. EVALUATION OF RISK COMMUNICATION
1. Determining the long-term effects of risk communication
2.
not at all
important 1
Relative effectiveness
not at all
important 1
2
of different
2
3 4 :
communication
3 4
. . 5 ,
messages,
5
extremely
6 important
strategies, and chan
extremely
6 important
lels
no opinion
no opinion
A-5
-------
3.
4.
Docum
Develo
Please circle the number that reflects your sense of how important
each topic is to improving risk communication by government
sntation and evaluation of risk communication successes and failures
not at all extremely
important 123456 important
pment of effective evaluation methods
not at all extremely
important 123456 important
research on
agencies.
t 1
no opinion
[ 1
no opinion
I.
1.
MANAGING RISK COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
Increasing managers' accountability for risk communication
2 3 45
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
2.
Organizational learning about risk communication, risk perception, and risk management
not at all extremely [ ]
important 12345
6 important
no opinion
3. Effect of involving agency risk communicators in agency risk management decisions
not at all
important 1
extremely
6 important
4. Organizational structure of a model risk communication program in an agency
not at all extremely
important 12345
6 important
no opinion
[ 1
no opinion
5. Approaches to prioritizing agency risk communication efforts
not at all extremely
important 12345
6 important
no opinion
6. Effect of different spokespeople on perceptions of risk (e.g., risk managers v. community relations experts
v. agency "mouthpieces")
not at all extremely [ 1
important 1234
. 5
6 important
no opinion
7. Evaluating the effectiveness of agency risk communication training
not at all extremely
important 12345
6 important
[ 1
no opinion
A-6
-------
Appendix E
Please circle the number that reflects jour sense of how imporfcmt research on
egch topiq is to improving risk communication by government agencies.
J. ETHICAL ISSUES IN RISK COMMUNICATION
1.
Methods for determining when communication is the most appropriate risk management alternative
not at all
important 1 23 4 5
extremely
6 important
no opinion
2. Ethical dilemmas of agency risk communicators
not at all
important 1 ' 2 3 4
extremely
6 important
no opinion
3. Extent of information needed for well-informed choice
not at all
important 1 2 3 4 5
extremely
6 important
no opinion
K. COMMENTS AND OTHER PRIORITY TOPICS
A-7
-------
SECTION n: IMPROVING AGENCY RISK COMMUNICATION
Please CIRCLE THE NUMBER on the scale that reflects how much you agree or disagree with the
statement. Again, if you have no opinion please check the box to the right of the scale rather than selecting a
number to the middle of the scale.
* Please note: When we refer to "government agencies, " we mean federal, state, or local efforts. We recognize
there is variability among agencies, but please answer the best you can based on your overall observations.
1 Risk communication research should emphasize building a theoretical model of risk perception
and risk communication that adequately deals with the complexity of the real world.
strongly strongly []
disagree 12345678 agree no opinion
2. The most significant barrier to government agencies' evaluation of risk communication is lack of useful
evaluation methods.
strongly
disagree 1 2
strongly [ ]
345 6 7 8 agree no opinion
3. Overall, government agencies' efforts to communicate environmental risk have improved significantly.
[ 1
no opinion
strongly
disagree 12345678 agree
4. Advice to government agencies about risk communication (contained in manuals and other how-to materials)
is not sufficiently grounded hi research.
strongly Stron8»y I }.
disagree 12345678 agree no opinion
5. Lack of staff expertise in risk communication is a major obstacle to government agencies' risk communication
efforts.
strongly strongly
disagree 12345678 agree
..
no opinion
6. There is need for considerable improvement in agencies' communication about environmental risks.
strongly 8tronsly
disagree 12345678 agree
no opinion
7. Risk communication training is more critical to resolving government agency problems than risk
communication research. *
.
no opinion
strongly
disagree 12345678 agree
8. Lack of clear goals is a major obstacle to the risk communication efforts of government agencies.
[ 1
no opinion
strongly stronsly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 agree
9. Lack of resources is a major obstacle to risk communication efforts of government agencies.
U.
no opinion
strongly 8tron81y
disagree 12345678 agree
A-8
-------
Appendix E
10. Lack of management commitment to risk communication is a major obstacle to government agencies' risk
communication. j
strongly strongly [ ]
disagree 1 2 .3 45 6 7 8 agree: '" no opinion
11. Risk communication research should focus on solving immediate problems facing practitioners rather than on
developing long-term strategies. . j
- strongly strongly , [ ]
disagree 12 34 5 6 7 8 agree; .no opinion ;
- • ' , • i. • *
. •. I ^ -
12. The most significant barrier to government agencies' evaluation of risk communication is failure to
implement existing evaluation methods. ..'•'_ ' j
strongly strongly [ j
disagree 1.2 3 4 5 '6 7 8 agree{ no opinion
- ' - i
13. Lack of management expertise in risk communication is a major obstacle to government agencies' risk
communication. ' ' [
' " ' ; "
. . strongly - strongly [ ]
• disagree 1 2.3 .4.5 678 agree no opinion
14. Overall, government agencies' written materials about environmental risks have improved significantly.
strongly strongly [']..'
disagree I ^ 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 agree j no opinion
15. Government agencies' risk communication efforts are hindered by agencies* failure to implement existing
risk communication advice. '.-•"". . i •.' •. - . •
. -.- • • , . . . .I
strongly strongly [ ]
disagree 1 2 3 4 ,5 6 78 agree; no opinion
16. Government agencies' inability to compete with advocacy groups' messages is a major obstacle to agency risk
communication.. . . I...
strongly strongly [ ] x
disagree 123 4-5 6 7, 8 agree] no opinion
/ • '
-''•-. ' ' • i • • . •
17. Lack of staff commitment to risk communication is a major obstacle to government agencies' risk communication
. efforts. -'"•• ' ,'•'.: 1, ' ' • .
