United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Risk Information Support Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA 450/3-30-025
Air
June 1991
Air Pollution and the Public:
A Risk Communication Guide
for
State and Local Agencies
Options
Openness
Science
Answers
rnntfrassum
10'6? NO!!
uu
Jobs or Health?
Helpr Risk?
skepticism
AIR RISK INFORMATION SUPPORT CENTER
-------
EPA-450/3-90-025
September 1990
Air Pollution and the Public:
A Risk Communication Guide for State and Local Agencies
by
Air Risk Information Support Center (Air RISC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Sponsored by:
Pollutant Assessment Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
6320 Quadrangle Drive
Suite 100
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Staff of the Air Risk Information Support Center would
like to thank all those who assisted in developing and reviewing
this document. A special thanks to Tad Aburn of the Maryland Air
Management Administration for requesting the Air Risk Information
Support Center to produce such a document and to Alvin Chun, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX and Charlotte cottrill,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office in Cincinnati, for their thoughtful reviews of
draft documents. We express our gratitude also to Alvin Chun for
allowing us to add the Region IX Training Instrument "Public
Meeting - Typical Questions and Responses" as a practical example
Appendix.
-------
PREFACE
This manual is about risk communication and public
participation. It is for State and local air pollution control
agency staff who develop and implement control programs for toxic
air pollutants and review permit applications or otherwise
evaluate health risks from sources of air toxics. These
professionals frequently need to communicate about risks in
response to public inquiries or concern. The focus of this
manual is on routine situations, but it presents general concepts
of risk communication that apply elsewhere.
Also, this manual, while helpful, is not a substitute for
training or experience. Risk communication courses are available
for State and local agencies, check with your EPA Regional Office
for information. When possible, observe public meetings or other
fora. Finally, do not overlook those-in your agency who have
communications expertise, such as those in public information or
community relations. Their experience is valuable and their help
will save valuable time, minimize grief, and prevent "reinventing
wheels." Some sources could be — EPA community relations
specialists, League of Women Voters, county health educators,
Agency press officers, or public affairs specialists.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION 1.0 REFERENCES 1-4
2.0 WHAT IS RISK COMMUNICATION? 2-1
2.1 DEFINITION OF RISK COMMUNICATION1 2-1
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF RISK COMMUNICATION 2-3
2.3 PROBLEMS IN RISK COMMUNICATION 2-5
SECTION 2.0 REFERENCES 2-8
3.0 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING RISK COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES . . 3-1
3.1 CONDUCT ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING 3-1
3.2 IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES - WHY COMMUNICATE? 3-3
3.2.1 Extent of Public Involvement 3-4
3.2.2 Goal Categories 3-6
3.3 IDENTIFY TARGET AUDIENCES - WHO IS THE PUBLIC? . . 3-8
3.4 IDENTIFY AUDIENCE CONCERNS 3-11
3.4.1 How Does the Public Look at Risk? 3-11
3.4.2 Gathering Information to Identify Public
Concerns 3-16
3.4.3 Effective Listening 3-18
3.4.4 Not in My Backyard 3-20
3.5 COORDINATE WITH OTHER GROUPS 3-23
3.6 SELECT THE APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION VEHICLES TO MEET
OBJECTIVES 3-25
3.7 DEVELOP A RISK COMMUNICATION EVALUATION PROGRAM . . 3-35
3.8 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER 3-38
Figure 1. Risk Communication Public Involvement Planning
Form 3-39
SECTION 3.0 REFERENCES '. . 3-42
4.0 EXPLAINING ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INFORMATION 4-1
4.1 CONSIDER PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF RISK AND OUTRAGE
FACTORS 4-3
4.2 AIM MESSAGES AT SPECIFIC TARGET AUDIENCES 4-5
4.3 MAKE SURE TECHNICAL INFORMATION IS PRESENTED CLEARLY 4-7
4.3.1 Explaining Risk Numbers, Statistics, and
-------
Magnitudes . 4-11
4.3.2 Effective Use of Exposure Information .... 4-14
4.3.3 Careful Use of Risk Comparisons 4-16
4.4 ACKNOWLEDGE UNCERTAINTY 4-21
4.5 CONSIDER RISK TOLERABILITY 4-25
4.6 PERSONALIZE RISK INFORMATION 4-27
SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES 4-29
5.0 GAINING TRUST AND CREDIBILITY 5-1
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES 5-8
6.0 WORKING WITH THE MEDIA 6-1
6.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEWS REPORTING 6-1
6.2 SELECTION OF A SPOKESPERSON 6-4
6.3 INTERVIEWS 6-5
6.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRINT MEDIA 6-6
6.5 CONSIDERATIONS FOR BROADCAST MEDIA 6-9
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES . 6-12
APPENDIX 1. PUBLIC MEETING TYPICAL QUESTIONS AND SAMPLE
ANSWERS A-l
ii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Why bother learning about risk communication? Because, like
time and tide, communication is not waiting for you, but is an
ongoing process. The risk communication process includes what is
said, unsaid, printed, acted, implied or ignored. Although a
continual process, there are times that intentional
communications need to be implemented to address some event or
circumstance. Under both routine and event-prompted scenarios,
active participation in a controlled exchange of information
between the public and your Agency aimed at reaching a mutual
understanding (as per Rogers'* definition of communication) will
result in a more effective regulatory process, with broader
public support and greater Agency credibility. Conversely,
unintentional communication can send false messages and failure
to communicate with the public is in itself a powerful negative
message. Being aware of all these factors makes the Agency
communicator (essentially anyone who has any contact at all with
the public) more effective. It is important to note, however,
that even when the public trusts you and understands your point,
it provides no guarantee that they will agree with you. (But it
increases the likelihood of reaching a mutually acceptable
solution.) So, while agencies will likely find that good risk
communication takes some time and resources, it will cost more
later if the effort is not made.
This manual focuses on routine and event-prompted
communication with citizens acting as individuals or members of
groups. Techniques for the agency as a regulator communicating
with industry as regulatee are not addressed in this manual, but
keep in mind that industry is a powerful segment of the public
with which State and local agencies should communicate.
This manual emphasizes practical tips on how to plan and
carry out risk communication effectively, rather than emphasizing
results of research on risk communication. The material has been
-------
synthesized from literature on risk communication and also
reflects the experience of the authors. This material does not
contain a "magic phrase" that will allow readers to communicate
risks more effectively. Rather, this manual is designed to
illustrate guidelines and principles that should promote more
effective communication. By following the guidance here, the
reader will not be able to please everyone all the time, but
should come away more frequently with acceptable compromises.
Some of the advice offered here may seem to be too costly,
require too much staff time, or be unlikely to win the support of
management in many state and local agencies. Agencies should
consider the advice given here and then see how best to apply it
to a given situation. The report tries to separate the essential
from the "nice to do."
This report is divided into six sections. Following this
introduction (Section 1.0), Section 2.0 gives a basic definition
of risk communication, including a discussion of various
objectives and problems. Section 3.0 addresses how to plan and
implement risk communication activities, and describes
identification of objectives, target audiences, and audience
concerns; selection and implementation of appropriate
communication vehicles; testing of messages; and evaluation of
risk communication efforts. Section 4.0 addresses how to explain
environmental risk information (including information on the
public's perception of risk) risk characteristics, and
suggestions for explaining technical information clearly.
Section 5.0 suggests ways to cultivate and maintain trust and
credibility and handle situations where trust and credibility are
low. Section 6.0 gives some suggestions for working with the
media, including important characteristics of how environmental
risk is perceived by reporters. Finally, the Appendix provides
examples of risk communication in the form of typical questions
and sample answers. While they are presented as a public meeting
format, they are valuable examples of risk communication
1-2
-------
principles. References cited in the text are listed at the end
of each section.
1-3
-------
SECTION 1.0 REFERENCES
1. Rogers, Everett M., and D. L. Kincaid, 1981. Communication
Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research, New York, NY.
The Free Press, p. 64-65.
1-4
-------
2.0 WHAT IS RISK COMMUNICATION?
2.1 DEFINITION OF RISK COMMUNICATION1
Risk communication is a process used by agencies and the
public to discuss environmental hazards, their impacts and how
they should be addressed. For agency personnel, the process
includes:
0 understanding people's perceptions of risk, and their
emotions or concerns,
empathizing with those emotions or concerns,
8 dealing with concerns for which agencies have control,
and identifying how others will be managed,
0 advising people of environmental and public health risk
assessments in language that they understand,
informing the public about current and proposed actions,
and
providing opportunities for public involvement in risk
management decisions.
Risk communication embodies a two-way communication process
that addresses the different perceptions of risk held by agency
personnel and their constituents.
The purpose of conducting risk communication is to inform,
and advise the public on health risk assessment information, and
to involve them in risk management. As a result of this process,
the public can better decide on actions they must take to protect
their interests, and agencies can make effective risk management
decisions. Such decisions may not always be ideal to the public,
but successful risk communication will help engender public trust
in our actions.
To help clarify the definition, some common notions of risk
communication are offered:
2-1
-------
A. Risk Communication is not:
Co-opting the public.
8 Simply selling the Agency decisions to the public.
Making decisions that cannot be adjusted.
0 Using jargon that people do not understand.
e Listening passively without feedback.
Patronizing the public.
A "fire fighting" process.
0 Just about risk assessment.
8 Only the responsibility of community relations or
external affairs offices.
8 Easy for many agency personnel.
B. Risk Communication is:
Two-way process of "give and take."
Active listening and legitimizing emotions.
Understanding that people can direct their anger
at you even though it may be a manifestation of
frustration about their situation.
8 Showing compassion when people are emotional
Stating what is considered safe for the individual.
Explaining risk assessments.
8 Talking about probabilities of one-in-a-million.
Using non-technical language.
8 Empowering people to act in their best interest.
Being objective, open and honest.
Recognizing that the public has useful input which
we may not have considered.
Telling people what we are planning to do.
0 Conveying risk in a larger context.
8 Giving clear information to the public.
8 Recognizing that there may be no easy answers.
Acting on what you hear and not ignoring it.
Being considerate of the needs of your audience.
2-2
-------
Practicing the "Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication."
Your responsibility as an agency representative.
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF RISK COMMUNICATION
Risk communication can have a number of purposes. Sometimes
the specific goal may be to alert people to a particular risk and
move them to action. Other times the goal may be to inform or
convince individuals that a particular situation does not pose a
health risk. The strategies for communicating vary with each
particular circumstance. Numerous authors have described general
purposes or objectives for risk communication. The following are
five common objectives of risk communication:^
1. To better educate the public about risk, risk analyses,
and risk management; to help individuals interpret risks and to
make appropriate decisions. For risk communicators, public
education means helping the public understand the complexities of
the risk problems and intricacies of the risk assessments.
2. To better inform the public about specific risks and
actions taken to alleviate them. This objective is related to a
specific risk, its analysis, and the regulatory decisions to
address it.
3. To improve the understanding of public values and
concerns. A better understanding of public opinions and ideas
will help regulators formulate relevant criteria for risk
management responsive to public sentiment.
4. To increase mutual trust and credibility between the
government agency and the public. Mutual trust and credibility
2-3
-------
must exist between the interested parties in order to achieve
successful risk communication.
5. To resolve conflicts and controversies. The possibility
of conflicts can be reduced by actively involving all concerned
parties from the onset of the risk assessment through risk
management, in an atmosphere of joint problem solving.
The ideal objectives may be for the public to understand the
technical aspects of risk; for the government to understand all
of the public's concerns, fears, and values; and for everyone to
reach a consensus in solving a problem. In reality, however,
this is not always possible due to time, money/ personnel, or
regulatory constraints. As the preceding objectives indicate,
the major goal of risk communication should be to move toward an
ideal, where everyone has a positive sense that the Agency is
acting to protect public health and the environment, understands
the process that the Agency will use, has input to risk
management decisions and has the opportunity to disagree.
Each event prompting a need for risk communication will have
its own specific objectives. For example, if an agency is
developing an air toxics control program and working to define
acceptable levels of toxic air pollutants, one risk communication
objective may be to define the ambient concentrations considered
acceptable to the constituents of the agency. If an agency is
responding to a permit application for construction of a new
source, or to inquiries about the health risk posed by an
existing source, the risk communication objective may be to
convey to the public that, from an air pollution standpoint, the
source will not pose a health risk.
Before designing a risk communication program or a specific
"message," it is crucial for an agency to determine its
objectives.
2-4
-------
2.3 PROBLEMS IN RISK COMMUNICATION
As previously mentioned, risk communication is an ongoing,
interactive process. Linear communication theory states that
this process involves: (1) the message, the relevant information
to be communicated; (2) the source. the messenger who transmits
the message; (3) the mechanism or channel through which the
message is transmitted; and (4) the receiver, the party who
receives the message. While many problems are also related to
context, use of these terms simplifies discussion of problems
inherent in a risk communication event. Many barriers to
communication are associated with each of these four items:
1. Message problems: limitations in the procedures used to
assess air toxics risks that form the basis of the risk message.
These can include the following:
* highly technical and scientific analyses that are
meaningless to laypeople (without intervening
explanation);
* limited scientific methods, data, and models that can
result in uncertain risk assessments;
* difficulties in assessing, human exposure, the effects
of mixtures, and exposures to sensitive populations
(e.g., children).
2. Source problems: limitations of the risk communicators
and risk assessment experts. These can include the following:
* use of bureaucratic, technical, or scientific language
to transmit information;
* resource, legal, and/or institutional constraints on
analysis, authority, and actions;
* disagreement of interpretations among experts;
2-5
-------
* failure to disclose limitations of risk assessments and
prevailing uncertainties; and
* limited understanding of the concerns, interests,
emotions, values, fears, and preferences of the audience
in question;
* personal style which is defensive, condescending,
unprofessional, or otherwise offensive to the audience.
3. Channel problems: limitations of the means or media
through which information is relayed. These can include the
following:
* structured hearings where by law the panel is instructed
to listen but not respond;
* selective and/or biased media coverage focusing on
drama, conflict, or corruption;
* oversimplifications, distortions, and inaccuracies in
interpreting technical risk information; and
* premature disclosure of information.
4. Receiver problems: limitations of the intended
recipients of the risk information. These can include the
following:
* inaccurate perceptions of risk values;
* lack of interest in risk problems;
* difficulties in understanding information;
* demands for scientific certainty;
* overconfidence in one's ability to avoid
danger; and
* unrealistic expectations about the
effectiveness of regulatory action and risk
management;
* recognition of and/or emphasis on different aspects of
risk.
2-6
-------
In many respects, the skills that one would apply to any
communication endeavor are applicable to risk communication
efforts. There too, the message, the source, the channel, and
the receiver are critical considerations in communicating
effectively. Recognizing these elements and working to minimize
problems associated with them are essential to successful risk
communication.
In summary, there are four important suggestions for
successful risk communication:3
1. Know your risk communication problem.
2. Know your risk communication objectives.
3. Use simple, nontechnical language.
4. Listen to your audience and know the content and context
of their concerns.
Implementation of these suggestions is the focus of Sections
3.0 through 6.0. Section 3.0 addresses defining risk
communication objectives and identifying and characterizing the
audience's concerns. Section 4.0 addresses choice of language.
Section 5.0 describes the importance of trust and credibility.
Section 6.0 addresses dealing with the media, a particularly
important audience.
2-7
-------
SECTION 2.0 REFERENCES
1. Risk Communication and Public Involvement Course. US EPA,
Region IX, San Francisco, California 94105.
2. Keeney, R.L. and D. von Winterfeldt. "Improving Risk
Communication." Risk Analysis. Vol. 6, No.4, 1986.
3. Covello, Vincent; von Winterfeldt, D.; Slovic, P. "Risk
Communication: An Assessment of the Literature on
Communicating Information about Health, Safety and
Environmental Risks." (A draft preliminary report to the
Environmental Protection Agency.) Institute of Safety and
Systems Management, University of Southern California,
1986.
2-8
-------
3.0 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING RISK COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES
Planning and preparation are an integral part of the
development and implementation of any regulatory program. In
implementing air toxics control strategies and regulations,
permitting activities and other risk evaluations, it is important
that the planning process include consideration of risk
communication. Thorough planning is key to success. In
addition, almost all state and local air pollution agencies will
find themselves in situations where they must explain a source's
health risk or a decision making process, or answer questions
from citizens or elected officials. Planning ahead for these
unplanned communication scenarios will only improve an agency's
credibility. Such situations also require careful planning and
preparation.
