United States Office of Solid Waste May 1988
Environmental Protection and Emergency Response
Agency (OS-120)
EPA Report of a Conference on
Risk Communication and
Environmental Management
Technical Assistance Bulletin 4
Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention
-------
RISK COMMUNICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Following for your information is a summary of presentations and a way to
access further information from a Risk Communication and Environmental
Management Conference held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at Temple
University. The conference, sponsored in part by the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, included
presentations from leading academic researchers and professionals in the
field.
The presentations reflect the opinions and judgments from the "experts" in
the field and do not necessarily reflect EPA policy. However, the
presenters offered tips and common-sense advice that we think you may
find valuable. The presentations have special application to issues
involving the implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, Title III) at the State and local levels as well as to other
environmental issues
EPA thanks Temple University for preparing this conference summary.
May 1988
-------
COMMUNICATING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
On November 18, 1987, Temple University hosted a conference* titled
"Risk Communication and Environmental Management." Leading academic
researchers, experJenceeJ and innovative professionals, and concerned
community activists came to Philadelphia for a day of talks and
discussion. They agreed substantially on wflat were the major problems
involved in effective risk communication and how to solve them. This
bulletin presents highlights from the conference, and should be useful to
those working in this field.
HAVING THE RIGHT ATTITUDE
A pervasive vie'N at the conference was the importance of getting beyond
the "rational exptrt-irrational public" attitude. Some community activists
are technically trained or have become well-informed on specific issues.
"Average" members of the public know how and why they feel upset by a
situation and this is useful to environmental managers, All those involved
in the risk communication process know some things we I I} though they
may have inadequate or biased views of other things,
CommuniclJtion brelJkdowns come from three sources: (I)
flJ/Jure to understand the psychology of individulJ/~ (2)
complexities of communiclJting inforTn6tion 6bout risk~
6nd (3) the n6ture of institutions in which communiclJtion
t6kes pl6ce.
.. Conference'Chairpersons: Dr. Grant Krow, Ph.D., Chemistry, Temple U. - Dr.
Robert Mason, Ph.D., Geography. Temple U. - Dr. Robert Patterson. Sc.D..
Environmental Health Engineering, Temple, U. - Dr. Gerald Zeitz, Ph.D..
Human Resource Administration, Temple. U.
2
-------
1. UNDERSTANDING HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY
A. How DeoDle behave:
.
People usually process Information best when not upset.
In a crisis, communication about health hazards Is often
distorted.
.
What upsets people as much as potential hazards Is not
having any control or input In situations Involving them
or their fami lies. .
.
People learn things selectively: they "filter" what they
hear based on their experience, Information, and
interests. For example:
Journal1sts focus on what they feel is
controversial, relatively easy to cover, and has
appeal to the general public.
Community members are most concerned about the
well-being of themselves and thejr families. They
often rank issues other than environmental risk as
more important to their lives.
Risk professionals concentrate on technical
estimates of risk, often forgetting that the
scientific basis for these estimates may be
uncertain and contested.
.
Those who must communicate about risk, such as plant
managers, are often not trained communicators.
Messages get "garbled" and do not come out as intended.
B. How People Est imate Risks:
What average community members see as highly risky is usual1y different
from what poses the greatest actual danger to health. This happens
because some risks trigger strong emotional responses whi Ie others don't.
Extensive news coverage can stir emotion and enhance the "riskiness" of a
givennazard.
3
-------
.
People are more upset by rIsks wh1ch are assocIated
with dramatic events (like accidents in which lots of
peop1e are killed at one time), or which they feel result
from unfairness or immorality.
.
Peop]e underestimate risks that are very familiar to
them (like driving), or those they have some control over.
.
People are more tolerant of a risk (such as air pollution
from smokestacks) if they feel they receive some benefit
from it (needed jobs).
2. THE COMPLEXITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT RISK
A Probability of health risks:
Explaining something abstract like "probabi I ity," and especially very low
probability, is inherently difficult. Furthermore, a given hazard may have
different probabilities of causing harm to different groups of people. It is
the risk communicator's job to explain these probabilities so that the
community can make decisions about how environmental protection
resources should be allocated. Tips for the communicator:
.
Compare risks' people may understand unfamiliar risks
by comparing them to ones experienced more often.
.
Involve the public right from the beginning in risk
assessment and management so they are part of the
decision and understand it better.
.