• , ,. . ' • ,. -. j, .... -.
. strongly strongly [ ] »
disagree 1 2 345 6-7 8 agree j ' no opinion
-*!.•'-:''•
' ' •' ,' ''-••' ' "
18. Government agencies pay little attention to social justice issues when dealing yvith the public.
strongly , strongly [ ]
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 agree no opinion
A-9
-------
-------
INTERIM REPORT FOR PHASE TWO
Addressing Agencies' Risk Communication Needs: Tear Two
A Symposium to Discuss Next Steps
Progress Report for Period 1/1 through 3/31, 1994
Caron Chess
Kahdice L. Salomone
Billie Jo Hance
Center for Environmental Communication
Rutgers University
April 15, 1994
-------
-------
Overview " • • • ''''-.-. / j.' . •
During the second quarter of year two of this cooperative agreement, our focus has
been on continued planning for our June 6 - 8, 1994 risk communication symposium. The
following report and attachments detail the progress we have made.
'••• • • • '•..•- ' .. i '
Symposium Coordinator
'. At the beginning of the quarter we hired a symposium coordinator to handle the
myriad details of this endeavor. Alex Saville is a former employee of CEC and helped
coordinate a previous CEC-sponsored symposium at Rutgers. He is.superb at dealing with
all aspects of the symposium planning.
Additional Funding
/
During the last quarter we received verbal confirmation of additional funding for the
symposium from the US Department of Energy and the National Cancer Institute. This has
enabled us to raise the number of people we are inviting to the symposium to between 70 and
75 (including federal employees for whom we are not paying travel): .
i. •
. . - i- ... -
Participants
• " i
i'. '" . '
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of inviting participants was limiting the number to
under 80, Many people have heard about the symposium, and have contacted us about
attending. We have been clear, however, that a larger number would inMbit our ability to
achieve the goals we have set forth for the symposium. Therefore, we have had to strictly
adhere to the systematic approach we had developed for choosing participants.
In developing our list of participants, we consulted with the project officer,
representatives of other agencies, and-our advisory committee. As. we stated in the last
quarter's report, our goal was to create a balance of practitioners representing federal, tribal,
state, and local health and environmental agencies. We also networlpd widely to find
community activists whose perspective would be useful to the topics
with. We felt it was particularly important, inasmuch as one of our
communicating with diverse communities, to attempt to represent that sociocultural diversity
at our symposium. We have cast a wide net, following up on leads
the symposium deals
sessions concerns
given to us by other
practitioners-. In most cases we have managed to get the balance we were attempting to
achieve^ and we feel that our list of practitioner participants represents a diversity of
agencies, views, and geographical regions. !
For academics, we attempted to ensure that we included researcher from the many
disciplines and research areas that are relevant to risk communication. Appendix A contains
the final list of participants.
-------
-------
Invitation Packet j
-' - ' - . •' . ' •: •'•. • '[ - " '" ' .
Appendix B contains the invitation packet sent to all participants. It consists of the
following: _ , _ . i '
. 1. Invitation letter - This letter outlined our goals for the .symposium and requested that
participants committed to attending the entire symposium if they accepted our
invitation. (We decided that for the sake of continuity, and tp further our goals for
coming away from the symposium with a better sense of research directions, that we
needed people to be there for the entire time.) I ,
• - i • - • "
2. One page symposium description
3. Draft agenda.
4. List of advisory committee members.
5. Response form.
Subsequent mailings
Subsequent mailings to participants have consisted of the following (Appendix C):
1. Questionnaire for academics and practitioners that asked them to list relevant
experiences and literature in risk communication so we could compile a collection of
references and case studies for participants. i
-.'••'.•' i ' '
2. ' •" Travel forms that instructed participants how to arrange their travel with our agent.
- ' ' - f- ' • ' "
Agenda
L '
Appendix D contains the final agenda which lists academic rejsearchers, respondents,
and other participants. This list has not changed substantially from the draft list last quarter.
Note that we have chosen moderators for panels, and finalized the agency and community
.respondents. (Names with asterisks are those with whom we have had initial contact but not
a firm commitment as of this writing.) i . V
We have been hi telephone contact with all paper givers and respondents. Draft
papers arid review forms (Appendix E) have been sent to reviewers, and! these will be
forwarded to authors, along with our review, in the next two weeks.
be finalized in time to get to respondents and other participants well
date.
We plan for papers to
ahead of the conference
-------
-------
Discussion Groups
Appendix F contains a list of those we invited to be discussion group facilitators and
recorders (nptetakers), and letters we sent asking for, participants' help as facilitators and
recorders. (Names with asterisks are those with whom we have hadj initial contact but not a
firm commitment as of this writing.) Each small discussion group will have one academic
and one practitioner facilitator. Notetakers will record major points to share with the
symposium coordinators at the end of each discussion period. From! these notes, symposium
coordinators will summarize major points from all discussion groups and share this
information with the larger group at the end of each day. These notss will also be available
to Dr. Roger Kasperson to help him prepare his final summary that 'ivill close the
symposium.
Logistics
We have been working with Middlesex Travel hi New Brunswick for travel plans for
the symposium. All participants, work directly with our agent for their travel arrangements.