This section discusses the following important components of
planning for risk communication with the public and includes tips
for implementing these components:
* organizational planning,
* identifying objectives,
* identifying target audiences,
* identifying audience concerns,
* coordinating with other groups,
* choosing appropriate communication vehicles, and
* evaluating risk communication efforts.
3.1 CONDUCT ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING
An agency's internal organizational climate significantly
influences the effectiveness of its risk communication. An
agency that encourages internal communication and creative
problem solving is more likely to have staff members who interact
3-1
-------
with the public in a spirit of trusting and open exchange than an
agency with a closed internal agency climate. State and local
air agencies developing and implementing air toxics programs
should strive for an organizational climate and agency structure
that foster good communication; remembering that public
participation and public input are more effective the earlier and
the more consistently they occur. Organizational planning should
include evaluation of needs and resources for good communication.
Some examples of these needs are:
1. Time allocated to do planning for communication (there
is a significant amount of time that should be legitimized) .
2. Time allocated to do evaluations following a
communication event (this can be time consuming but has proven to
be very productive since risk communication is usually a learned
experience which does not come easily).
3. Contractor to provide advice on risk communication and
public participation (this can be a valuable and cost effective
alternative to having specialized in-house staff).
4. Video equipment, facilities, and specialists to record
communication events for the purpose of evaluating and improving
future communications (this can be a full time job for a
specialist or contracted source).
5. Time allocated to coordinate with related agencies or
organizations (this is also time consuming but enhances trust and
credibility with the public and results in better solutions).
6. Time and resources for affected staff and managers to
take training courses in risks communication, public involvement,
active listening, etc.
3-2
-------
7. Time spent with senior managers to review risk
communication progress, as well as for learning and other needs.
(Senior managers can play a major role to encourage, guide and
learn from the experiences of their staff. They can also get a
better sense of the needs which are required to do a better job.)
Chess (1987) developed a list of suggestions for agency
management to help foster effective risk communication^. The
suggestions, paraphrased below, are based on the assumption that
risk communication should complement, and not replace, sound
science and meaningful policy development.
With regard to organizational climate and agency structure,
agency managers should promote effective risk communication by
their own example. Open communication within the agency, where
staff members are involved in decision making and encouraged to
express diverse viewpoints, fosters openness in efforts outside
the agency. Communication specialists in positions at all levels
of the agency can help identify community concerns and assist
technical and policy staff in interaction with communities. When
hiring staff, consider communication abilities and provide risk
communication orientation and training for all staff members
involved. Finally, make the agency "user-friendly" to those
outside the government.in order tp encourage the public to
communicate with the agency.
3.2 IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES - WHY COMMUNICATE?
Defining objectives for risk
participation involves deciding
agency should go, in involving
agencies have statutory
and for public comment periods
proposed or as part of the
the
requirements
permitting
3 -
communication and public
when to begin, and how far the
public. In addition, most
for holding public hearings
new regulations are
process. Although these
whenever
-------
mandated objectives for public participation are important, this
section will stress that broader objectives are necessary/
because using only a public hearing to involve the public in risk
issues can result in the less-than-successful "decide, announce,
and defend" strategy.
3.2.1 Extent of Public Involvement
In the pamphlet, "Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication"2, the first rule is, "accept and involve the
public as a legitimate partner." The basic premise of this rule
is that, in a democracy, people and communities have a right to
participate in decisions that affect their lives, property, and
the things they value. Thus, the ideal of risk communication in
a democracy should be to produce an informed public that is
involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented,
and collaborative. The goal should not be to diffuse public
concerns or replace action.
Agencies must set practical goals that not only accommodate
the formal requirements and constraints that bound the regulatory
development and permitting processes, but also allow for improved
understanding of the issues and actions by both the public and
the agency through, for example, direct public inquiries to
agency staff. To be effective, risk communication should be
part of agency routine, not a way to avoid solving problems.
Risk communication should complement agencies' primary commitment
to sound science and meaningful policy.
In setting objectives for risk communication, the legal
requirements (e.g., public hearings, public comment periods after
rules are proposed, etc.;) and public inquiries should serve as
initial bases for planning. Effective risk communication goes
beyond statutory requirements to afford an agency the opportunity
3-4
-------
to hear public concerns when they can be addressed more easily,
and, ideally, to involve the public in decision making processes
to the extent practicable. Statutory requirements alone may be
too little, too lateI
In identifying risk communication objectives, understanding
the distinction among levels of citizen participation will help
to clarify whether and how far to go beyond the statutory
requirements for public involvement. Hance, et al** published the
"ladder of citizen participation" to illustrate these
distinctions:
Level of
Participation
Characteri z at ion
Example
Citizen Power
Power Sharing
Consult 2
Consult 1
Inform
Government Power
Citizens act
without
communicating with
government
Citizens and
government solve
problems together
Government asks
citizens for
meaningful input
and intends to
listen
Government asks
citizens for
limited input and
would prefer not
to listen
Government talks,
citizens listen
Government acts
without
communicating with
citizens
volunteer fire
department
citizen oversight
and monitoring
citizen advisory
committees
most public
hearings
press releases
enforcement
actions
3-5
-------
Routine functions of government demand very little citizen
participation and therefore, much agency communication is at the
level of "Consult 1." It is important, however, to consider
increasing the level of public participation when controversy
exists, when feelings run high, if the agency genuinely needs
input, or if citizens request more participation. No single
level is always best, since circumstances surrounding risk
communication vary. If the agency knows a particular action is
not likely to spark controversy (e.g., a permit renewal of a
printing facility that has switched to water-based inks), a
public hearing (Inform Level) per the statutory requirements
would likely be adequate. However, when public sentiment is
intense (as is seen when permitting a municipal or hazardous
waste incinerator, for example), more opportunity for citizen
involvement is called for (Consult 2 to Power Sharing).
Communication with the public is more likely to be successful
when an agency begins the process at a higher level of public
interaction than if the community insists on moving to a higher
level.
3.2.2 Goal Categories
To ensure that an agency planning for risk communication has
identified the necessary goals, it is useful to consider
different categories of goals. Four categories of goals are:
(1) informational goals, to give information to people;
(2) organizational goals, to work with the air agency and other
agencies to coordinate actions and build credibility; (3) legally
mandated goals, to meet the statutory requirements for public
involvement; and (4) process goals, to seek public input
throughout the rule development or permitting process. Using
those categories, some possible goals for state and local air
agencies are listed below:
3-6
-------
Informational goals
* to respond to the questions and concerns of the
community
* to give people the data they need to better understand
the extent of the risk
* to tell people what the agency has done, is doing, and
plans to do about the problem, and what they cannot
do, and why
* to communicate to the public why resources are focused
on particular problems
Organizational Goals
* to build and maintain the credibility of the agency in
the minds of all affected publics
* to educate the agency in public concerns so the staff
can work to minimize public feelings of outrage
* to coordinate actions within the agency and with other
agencies so the governmental response is consistent and
effective
* to maintain agency efficiency by avoiding unnecessary
conflicts with the public
Mandated Goals
* to provide the opportunity to speak at a public hearing
and submit written comments on proposed regulations and
permit applications
Process Goals
* to make clear what the boundaries of public input can
be, given the agencies legal constraints and
responsibilities
* to make clear the Agency's mandate and responsibilities
* to be informed about public concerns centering around
toxic air pollutants
* to provide maximum opportunities for public input,
3-7
-------
including, where appropriate, a chance to help make key
decisions
* to solicit public involvement at the beginning
and throughout the regulatory development
process
* to keep people routinely informed throughout
the process, so they do not lose their sense of
what the agency is doing
* to incorporate public concerns in the permit
review process
* to cultivate a committee of various public
interests, educated in air pollution control
and risk management, who will bring public
concerns to bear in risk management decisions
* to determine what level of risk reduction is
acceptable to the public
It is often useful to differentiate between top priority
goals and moderate priority goals in each category, limiting the
number of goals in each priority group to four. It may also be
helpful to set goals jointly with all of the staff involved.
3.3 IDENTIFY TARGET AUDIENCES - WHO IS THE PUBLIC?
Different audiences require different risk communication
strategies because groups will have different concerns and
different levels of understanding of a risk message; and their
concerns, levels of understanding and informational needs may
change throughout many risk scenarios. While it may not be
possible to try and reach "everybody," there is a need to
identify all parties who have an interest or stake in the issue
and to offer them the opportunity to be involved in the risk
communication exchange. It is likely that situations will arise
when the various audiences will be addressed at one time. In
these scenarios, planning is especially difficult and important.
3-8
-------
For identifying interested groups, a three-step networking
process** can be useful:
* make a list of the different aspects of the issue and the
types of organizations that might be concerned with these
aspects,
* contact these organizations and interest groups with
which you are familiar, and
* ask these groups the names of others who might have an
interest in the issue.
Identifying audiences is a continuous process, so it is important
to use sign-up sheets at meetings and similar tools to identify
new parties.
As a starting point, many agencies rely on existing mailing
lists and lists of people or groups who have testified at public
hearings or attended other meetings. Lists from other agencies
that have held public hearings about related issues, as well as
newspaper coverage of related issues may help identify interested
individuals or groups. If an agency is initiating risk
communication because of a particular permit application, groups
who have an interest in the site should also be included.
The audience, however,! should not be limited to just
geographical neighbors. There are many groups to consider based
on common demographic, educational, or vocational interests,
which will not necessarily be within the geographic or political
boundaries. The list below! may help an agency identify target
groups who have a stake in particular issues.
local government agencies local elected officials
local businesses ' chambers of commerce
3-9
-------
Better Business Bureaus
other employee groups
medical associations
educational/academic groups
civic organizations
community associations
property owners
religious organizations
unions
professional organizations
senior citizen associations
environmental groups
sporting/recreation clubs
public interest groups
realtors
media
In addition to these types of groups, air agency staff members
may be members of or aware of additional groups interested in the
particular issues. Also, it can be useful to ask local groups
about other groups which may be interested. It is important to
identify all interested groups, for the publicity will likely
pull them out of the woodwork and they will feel ignored if they
have not been contacted.
When identifying audiences, it is important to recognize
that key audiences include groups that have concerns they want to
share with the agency, as well as groups the agency feels need to
be informed. Keeping this in mind again stresses the point that
effective risk communication is a mutual exchange, where the
participants continue to exchange information back and forth.
Failure to establish two-way exchange may get the same feedback
eventually, but under less than ideal circumstances.
i
Another way of encouraging communication with a variety of
interested groups is through the formation of public advisory
groups, representatives from a variety of organizations who would
meet over time and; advise the agency on air toxics issues. Such
a committee might have representatives from any number of the
groups suggested. 'One key here is "representation." Committee
members need to take information back to their respective groups
for discussion so that the discussion and concerns raised within
the committee truly represent the organizations. Many state and
3-10
-------
local agencies have used such groups successfully during the
development of air toxics programs.
Once the various audiences have been identified, it may
become important to categorize or group them according to types
of information needs, concerns, their message or other special
considerations. This step will be useful later on when designing
your risk messages and selecting vehicles or techniques for
communication.
3.4 IDENTIFY AUDIENCE CONCERNS
This section examines ways to find out the concerns of various
audiences. The first part of this section describes how the
public views risk, a perspective that typically differs from the
perspective of government agencies. Section 3.4.2 discusses ways
to gather information on public concerns, and Section 3.4.3 gives
tips on listening effectively.
3.4.1 How Does the Public Look at Risk?
Since effective communication is more difficult in a hostile
atmosphere, agencies must understand how the public perceives
risk in order to avoid or reduce hostile feelings. Government
agencies and the public often do not view risk in the same way
and can, therefore, come to different conclusions regarding the
acceptability of a risk. Agencies rely on scientific risk
assessments and environmental monitoring, while the public takes
into account many other social, economic and historical factors.
The technical aspects studied by air agencies have been called
the "hazard" dimension, and non-technical factors have been
referred to as the "outrage" dimension of risk because they can
produce feelings of outrage in people.5 These two approaches to
3-11
-------
risk are also referred to as technical rationality and cultural
or experiential rationality.^
For successful risk communication,, agencies must realize the
importance of experiential rationality factors and the validity
of this "outrage" dimension. Eleven "outrage factors" are listed
below**»' along with a discussion of how air agencies can take
these into consideration when facing air toxics issues.
Suggestions presented in Section 4.0 also address ways to
minimize some of these factors.
1. Voluntary versus involuntary. Risks that are voluntary
are considered less serious (i.e., less dangerous) than those
that are imposed. That is to say, when people feel that a risk
is being imposed on them, they perceive it as outrageous and they
attribute a higher level of risk regardless of the hazard. In
such cases, they may tend to focus on the government's process
and pay far less attention to substantive risk issues.
Toxic air emissions are not usually a matter of voluntary
risk. Early public involvement in decision making can help
reduce outrage from involuntary emissions even when public
involvement must occur within the context of mandated agency
decision making procedures.
2. Controlled by the "system" versus controlled by the
individual. People tend to view risks that they do not control
as more threatening than those that they can do something about,
regardless of the actual hazard.
Allowable ambient concentrations of toxic pollutants are not
a matter of individual control, but this factor tells air
agencies that the public will feel less outrage, and thus view
the situation as less risky, when they feel that they have a
3-12
-------
voice in the decision making concerning control of air toxics and
permitting industrial facilities. For example, agencies that
turn to citizen committees to review proposed ambient levels for
toxic air pollutants, help to turn over some of the
responsibility for control to the public, especially if the
committees allow input and discussion by the public attending the
meetings. The public feels a sense of control and so is more
content with decisions made.
3. Fair versus unfair. Risks that seem fair are more
acceptable than those that seem unfair. Getting stuck with a
risk for which the public realizes little benefit makes the risk
seem unfair and, therefore, more serious. Risks are more readily
accepted when those who benefit bear the risk. When communities
depend on one major industry for jobs, they sometimes see
pollution from that industry as less hazardous, fostering the
"smells like money to me" attitude. This same factor can cause a
divisiveness in a community between those who depend on the risk
source for a benefit and those who do not.
Risk levels that the public helped to set will also seem
more acceptable, more fair, than levels that an agency set with
no consultation and consideration of public sentiment.
4. Trustworthy sources versus untrustworthy sources.
People's perception of a risk is often a function of how much
they trust the organization seemingly imposing or allowing the
risk or how credible the source of risk information is.
This speaks to the importance of making sure that an agency
is perceived as a credible and trustworthy source and to the need
for developing an understanding with credible sources who can
help to communicate the agency's message to the public. Many
state and local risk communication situations boil down to this
3-13
-------
issue; therefore, establishing credibility is crucial. Tips for
developing trust and credibility are discussed in Section 5.0.
5. Morally relevant versus morally neutral. Risks that
seem ethically objectionable will seem more dangerous than those
that do not. Most people feel that pollution is morally wrong,
and this makes talk of allowing more pollution because of the
high cost of reduction sound very callous.
This feeling contributes to the desire on people's part to
reach a zero risk level or a level of total control of emissions.
Recognizing and acknowledging this as an ultimate goal can help
you present the public with more reachable, and realistic,
objectives.
6. Natural versus artificial. Natural risks seem less
hazardous than artificial (i.e., man-made) risks. Natural risks
provide no "villain," while emissions from a chemical plant
provide a focus for anger in the plant managers and the
permitting agency.
Toxic air pollutants obviously pose artificial risks. The
agency could be the focal point of public anger, if it appears to
be accepting, or even imposing, artificial risks from toxics
sources. To minimize the appearance of favoring the source,
agencies should take care to maintain and convey technical
objectivity.
The source could be a focal point for anger as well. A
source that has developed good community relations experiences
less public animosity than one that has not.
7. Exotic versus familiar. Exotic risks seem more risky
than familiar risks. Household cleaners seem less risky than the
chemical plant that makes the cleaners.
3-14
-------
Toxic pollutants, with their long names, can certainly seem
exotic. The challenge here is to try to remove some of the
mystery around these pollutants and their effects. Demystifying
the substance will help get the risk message across.
8. Memorable versus not memorable. Risks that are
associated with other, memorable events are considered more
risky.
This factor speaks to the need to dissociate, if
appropriate, agency actions from any memorable event. Do not
avoid mentioning the event. Rather, acknowledge to people that
the event was, indeed, significant and worrisome and give the
features that make the present circumstances different, if this
is the case.