Listen to what people say and make them aware of the
consequences of choices. This will help produce fairer
and more rational decisions.
B. Technical.assessment of hazards:
The following guidelines should help the lay public better understand
expert risk assessments and more readi ly accept management decisions.
.
Build trust. People won't believe what you say unless
they have confidence in you and your organization.
4
-------
DevelOP a r'eputatlon for openness and honesty WithIn
your community long before an Important event occurs.
.
Be 'up front" Acknowledge your organization's stake in
the issues. Provide al1 of the information that is asked
for and understand that how it is used is up to the
community.
.
Slm,olify your language. Use clear, straightforward lay
person's language. Most people don't have much
scientific training and won't understand technical
jargon. Don't use abbreviations, technical terms) and
other insider shortcuts in documents handed out to the
pub 1 ie.
3. IMPROVING INSTITUTIONS
A Organizational barriers to effective communication:
.
The multiplicity of organizations and local government
jurisdictions means that it is difficult to standardize
information and develop central1zed data-banks.
.
Different professional groups) even located in the same
organization) will have different interests and attitudes
toward a given risk situation. For instance) lawyers tell
companies to avoid saying anything that might lead to
litigation) and marketing personnel want to block
information that might harm sales.
.
People who are called on for answers in a crIsIs
situation frequently do not have first-hand knowledge of
the technical issues involved and may not have good lines
of communication with those who do know.
Barriers such as these are hard to get rid of completely) but awareness
can help minImIze them. It Is Important for risk professionals to try to
give speedy and complete information) develop multiple sources of
informatIon for the pubHc, work in inter-dIscIplinary teams when
possible, and be very patient with those seeking information.
5
-------
B. Building better institutions:
Ultimately, good communication depends on genuine respect and sharing of
control between the parties involved. This requires new institutions.
.
"Bridging organizations," made up of industry,
government, and community members, playa vital role by
encouraging open discussion of Issues, preparing
unbiased reports, and stimulating action.
.
Local Emergency Planning Committees need to involve all
the categories of people required by law in the process
of emergency planning. Yet most do not fully understand
what is expected of them. Industry needs to help in
providing key information for plans.
.
Complying with the letter and spirit of rlght-to-know
legislation will greatly enhance risk communication but
requires some changed practices. Industry must let go of
control over information and will have to take the
Initiative as bridge-builder with the community. The
pub 1 ic must educate themselves on risk choices and
alternatives. They must agree on acceptable risk and
give up the goal of "zero risk now,"
6
-------
Featurea soeaKers
BARUCH F I SCHOFF, Ph. D., Carnegie Mellon University
ttanaging Risk Perce,otions (30-m in. tape)
SUSAN HADDON, Ph. D. , University ofTexas
Institutional Barriers to Environmental Risk Communication (30-min.
tape)
JONATHAN CHARRY, Ph. D., Environmental Risk Management
Public Health and High Voltage Transmission Lines' Risk Perception
and Communication
Commentary: RI CHARD BaRD, Ph.D. , Pennsylvania State University on Drs.
Fischoff, H&:rt>n, and Charry and Q and A Session (60-min. tape)
JOHN E. SLA VI CK, Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arguing with EccleslastesOO-min. tape)
LEWI S CRAMPTON, Wi lliam D. Ruckelshaus Assoc.
Risk Communication Insights' The Kanawha Valley; West Virginia
E x,oer ience
Commentary: JOHN DENWORTH, Esq., P.A Environmental Council andQandA
Session (60-min. tape)
JACK CAMPBELL, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Communication: Accounting for Public ValuesOO-min. tape)
Commentary: TOM DIETZ, Ph.D. George Mason University, on Jack Campbell and Q and
A Session (60-min. tape)
PETER SANDMAN, Ph.D., Rutgers University
Hazar~ Outrag&; and the ttedia: Covering Half of the Risk Story
(60-min. tape)
CASE STUDY PANEL: The Envirosafe Case' A Hypothetical Exam,ole (60-min
tape)
Risk Communication and Environmental l1anagement, Temple
University Environmental Sciences and Policy Forum, is
available on Audiocassette ($4 per cassette, $ 16 for semInar
set) or VIdeocassette (30-mln. tape, $20; 60-mln. tape, $25).
For further information, please ca11 or write to:
Cheryl King, Forum Coordinator, or Gary L. Aughtry, Asst. Coordinator
Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies
Room 406, University Services Building
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 787-8692
7
------- |