We work with Historic Inns of Annapolis directly about such issues as' food, rooms, etc. We
are also working with an express bus service from the airport for participants. Minute
attention to detail seems to be the only way to deal with such logistics. '._
Anticipated Work for Next Quarter
1; Travel, hotel, and other logistics - Continue to work closely \jvith the travel agent and
Historic Inns of Annapolis to plan symposium and travel. j
2. Assemble a bibliography for evaluation research for the symposium packet.
3. Review academic papers and send back to authors for final rewrite; discuss case
studies with respondents and other participants for inclusion qf brief descriptions in
symposium packet. |
4. Complete symposium packet: agenda, list and short bios of participants; evaluation
research bibliography; short risk communication case studies bffered by participants;
etc.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS
PARTICIPANTS
PRACTITIONERS
HEALTH AGENCIES
FEDERAL
Mary Jo Deering - US Public Health Service, Dir. Health Communication
Sally McCammon - Special Science advisor to Lonnie King at USD A- APHIS
Sharyn Sutton - NCI, Information and Evaluation
Alan Levy - FDA, Division of Market Studies
Max Lum - ATSDR, Dir. Health Education
Paul Jackson - NIEHS, Sr. Public.Health Advisor
Robin Cantor'- National Academy of Science
STATE
Faith Schottenfeld - New York State DOH, Community Relations
Peter Galbraith - Chief, Bureau of Health Promotion, Connecticut DQH
Elinor Blake - Community Relations Coordinator, California DOHS
LOCAL/REGIONAL
Heidi Klein - Project Manager, Environmental Health, NACHO
Elaine O'Keefe - Director of Health & Welfare, Stratford,' CT Healtli Dept.
Ken Cobb - Extension Service, Cornell Waste Management Institute
Guadalupe Olivas - Director, Pima County (AZ) Health Dept. & on Ipari to PHPPO at CDC
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
FEDERAL
John Perrecone - EPA Region 5, Community Relations
Frederick Allen - Office of Strategic Planning & Environmental Data, US EPA
Lynn Desautels - Project Director, Risk Communication, US EPA i
Alvin Chun - Office of the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
Lynn Goldman - Ass't Admin., Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Donald Beck - US DOE i
Jerry Delli Priscoli - Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers
Dan Fiorino - Dir. of Waste and Chemical Policy Division, Office cf Policy Analysis,
US EPA
I
Harry Otway - Stakeholder Involvement Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory
.; Robert Knox - Deputy Director of Environmental Equity, USEPA
STATE ' • , •..._..;
Branden Johnson - Division of Science & Research, NJDEPE j
Jeanne Mroczko - Assistant Administrator, Permits,. NJDEPE I. .
Chrystal Stowe - Director of Public Information, NC Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Julia Winter - FSU & Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Lily Townsend - H.S. Teacher, Pensacola, FL, worked with Julia Winter
TRIBAL
Sadie Hoskie - Navaho EPA
ARMED FORCES j
Lt. Col. Everett K. Foster - Chief, Environmental Programs Division, National Guard
PRIVATE CONSULTANTS/INDUSTRY!
Elaine Arkin - consultant
Martha Bean - consultant
Susan Santos - FOCUS Group
John Slavick - CMA
-------
-------
ACTIVISTS
Diane Heminway - Dir., Western Citizen Eny. Coalition
Diane Sheridan - Keystone Center
Diane Takvorian - Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego
Bud Ward - National Safety Council
JOURNALISTS
ACADEMICS
Baruch Fischhoff - Carnegie Mellon (psychology)
Ann Bostrom - Georgia Tech .(psychology)
Bunyan Bryant - University of Michigan (environmental equity)
Fran Lynn - University of North Carolina (public participation)
Mary English - University of Tennessee - Knoxville (public participation)
Steve Kroll-Smith - Louisiana State University (public participation)
Dominic Golding - George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University (social & cultural
issues) . '. [-.'.'.
Roger Kasperson - Clark University (social & cultural issues)
Srinivas Emani - Clark University (organizational)
Charles Perrow - Yale University (organizational)
Jim Grunig - University of Maryland /corporate communication)
Ann Fisher - Penn State (Agricultural communication/economics)
Howard Kunreuther - University of Pennsylvania
David Conn - University of Virginia (chemical emergencies)
Richard Rich - Virginia Tech (chemical emergencies)
Vicki Freimuth •* University of Maryland (health communication)
Ed Maibach - Emory (health communication)
David McCallum - Columbia University, FOCUS Group
Gerard McKenna - HSMRC - New Jersey Institute of Technology
-------
-------
Bill Hallman - Human Ecology, Rutgers University :
Tom Burke - Johns Hopkins University (formerly New Jersey DOHJ
- ' - - ' • , " "i
Paul Stern -'National Academy of Science
Joanne Nigg - University of Delaware (natural hazards)
Robert Griffin - Director, Center for Mass Media Research, Marque,tte University
, ' •: " . ' ' '" i-
Sheila Jasanoff - Dept. 'of Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University
i
TOTAL ACCEPTED PARTICIPANTS: 63 (64 WITH LYNN GOLDMAN)
CEC STAFF: .
Caron Chess
Billie Jo Hance
Kandice Salomone
Alex Saville
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
-------
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
RUTGERS
Center for Environmental Communication
Cook'College • P.O. Box 231 • New Brunswick • New Jersey
908/932-8795 • FAX: 908/932-7815.