9. Dreaded versus not dreaded. Risks that are "dreaded"
seem more serious than those that carry less dread. For example,
toxic air pollutants that cause cancer may seem more risky, and
less acceptable, than those that can cause emphysema, even though
both diseases can be fatal.
Educate people about the effects of emissions in question
and the significance of particular effects. If the audience is
not aware of the differences, differentiate between health
effects associated with acute exposure and those associated with
chronic exposure. The risk message must put the effects into the
proper perspective, so that people differentiate between
significant and less significant risks.
10. Undetectable versus detectable. Risks that are
undetectable create more fear than detectable risks when people
are aware of both types of hazards. If a person understands that
a substance is hazardous, but he is able to detect exposure and
therefore to avoid it, it seems safer than a situation in which
3-15
-------
he cannot detect exposure to that hazard. For instance, it is
possible to detect poisonous household substances near young
children and to avoid exposure to the children, but one cannot
detect pesticide residues on vegetables. Similarly, risks whose
effects may take years to show up (e.g., cancer) may be more
likely feared than risks whose effects are more immediate and
identifiable (e.g., poisoning).
Toxic air emissions may seem undetectable to the public, but
ambient levels may have been carefully monitored and/or modeled.
Making this factual information available will help dissipate
this type of outrage.
11. Scientific understanding versus uncertainty. Risks
that are well understood by science are more acceptable than
those that are not. Uncertain or contested risks seem less
acceptable than those that are easily explained.
This is not to say that uncertainties should be hidden;
clear risk messages that acknowledge points of uncertainty are
important to maintaining credibility. Portraying uncertainty is
discussed in more detail in Section 4.0.
3.4.2 Gathering Information to Identify Public Concerns
Agency risk communicators should listen to the public to
identify what information the public wants and then make sure
that the technical information gathered by the agency addresses
their citizen's concerns. For example, people want to know how a
risk will affect them personally because they want to protect
what they value. This leads to questions such as, "Should my
children play outside?11; "Is it safe to eat vegetables from my
garden?"; or "Won't my property value go down?" Another concern
might be over what can be done to reduce emissions. Chess, et
al6 categorize public concerns as health and lifestyle concerns,
3-16
-------
data and information concerns, process concerns, and risk
management concerns.
Health and lifestyle concerns pertain to how the particular
situation will affect a person and his family. Such concerns are
often over health and quality of life. Data and information
concerns describe the technical facts and associated
uncertainties (e.g., are studies correct, how local exposures
compare to standards, the worst case scenario). Process concerns
pertain to how communication with the agency is carried out and
how decisions are made. Trust and credibility are closely
associated with process concerns. Finally, risk management
concerns pertain to how the risk will be handled and when,
including the cause(s) of the problem, options for correcting the
problem, and types of oversight.
Methods for discovering what public concerns are include
interviews, written or telephone surveys, focus groups, informal
information gathering, review of letters to the editor and news
items, and use of existing public poll information. The focus
group technique, new for many regulatory agencies, is a more
usable and affordable technique for state and local agencies and
requires some explanation.
Focus groups allow risk messages to be tested on a small
group to see if they are effective. Focus groups are assembled
for informal discussions in which a skilled moderator probes
people's attitudes and opinions on a specific topic. Eight to
ten people is an ideal size and sessions usually last about two
hours. Participants can be selected from a specific target group
or from the general population of an area. However, considerable
thought should be given to the make-up of the group and care
taken in generalizing results. The format for focus groups can
vary, including answering and discussing survey questions,
critiquing risk messages, or discussing risk perceptions. Tasks
3-17
-------
or exercises are often used to stimulate discussion. Focus
groups can be used effectively in six areas of risk
communication:®
* exploring risk perceptions
* evaluating perceptual cues and information processing
* presenting risk communication materials
* selecting risk communication channels
* designing risk mitigation policies
* assessing risk communication effectiveness
* exploring agency credibility
Because designing air toxics programs, implementing toxics
control programs, or developing control procedures may represent
"new" services, air agencies may want to consider the use of
focus groups to solicit citizen concerns, feelings, and
suggestions. Focus groups (if designed carefully) can be a
valuable tool and serve as a critical source of information to
assist in risk communication efforts. In fact, the chemical
industry is using focus group techniques to respond to the
information requirements of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act.
3.4.3 Effective Listening
Effective listening means trying to eliminate the receiver
problems described in Section 2.0. Getting to know the audience
and their concerns before and after relaying the risk message
requires effective listening. Specifically, before developing
effective risk messages, risk communicators must determine what
is relevant to the audience, what information is needed to
communicate what is relevant, and how the risk information can be
presented effectively to meet both the communicator' s message
needs and objectives and the receiver's concerns. This is to
say, good risk communicators are necessarily good listeners.
3-18
-------
In order to determine the public's concerns, it is important
to learn and practice good listening skills. Eastwood Atwater
developed a list of ten guidelines for good listening:^
1. Become aware of your own listening habits.
2. Share responsibility for the communication. If you are
unclear about what a speaker is saying/ it is your responsibility
to let the speaker know this by asking for clarification or
restating what you heard and asking to be corrected.
3. Be physically attentive by looking at the speaker and
using posture and gestures that show you are listening.
4. Concentrate on what the speaker is saying.
5. Listen for the total meaning, including feelings as well
as facts.
6. Observe the speakers nonverbal signals, such as facial
expression, tone, rate of speech, and body language.
7. Adopt an accepting attitude toward the speaker. Such
acceptance will make speakers feel more free to say what they
really want to say.
8. Express empathetic understanding and actively reflect
what the speaker has said in order to discover feelings and true
meaning. When people are speaking emotionally, respond to their
emotions, and do not simply cite data.
9. Listen to yourself in terms of the feelings the speaker
has generated in you. Expressing your feelings will help you
listen better.
3-19
-------
10. Show that you have listened by taking appropriate
action.
Risk communication experience has shown the importance of
listening for feelings. Values and feelings are a legitimate
aspect of environmental health issues and such concerns can
convey valuable information. For instance, a community's
emotional statements about odors from a facility can provide
information about types of emissions and emission patterns, etc.5
Encourage people to be as specific as possible about their fears
and concerns.
Experience shows that citizens will often use the results of
technical risk assessments or the formal public hearing process
as a lever for public involvement in the decision. It is
important to "listen" and differentiate risk assessment issues
(Am I safe?) from risk management issues (Why should I accept
that level of air toxics as safe?). People are uncomfortable
with things that they cannot assess for themselves, such as air
toxics, which cannot necessarily be seen or smelled. Listen for
questions regarding the uncertainty of air toxic emissions and
potential health effects and be prepared to respond to these
issues.
3.4.4 Not in My Backyard
One of the most common (and most frustrating) problems for
government agencies involved in permitting new sources or
evaluating health risks from existing sources is expression of
the "not in my backyard" or NIMBY attitude by the public. State
agency staff and industrial permittees often express dismay that
no amount of information can dissuade the public from this
stance. Unfortunately, it is an oversimplification on the part
of scientists, engineers, and regulators to assume that this is a
3-20
-------
kneejerk reaction by the public, that they just do not
"understand" that perhaps the facility "is necessary" or "will
not cause a risk." In fact, the public is not necessarily not
listening or "understanding," but they are not agreeing. Rather
than dismiss this as irrational behavior on the part of the
public, agencies need to consider if and why people do not want
to agree with the information the agency wants to convey.
In the case of some members of the public, the NIMBY
attitude may in fact be a desire for a risk-free society or at
least a "risk free" backyard. The NIMBY attitude, however, is
generally much more complex and involves a variety of factors.
Of particular importance is often the issue of control - who
decides - and lack of trust or perceived credibility of the
industrial source and/or the agencies. Because current statutes
and public involvement processes are not specifically established
to allow communities to make decisions or have control, citizens
will often use the permit process as a lever to dispute the
decision. In fact, citizens often raise technical questions and
challenge the results of the air modeling and risk assessment to
block or fight permitting decisions. It is important for all
agency staff to try to determine when health or other citizens'
concerns are legitimately raised and when the primary concern is
the decision to site a facility. Both are legitimate, but each
requires a different risk communication strategy.
To be effective, agency communicators must explicitly
acknowledge the NIMBY attitude. For example, at public meetings,
be sure to respond to health concerns or feelings by saying, "I
hear that you are concerned about the emissions from this
facility. We are also concerned about those types of issues, so
we did exposure modeling and a health assessment which have shown
there to be negligible health risk."
3-21
-------
To determine whether the NIMBY attitude may be at work, try
asking for clarification from the questioner. For example, first
repeat (mirror) the specific question or statement raised. Then
follow up with some probing or clarifying questions such as.
"...are you worried about possible health impacts?... are you
concerned about property values?... increased traffic?"
Ultimately, after responding to a consecutive series of
clarifying questions, you can ask more direct things such as,
"...are you (angry, concerned, worried) that you do not have the
final say in this decision?" The order of the questions is
important. Respond to concerns but do not try to indicate the
NIMBY-type concerns are inappropriate. That will only heighten
public concern and cause communication problems.
Another way to explore NIMBY is to explore the issues of
control, power sharing, and trust and credibility. Again, this
means asking clarifying questions and being prepared to deal with
feelings and emotions, in addition to facts.
For industry or an air agency to deal more effectively with
the NIMBY attitude, it requires more power sharing in the
decision process. This does not have to translate to who makes
the decision of whether to permit or not. Obviously, that is a
decision with statutory and technical requirements which must be
met by responsible agency staff. However, risk management
decisions (permitting is a risk management decision) are not
purely technical or legal, and always involve a number of
subjective judgments as well as objective factors like traffic,
property values, etc.. Some of these may be areas where true
citizen input can occur (i.e., power sharing). To reduce the
influence of the NIMBY attitude, give citizens more control.
Otherwise the risk is perceived as involuntary and thus
unacceptable.
3-22
-------
Some examples of innovative citizen involvement and power
sharing have been established through citizen advisory committee
input or negotiation and mediation. Drawing on the expertise of
experienced risk communicators and negotiators can assist
interested parties in identifying problems and defining options
and solutions that are mutually acceptable. Many people confuse
this type of involvement as just providing incentives or
"sweetening the pot" for the community. Be aware, if the NIMBY
attitude and other risk perception factors are at play, these
tactics could heighten public resistance and skepticism.
Instead, focus on giving citizens more input into the process, as
well as more information on uncertainties and what can be done to
"protect" them in the face of uncertainties and inevitable human
error. Monitoring plans where citizens have easy access to the
data, plant tours and plant emergency drills are some examples of
innovative ways to involve the public and build trust and
credibility.
The NIMBY attitude may never be totally erased from a
community. However, strong risk communication that is ongoing
and involves the public in decision making can greatly reduce the
overall impact of the NIMBY attitude.
3.5 COORDINATE WITH OTHER GROUPS
Coordination with other groups is important for four
reasons. First, the agency wants to give a consistent message.
Second, it is desireable, if possible, to address audience
concerns that may not involve air issues. Third, help from
outside credible sources can be useful in getting your risk
message across, since such sources have built up trust and
credibility with the public. Finally, certain parts of the
message should come from industry.
3-23
-------
The first reason, projecting a consistent message from the
agency, requires good communication among the agency staff so
that all staff members who deal with the public, from agency
directors to receptionists to field sampling technicians, will
present a consistent approach to risk communication.
When addressing public concerns that go beyond air issues,
it is important to remember that the public will see a situation,
such as construction of a new plant, from various viewpoints
which encompass health issues, property values, land use, traffic
control, etc. If the air agency is dealing with a permit
application for a new facility, for instance, the agency may be
in a position to provide the public with additional information
concerning that facility.
If possible, coordinate with other agencies that will issue
permits to the new facility, such as land use permits, water
quality permits, and wetlands permits. This might include
inviting such agencies to hold joint meetings or jointly prepare
information brochures, fact sheets, etc., or at a minimum,
understanding the roles of other agencies and knowing names and
telephone numbers of contacts. Likewise, air agencies can look
for the opportunities that may be offered from other agencies to
discuss air issues with the public.
If overt, planned coordination is not possible, at a minimum
avoid responding, "It's not my responsibility," to public
questions and concerns. Tell the concerned citizen the name and
telephone number of an appropriate contact. This will reduce
citizen frustration and potential "outrage." To avoid giving the
impression of "passing the buck," it is important to explain that
the person to whom they were referred, "can help you more than
I."
3-24
-------
Enlisting help from other credible sources refers to getting
help from individuals or groups that have the trust of the
public. This could include educators, medical professionals,
civic organizations, and any other groups that are known and
trusted in the public's views. Such groups will not only be good
sources of information on the public's concerns, but can help an
agency in explaining risk messages. These sources could be
contacted as individuals or through organizations, in the case of
educators and medical professionals. Ongoing relationships with
such groups can help enlist their support. Be aware of two
things, however: (1) you do not have a monopoly on information,
and (2) experts may disagree.
Industry has an important role to play in the risk
communication effort. When called upon, the source
representatives should be able to communicate to the public, in
an understandable form, information similar to that required on
an air quality permit application such as chemicals emitted,
quantities emitted, control measures provided, effectiveness of
control measures, and the like. Industry representatives may
also be called upon by the public to address concerns not
directly related to the matter at hand such as accident
prevention measures, worker safety, or job security.
3.6 SELECT THE APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION VEHICLES TO MEET
OBJECTIVES
Once an agency has determined objectives, identified the
interested parties who should be included, and begun to think
about audience concerns, it is time to begin planning the best
means for delivering the risk message to each group. While the
tips presented here will help your agency, they are not intended
to be a substitute for the advice and assistance available from
public information specialists. Your staff's technical knowledge
and knowledge about the public's concerns, are complemented by
3-25
-------
communication skills of public information specialists in
implementing the various communication vehicles available.
Successful experiences of others, such as other air agencies who
are undertaking similar objectives, can also be useful in
selecting appropriate vehicles for risk messages.
As a starting point, agencies must plan for the specific
communication formats that are required by State and local
statutes. Typically, for air agencies concerned with air toxics,
these include public hearings on proposed regulations, a public
comment period for written comments on proposed regulations, and
public meetings, if requested, on permit applications, if
requested. In addition to legal requirements, consideration of
the following factors" can be useful in choosing the most
appropriate communication vehicle: communication objectives,
resources available, lead time necessary, audience needs, degree
of interaction needed, degree of controversy, distribution, and
degree of detail necessary.
The suggested vehicles discussed in the following paragraphs
will help agencies plan for early and thorough risk
communication. These suggestions are divided, for discussion
purposes, into oral and written formats.
Oral formats used in risk communication include advisory
committee meetings, one-on-one conversations, contact with key
individuals, meetings with particular groups, negotiating
sessions, radio and television interviews, telephone hot lines,
public meetings, informal workshops, and public hearings.
Advantages and disadvantages, as well as when each vehicle is
appropriate are discussed below.
Advisory committee meetings are a good way to involve
representatives from a number of groups early in risk evaluation
3-26
-------
and risk management, especially when communication objectives
call for Power Sharing or the Consult 2 level of citizen
participation (See Section 3.2.1.)- Such committees can
continue to function until a particular task is completed or can
continue to function indefinitely as a source of public opinion
on air issues. Committee members become familiar with air
pollution control and risk assessment terminology, as well as the
views of other, possibly opposing, groups. Committee members may
also help the agency communicate risk messages to their
respective groups, and, in that regard, advisory committees can
enable an agency to work with a number of key groups. One
disadvantage some agencies have experienced in using advisory
groups is that committee members did not take material back to
their group or speak for their groups. In essence, some
committee members were acting as individuals when the air agency
thought they were representing an important constituency. To
avoid this problem, develop guidelines for advisory group
representation and participation that require representatives to
coordinate and receive input from their constituencies.
One-on-one conversations, where agency staff members at all
levels of the organization discuss risk issues with people, will
always be part of risk communication whether planned or not. For
this reason, agencies must be ready for such discussions.
Receptionists and field sampling technicians, for example, may be
questioned by the public. Time should be allowed for
conversations with individuals after workshops or public
meetings. Some agencies have used "drop in" hours where staff
members were available at locations such a public libraries to
talk with people individually about risk issues. Because anyone
in the agency may be a risk communicator, all staff should
receive appropriate training and agency support. Risk
communication must be emphasized as an important part of agency
staff's jobs. As many have learned, unplanned or unintentional
3-27
-------
communication even peripherally related to the risk issue can
influence public opinion, for better or for worse.
Contact with key individuals such as community leaders,
local elected officials, or leaders in environmental groups can
be a good way to learn of public concerns and the information
needs of the public. It can also help to get risk messages out
to key groups. Ongoing contact with key people can help improve
trust of the groups represented.
Meetings with particular groups (e.g., civic organizations,
homeowners associations, etc.) are useful in identifying public
concerns as well as improving public understanding of an agency's
position on risk issues. While this form of communication is
useful, agencies must be careful not to slight other groups that
would like the same opportunity. If giving presentations at a
number of these meetings, it may be useful to develop a standard
format, even though the specific content may vary. For instance,
plan to (1) describe the risk issue, (2) describe how it affects
the public, (3) note what is being done about the risk, and (4)
discuss how citizens can assist your agency. Adjust material and
degree of complexity to meet the needs of the audience.
Depending on the audience and the nature of the presentation
(e.g., an after-dinner talk, the main speaker for a workshop,
etc.), carefully consider the speaking time constraints. One
rule of thumb is to allow 20 minutes for such a presentation. Be
sure to allow time for questions and answers, and if issues arise
that cannot be addressed in the time allotted, give the audience
a person to contact for more information. Schedule the meetings
at convenient times for"your audience, and consider evenings and
weekends.
3-28
-------
Presentations for such meetings require substantial effort
to be effective. Prepare supporting material such as slides,
graphics, and exhibits that will help convey the message.
Practice the presentation in front of colleagues and consider
pretesting it using the methods discussed previously. *
Small group meetings offer a good opportunity to exchange
information with the public, answer questions, and clear up
misunderstandings. They also help agencies understand citizen
concerns and establish a rapport with the public.
The following is a list of steps for conducting small group
meetings**:
* identify interested citizens and officials
* limit the audience to between 5 to 20 people,
because people will be more candid in a smaller
group and a smaller group is more conducive to
establishing rapport. If more people are
interested, schedule more small meetings.
* select a meeting date, time, and place conducive to good
interaction
* set up the room (chairs and tables, AV equipment) to
create an atmosphere for discussion
* follow an agenda, established before or during
the meeting
* begin with an overview
* gear the discussion to the audience
* listen actively
* follow up on major concerns
One criticism of small group meetings sometimes raised is
that the agency is trying to "divide and conquer" by telling
different stories to different groups. Try to avoid this
3-29
-------
criticism by holding small group meetings for all who would like
to attend one and by either keeping a written record available of
all meetings or inviting a cross section of interests to each
meeting.
Negotiating sessions are a relatively new addition to agency
public participation and risk communication strategies, in which
key interest groups are part of a team which hammers out
differences and prepares regulations that are acceptable to all
groups. This type of rulemaking is designed to avoid controversy
when rules are proposed since groups have reached a consensus
before proposal. This strategy may be part of the formal
rulemaking process or serve an advisory function.
Radio and televisions interviews reach a large heterogeneous
audience and primarily inform the public rather than fostering
public participation. Considerations for such interviews are
discussed in Section 6.0.
Telephone hot lines allow anyone with a question to speak
with a staff member from the air agency. Many agencies already
have telephone hot lines for citizen complaints such as
complaints about odors. Publicizing such hot lines helps to let
the public know that the agency is interested in their concerns,
and information on the concerns expressed by callers can be a
useful part of risk communication. One disadvantage to this
approach is that it is resource intensive.
Public meetings are large meetings open to the public, and
may or may not be aimed at a specific group. Agency staff
present information and the attendees have a chance to ask
questions and offer comments. Public meetings work best when
they are small and informal. Large public meetings do not
encourage meaningful dialogue between the public and the agency,
but rather are seen as an opportunity for citizens to take a
3-30
-------
stand (usually against) the agency's action. As an alternative
to a large public meeting, some agencies have divided large
groups into small discussion groups. In any meeting, the agency
should be clear about the goals of the meeting and the role of
the public in the agency's process.
There are several steps to follow in holding a public meeting14:
* identify participants (possible speakers as
well as attendees)
* prepare an agenda listing the issues to be
covered or tasks to be completed and involve
citizens in developing the agenda, if
appropriate
* be sensitive to special needs of the public
such as providing an interpreter for the deaf
or translator for non-English speaking groups
* rehearse presentations
* announce the meeting two weeks in advance in local
newspapers, broadcast media, and on flyers to interested
groups
* hold the meeting in a comfortable setting
* if possible, hold the meeting under the
sponsorship of an existing credible
organization (e.g., city council, civic club,
League of Women Voters)
* review the purpose and agenda at the beginning of the
meeting and outline the organized process for speakers
to sign up, speak, and have their comments recorded
* consider different meeting formats to encourage
information exchange (e.g., have moderator circulate
throughout the room to solicit comments, break up into
smaller groups to address specific tasks)
* set up stations for different issues
* be prepared, when meeting on a volatile issue, to
3-31
-------
address an angry audience? take security precautions
* prepare a transcript and make it available
Open technical meetings allow the public to see the risk
assessment/risk management process in action. By hearing
discussion on technical issues, uncertainties, and the associated
give and take at such meetings, people may develop a better
feeling for the regulatory process in general. Opening technical
meetings, such as meetings of science advisory councils or risk
assessment committees, can help to demystify risk numbers and
enhance agency credibility.
Informal workshops are an important part of educating and
informing audiences outside of potentially controversial
situations. They can also serve as a valuable feedback loop for
agency staff. Workshops are useful when risk communication goals
call for a level of citizen participation beyond the "Inform
Level." (See Section 3.2.1.)
Public hearings, while generally required by agency
regulations, do not offer an opportunity for a productive
exchange of ideas or joint problem solving. In fact, as
designed, they are one-way, passive forms of communication. It
is far more productive to communicate early and throughout the
program development or permit review process than to wait for a
formal public hearing. Where public hearings are required,
agencies should not wait for these to be the only point of public
involvement.
Written vehicles for risk messages include press releases,
fact sheets and information brochures, press kits, and technical
reports. Obviously, with written messages, unlike oral messages,
agencies are not able to read their audiences' reaction as the
audience receives the message. Advantages and disadvantages, as
well as when each vehicle is appropriate are discussed below.
3-32
-------
Press releases give an agency the opportunity to write a
risk message for the general public and submit it to the press.
Be aware, the message will likely be edited prior to publication.
Also, since the press get hundreds of press releases, they may be
overlooked. Guidelines for dealing with the media and
establishing good relationships with reporters are discussed in
Section 6.0.
Press kits including names and telephone numbers of experts
and briefing materials (e.g., a glossary of terms, information on
health effects and control techniques) on important risk issues
give reporters the tools to understand risk assessment and risk
management as they relate to the issues your agency is facing.**
Fact sheets and information brochures are brief reports
written in clear, understandable language, including graphs or
charts, if called for. Fact sheets can be targeted to specific
or general audiences. They are often distributed at meetings in
order to give people a written version of the material to be
discussed as well as important background information.
In preparing fact sheets, decide at what points in the
process they will be useful. For instance, development of air
regulations for toxic pollutants can be a long process, including
initial studies of the problem all the way through development of
a control approach and promulgation of regulations. Different
fact sheets could be useful at different points in this process.
Some States have prepared fact sheets on their air quality
permitting process in order to help the public understand the
role of the agency and the public. States have also used fact
sheets to describe a particular facility being considered for a
permit, listing pollution controls used, predicted pollutant
concentrations after controls, acceptable ambient levels adopted
by the State for those pollutants,
3-33
-------
Information presented on the fact sheet will be a function
of the purpose and stage of public involvement. Fact sheets
concerning permitting of a specific facility might include a
brief background on the facility's location and function, a
description of the reason it has applied for an air permit, the
risk estimates for emissions from the facility, a description of
the control measures that will be used to minimize risk, a
timetable for the upcoming actions, and the name and address of
an agency contact working on this permit application. One State
agency that routinely holds public meetings on air toxics permit
applications has prepared a fact sheet on the agency's permitting
process and air toxics program which is used at such meetings
along with a fact sheet specifically prepared for the particular
facility.
Fact sheets take time to prepare and require coordination
between the technical and public information staff. Fact sheets
are a one-way communication tool, and therefore should always
give the name, address, and telephone number of an agency contact
person.
Well-designed fact sheets are easily read. People will be
more likely to read a fact sheet that has been typeset, broken
into short paragraphs with clear, easy-to-read illustrations,
than one that is a solid sheet of typed text. In addition, a
well-designed fact sheet suggests that the agency is taking its
risk communication program seriously.
Fact sheets are effective when resources do not allow more
in-person communications, but agencies should still provide
additional information to concerned and interested individuals.
Technical reports are often produced to give the results of
technical efforts such as risk assessments, review of pollutants
that should be controlled in a State, and selection of acceptable
3-34
-------
ambient levels for consideration. While such reports are not
usually written for the general public, some audiences will be
willing and able to read, digest, and comment on this type of
material, and, therefore, such reports should be made available
to them.
3.7 DEVELOP A RISK COMMUNICATION EVALUATION PROGRAM
As agencies begin to put risk communication principles into
practice, communication efforts can be improved by feedback. In
planning for risk communication, it is important to plan and
prepare for evaluating communication efforts. Evaluation methods
can be categorized as follows: audience analysis, message
pretesting, assessment of communicator style, and outcome
assessment. Some of these methods are used before wide
dissemination of your message and others are techniques that
follow delivery of risk messages.*•*
Audience analysis tools help agencies to understand the
perceptions of the audiences and to solicit feedback from key
audiences before, during, and after a communication program.
Such analyses can include discussions by agency staff of
predicted audience positions, gathering questions from the
various publics in advance of meetings, analyzing news clippings,
public opinion polling, and qualitative questionnaires.
Message pretesting allows agencies to get feedback on
written materials before such materials are printed and
distributed, and to have others critique oral presentations
before delivery to the main audience. Message pretesting can
include surveys and questionnaires, discussion groups (e.g.,
focus groups, see Section 3.4.2), and reviews of language used in
the materials. It can range from a review or test of newsletters,
video tapes, etc. to holding dry runs for public meetings.
3-35
-------
Indeed, through pretesting, agencies can assess whether the'
material is too complicated for the intended audiences, whether
it addresses barriers to understanding, whether jargon is
excessive, and other aspects of the style and content. Messages
should be geared to the audience, not to the air agency staff.
Message pretesting can be as simple as trying out written
material or an oral presentation on other State employees or
staff members' families. Some types of message pretesting
techniques described by Kline, et al^ require more lead time,
more staff time, and more money to implement. These include
self-administered pretest questionnaires, central location
intercept interviews, theater testing, and focus groups. Pretest
questionnaires are given tc a representative group to complete
after they have reviewed the material being tested. Such
questionnaires include questions on format, comprehension, source
credibility reaction, and interest in the materials.
Focus groups were discussed in Section 3.4.2 in regard to
identifying public concerns prior to developing risk messages.
Focus groups are also useful in testing risk messages. In
pretesting risk messages/ a focus group would be discussing a
particular message presented in a draft brochure, fact sheet,
news release, etc.
While formal focus groups give the best results, agency
staff may feel they do not have the time or funds to use this
technique. At a minimum, agencies can create pseudo focus groups
or pretest groups by giving messages to family members, friends,
and other associates outside the field of air pollution control
of the air agency. These "outside" opinions can be an initial
indicator of how well the message might be received. Ask for
feedback, but do not tell them the purpose of the communication
up front. See what they think the message is and try to
3-36
-------
ascertain the questions and concerns they had in their review.
This approach is not as systematic as formal focus groups, but it
is a quick way of testing a risk message when there are time and
money constraints.
Assessments of coimntinicator style help agency spokesmen to
realize what attitudes and strengths they bring to risk
communication. Most of these tools are self-assessment surveys
that are completed and then scored, providing a profile of the
respondent's style, type, and/or motivational pattern. Agency
speakers have, typically, focused on scientific facts. Such a
focus, since it may not be the same as the audience's, can lead
to impasses in communication, alienation of the audience, or the
appearance of evasiveness. It can give the audience the
impression that the agency does not understand or is avoiding
their concerns by confusing them with numbers.
Outcome analysis examines communicator performance and
audience reaction. Tools include meeting reaction forms for
participants in public meetings; verbal meeting feedback, speech
evaluation checklists, and observation and debriefing.
One type of meeting reaction form, completed by participants
at the end of a meeting, consists of a series of statements which
participants rank on a scale of 1-5 (strongly agree to disagree
entirely). The statements examine whether the audience
understood the information presented, if the presenters were
perceived as honest, whether the people felt that their concerns
and issues were understood, whether people perceived that their
input would be used in decision-making, what their conclusions
were, and other issues. Respondents also can note what they
liked most and least about the meeting.
Scheduling time at the end of a meeting to solicit verbal
feedback is a way to quickly obtain feedback on that particular
3-37
-------
meeting. Allow five to fifteen minutes at the end of the meeting
for structured brains terming. This time should be announced at
the beginning of the meeting along with the agenda so that people
will be prepared to give their feedback. Participants are asked
to brainstorm (i.e., quickly offer ideas which are recorded and
not judged or discussed in depth) about what were the positive
aspects of the meeting, what were the problems, and what could be
changed to improve the meeting. Comments on all aspects of the
meeting are welcomed. This technique works best when the person
soliciting feedback refrains from acting defensively and keeps
the brainstorm moving.
In addition to the audience reaction evaluation techniques,
two performance presentation evaluation methods are a speech
evaluation checklist, and observation and debriefing. A speech
evaluation checklist is simply a one-page checklist with room for
additional comments which can be completed by any number of
evaluators who view the speech during trial runs or an actual
presentation. The checklist addresses the physical setting,
speaker's appearance, degree of rapport, topics covered, the
exchange of ideas between the speaker and the audience, and the
audience's reaction.
Observation and debriefing is a similar technique for
evaluating oral presentations. Observations of the presentation
by one or more people are recorded and communicated to the
presenter. Observers may use checklists based on the speaker's
goals for the presentation. Feedback given to the speaker
should include the speaker's performance as well as the
audience's reaction. Designated observers are also useful for
small group work sessions where a meeting is divided into smaller
groups for discussions of particular topics. *
3-38
-------
3.8 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Objectives, audiences, concerns, communication channels - it
is difficult to visualize putting it all together in a plan. You
may find it useful to develop a planning form such as the one
presented in Figure 1, or to use the planning checklists
developed by Chess, et al.^
Two of the most commonly cited barriers to having a strong
risk communication program are time and money constraints. This
lack of resources, while real, is sometimes used as the rationale
for not undertaking any efforts toward risk communication. As a
result, most efforts are reactive ("contain the damage") and
little time is put into the up front planning or more proactive
activities.
Figure 1. Risk Communication Public Involvement Planning Form
Communication Objective:
Audience;
Main Message;
Communication Channel;
3-39
-------
Risk communication planning and ongoing active efforts to
involve the public are actually more cost-effective than the
energy, time, and money it takes to "fix" or minimize risk
communication problems. Not unlike the environmental problems
agencies must manage, preventing a problem is usually less costly
than trying to mitigate or correct one. To that end, the
following suggestions are aimed at agencies that desire better
risk communication. These items require relatively little time
and funding, but do require initiative and creativity.
1. Listen to the public at every opportunity. Talk is not
always cheap, but listening can bei If there is not the time or
staff resources to conduct focus groups or hold a series of
community meetings, then consider mailing out easy surveys (i.e.,
limited questions with possible choices identified).
2. Review newspaper articles and other press coverage.
Look for the underlying concerns, not just the inaccuracies.
This is relatively quick to do, and, since most agencies already
have a news clipping service, requires no extra cost.
3. Hold informal focus groups within the agency to pretest
your risk messages. Get people without program or technical
experience to look at press releases, summary reports, fact
sheets, etc. If "nonexpert" staff have difficulty with the
material, you can assume the general public will. Think of
creating an inter- and intra-agency ad hoc focus group. Many
agencies find this useful and if done on a volunteer basis, it
avoids the turf battle issues.
4. Get the public information/awareness program office to
prepare a series of brief, easy to understand pamphlets. If such
pamphlets are too expensive for the agency, see what is available
(e.g., EPA brochures) on risk assessment and exposure assessment.
3-40
-------
Have program offices develop a "lay" dictionary of risk
assessment and air permitting terminology. These do require some
investment of staff time, but the benefit far outweighs the
minimal investment. These items can be used for a wide variety
of purposes extending their usefulness.