date, 1994
08903-0231
Dear
The Center for Environmental Communication (CEC) at Rutgers University invites
you to participate in Addressing Agencies' Risk Communication Needs: A Symposium to
Discuss Next Steps in Annapolis, Maryland on June 6-8, 1994. This national symposium
will bring together leading academics, government practitioners, trib'al leaders, and com-
munity representatives to develop risk communication research priorities and other ap-
proaches likely to improve government agencies' practices. (See description .on yellow
sheet.) Commissioned papers followed by government and community respondents will
spark large and small group discussions on three topics rated as most important according to
a national risk communication survey conducted by CEC last year: \(1) Bringing Outside
Perspectives Into Agency. Decision Making; (2) Making Evaluation Agency Reality; and (3)
Communicating With Diverse Communities. (See>enclosed agenda.) j ,
- , • * • - [ •
Attendance at the .symposium, which is funded by the US EPA's Risk Communication
Project With additional support from the National Cancer Institute, the National Science
Foundation,,and the US DOE,' is by invitation only and will be limilied. If you wish to be
one of this select group of participants, we ask you to complete the enclosed pink form and
return it to us in the accompanying self-addressed envelope by (two,weeks). The Center for
Environmental Communication will pay for non-federal participants' travel and lodging costs
for the entire symposium. We require participants' commitment 1;o attend the entire
symposium from 5 p.m. June 6 to 4:30 p.m. June 8. We know that you will respect our
desire for continuity and cohesion. |
We hope you will join us for what will certainly be an exciting symposium. If you
have any questions, please feel free to call us, j
Sincerely, |
Caron Chess
Billie Jo Hance
Kandice Lj: Salomone
A Program of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and the
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
-------
-------
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
RUTGERS
Center for Environmental Communication
Cook College • P.O. Box 231 • New Brunswick • New Jersey 08903-0231
908/932-8795 • FAX: 908/932-7815 , j - ,
• '" " ,' - ' '" • i ' ' .' ' '
-ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION JN.EEDS:
- A SYMPOSIUM.TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS j . :
' • • • '.. '• • '' - ''•'-• f •
/ Caron Chess, Billie JO'Hance,'.arid Kandice L Salojmone
Government agencies are increasingly concerned: about hovV to deal with the
public more effectively about environmental issues. This multi-year project seeks to!
improve agencies' risk communication practices'by better defininglfhe risk
communication research and other related needs of government personnel at county,
state, and federal agencies managing environmental issues. j .,
• ' ' ' ' • . ' ' ..!•••'
.[
The first year's research, which'involved 145 leaders in the irisk. communication
field, identified and prioritized broad areas of environmental communication research
relevant to the needs, of government practitioners and. defined the- extent of consensus ;
between, practitioners!and academic researchers. In addition, the sjtudy explored,
through both qualitative and quantitative measures, the opinions ot study participants
concerning agencies' risk communication practices. : i
Based on these findings, a two-day symposium will be heldjjuhe 6 - Q,. 1.994 in ;
Annapolis, MD for invited researchers and practitioners to consideif. next steps for risk
communication research and other approaches to improve agency.practice./ The
symposium will highlight three risk communication problems identified as priorities by
the first year's research: 1). Communicating with communities of different races, ethnic
backgrounds, and incomes; 2) Integrating outside concerns into agency'decision-making;.
and 3) evaluating risk communication. The symposium seeks to 1) Provide a'forum to
bring risk communfcation leaders together; 2) Develop specific research questions related
to these three risk communication problems; 3) Serve as a catalyst for further thinking
about improving risk communication in government agencies; 4) Encourage dialogue
among researchers from a variety of disciplines; 5) Increase understanding between
practitioners and academics; and 6) Increase communication among government
agencies. - . ' . ."''''•' • - .
Small groups of practitioners and academics, led by skilledjfacilitators, will
suggest research directions, ways to make research more accessible to practitioners, and
other means of assisting agencies to, overcome risk communication problems. Papers
presented by leaders in the field will serve as'springboards for these discussions.
This project is funded through a cooperative agreement witl}i the U.S. EPA Risk
Communication Project, with additional support from the NationaljCancer Institute; the
National Science Foundation and the U.S. DOE (in cooperation w!|h the National
Council of State Legislatures). Rutgers University's Center for Environmental Commu-
nication conducts research, training/and public service to improve communication about
.environmental issues.." , . -...'. , ,
•• A Program of the .New Jersey Agricultural'Experiment Station and the
'Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Pqilicy
-------
-------
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
Center for Environmental Communication ;
Cook College -P.O. Box 231 -New Brunswick • New Jersey 08903-0231
908/932-8795 • FAX: 908/932-7815 t ' .
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEJPS
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND JUNE 6-8, 1994
TENTATIVE AGENDA
OPENING EVENING-JUNE 6, 1994
*\
5:00-6:00 Reception .- ' . . .'
'6:00-7:00 .• . Dinner . ' : - . ' •• [ '• -,....'-
. '
.7:00-7:30 '. Overview - Why are we here? (Lynn Desautels, EPA; CEC)
'
7:30-8:00 Paper— Risk communication unplugged: Two decade? of process
Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University. j . ,
8:00-8:30 Presentation — Agency Progress, Lynn Goldman, Assistant Administrator,
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA
!
8:30-9:15 Discussion: Charge for next day j
, DAY ONE - JUNE 7, 1994
Morning Topic: Bringing Outside Perspectives Into Agency Decision Making
' - ' '!•' " •
7:30-8:30 ' Breakfast - i
. ..-, . i. .
8:30-9:00 Paper — Citizen advisory panels: What does the research tell us?
Frances Lynn, University of North Carolina , j
i . •
9:00-9:30 Agency and community respondents with experiences,!information on
innovative approaches to bringing outside perspectives into agency decision-
making, j
•'-'•. -"'!'.
9:30-10:00 Q & A ' . ' . . . "•"'[-
10:00 10:15 . Break . ;' '{_•
10:15-12:00 Break out groups [
. 1. Research priorities?
2. Other approaches for making this agency reality?
12:00-1:00 Lunch' -.'..,
A Program of the New Jersey-Agricultural Experiment Station and the
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy-
-------
-------
Afternoon Topic:
1:00-1:30.
1:30-2:00' '
. 2:-00-2:30
2:30-2:45
- 2:45-4:30 , •
5:00-6:00
6:00-7:15 ?'
7:15-7:45
EVENING
7:30-8:30
Morning Topic:
8:30-9:00
9:00-9:30
9:30-10:00
10:00-10:15
10:15-12:00
12:00-1:00
1:00-1:30
1:30-2:00 .
2:00-2:15
2:15-3:30
3:30-4:30
4:30P.M.
Making Evaluation Agency Reality ' 'i, ../;..