5. In the event of some "incident" or major issue of
public concern, designate telephone time slots for citizens (and
the press) to call in with questions or concerns. If you develop
a list of potential questions and responses to those questions,
then several people can answer calls. This can have a large
positive impact on the agency's credibility and perceived
willingness to be open and honest.
6. Have dry runs for all public meetings and hearings.
Require staff to practice their prepared talks, but spend as much
if not more time on responding to anticipated questions. Be sure
to answer the tough questions.
7. Train staff members. Everyone is potentially a risk
communicator. Training programs are relatively inexpensive and
can be accomplished in one to two days. Training is often the
key to heightening sensitivity and encouraging an ethic of
effective risk communication.
8. Listen, acknowledge feelings, and respond in ways that
show care and concern. There is really no substitute for
effective risk communication other than good communication
skills.
9.. Use internal technical and public relations staff to
identify all issues and attempt to provide information to people
in advance, especially on issues outside of air agencies' control
(property value, traffic lights, zoning, etc.).
3-41
-------
SECTION 3.0 REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11,
Chess, Caron, "Encouraging Effective Risk Communication in
Government: Suggestions for Agency Management."
Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers-The
State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey,
December 1987.
Covello, Vincent and F.W. Allen. "Seven Cardinal Rules of
Risk Communication." Environmental Protection Agency,
(OPA-87-020) Washington, D.C., 1988.
National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Chess, Caron and B.J. Hance. "Opening Doors - Making Risk
Communication Agency Reality." Environment. Vol. 31, No.
5, June 1989.
Hance, Bille Jo; Caron Chess; and Peter Sandman. Improving
Dialogue With Communities; A Risk Communication Manual for
Government. Environmental Communication Research Program,
Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1988.
Chess, Caron; B.J. Hance; Peter Sandman. Planning Dialogue
with Communities; A Risk Communication Workbook.
Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. June, 1989.
Sandman, Peter M. "Risk Communication: Facing Public
Outrage." EPA Journal. Vol. 13, No. 9, November 1987.
Desvousges, W.H. and V.K. Smith. "Focus Groups and Risk
Communication: The 'Science1 of Listening to Data." Risk
Analysis. Vol. 8, No. 4, 1988.1
Santos, Susan L. and Sally A. -Edwards. "Unraveling Risk
Communication." Paper presented at APHA Conference,
October 1987.
Atwater, Eastwood. I Hear You
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981.
Sandman, Peter M.; D.B. Sachsman; M.R. Greenberg; M.
Gochfeld. Environmental Risk
and the Press - An
Exploratory Assessment. Transaction Books, New Brunswick,
New Jersey. 1987.
3-42
Prentice-Hall, Englewood
-------
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Toxics
Information Clearinghouse; Case Studies in Risk
Communication. (EPA-450/5-88-003) EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. June 1988.
13. Kline, Mark; Caron Chess; Peter M. Sandman. Evaluating
Risk Communication Programs; A Catalogue of "Quick and
Easy" Feedback Methods. Environmental Communication
Research Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey. May 1989.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Relations
in Superfund - A Handbook - Interim Version. (EPA-540/G-
88-002, OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B) EPA, Washington, D.C.
June 1988.
15. Krimsky, Sheldon and Alonzr Plough (1988). Environmental
Hazards; Communicating Risks as a Social Porcess. Auburn
House, Dover, Massachusetts.
3-43
-------
4.0 EXPLAINING ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INFORMATION
In permitting new sources or in modifying existing permits
to allow for source expansion or other changes, both State air
agencies and the industrial facility may be asked questions
regarding the risk of the proposed emissions. Typically, these
questions may be posed in the following manner:
* Will my family and I be safe if we breath these
emissions?
* Will the emissions affect my health, my family's
health, or my pet's health?
* Will the emissions cause any harm to the environment
(fish, lakes, ponds, plants, vegetable gardens,
etc.)?
* How certain are you?
Through such questions, people are trying to answer the micro
risk questions of, "Am I safe?" and, "What level is safe?".
Underlying these overt questions will be further concerns
regarding the need for certainty and the public's intuitive need
to know, "What is the worst that could happen?"
This section gives suggestions to agencies on how to prepare
risk messages. In communicating risks associated with toxic air
pollutants, the air agency will be the major source of risk
information. As the permittees, industry clearly plays a major
role in risk communication. Some industry representatives have
recognized the importance of this role and prepared training
materials for their managers. (For example, see the Chemical
Manufacturers Association material cited in Reference 3.)
4-1
-------
Often States are placed in the position of objective
reviewer of industry risk assessments and can be potentially
perceived by the public as the "advocate" or "initiator." In
fact, both the State and industry are important and necessary
sources of scientific risk information. As such, both groups
need to be willing to undertake proactive risk communication
programs. The State and industry risk communicators do not
necessarily need a coordinated script; especially at public
meetings and hearings, however, each party should be aware of the
role the other plays. The agency staff should let industry know
that they will be critical in public if they need to be because
they are critical objective technical reviewers.
The air agency staff has the responsibility to involve the
public. Staff members need to carefully evaluate information to
structure meaningful messages to their various audiences. Clear,
complete technical information is very important to getting the
message across, but it is not the only important part.
Key for structuring successful risk messages is recognizing
that there are two major parts. First is responding to
information needs, concerns, and perceptions of your audience;
understanding these needs requires active listening. The second
part is conveying accurate technical information clearly. Risk
managers often focus primarily on the technical information they
feel is necessary and wish to communicate. They may be willing
to respond to questions, but, mistakenly, do not incorporate
public concerns into their message. Two-way communication and
dialogue, which are closely associated with credibility, will not
occur unless the concerns of various audiences are addressed in
any message concerning risk.
All of this information is important in risk messages. This
chapter focuses on considering and respecting public perceptions
of risk (Section 4.1), aiming risk messages at your target
4-2
-------
audience (Section 4.2), explaining technical information (Section
4.3), explaining information about the nature of the risks and
the uncertainties (Section 4.4), determining risk acceptability
(Section 4.5), using visual presentation (Section 4.6), and
personalizing risk information (Section 4.6).
4.1 CONSIDER PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF RISK AND OUTRAGE FACTORS
Once target audiences and their concerns have been
identified (Section 3.0) and the information that an agency feels
the public must know has been gathered, attention can be focused
on structuring risk messages in such a way as to avoid outrage,
and therefore improve the quality of communication. Hance, et
al* developed five tips for avoiding outrage:
1. "Consider the outrage factors when explaining risk."
Outrage factors were described in Section 3.4.1. In order to
avoid upsetting people (i.e., causing outrage), you must
understand what is upsetting to them. Making risk comparisons,
for instance, can lead to outrage when comparing voluntary and
involuntary risks (e.g., comparison of risks from smoking with
risks posed by toxic emissions from a factory). Risk comparisons
are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.3.
Communities are more likely to base decisions about risk on
the procedural process used by the agency to make risk decisions
than on the technical aspects of the risk. Further, public
perception of risk is more likely to be accurate if the agency is
open in its communication, and involves the public in risk
decisions. This means air agencies should develop understandable
messages that explain their decision-making process and criteria
for determining "risks." This should occur prior to messages
explaining "risks" associated with a particular permit or
facility, or a particular approach to controlling air toxics.
4-3
-------
2. "Be prepared to give people's concerns as much emphasis
as your numbers." Both are valid and important to good risk
management. Let people know that you are interested in their
fears and concerns. Health matters raise strong fears, concerns,
and emotions. Communities want to know numbers, but it is wise
to address values and feelings first. For example, it may be
useful to begin a presentation by saying, "I know from talking
with some of you that you are very concerned about protecting the
health of people in this community." Addressing values and
feelings may require providing different messages in different
ways and always requires active, compassionate listening and
response.
3. "Be forthcoming with information about the situation
from the outset." Agencies should be aware that if the public
perceives that an agency is withholding information, or is not
releasing information in a timely way, the public will lose trust
in that agency. That fact should be considered when deciding
whether to withhold or delay release of information.
4. "Be sensitive to related issues that may be more
important to people than the risk itself. Expect different
people to see the risk differently." In communication that
centers around a permit for a specific facility, local officials
may be concerned about attracting and keeping that and other
industries; employees may be concerned about keeping their jobs
in light of potentially expensive control measures; and nearby
residents may be concerned about the health effects, as well as
about property values. Communication with each group should
identify and address these relevant concerns.
4.2 AIM MESSAGES AT SPECIFIC TARGET AUDIENCES
The previous section noted that different groups see risks
differently and risk messages should reflect this in that they
4-4
-------
must be prepared with the receiver group in mind. Before
preparing a risk message for a particular group, consider what
that audience already knows, what they want to know, and what the
air agency feels it is necessary for the audience to know.
Contact with the key groups (Sections 3.3 and 3.4) will help
clarify what groups want to know and their current level of
understanding. Never be condescending, regardless of the
audience's level of education.
Ideally, risk messages require several formats of different
lengths, levels of complexity and levels of generalization,
tailored to meet the needs of the different audiences and
specific media. This is not always possible; often the same
message goes to all audiences, which may include physicians,
educators, and scientists, as well as less educated groups.
Meeting the needs of such diverse groups simultaneously requires
careful, thoughtful planning and recognition that these needs
will change during the process.
Cultural background, shared interests, concerns and fears,
previous history, social attitudes, and facility with language
are all important audience attributes to consider. Sociological
factors can influence such things as how people view authority
(e.g., the air agency), how they relate to their environment, and
how they view their jobs. These and similar factors will
influence how people with certain cultural backgrounds and social
attitudes will perceive risk messages.
For example, the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site in New
Bedford, Massachusetts involves a multicultural population which
includes a large Portuguese-speaking population. In developing a
community relations program for this site and preparing risk
messages, it was crucial to address language and cultural
differences. In discussion with groups in New Bedford, it became
14-5
-------
apparent that effects on fish were important because fishing.was
an important part of the livelihood of many people there and fish
was a significant part of the diet.
As a result of these factors, EPA had some material
translated into Portuguese and had a Portuguese translator
present at public meetings. In addition, to address the issue of
safety of fish consumption and economic viability of the fishing
industry, risk messages were prepared to convey that only a
limited number of fish were examined and, that while part of the
harbor waters were contaminated warranting a fishing ban, it was
unlikely that the entire area was contaminated. EPA wanted to
convey that its risk assessment process supported a clean-up of
part of the harbor area in order to return the fishing resource.
People with particular viewpoints or concerns may have
joined organized groups who share the same interests. Some of
these groups include hunting and fishing clubs or other
recreation organizations, school parent-teacher organizations,
homeowners associations, and environmental groups, for example.
In each case, the group's primary interest - quality recreation,
children's well being, property and quality of neighborhood life,
or environmental quality - will give you clues about concerns to
address in risk messages.
Present risk messages in language appropriate to the
audience. Use material the groups will understand, including
graphics. If speakinjg to a group with diverse language skills,
it may be best to prejsent information in a simple way at the
beginning, build in complexity, and summarize in simple language
that can be understood by the entire group. It is wise to avoid
losing people early wiith an overly complex message, and it is
unlikely that initial: simplification will cause a loss of
interest. In an oral presentation to a diverse group, those
people who may not have the vocabulary to understand the message
! 4-6
-------
may be reluctant to ask questions, and the spokesman will need to
rely on observations of facial expressions, and the like to know
if the message has been understood.
4.3 MAKE SURE TECHNICAL INFORMATION IS PRESENTED CLEARLY
Authorities on risk communication agree that agencies should
never underestimate the capacity of citizens to understand
technical aspects of risk issues. Indeed, some people are
willing to work hard at synthesizing technical information. Some
simplification of information is necessary, but when information
is simplified, key pieces are often left out, making it difficult
for the public to understand the situation fully enough to make
informed judgments. Herein lies the challenge to government
3
agencies.J
There is a distinction between simplifying the language and
simplifying the content of the risk message. Simplifying the
language in such a way that you use plain English rather than
technical jargon is always appropriate1, but you must take care to
convey the whole issue when simplifying the content. In some
cases, it may be useful to teach people the meaning of certain
technical terms they are likely to hear. This then allows the
risk communicator to then use some important and precise
technical terms and prepares the audience to understand media
stories, or other sources, using those terms.
Risk messages will be much more understandable if you avoid
two temptations: do not use acronyms and do not use jargon. One
guideline is to explain the subject to the public as you would to
an intelligent, but uninformed, friend. Below is an example of
a risk statement, complete with jargon and acronyms, followed by
the same message restated without technical jargon or acronyms:
4-7
-------
The DEP's linearized multistage model provided an.
estimate of the 95 percent lower confidence level of the
average daily dose associated with a lifetime cancer risk
of 1 x 10'6.
More simply stated, this becomes:
Our State air agency estimated the risk of getting
cancer if people were exposed to a certain level of this
chemical in the air. Our highest estimate of the cancer
risk from chemical x in the quantity released from the Y
Plant is one chance in one million. In other words, in a
city of 1,000,000 people, we would estimate as a worse
case, that at most one person may develop cancer from
exposure to this chemical over a lifetime. In other words,
this one cancer is an addition to the 200,000 to 250,000
cancer cases that will occur over a lifetime without
exposure to this chemical ... In fact, because we've used
a worse case, it's conceivable that there would be no
additional cancers due to this chemical. The reason that
our estimate of excess cancer ranges from zero to one is
that we've used some very health protective assumptions in
our calculations to insure that we are fully protecting
your health.
Statistics show that we can expect 25 percent of the
people to get cancer from all causes. Our study of Plant Y
indicates that one additional case of cancer would result
in the city of 1,000,000 people all exposed to chemical x
throughout their lifetime. .
In making this risk estimate, we have to use some
assumptions. In this case, we assumed that people would be
exposed to the same quantity of the chemical 24 hours per
day for their entire lifetime of 70 years. It is unlikely
that people would be exposed to this much for this long,
but we make these assumptions to assure that your health is
protected even from the worst possible case.
When simplifying the content of the risk message, consider
which information is most important to convey, but do not equate
condensing information with making it more understandable. Also,
continue to be prepared for technical questions. (In the above
example, the linearized multistage model was not explained, but a
speaker would have been prepared with an explanation of
mathematical modeling if called for.) Some people will want to
know only if the agency has taken necessary steps to make their
4-8
-------
environment safe, while others will say that they want to know
everything.
One guide on this matter is to include in the message:
(1) the facts the air agency wants people to understand, (2) the
necessary background to understand the facts presented,
(3) additional background needed to avoid potential
misinterpretations, and (4) answers to the public's questions and
responses to their concerns.^ in reality, this last point really
needs to be the first part of the risk message or people will not
hear the rest of the message.
Facts the air agency wants people to understand may include:
(1) information about the nature of the risk, including the
hazard of concern, probability and distribution of exposure,
probability of harm from a given exposure, sensitivities of
different populations, interaction with other hazards, qualities
of the hazard, and total population risk; and (2) uncertainties
in knowledge about risks, such as data weaknesses, assumptions,
sensitivity of risk estimates and decisions to changes in
assumptions, results of other risk assessments and why they
differ.
Air agency staff face several difficulties in attempting to
present and explain risk information. The subject of air toxics
and, in particular, the risk from air toxics versus criteria air
pollutants is a "new" subject for the public. This means that it
will be critical for agencies to structure risk messages
regarding a specific facility's emissions or permit to provide
sufficient background information. For example, the public may
not be able to differentiate between short-term acute health
effects and long-term chronic impacts. Concepts such as
continuous release and instantaneous release, vapor phase and
particulate matter, and dispersion must be placed in context
4-9
-------
before responding to specific health concerns. One useful source
of definitions for a wide variety of technical terms is found in
reference 4, listed at the end of this chapter.
Other useful background information includes: (1)
information about the nature of the benefits, including benefits
and probabilities of those benefits associated with the risk, and
recipients of the benefits; (2) information on alternatives,
including the alternatives to the risk in question, and
effectiveness, risks, benefits, and costs of alternatives; (3)
information on levels of exposure elsewhere in comparable air
circumstances; and (4) information on management, addressing who
is responsible for the decision, which issues have legal
importance, constraints on the decision, and resources available.