' ' • ; • j
Taper -Stranger in a strange land: Conducting meaningful evaluation for a
government agency, Sharyn Sutton, National Cancer Institute
Agency practitioners: Successes with evaluation, and what it takes to get there,
Q &'A . .'..' '":"••
' Break • -
Break out groups
1. Research priorities?
2. Other approaches for making this agency reality?
Cash Bar " •
Dinner
Summary report by CEC of themes brought out on first day.
Open
Breakfast
Communicating with Diverse Communities
DAY TWO - JUNE 8, 1994
Paper — The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk
communication process, Elaine Vaughan, University cif California.
Agency and community respondents - Experiences, lessons learned.
Q& A
Break
Break out groups . | <
L Research priorities? >i" . •
2. Other approaches for making this agency reality?|
Lunch " ' j • ' •
Summary of conference,'Roger Kasperson, Clark University '
l
Q & A: Discussion - | , "
1 T' • ' ' •
Break I
... ' " " ' . * \ • "-..'-• .' .
Panel — Making risk communication agency reality: pvercoming organizational
barriers to risk communication
Q & A: Discussion
ADJOURN !
-------
-------
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY -
RUTGERS
Center for Environmental Communication ;
Cook College • P.O. Box 231 • New Brunswick • New Jersey '08903-0231
: 908/932-8795 • FAX: 908/932-7815 '
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEEPS
June 6-8, 1994 i
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Frederick (Derry) Allen, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Donald Beck, United States Department of Energy
Elinor Blake, California Department of Health Services
Jerome Delli Priscoli, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Lynn Desautels, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University (
Ann Fisher, Pennsylvania State University \ -. .j
Peter Galbraith, State of Connecticut Dept. of Public Health and Addiction Services
Dominic Gdlding, Resources for the Future .. | •
Jim Grunig, University of Maryland •! [ ~ .
Branden Johnson, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
.Roger E. Kasperson, Clark University j „•..<••"
Heidi Klein, National Association of County Health Officials '•., '. . L
Max Lum, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, : j
Frances Lynn, University of North. Carolina . i
David McCallum, FOCUS GROUP . !,
John Perrecone, United States Environmental Protection Agency j •-
Faith Schottenfeld, New York State Department of Health ! -
Chrystal Stowe, North Carolina Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority'
Sharyn Sutton, National Cancer Institute j .
Elaine Vaughah, University of California-Irvine
James D. Werner, United States Department of Energy
Richard A. Williams, Jr., Food and Drug Administration
A Program of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Statibn and the
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public tfolicy
-------
-------
PLEASE COMPLETE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
- - • • ' .1 • ' • -
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION^ NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM, TO DISCUSS NEXT STEP'S
RESPONSE FORM
Please complete this form and fax your response at your earliest convenience to:
(908)932-7815
Name_
Title .
Organization
Mailing Address__
Phone
Fax
- E-Mail
Former Position (if formerly with a government agency)_
WILL
WILL NOT
BE ATTENDING THE SYMPOSIUJVl JUNE 6 - 8, 1994 IN
ANNAPOLIS, MD.
TRAVEL
CEC will be paying for travel for all participants except federal ageincy representatives. Our
travel agent will be.making all travel arrangements for the symposium. Please fill out the
following so we can get an idea of what carriers and arrangements we should consider:
I will be travelling from: '
City/State ^'
Airport_
Train Station
I will be driving: yes_
no
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
-------
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT ISTEPS
" • • ' ' i ' • ' "
Academics7 Pre-Symposium Questionnaire
Please return by April 6, 1994
I. DIRECTORY OF PARTICIPANTS
For a useful directory of participants, please complete the following questionnaire.
1
(We have previously requested some of this information. We hope you will excuse
the repetition as we try to ensure our accuracy. Please list the information exactly
as you.would like it to appear in the directory.)
Name
Title
Organization^
Please'give three or four key words or phrases that best [describe your area of
interest/expertise (e.g. natural hazards, health communication, risk perception, nuclear
waste, siting, etc.):
-------
-------
Academics' Questionnaire
II. RESOURCES
We are developing a selected bibliography/resource list for symposium participants.
Please list up to three publications of yours that are most likely to be useful to
others,at the symposium. (We, are attempting to list complete citations, so please
give as much of the, requested information as possible.)
1.
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Title of article or chapter _
'Title of periodical or book
Publisher
Date of publication
2.
Author(s) '
Editor(s) •
Title of article or chapter _
Title of periodical or book
Publisher
Date of publication
3.
Author(s) .
Editor(s)
Title of article or chapter _
Title of periodical or book
Publisher
City
Volume number
Page numbers!
City
Volume number
Page numbers!.^
City
Date of publication
Volume number
Page numbersf
-------
-------
Academics"' Questionnaire ,
CLEARINGHOUSE/RESOURCE CENTER
There has been discussion of establishing a clearinghouse/resource center for risk
communication information that would be helpful to practitioners and academics.
We" are interested in your opinion of this idea. The fo
lowing questions are
intentionally vague. Please feel free to add comments or suggestions.
1. Do you know of any existing clearinghouse for risk communication? Yes __ No
If yes, please describe: -
2. How interested are you in a risk communication clearinghbuse/resource center?
not at all 1
interested
4 •
5 extremely
interested
•3. If interested, what kind of information'would be,most useful to you? (e.g., how-to
materials, evaluation research, etc.) ; • V
4. How likely would you be-to provide information to the clejaringhouse?
not at all 1
likely
4.
• 5 extremely
likely
5. Which format would be most useful for you? (e.g., phonb, internet, hard copy)
Comments/suggestions:
-------
-------
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS
Practitioners'Pre-Symposium Questionnaire
Please return by April 6, 1994
1. DIRECTORY OF PARTICIPANTS
For a useful directory of participants, please complete the follolwing questionnaire.