Fact sheets and information pamphlets, informal meetings,
workshops, videotapes, appearances on local television, etc., are
some of the vehicles that could be used as part of your agency's
overall risk communication plan. Once terminology has been
established and basic concepts have been described, it is
possible to begin the more difficult task of describing the
results of an exposure and risk assessment. Remember that it is
not necessary to communicate all details - - keep it
understandable. Focus on issues such as pollutants of concern,
modeling results (8-hour average, 24-hour average, and maximum
concentration); exposure at nearest receptors and critical
receptors (e.g., schools, nursing homes); key differences and
explanations focusing on hazard versus exposure; and carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks (i.e., calculation of exposure, dose,
and risk estimates).
It becomes apparent that, if one were forced to provide all
this detail in a single fact sheet, the message would get quite
long and complicated. The solution is to provide sufficient
background information throughout the permitting or regulatory
4-10
-------
development process. One example of an effective communication
strategy is to hold a series of mini public workshops and prepare
simple fact sheets on a number of topics, including types of
sources, characteristics of emissions, and dispersion and
dispersion modeling.
4.3.1 Explaining Risk Numbers. Statistics, and Magnitudes
Risk assessments use and produce a great many numbers -
levels of risk, concentrations, probabilities, levels of
exposure, etc. A particular risk can be presented a number of
ways, each producing a different impact or impression on the
receiver. Covello, et al, developed 10 guidelines for providing
and explaining risk-related numbers:
1. Carefully select the risk-related numbers and
statistics that should be presented. Do not pass on to the
public the data you have in the form you received it. Choose
numbers that illustrate the key points and respond to citizen
concerns. Explain in narrative form what the numbers mean.
Again, this may require efforts on the air agency's part to
discuss such topics as threshold versus nonthreshold chemicals,
and how and why the agency develops two very different risk
estimates for these chemicals.
2. Choose a risk number for which valid data are
available. If the only data available are on death and not other
health effects, such as reproductive effects, discuss the data
available. If people are concerned about issues for which there
is little data, be prepared to talk about what data are available
and what the agency will do to investigate their concerns.
3. Whole number and simple fractions are preferable.
It is better to use 6 parts per billion rather than 0.006 parts
4-11
-------
per million. However, when comparing several values, it is best
to express them all with the same denominator (e.g., for three
chemicals, the risk per million people exposed is 3.0, 0.6, and
4000.0, respectively).
4. Choose a number that the audience can easily
understand. Avoid unfamiliar units or overly complex concepts.
Use words that help clarify the meaning of the number. Units of
measure such as "parts per billion" or "one in one hundred
thousand" can be difficult to comprehend. Good explanations and
analogies help people visualize such abstract concepts. For
example, one part per billion is equivalent to one second in 32
years or one drop in 100 Olympic-sized swimming pools. A
lifetime risk of 1 x 10 , one in 100,000, can be illustrated as,
"If a large football stadium (capacity 100,000 people) were
filled with the same people for 70 years, one additional person
would be expected to get cancer, over the 25 percent that
national health statistics show us are likely to get cancer."
In using these types of clarifying statements, care
must be taken to avoid making the issue sound trivial. When
using analogies to explain units of measure such as parts per
billion, do not use humorous or trivial comparisons such as one
square of toilet paper in a very large number of rolls. In
addition, point out that some toxic chemicals present significant
health concerns in such small amounts.
5. Visual aids, such as graphs and charts, will help
to present and clarify risk numbers. Visual presentations can be
quite useful in explaining technical information (e.g.,
dispersion and exposure pathways), but they must be carefully
prepared and should not be the sole source of information.
Assess whether the audience is able to understand graphs. When
planning presentations, select the most effective format (e.g.,
4-12
-------
slides, graphs, charts, photographs, drawings,etc.) and content.
Do not present too much information in each visual aid; one rule
of thumb is to limit information to one main idea and, for
slides, no more than 15 words.
6. Present a number that is fair and relevant, that is
to say, reflects the true magnitude of the risk and speaks to the
issue at hand. For instance, if the audience is a group of
homeowners near the a particular plant that has applied for a
permit, it is relevant to discuss risk at the plant fenceline.
However, when preparing a message for a statewide audience, it is
more relevant to discuss risk over a wider area.
7. Present a number that the audience will consider
fair and relevant. Address health effects the audience is
concerned with. If the agency knows in advance that the audience
will not believe that certain numerical estimates are credible,
do not present these estimates. This may mean discussing numbers
and estimates developed by outside sources (e.g., the facility,
activist groups, etc.)
8. Make presentations clear and comprehensible, but do
not oversimplify. When motivated, most people are capable of
understanding technical information. Provide opportunities for
those people to obtain more detail when they want it.
9. If other groups are presenting risk numbers, pay
attention to their numbers. It can be very confusing if
different groups are using different numbers. Address this
directly, and explain why the numbers are different. This issue
should be discussed prior to a public meeting forum, otherwise
the credibility of the agency and its estimates can easily be
called into question. One way to explain the difference is to
talk about how the numbers were calculated and the assumptions
used. Rather than try to convince people that the agency's
4-13
-------
number is "better" or "the right one," focus on helping people
understand the approach and rationale for the assumptions used.
For example, an environmental group may want to
calculate risk at the fenceline assuming an individual is exposed
to the highest concentration for 24 hours per day. Conversely,
the industry might select exposure conditions it feels are more
representative of the entire exposed population. It is important
to present key exposure assumptions and conditions to the public
when explaining risk estimates. Only in this way can they make
informed decisions regarding which numbers they believe are
credible. This concept is discussed further in the next section.
10. Consider offering several estimates of the same
risk number (e.g., the most likely estimate, the worst case
estimate, an estimate developed by another group).
4.3.2 Effective Use of Exposure Information
Since risk, as technically defined, is a product of hazard
and exposure, estimation of exposure is a key part of any risk
assessment. The public needs to understand the basic concept
that for a toxic chemical to pose a risk, there must be a way for
the chemical to get from a source to people.
Concrete images give substance to abstract risk concepts.3
One example used to explain the concept that exposure must occur
before there can be risk was to compare the presence of a bottle
of poison in a room with a child. If the poison was in a child-
resistent bottle, clearly labeled and locked in a safe, there is
little chance of exposure to the child. On the other hand, if
the poison was left in a brightly colored dish on a coffee table,
the likelihood of exposure increases dramatically.
4-14
-------
Exposure introduces its own layers of uncertainty —
atmospheric transformation, metabolic processes within the body,
the quantity that actually reaches individuals, human activity
patterns, dispersion modeling assumptions, etc.S Amid these
complexities, the author of risk messages for the public must
decide what the public needs to know to make a well-founded
decision.
It is also important to explain what exposure estimates are
based on, that pollutant concentrations are not the same at all
points and do not remain the same at any one point, and that
different individuals will respond differently to the same
exposure. Experience has shown that concepts such as dispersion
in space and tine can be difficult for people to understand.
Some agencies have noticed confusion on the part of the
public about how estimates of ambient concentrations and exposure
are developed. People often do not realize that these are
estimates, rather than facts. With regard to ambient
concentrations, it may be necessary to explain that to estimate
approximately how much of a pollutant the public is exposed to,
agencies first need to know how much is released from the source.
To determine this, agencies may sample the pollutant as it is
released from the specific source in question, or they may use
average emission measurements that are made by sampling emissions
at a few "typical" sources. Once the agency learns how much is
emitted from the source and what hours the source operates, the
agency combines this information with the worst-case weather
conditions and the nature of the chemical, and estimates what the
average concentrations will be in the air around the source over
a certain time period. The estimates are made by a computer
model that is really a set of mathematical calculations,
developed by scientists, that consider how pollutants spread out
and where they go when they are released. Ambient concentrations
4-15
-------
are different at different points, depending on factors such as
distance from the source and weather conditions.
Similarly, agencies may need to explain that exposure
estimates take the ambient concentrations at points around the
source and estimate the number of people that would be exposed at
each point. Information on the number of people can come from
census data, county records on property ownership, or more
detailed surveys.
One important concept is that risks can be expressed in
different ways by using different levels of exposure. For
instance, 70 years at the plant gate is associated with one risk
level, while 70 years 5 miles from the plant is associated with a
lower risk estimate. Seventy years at the point of the highest
estimated exposure level is likely associated with the highest
individual risk estimate.-*
4.3.3 Careful Use of Risk Comparisons
While risk comparisons are important and very useful for
putting risks into perspective for people, they are also one part
of a risk message that can invoke significant feelings. The
first step in developing a comparison is to clearly understand
why a comparison needs to be made. Risk comparisons may be used
to clarify statements. They may be intended to reassure people
that a certain risk is small, or to convey that a particular risk
^
is quite significant. Comparisons are useful in a risk message
in the following four situations:^
1. To help people visualize a process or quantity,
2. To help people understand probabilities,
3. To directly compare alternatives, and
4. To gauge the relative importance of different
causes of the same hazard.
4-16
-------
It is important, when using comparisons, to avoid
comparisons that ignore the outrage factors and comparisons that
minimize or trivialize risk. Section 3.4.1 lists outrage
factors. Comparisons between risks posed by toxic emissions and
risks that citizens accept everyday will not be useful, and, in
fact, are likely to invoke outrage because they do not
acknowledge the outrage that people are feeling and they show a
lack of concern. For example, when EPA was presenting
information workshops on arsenic emissions from the copper
smelter in Tacoma, Washington, a slide was used comparing cancer
risk from exposure to airborne arsenic with cancer risk from
drinking diet soda. This comparison invoked sharp responses from
the audience because it compared a voluntary risk, drinking soda,
with an involuntary risk, being exposed to arsenic, and implied
that if a person accepts one risk, he should accept the other.*
Comparisons that minimize or trivialize risk, rather than putting
it into perspective, tend to make people suspicious. Using a
comparison to a little-known hazard that people accept routinely
(e.g., eating peanut butter or bicycling) will strike the public
as an effort to trivialize risk, no matter what data are
presented. Similarly, comparisons used to put units in
perspective can trivialize risk, if not framed carefully. For
example, comparing one part per billion of a chemical to one
sheet of toilet paper in a roll stretching from New York to
England errs in that it assumes that a low concentration means a
low risk and in that it trivializes the risk and sounds
contemptuous of citizen concerns.* On the other hand, if
prefaced with a statement that the comparison is only to help
visualize the number, and followed by a statement that some
exposures in such small quantities can be quite hazardous, then
such comparisons can be useful.
In using comparisons, compare similar situations or
substances. Examples of comparisons of similar factors include:
4-17
-------
comparisons with risk levels before and after control, and
comparisons of ambient concentrations with ambient standards from
other States or with ambient levels in other areas.
These points can be illustrated by ranking different types
of risk comparisons based on their acceptability to the public.
The highest ranking comparisons strike people as relevant,
appropriate, and helpful, while the lowest ranking comparisons
can seem manipulative or misleading. This risk comparison
ranking system of Covello, et al^ is summarized below:
First Rank Comparisons (most preferable)
* comparisons of the same risk at two different
times, for example, before and after
installation of a control device or initiation
of a new procedure
* comparisons with a standard, such as allowable
ambient concentrations of other States
* comparisons with different estimates of the
same risk, for example, our most likely
estimate versus the estimate under the worst
case conditions, or estimates based on
different estimating methodologies
Second Rank Comparisons
* comparisons of the risk of doing something with
not doing it, for instance, if the most
stringent control requirements are imposed the
risk is x, while if not, the risk is y.
* comparisons of alternative solutions to the
same problem, such as the comparison of risk if
technology-based regulations are used versus an
4-18
-------
acceptable ambient concentration approach
* comparisons with the same risk as experienced
in other places, for instance, City x has y
level of a certain air toxic, the highest
recorded level in the U.S., while our city has
one tenth that level.
Third Rank Comparisons
* comparisons of average risk with peak risk at a
particular time or location, such as the risk
from a particular air toxic is 90 per cent less
at the nearest home than at the plant gate, and
the risk two miles from the plant is 75 per
cent less than at the nearest home; or the risk
posed under inversion conditions is 50 per cent
greater than the risk posed by the same level
of emissions under more favorable weather
conditions
* comparisons of the risk from one source of a
particular adverse effect with the risk from
all sources of that same effect, as in the
statement, "the risk of lung cancer from toxic
air pollutant x is approximately three-
hundredths of one percent of our city's total
lung cancer risk." Take care with this type of
comparison that you do not trivialize the risk.
Fourth Rank Comparisons
* comparisons of risk with cost, or of one
cost/risk ratio with another cost/risk ratio.
This is illustrated by the statements, "To
reduce the risk posed by air toxic x by half
would cost y dollars," and, "Saving one life by
4-19
-------
controlling emissions of air toxic x would cost
y dollars, whereas saving a life by improving
particulate control would cost z dollars."
* comparisons of risk with benefit, such as the
risk posed by emissions from a particular
proposed facility would be x, yet the increased
tax revenue would be y dollars.
* comparisons of occupational risks with
environmental risks, such as, "The public is
exposed to far less of air toxic x than the
plant workers, and the plant records show no
evidence of adverse health effects."
* comparisons with other risks from the same
source, for example, stating that the risk
posed by emissions of x is greater than the
risk posed by emissions of y, and that the y
risk has been accepted by the public.
* comparisons with other specific causes of the
same disease, illness, or injury, as in the
statement, "Air toxic x poses less risk to lung
cancer than does exposure to natural background
levels of geological radon."
Fifth Rank Comparisons (the last choice, rarely acceptable)
* comparisons of two or more unrelated risks,
such as comparing risks from toxic emissions to
the risk posed by driving a car or smoking
* comparisons of unrelated risks involving a
familiar activity that people do not see as
risky. Eating peanut butter, which people may
not be aware can contain aflatoxin, is one such
familiar activity.
Warnings about using risk comparisons are not meant to
4-20
-------
eliminate the use of comparisons, but only to stress that they
should be used carefully and with much forethought. At best,
comparisons can help an audience visualize an abstract number,
process, or hazard. At worst, they can alienate an audience and
affect the credibility of the presenter. When using any
comparison, it may be helpful to "test" the message before
delivering it to the audience. This is where focus groups and
other message pretesting techniques (Section 3.7) are useful.
4.4 ACKNOWLEDGE UNCERTAINTY
Risk messages prepared for the public should acknowledge
uncertainty, but care must be taken to maintain public
confidence. Scientists are accustomed to dealing with
uncertainty, yet it can be difficult to explain these
uncertainties to the public, especially because it is a human
trait to desire assurance. This desire for certainty is present
especially in the face of outrage or feelings of helplessness.
For those with primarily technical backgrounds, the issue of
uncertainty and how to present it can be quite challenging. Try
to balance explaining uncertainty versus just listing all of the
underlying uncertainties. Create a context of what the agency
knows within what is scientifically known; that is, that the
agency is as certain as possible given the state of the art
technology or assessment method. Again, uncertainty can be quite
confusing to the public and can cause concern especially when
there are disagreements among "experts." Those preparing risk
messages should place themselves in the public's position, trying
to imagine what the public feels regarding uncertainty.
Types of uncertainty that should be conveyed to the public
include: (1) scientific uncertainty, acknowledging that science
is never 100 percent certain; (2) the inexact nature of the risk
assessment process (e.g., a person does not remain at one place
4-21
-------
for 70 years); (3) the incompleteness of the information that
agency has gathered; (4) differences of opinion with regard to
policy, that is to say, differences concerning implications of
the information and the optimum risk management option. *
Hance, et al* offer seven tips on dealing with uncertainty:
1. Acknowledge uncertainty. Be aware that agency experts
have a natural tendency to feel that they should have all of the
answers, and to be defensive when they do not. Rather than
trying to cover up what you are unsure of, try to explain
uncertainties before you are confronted with them.
2. Give people background about scientific uncertainties.
People need to understand the risk assessment process so they
will understand that uncertainty is an inherent part of the
process. Such an explanation will help people to understand how
a risk estimate can be based on the best scientific data
available, yet still be uncertain. Since the risk estimate will
be more sensitive to choices of certain assumptions, the risk
messages should state which assumptions were used, why they were
selected, and what difference they make in the risk estimate.^
If, in the example given in Section 4.3, a point of policy
disagreement hinged on the selection of a dose-response model, it
would be useful to explain the concept of mathematical modeling:
The model we used is essentially an mathematical
equation or formula that is based on what we know about
this chemical. The equation shows that the cancer risk
depends on how much of the chemical a person (or
laboratory animal) is exposed to. (Information on the
effects of chemicals is often based on tests conducted
on laboratory animals.) There are different equations
that can be used to predict the risk. Scientists do not
always agree on which equation - which model - is best
to use. That is the case here. We chose this
particular model because it tends to estimate risks
4-22
-------
conservatively, from a public health standpoint. If the
calculation of the risk should be in error, we would
prefer to err on the side of safety.
3. Be specific about what you are doing to find the
answers. You do not want people to equate your statement of, "I
don't know," with, "I don't care," or, "I am incompetent."
Explain the process; let people know what has been done, is being
done, and will be done to do to resolve uncertainties. Explain
why this takes time, and how conservative assumptions are built
into the standard setting or permitting process to account for
uncertainty until more is known. This is credible if it is
explained early/ when process is explained. This also involves
describing how various uncertainties affect risk estimates and
which ones are the most significant for your particular issue.
Be sure to balance uncertainties with certainties to maintain
credibility.
4. Consider involving the public in resolving the
uncertainty. Where possible, involving the public in dealing
with uncertainty is typically viewed as fairer and could lead to
better solutions. Community suggestions on ways of improving
risk assessment data can offer technical information (e.g.,
exposure routes that may have been overlooked) and can
demonstrate that your agency listens and is responsive.
However, caution should be exercised here as publics are
sensitive to "token" gestures. Perceived tokens undermine
credibility.
5. Stress the caution that is built in to the standard-
setting and risk assessment processes. This is quite important
to maintain public confidence because often people do not realize
that, in the face of uncertainty, .government agencies build in
margins of safety to account for the uncertainty and to err on
the side of health protection. Without this understanding,
people are likely to be concerned about uncertainty because they
fear that it leads to their being exposed to greater risk.
4-23
-------
Public involvement in the design of air toxics control programs
can help foster this understanding of building in safety margins
and can help build consensus on the appropriate level for that
safety margin.
6. If people demand absolute certainty, pay attention to
values and other concerns, not just the science. Public demands
for certainty and disputes over science often reveal
disagreements with agency process, policies, and values. People
sometimes feel that they can make more headway with an agency if
they talk about science than if they talk about values, so they
may focus on science when they really are concerned about agency
judgment calls.
7. Acknowledge the policy disagreements that arise from
uncertainty. In the face of such a disagreement, understand the
nature of the disagreement, and have the appropriate parties
acknowledge the range of opinion. For example, if the
disagreement is over science, scientists should explain the
differences. If the disagreement is over science, discuss
science; if the disagreement is over values, discuss values.
4.5 CONSIDER RISK TOLERABILITY
In the risk assessment/risk management process, the bottom
line is the tolerability of a particular risk. The public's
notion of tolerable risk is closely tied to the outrage factors
discussed in Section 3.4.1. In dealing with the question of
tolerable risk, do not confuse understanding of risk with
tolerance of it. Once your audience understands the risk, do not
assume that they will be willing to accept it. Being able to
separate tolerability fro.m magnitude of a particular risk is an
important step. It is useful to help people understand this
distinction.1
4-24
-------
Whether or not a risk is tolerable depends on a person's
particular point of view. Clearly, the public, the agency, and
industry may have widely different views of risk tolerability.
While the ultimate decision making authority rests with the
agency, people need all of the information to be available and
the opportunity to have their opinions heard. However, even with
the same information and level of understanding, different people
will make different risk management decisions and reach different
conclusions. If possible, try to involve the public in the
actual determination of risk tolerability. If this is not
possible, for instance when an agency has a predetermined level
of tolerability, explain why a particular level is judged
tolerable or intolerable.
It is often necessary to address the demand for zero risk.
In such cases, try to understand any underlying meaning in the
request, and convey that zero risk does not exist. The way in
which one specifically responds to the demand for zero risk
depends on the reason such a demand is put forth. First, the
demand for zero risk may be reasonable, in that it may indeed be
possible to eliminate the risk in question by perhaps a
substitution of raw materials, etc. Second, the demand for zero
risk may be a way of stating an opinion that the risk is too
high. People take a stand for zero risk as a negotiating
position. Third, a demand for zero risk may be sincere, but
uninformed. You must convey that all activities carry some risk,
but explain what is being done to make that risk as low as
possible.
Sometimes the demand for zero risk is politically motivated,
perhaps in an effort to oppose a particular facility. One option
here is to meet with groups who oppose the facility and discuss
possible resolutions. Finally, the demand for zero risk may be a
reflection of outrage or distrust. This can happen if the agency
4-25
-------
or a particular source under consideration for a permit has
appeared uncaring or not credible, or has a history of
questionable credibility. Find out why the public feels this way
and address the underlying issues.^
Finally, provide citizens with a clear understanding of risk
management criteria, the process, in addition to risk assessment
information. Let them know how and why the decisions presented
were made. Sufficient risk management information can often
diffuse much of the concern over risk assessment data, even if
the public may still disagree with the decision.
4.6 PERSONALIZE RISK INFORMATION
As noted in previous sections, people are concerned about
risk from the standpoint of how it effects them personally,
including a personal stake in the environmental movement . A
good risk communicator should come across as a caring individual,
respectful and kind in their communication, and should be
prepared to respond to personal questions. It is important to
tell people about yourself; your background and why you are
involved. Show people that you are human, and do not put on a
professional air that takes the person out of you. After an oral
presentation, the audience may ask the presenter personal
questions as discussed in Section 3.4.2. In such a case, the
presenter may decide that it is appropriate to answer based on
his own opinion, or that it would be better to say that since he
is representing the agency, his opinion is not what matters in
this case. In any case, the presenter is representing the
agency. It is best not to accept the role of defending an agency
position that the presenter does not personally agree with.
Do not use distant, abstract, or unfeeling language about
death, disease, and illness. For example, the concept of
4-26
-------
certain levels of exposure leading to an estimated number of
"excess deaths" has been used in some risk assessments. Such a
term could likely lead an audience to conclude that an agency had
little concern for the lives of individuals. The concept of
human lives lost or additional cases of cancer as a result of
exposure would be less unfeeling.
Finally, actively listen when people are expressing their
concerns and reflect your understanding back to them. Ask
questions if you are unsure, "I want to make sure I understand.
Did you say that ...?" Show them that their comments as well as
their emotions were understood with statements such as, "I know
you do not like the idea of toxic emissions emitted from this
facility near your home. I understand your frustration and
concern."
4-27
-------
SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES
1. Hance, Bille Jo; Caron Chess; and Peter Sandman. Improving
Dialogue With Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for
Government. Environmental Communication Research Program,
Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1988.
2. National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
3. Covello, Vincent T.; Peter Sandman; and Paul Slovic. Risk
Communication. Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons; A
Manual for Plant Managers. Chemical Manufacturers
Association, Washington, B.C., 1988.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Glossary of Terms
Related to Health. Exposure, and Risk Assessment. Air Risk
Information Support Center, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/3-88-016, March 1989.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Toxics
Information Clearinghouse; Case Studies in Risk
Communication. (EPA-450/5-88-003) EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. June 1988.
4-28
-------
5.0 GAINING TRUST AND CREDIBILITY
Trust and credibility are fundamental to successful
communication. It will surprise few that trust in government
agencies is low. In fact, people are more likely to believe the
government when they are told something is dangerous that when
they are told it is safe. There has been a decline in the
public's perception of institutional trustworthiness since the
1960s. In the same period, concern for public health and safety
has increased. This gap has contributed to lower public
confidence in communications on risk.
Trust and credibility of an organization or institution are
based on three factors: how well the system (the agency or the
technology in question) works, how well the people behind that
system work, and how the agency and its representatives have
worked in the past. If the public mistrusts the people running
the show, that mistrust will also be extended to the system, even
if a technology is safe or the agency is very competent.
Public trust has many dimensions. Just as there are several
audiences to address in risk communication, lack of public trust
is not simply a single problem. The same kind of characteristics
that would lead someone to trust a person are also important to
the credibility of an institution: active listening, being
present and responsive when action is needed, speaking to people
at their level of understanding, and encouraging listening by
sharing a stake in making a decision.
These same themes were echoed in the pamphlet "Seven
Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication ." While several of the
principles presented in these guidelines have been discussed
previously in this report, they are all building blocks for trust
and credibility and, therefore, bear repeating in this context.
5-1
-------
1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner.
Two basic tenets of risk communication theory in a democracy are
that (1) people and communities have a right to participate in
decisions that affect their lives, their property, and the things
they value, and (2) the goal of risk communication should not be
to diffuse public concerns or to avoid action. Involve all
parties that have an interest or stake in the issue early in the
process to demonstrate the agency's respect for public concerns
and opinions. Early involvement of the public can lead to a
cooperative effort to solve problems. An agency can earn
credibility by showing that it is responsive, that it is
involving the public early in the decision-making process, that
it is open to suggestions, and that the interaction between the
agency and its audience is two-way.
2. Plan carefully and evaluate performance. Risk
communication will be successful only if carefully planned.
Define objectives clearly at the beginning of the process, and
keep record periodically to check on your progress in reaching
these goals. Evaluate the information about risks and know its
strengths and weaknesses. Prepare answers to likely questions.
Aim strategies at the different subgroups which exist within the
general audience — to their interests, needs, concerns,
opinions, etc. Recruit spokesmen who are articulate and
interactive. Carefully evaluate communication efforts and learn
from mistakes.
3. Listen to the public's specific concerns. Take the time
to find out what people are thinking. Try to put yourself in
their place, recognize their emotions and their "hidden agendas,"
and broader economic or political considerations. Remember,
people in the community are often more concerned about issues
such as trust, credibility, control, competence, voluntariness,
fairness, caring, and compassion rather than mortality statistics
or details of a qualitative risk assessment. Knowing the
5-2
-------
public's concerns through communication will enable the risk
communicators to rely on fact rather than on assumptions about
what the people want.
4. Be honest, frank, and open. In communicating risk,
trust and credibility are the most valuable assets. They are
difficult to obtain, and once lost, are almost impossible to
regain. State the communicator's credentials, but do not expect
to be trusted. Disclose information as soon as possible, and
discuss uncertainties. Admit mistakes and get back to people with
answers. Let the audience know as much as the agency does—
reserving information will make the public think something is
being hidden. Also, be frank about the range and limits of
agency mandates. Publics are often unaware of statutory
limitations, overlaps in jurisdiction, and areas outside an
agency's regulatory province.
5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
Few things make risk communication more difficult than conflicts
or public disagreements with other credible sources. Enlist
credible allies and trusted or respected social groups to help
communicate risk. Credible intermediaries, such as local
advisory groups, physicians, university scientists, or trusted
political figures, can help an agency explain risk information
more effectively.
6. Meet the needs of the media. The media are primary
transmitters of information on risks; however, they are often
more interested in the politics than in the science of risk, in
the simple rather than the complex, in danger rather than safety.
Reporters also usually work on tight schedules, and risk
communicators must give background information early, respond on
time, and be open. Developing a long-term relationship of trust
with reporters will afford them a credible source for information
and reward agency personnel with a predictable outlet for
5-3
-------
information. Working with the media is discussed in more detail
in Section 6.0.
7. Speak clearly and with compassion. Simple, non-
technical language should be used to communicate difficult
concepts effectively, as technical jargon can act as a barrier to
communication with the public. However, do not talk down to the
public. If sufficiently motivated, people are quite capable of
understanding complex information. Use risk comparisons to put
risks in perspective. Avoid distant, abstract, insensitive
language about death and illness, and acknowledge that any
illness or death is a tragedy. Acknowledge and respond to the
audience's emotions with compassion. Put yourself in their shoes
and recognize their "outrage." Inform the public about the steps
that are being taken to remedy the situation.
Additional guidelines to building and maintaining trust and
credibility in risk communication are to concentrate on process,
beware of mixed messages, follow up and keep your promises, and
avoid closed meetings.
Concentrate on process. Process includes the many steps
agencies take to make decisions on issues such as the development
and implementation of air toxics control programs, or permit
approval or disapproval. The public tends to rely on their
assessment of an agency and its process more than the details of
risk assessment studies. Explaining the process to the audience
and being clear about their role in the process can alleviate
misconceptions about the agency. Focusing on the process of risk
communication (where the information came from, what it is about,
what it will be used for) will similarly aid in successful
communication of risk to the public, and increase the credibility
of you and your agency.
5-4
-------
Beware of mixed messages. Technical risk issues are often
difficult for the public to understand and deal with, and
agencies sometimes make the situation worse by giving the public
mixed messages. An example of a mixed message is to tell the
community there is nothing wrong and then come in and sample with
moonsuits on. Mixed messages create inconsistency and confusion,
and tend to lead the public to mistrust. Multiple objectives of
an agency can lead to public perception of mixed messages. If
actions taken by the agency could be interpreted as mixed
messages, then prior explanation of the processes involved
should help to clarify the situation.
Follow up and keep your promises. A good way to instill
trust and credibility in spokespersons and agencies is by
keeping in touch with the audiences, even after the issue is
solved. If a promise was made to make changes or to get back in
touch with someone, then do it. Check to see if what was
promised actually happened. Be available for further questions.
Promise only what can be done, and always do what was promised.
If promises were made that cannot be kept, a thorough explanation
is needed, along with apologies and further recommendations.
Trust and credibility involve forming a relationship over time;
follow through and ongoing communication with the audience will
help build that trust. j
i
Avoid closed meetings. The agency should be sensitive to
community concerns about secrecy. Closed-door meetings are more
suspect than are open meetings and create suspicion of a cover-up
when they are eventually discovered. Since what people imagine
is usually much worse than reality, private meetings -are rarely
worth the cost in credibility. Meetings which are open to the
public also give the public the opportunity to experience the
decision-making process, upon which they base much of their
agency trust. ;
5-5
-------
SITUATIONS WHERE TRUST AND CREDIBILITY ARE LOW
As noted in the introduction to this section, it is not
unlikely that you would begin a risk communication effort in a
situation where trust and credibility are low. If that is the
case, Hance et al^ offer the following suggestions:
1. Review the outrage factors (Section 3.4.1) and the
guidelines listed in this chapter, and consider which
ones you may have violated.
2. Acknowledge and accept the lack of trust, but don't be
dissuaded from trying to gain it back.
3. Indicate what process changes you will make to prevent
trust-eroding actions from happening again.
4« Ask those who distrust you what they think would make
you more trustworthy. If possible, implement their
suggestions.
5. If appropriate, personalize your responses.
6. Try to reduce the need for blind trust by sharing
information and involving the public early in the
decision-making process. I
7. Be patient. Don't expect everyone £o trust you all the
time, even if you feel you are trustworthy.
8. Expect to go out of your way for pepple and to bend over
backwards to meet their concerns. ;
9. Acknowledge your mistakes, and try to remedy them.
5-6
-------
Finally, understand that even when an agency is trusted and
believed, people will not always agree with agency positions,
5-7
-------
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
1. Davies, J.C.; V.T. Covello; F.W. Allen, eds. Risk
Communication. Proceedings of the National Conference on
Risk Communication, Washington, D.C. January 29-31, 1986.
The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1987.
2. Santos, S.L. and S.A. Edwards. "A Comparative Study of
Risk Communication and Assessment Practices Between the
U.S. and Selected European Countries." The German Marshall
Fund. April 1990.
3. Covello, Vincent and F.W. Allen. "Seven Cardinal Rules of
Risk Communication." Environmental Protection Agency,
(OPA-87-020) Washington, D.C., 1988.
4. Hance, Bille Jo; Caron Chess; and Peter Sandman. Improving
Dialogue With Communities; A Risk Communication Manual for
Government. Environmental Communication Research Program,
Rutgers-The state University of New Jersey, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1988.
5-8
-------
6.0 WORKING WITH THE MEDIA
Print and broadcast media are specific audiences to be
identified and targeted for risk messages, especially considering
the large impact the media have on public opinion and the role
the media have in informing the public and serving as the public
"watchdog." To communicate effectively with this audience, be
aware of their special needs and concerns as well as their
special characteristics. This section addresses the
characteristics and concerns of the media, selection of an
appropriate spokesperson, interview strategies, and
considerations of print and broadcast media coverage for a risk-
related story.