- - ' , ,. • . . •.-!- .'•• .
(We have previously requested some of this information. We hope you will excuse
the repetition as we try to ensure our accuracy; Please list the! information exactly
as you would like it to appear in the directory.)
Name
Title
Organization
Please give three or four key words or phrases that best describe your area of
interest/expertise (e.g., public participation, health communica1:ion, radon, siting,
water quality, etc.): . . ' [ „
1. '
-------
-------
Practitioners' Questionnaire • . . • •. .:[: . ; •
i ' •
II. CASE STUDIES |
We are looking for case studies that would be of interest to symposium
participants on the topics to be discussed at the symposium;! 1) Integrating
outside concerns into agency decision making; 2) Evaluating communication
efforts; or 3) Communicating with ethnically and/or economically diverse
communities. These case studies will be presented in short,! written form and be
contained in the packet of materials handed out to each participant. Below, please
provide short descriptions of useful case studies. CEC will follow up with a limited
number of participants,to fill in details and write up descriptions. WE WILL DO
THE WORK! All you need to do is provide us with examples!
-= -i '
1. Have you participated in what you would define as a "successful" effort
involving integrating outside concerns into agency decision making/practice,
evaluating a communication effort, or communicating with an ethnically or
economically diverse community? If so, please briefly describe the situation.
2. Have you participated in an "unsuccessful" effort to integrate outside concerns
into decision marking/practice, evaluate a communication effcjrt, or communicate
with an ethnically or economically diverse community? If so,i please briefly
describe the situation. I
-------
-------
Practitioners' Questionnaire
III. RESOURCES
We are developing a selected bibliography/resource list for syfnposium participants.
Please list one or two publications (including your own) that you have found '
particularly useful. (We are attempting to list complete citaticjns, so please give as
much of the requested information as possible.)
1. , •
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Title of article or chapter _
Title of periodical or book
Publisher
City
Date of publication
2.
Author(s) ' /
Editor(s) •
Volume number
Page numbers
Title of article or chapter
Title of periodical or book _
Publisher , ' .
City
Date.of publication
Volume number
Page numbers
We realize that there may also be other important resources out there that do not .
lend themselves to citation (e.g., specific organizations, trainings, workshops, phone
numbers). Please list any such examples below: . .
-------
-------
•Practitioners' Questionnaire , ' .
IV. CLEARINGHOUSE/RESOURCE CENTER
There has been discussion of establishing a clearinghouse/resource center for risk
communication information that would be helpful to practitioners and academics.
We are interested in your opinion of this idea. The following questions are
intentionally vague. Please feel free to add comments or suggestions.
1. Do you know of any existing clearinghouse for risk communication? Yes No
If yes, please describe: . . •
2. How interested are you in a risk communication clearinghouse/resource center?
not at all 1
interested
3
'4
5 extremely
interested
3. If interested, what kind of information would be most useful to you? (e.g., how-to,
materials, evaluation research, etc.)
4. How likely would you be to provide information to the clearinghouse?
not at all 1
likely
4
5 extremely
likely
5. Which format would be most useful for you? (e.g., phone, internet, hard copy)
Comments/suggestions:
-------
-------
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS
; • • ' ' i • ' -
'• '• '
Travel and Accommodation Guidelines for Non-Federal Participants
Please read the following guidelines carefully.. They must be adhered to if you desire the
'Center for Environmental Communication to pay for your travel., OiJr, budget is limited, and
.the guidelines are to ensure fairness in covering expenses. If you have any questions
regarding travel or accommodations, please call Alex Saville, CEC's jsymppsium coordinator,
at (908) 932-8795. •
TIMING
The symposium begins at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 6 and ends at 4:30 p.m. on June 8.
It takes approximately one hour to travel between Baltimore-Washington International (BWI)
airport and the hotel. Please make your plans accordingly. We can only pay for travel for
those who are present for the entire symposium.
AIR AND RAIL TRAVEL
All reservations for air and rail travel must,be made through our trave) agent by Monday, May
2, 1994. Please contact her.at: •
Lynne Frum'kin
Middlesex Travel
P.O, Box 1430
Highland Park, NJ 08904
1-800-537-9853
(908) 572-4102 (fax)
HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS ! .
*> .'"[.'
Reservations and confirmations for hotel accommodations for Junes 6-8 have already been
made by CEC for all confirmed participants. The hotel will not take your reservation
separately. The reservation we have already made for you includes a room for the nights of
June 6 & 7, and all meals from dinner on June 6 through lunch on June 8. Participants are
responsible for any additional personal costs (e.g., phone chargesv room service, outside
meals). j"
TRAVEL TO AND FROM AIRPORTS/TRAIN STATIONS
CEC will provide scheduled transportation between Baltimore-Washington International (BWI)
Airport and the hotel on June 6 and June 8 only. Please note that BWI is also the closest
train station. You will be notified prior to the:symposium as to where and when to meet the
shuttle to the hotel. CEC will not pay for other transportation between airports, train stations,
and the hotel.
Please keep track of your receipts and mileage for travel to and from your home airport if you
wish to be reimbursed. CEC will not pay for other incidental travel Boosts.
DRIVING .["
If you are driving from your home to the symposium and wish to be leimbursed, please keep
track of your mileage and toll and parking receipts. CEC will pay $0.25 per mile plus tolls.
-------
-------
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NiEEDS:
. A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS1,'
Travel and Accommodation Guidelines for Federal Piarticipants
CEC cannot'reimburse federal employees' travel expenses. , HoWever, there is some
information regarding travel and accommodations which it is important for you to
know. If you have any questions regarding travel or accommodations, please call Alex
Saville, CEC's symposium coordinator, at (908) 932-8795. !
TIMING
The symposium begins at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 6 and ejnds at 4:30 p.m. on
June 8. It takes approximately one hour to travel between Baltimore-Washington
International (BWI) airport and the hotel. Please'rhake your plans accordingly.
HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS
Reservations and confirmations for hotel accommodations for June 6-8 have been
made by CEC for all confirmed participants. The total cost fcj>r the symposium is
$220.00 (a per diem government rate of $110.00). This includes a room for the
nights of June 6 .& 7, and all meals from dinner on June 6 through lunch on June 8.
Federal employees who live/work within 50 miles of Annapolis may need to get
waivers from their agencies if they wish to stay overnight at the hotel. AH federal
participants who are staying at the hotel will be expected to pay for their rooms on
their arrival.
TRAVEL TO AND FROM AIRPORTS/TRAIN STATIONS
CEC will providescheduled transportation betweenlSaltimore-WaShington International
(BWI) Airport and the hotel on June 6 and June 8 only. Please rjiote that BWlis also
the closest train station. You will be notified prior to the symposium as to where and
when to meet the shuttle to the hotel. In a few weeks we will request your arrival
time so that we can make sure you have transportation to the hotel. Federal
participants will be expected to pay for the costs of the shuttle each way.
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
-------
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
RUTGERS
Center for Environmental Communication |
Cook College • P.O. Box 231 • New Brunswick • New Jerseyi 08903-023'!
\ 908/932-8795 • FAX: 908/932-7815 !,• •.
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND JUNE 6-8, 1994
' AGENDA • ' \ :
\ ,i
•' • '" i *
OPENING EVENING - JUNE 6,1994
5:00-6:00 .' Reception '-.-]'. :
6:00-7:00 Dinner " f
7:00-7:30 Overview— Why are we here? (Deny Allen, EPA; Lynn Desautels,
EPA; Caron Chess, CEC) [
' - i
7:30-8:00 Paper - Risk perception and communication: Twenty years of process
Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University. . I ' . '
8:00-8:15 Q& A . |
8:15-8:45 •.' Presentation — Agency Progress
Lynn Goldman, Assistant Administrator,
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA
8:45-9:15 Q & A, discussion, and charge for next day
DAY ONE - JUNE 7, 1994 j
Morning Topic: Bringing Outside Perspectives Into Agency Decision1 Making
7:30-8:30 Breakfast f .
I.
8:30-9:00 , Paper - Citizen advisory committees: What we know, what's left to discover
• • .-- Frances Lynn, University of North Carolina | . .
' • ' I
9:00-9:30 Agency and community respondents with experiences!," information on
innovative approaches to bringing outside perspectives into agency decision-
, making. .
Moderator: Faith Schottenfeld, NY State Departmenl: of Health
, Panelists: Martha Bean, Triangle Associates; JeromeJDelli Priscoli*, Institute
for Water Resources, Us Army Corps of Engineers; Lily Townsend, consultant,
Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services
9:30-10:00 Q& A . . . ' .
10:00-10:15 Break . j
10:15-12:00 Break out groups ' ' . 1
1. Research priorities? ' •}
2. Other approaches for making this agency reality? j
12:00-1:00 Lunch
A Program of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and the
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
-------
-------
Afternoon Topic: Making Evaluation Agency Reality •
> . • -i -
• 1:00-1:30 ', Paper.- Stranger in a strange land: Conducting meaningful evaluation for a '
' . government agency, Sharyn Sutton, USDA ' j,
1:30-2:00 ' Agency practitioners:' Successes with evaluation, and what it takes to get there.
Moderator: Ann Fisher, Perm State j
Panelists: Lynn Desautels*, US EPA; Branden Johrison, NJ DEPE
2:00-2:30 -, ' Q& A ..".. '.''•'•'•', : ; \ ' ' . ';
2:30-2:45 , Break
2:45-4:30 Break out groups
. . 1. Research priorities? , |
2. Other approaches for making this agency realityi?
5:00-6:00 Cash Bar 7
'•'>•'. : •• • 'i- '
6:00-7:15 Dinner ' i ;
• . -• . . . [• - .
7:15-7:45 Summary report by CEC,of themes brought out on first day.
EVENING . : Open .' - . ' - " ' [•'" ; ,
DAY TWO - JUNE 8, 1994
7:30-8:30 Breakfast ; i '
Morning Topic: Communicating with Diverse Communities
8:30-9:00 Paper - The significance of soctoeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk
communication process, Elaine Vaughan, University bf California.
9:00-9:30 Agency and community respondents - Experiences, lessons learned.
Moderator: Bunyah Bryant, University of Michigan i
Panelists: Elinor Blake*, California Dept. of Health .Services; Sadie Hoskie*,
• ., Navaho EPA; Chrystal Stowe*, NC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority
9:30-10:00 Q & A
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15-12:00 ._ Break out groups ' "
; ,. . 1. Research priorities? ' | ' ' ,
2. Other approaches for making this agency realitylj
• - " r-". ;
12:00-1:00 Lunch < --. .. | ;
1:00-2:00 Panel - Making risk communication agency reality: ^vercoming organizational
barriers to risk,communication |
Moderator: Caron Chess, CEC , '•'.'.., '...' '
Panelists: Donald Beck*, US DOE; Thomas Burke, Johns Hopkins University;
. Charles Perrow, Yale University .'••.[ • . •
2:00-2:30 Q & A: Discussion
2:30-2:45 Break ".':-•
2:45-3:15 Summary of conference, Roger Kasperson, Clark University
3:15-4:00 Q & A, discussion, and wrap-up ' '
...-••' . . |- . •
4:00 P.M. ADJOURN , i * invited
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
-------
Dear Reviewer:
The following paper "title " was commissioned by us to spur thinking on the
topic of "panel name" for the symposium "title." We see tl|ie paper serving as the
basis of a brief presentation by the author. In addition, it will be submitted to Risk
Analysis, which has agreed to publish all the symposium papers (which pass review)
together. t j
'-"''",!.
We are asking you to review the paper as you would for an academic journal.
Each paper is being reviewed by one academic researcher and one practitioner. We
see this process as allowing authors to make revisions so the manuscripts will
ultimately be suitable for publication, '|
•,•'/ .' r' ' '
In addition, we are asking you to keep the symposium in mind and suggest the
points you feel are most critical to be stressed in the author's presentation.
We would appreciate your review being in this office
by April 75 to provide
authors adequate time for revision before papers are mailjed" out to symposium
participants in early May. Please feel free to fax us or fed ex (our number is #1121-
0747-9). Thanks so much for taking the time to work underjthis deadline.
Sincerely,
Caron Chess
Billie Jo Hance
Kandice L. Salomone
-------
-------
REVIEW BY APRIL 15
Addressing Agencies' Risk Communication Needs:
; A Symposium to Discuss Next Steps
Paper title:
Reviewer number:
Clarity
Contribution to Field
Relevance to Government
Technical Quality
Excellent
Good
*
Fair
Poor
Recommendation:.
[ ] .Excellent and exciting/merits publication.
[ ] Merits publication with revisions noted.
[ ] May eventually be publishable, but requires major revision
indicated below.
-' , , i -
Please comment on the following, using additional space if neieded:
-• " • - ' • !:
1. Suggestions for revision prior to publication. Feel free to jorovide comments on
other issues. - " :
2. Three points in the paper you feel the author should stress in the symposium
presentation. i
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
-------
ADDRESSING AGENCIES' RISK COMMUNICATION NEEDS:
A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS
LIST OF FACILITATORS & RECORDERS
-FACILITATORS ' •
Practitioners
Faith Schottenfeld
NY State Dept. of Health
Elinor Blake*
CA Dept. of Health Services
Peter Galbraith
CT Dept. of Health & Addiction Svcs.
John Perrecone
US EPA, Region 5
Diane Sheridan
Keystone Center
Susan Santos
FOCUS Group
Martha, Bean
Triangle Associates
Bud Ward* '
National Safety Council
Elaine Arkin
health communication consultant
Academics
Jim Grunig
University of Maryland
Vicki Freimuth
University of Maryland
Ann Fisher
Perm State
Bill Hallman .
Rutgers University.
Dominic Golding*
Clark University
, David McCallum
FOCUS Group
Bob Griffin
Marquette University
Ann Bostrom j
Georgia Institute of Technology
Mary English _!
University of Tennessee \
RECORDERS
Sri Emani
Clark University
Richard Rich
Virginia Tech
Julia Winter Heidi Klein
FL Dept. of Health & Rehabilitation Svcs. NACHO
* invited
-------
-------
April 5, 1994
Dear
We are delighted you will be attending our "June 6 -8 symposium 'Addressing
'Agencies' Risk Communication Needs in. Annapolis, Md. As we halve described in previous
literature we've sent you, the heart of the symposium will be the srliall groups of
practitioners and academics that will suggest research directions, ways to make research
more accessible to practitioners, and other means of assisting agencies to overcome these
problems. We are writing to ask you to help us document the ideas generated in these
small groups by acting as a recorder for a group. For this task, it is important that we
have someone with the ability to recognize important ideas as they, are discussed, and to.
report the extent of consensus in the group concerning.each idea. Your notes will be used
for CEC to present information to the symposium participants, and also, just as importantly,
to help us write a summary for those who' could not attend. j
The job of recorder will essentially be: (1) Take down (by hand or personal
computer--whichever you prefer) the main ideas generated in the break out group; (2) bring
those ideas back.to the group of recorders (there will be eight in all') who will use free time
to help us. synthesize these ideas into a list presented to the entire gibup at the end of the
day. (We may also need to- get together in the evenings for a while as well.) Since your
input is also valuable to us, we would expect you to be a participatcjr in group discussions
as well as a recorder. We will be sending recorders detailed information prior to the
symposium. ' r
-, • ' ' i ..••'.
We hope you will agree to help us with this critical part of the conference. Please
send back the attached response form by Monday, April 11. If you have any questions,
please contact our symposium coordinator, Alex Saville, BJ Hance or me. We will be
contacting you with more details as the symposium draws nearer, j . .
" ''-".- i
' Sincerely, i - • "
Caron Chess
Director
-------
-------
April 5, 1594
Dear : " . - •
• '•' .' ' ' • , i - .. • . ..• -
The most important segments of the symposium Addressing Agencies' Risk
Communication Needs: A Symposium to Discuss Next Steps will be the discussion groups
following each of the three panels. Each group, of 8 people will include two facilitators:
* one practitioner skilled in facilitation and involved in risk corrimunication practice; and
* one academic : with leadership skills and research background related to risk
communication. ~
-,*• . . i ' "
Because of your expertise and background in the field, we! are asking you to serve
as a co-facilitator for a discussion group. .
'. ; ' ,•' •'' • •
During the'course of the two days there will be three discussicjn slots of approximately
1 1/2 hours each. We see these as the heart pf the symposium because! these discussion groups
will be suggesting ideas for the direction. of risk communication research and agency practice.
Prior to the symposium, we will send all facilitators instructions suggesting how they lead these
groups through specific topics. We will also provide you information .about your co-facilitator,
so you can contact him/her in advance, should you wish, • ! . -
Because your ideas are valuable to the discussions, we would also expect you to be a
participant as well as a facilitator. By. having a team of facilitators [leading (only) six other
participants, we think you will have ample opportunity to participate as well as lead.
We hope that you will help us to make this symposium a success. Please fax us the
following response form by-Monday, April 11. Feel free to contact Alex Saville, the
symposium coordinator, BJ Hance, or I if you have any questions, j
Sincerely,
Caron Chessi
Director
-------
------- |