6.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEWS REPORTING
Media coverage of risk assessments and risk management has
several characteristics the agency spokesperson needs to
1 o
consider.i>e-
Environmental risk is not a big story. Even though
environmental risk may be very important to the air agency staff,
reporters and editors do not see it this way. The typical news
story dwells on the more newsworthy aspects of Environmental
risk, namely the source(s) of the problem and the fact that a
problem exists. News reporters are interested Jin whether an
environmental risk is present, not how it came jto be or how it
will be remedied. Once these facts have been revealed, most
reporters find little significance in the remainder of the risk
assessment procedures and risk management. ;
Politics are more newsworthy than science. Media coverage
is generally more inclined to cover the political ramifications
behind an environmental risk rather than the science. Politics
6-1
-------
are more controversial and are usually seen as necessary to bring
about a solution to the problem, whereas the scientific
background is not considered pertinent to the present situation.
One way to deal with this is to clearly describe the risk
management process, as well as the scientific data.
Reporters cover viewpoints, not "truths". Objectivity in
journalism is accomplished through balancing viewpoints between
both sides of the controversy or problem, and reporters generally
emphasize coverage of the more extreme viewpoints. When agencies
are aware of conflicting viewpoints, they should present these
viewpoints to the media, but provide outside collaboration for
the agency point of view. Suggest to the media that they follow
up on these viewpoints by contacting other sources.
Risk is often simplified to a dichotomy. As previously
stated, journalists tend to divide the situation into sides to be
balanced, hoping to achieve objectivity. This gives them the
added "benefit" of an appearance of conflict. Journalists also
tend to simplify what they cover so it is easier to understand.
These two characteristics cause most of the media to dichotomize
risk: either the situation is hazardous or it is safe. Methods
to avoid division of your agency's facts into "yes" or "no" can
include stressing to reporters what your main points are
(especially if they are neutral), leaving out technical jargon,
specifying the bottom line, and checking to make sure reporters
notes and ideas are as you told them, j
Reporters try to personalize the risk story. Reporters are
often told to bring dead issues to life, to make the abstract
concrete, and to focus on real people facing real decisions. One
method used to accomplish this is through personalizing the
situation. Reporters are likely to ask questions such as "Would
you let your family live there?" In response to the statistic of
one additional cancer case per year, a\newspaper story might ask
6-2 ;
-------
"Who will teach his children to fish?" Questions like these can
put you on the spot, and in answering them you may inevitably
dichotomize the issue. Anticipate personal questions and give
reporters personalized messages early. Section 4.6 discusses
personalizing risk information.
Claims of risk are more newsworthy than claims of safety.
Risk assertions generally receive more attention than risk
denials. They are considered more newsworthy as reporters see
safety as no real story. Your agency is charged with "safety",
that is, protecting public health. Lack of safety can be used in
a news story to suggest you are not doing your job. Again,
relationships of trust with reporters will be helpful if such a
situation arises.
Reporters work with limited time and expertise. Generally
speaking, most reporters have little, if any, knowledge about air
pollution control programs or toxic air pollutants. Careful
explanation of terms and facts will help make the story more
clear to the reporter just as it does to the public. For
television, suggest pictures or film opportunities, if possible.
Also, reporters generally cover and write two to three
stories per day, and deadlines may govern the accuracy and
completeness of a report. In about 90 minutes, reporters have to
become instant experts in order to meet their deadlines. Many
times, the goal of a journalist is not to find out all there is
to know about a risky situation, but to find out just enough to
write the story. Recheck facts with the reporter before leaving
to make sure the essentials have been noted and the facts are
straight. Correct information with reporters if it is presented
incorrectly, but do not expect a retraction.
Offer to provide "press kits" to the reporters, which
include names, numbers, and sources of information from different
6-3
-------
fields, glossaries (in laymen's terms) of technical and
scientific terms, explanations of technical strategies and
problems, and background information, all in common language and
specific to your issue. These kits can educate the reporters as
well as make them more familiar with the story they are covering.
Information given to reporters in advance, before they are
confronted with a deadline, will help them be more thorough in
preparing stories. Experienced reporters may request this
information.
6.2 SELECTION OF A SPOKESPERSON
Delivering a risk message through the media requires
selection of an appropriate spokesperson. The audience wants to
hear from people knowledgable in the specific risk topic and
people who have power to make necessary changes. Managers of
State and local air agencies are good choices. Having other
experts on call, including health, safety, environmental, public
relation, and political sources, is certainly recommended, as is
working closely with the agency public information officer.
However, the main task of dealing with the media lies with the
agency spokesperson.
Spokespeople need good general communication skills to be
effective. They must be able to speak well in public, to be
confident about the information they are presenting, to avoid
technical or scientific jargon, and to clarify misunderstood
concepts. Interacting with the public by listening, giving
feedback, and responding to their concerns are also essential.
Developing and mastering these skills is vital.
It is much easier for a spokesman to meet these challenges
if he or she personally agrees with the agency position. If a
chosen spokesman does not personally agree with the agency
position which must be explained and defended, it is usually best
6-4
-------
if another spokesman is chosen.
6.3 INTERVIEWS
A personal interview with media personnel is one method
State and local agencies have for informing the public about
specific risks. Careful preparation for the interview is the
best insurance for successfully informing the media about risks
and risk assessments associated with air toxics. Recommendations
for preparing for an interview include the following:-*
* learn who the audience is and what issues they
are concerned about
* find out how much the audience knows about the
issue
* decide what information is necessary to convey,
how much time there is to explain the agency's
position; find out how much remarks will be
edited, then pre-edit your own responses.
* find out who will be conducting the interview.
If appropriate, research that reporter's
background to get a feel for the style, nature
of questions, etc. to expect.
* ask who else will be interviewed and what
topics they expect to cover
* learn what others are saying about the issue in
preparation to defend your agency's position
* consider the reporter's deadlines, and accept
his or her need for promptness in the interview
* know your answers thoroughly. Research the
issue, and be prepared to answer succinctly
questions specific to every aspect of the
issue. Practice your answers using a tape
recorder.
6-5
-------
* know what economic impacts might result from
the agency's actions
* prepare yourself to represent the agency's
views, regardless of your own position
During the interview, you can communicate accurately and
successfully by following several guidelines^:
* emphatically place your strongest points early;
* be concise, and stick to your key points;
* explain the subject and context of each major point;
* personalize your message with anecdotes and
illustrations;
* avoid technical or scientific jargon;
* offer to find out information you do not have;
* tell the truth; when you do not know the answer to a
question, say so;
* simplify statistics to get the message across;
* remember that everything you say is "on the record".
After the interview, contact the reporter and follow up on
topics, if necessary. Offer to answer reporter's questions about
issues you discussed. Read the reporter's story, and immediately
contact the reporter if facts are inaccurate.
6.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRINT MEDIA
Knowledge of the different job titles and forms of printed
media will enable the agency spokesperson to decipher some of the
jargon found in dealing with the media and to understand the
expectations and needs of those individuals. '^
6-6
-------
People in print media
City editors or news editors supervise hard, fast-breaking,
local news stories and local day-to-day news gathering. The
reporters covering your story may or may not be informed about
your subject, depending on the amount of research they have done
prior to your interviet*/.
Feature editors supervise longer, soft, human-interest
stories.
Medical, science, or health editors supervise a wide variety
of scientific stories, including the types described for city
news and feature editors. These reporters are more likely to be
educated in technical areas; however, they may or may not be the
ones dealing with the agency spokesman, depending on their
availability, schedule, etc.
Special section editors supervise such sections as the
Sunday review, local interest stories, and special assignments.
Editorial page editors cover editorial opinion topics and
positions.
General assignment reporters cover stories as assigned.
They may be covering risk stories, and like city or news
reporters, may have limited knowledge about the topic they are
covering.
Forms of print media
Metropolitan daily newspapers usually have a complete staff
of reporters and editors, along with a science editor who would
probably cover your specific story. Deadlines range from 30
minutes to 30 days.
Weekly or special interest newspapers will have a small
6-7
-------
staff/ and coverage will probably be performed by a news editor.
Deadlines run around seven days.
Magazines usually work three to four months ahead of
publication, and you may by contacted by either an author of an
article or by the editor of the magazine.
Wire services cover and feed stories to press outlets across
the country. These stories may originate from local reporters.
Deadlines are usually tight, and the story will be edited as seen
fit by each news outlet.
6.5 CONSIDERATIONS FOR BROADCAST MEDIA
Broadcast media, like printed media, have various jobs and
programs used to deliver the news, an understanding of which can
be useful to agency risk communicators.
People in broadcast media
News editors review all news and decide on what topics to
broadcast.
Assignment editors schedule and dispatch news crews to cover
important situations.
Health, medical, or science reporters cover scientific
stories for broadcast. These individuals will most likely be
covering your story.
Newscasters prepare and deliver the news on the air. They
frequently research background information as well.
Program producers control content, conduct research, and
schedule guests for particular programs.
6-8
-------
Public service directors review and approve requests for
public service announcements and schedule them for broadcast.
General assignment reporters cover a variety of stories, and
usually have limited knowledge about the topic they are covering.
These individuals may be conducting your interview.
Programs in broadcast media
News interviews are conducted on tight deadlines, and are
often spur-of-the-moment decisions. Interviews may be edited to
several 20 or 30 second responses, so make responses accurate and
succinct. Interviews with other individuals may by included to
get "both sides of the story".
Feature/magazine shows highlight issues more closely,
usually in about a'10-minute segment. These also are edited, can
be shot on location, and can include differing opinions.
Talk shows can allow for full discussion of a topic. These
may be edited, and may have other guests, call-in-questions, or a
studio audience.
Some special tips for dealing with the media through both
radio and television coverage include:
* speak distinctly, and vary your pitch;
* do not read a script; be familiar with the planned
material; practice
* use"active verbs and personal pronouns;
* use your interviewer's name;
* try to paint a picture with your words;
* look at your host while talking to them; look
at the camera lens when answering a question;
* SMILE (if not inappropriate);
* be alert to your body language;
* be open to questions, and add explanation where needed;
6-9
-------
* for television coverage, do not wear white shirts; facia]
powder and make-up may be helpful; dress appropriately
(how you dress says a lot about you);
* maintain good posture during the interview;
* stay alert, and be ready to answer questions promptly.
In conclusion, spokespeople should recognize and prepare
for the idiosyncracies of news reporting. Following the tips and
suggestions offered here can improve how the spokesman and the
agency are perceived and understood by the public, and can help
agencies to use the media as a vehicle to relay risk messages.
6-10
-------
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
1. Sandman, Peter M. "Explaining Environmental Risk." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. November
1986.
2. Davies, J.C.; V.T. Covello; F.W. Allen, eds. Risk
Communication. Proceedings of the National Conference of
Risk Communication, Washington, D.C. January 29-31, 1086.
The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1987.
3. Wright, J. Robin. Explaining Difficult Science in Media
Interviews, as presented at a workshop "Explaining
Difficult Science to Non experts" by Katherine E. Rowan and
J. Robin Wright, at USEPA/ORD/HEL, Cincinnati, OH,
September 1989.
6-11
-------
RISK
COMMUNICATION
TRAINING
INSTRUMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
PUBLIC MEETING
TYPICAL QUESTIONS & SAMPLE RESPONSES
Prepared by
CDR Alvin Chun, USPHS, Senior Environmental Health Policy Advisor
Arnold R. Den, Senior Science Advisor
Office of the Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Following is a list of questions which are often asked by the public,
along with some typical responses. The list is taken from EPA, Region 9's
Risk & Decision Making and Risk Communication & Public Involvement
Courses. It serves to illustrate the use of EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication and the careful preparation that is required.
The authors welcome your comments and any suggestions for
additional questions. Based on your responses, the list may be expanded or
revised. All comments may be directed to the authors at (415) 744-1019 or
744-1018.
A CAUTION TO THE READER - The sample responses are offered
only as ideas, from which you must develop your own responses.
The responses are not intended to be memorized and used
verbatim. A response may be used only if it addresses the
specific needs of your audience, and it is comfortable for both you
and your agency. Your responses must be open, honest, frank,
and meet the needs of your public or audience. It may not be
obvious, but developing your responses usually requires policy
input from management as well as technical input from other
credible sources. This preparation is essential to your performance;
if you fail to prepare, you can't expect to gain the important trust
and respect of our public constituents, and you won't be effective.
(CR 2)*
* Cardinal Rule #2 from EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication (See page 2.)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor • page 1
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
EPA's
Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication
1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner.
(CR1)
2. Plan carefully and evaluate your performance. (CR2)
3. Listen to the public's feelings. (CR3)
(Examples of "active listening" are offered in some of the
answers to the questions which follow. These specific
examples are underlined for easy reading.)
4. Be honest, open, and frank. (CR4)
5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
(CR5)
6. Meet the needs of the media. (CR6)
7. Speak clearly and with compassion. (CR7)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor Pa8e 2
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Hegjor.9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Response
1. Q. Why can't I ask my question now?
Underlying Public Need: The Agency agenda isn't working and the
public would like their concerns and questions addressed first.
A. Sounds like there are a lot of questions that need to be answered
now. Maybe we should do that first and save the rest of the
agenda for later? Is that OK? (Principles: Listen, feedback, and
accept the public as a legitimate partner in deciding on the
agenda.) (CR1,3)
A. I know you all have a lot of questions that you want answered.
Would it be alright if we proceed with the 20-30 minute
presentation, where I suspect that many of your questions will be
answered, and then leave the next period of time for the rest of
your questions? (Principles: Listen, feedback with a
recommendation and accept the public as a legitimate partner in
deciding on the agenda.) (CR 1, 3)
A. Poor Response: Please let me finish my talk! (Not listening to
the audience's need for answers to their questions, and giving
the impression that we don't care and that we know better than
they do. Thus, we are not treating them as legitimate partners.)
A. Poor Response: Please (with hand raised at audience) all
questions will be taken after our presentation! We need to
follow the agenda. Let us give our presentation and then we'll
take questions.
2. Q. Why won't you answer my question? (This is usually a follow-
up question to Question #1 when the Agency insists that
questions will be answered only after the presentation.)
Underlying Public Need: The public would like to vent feelings and
have us listen and be responsive so that they can find out if we are on
their side and taking adequate action. Also, they may not want a
"slick" presentation but are more interested in direct answers to their
personal questions.
A. I apologize if we have not answered your questions. I have
written your questions here (on flip chart), and I have saved this
part of the agenda to answer them. I think that many of your
questions will be answered in the 20-30 minute presentation that
we have prepared, and it may save everyone some time. Our
presentation will cover some important questions which may be
on your mind such as, "Is my family safe? What are we
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 3
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
planning on doing about it? What's been going on?" If that
sounds like it will work for you, could we proceed? And if it
isn't working, then we'll have to think of something else.
(Principles: Listen, feedback with helpful suggestions and
involve the public in deciding how to proceed.) (CR 1, 3)
A. You've asked a very good question and maybe we haven't been
listening too well. How many of you have questions and would
like them answered? I see there are a lot of questions. Let me
make 2 suggestions for how you might want to proceed, and you
can tell me if either one sounds good. (Principles: Listen,
feedback with helpful suggestions and involve the public in
deciding how to proceed.) (CR 1, 3)
One suggestion is to answer your questions first until they are
all answered, and then if you are still interested and have the
time, we could give our 20 minute presentation. Also, we have
a fact sheet which summarizes much of the presentation if you
can't stay for the whole meeting.
The other suggestion is to let us give a 20-minute presentation
so that everyone will have some common understanding of the
situation, and be able to ask some questions which they may not
have otherwise. We have a 20 minute presentation, and it may
answer many of your questions. After the presentation, we can
spend the rest of the evening answering all your questions.
Since there are a lot of questions, and many of you can't stay pass
11 P.M., when the meeting was suppose to end, we will try to
accommodate your questions first and stay until all your
questions have been addressed.
Now let's have a show of hands to decide how jwe should
proceed. How many would like to hear the presentation first?
How many would like to get at the questions first?
i
A. Poor Response: Sir, if you would just let me finish, I'll get to
your question at the end, and we'll answer all Questions then.
(Not listening to the public; Agency is more concerned about
sticking to the agenda and maintaining control of the meeting.
In its attempt to maintain control, the Agency will likely lose
control. An important point to consider: If your meeting goal is
to give your presentation at any expense, then this would have
been a good response. However, this is usually not our intended
goal. Our goal normally is to try to meet the needs of the
community in trying to solve the environmental problem.
Given that as our goal, if a community is insisting to be heard
Office of the Senior Science Advisor ' page 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region? ; Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
we should recognize their need and try to meet it, or present
them with alternatives that meet both their needs and the
Agency's, and let them choose.)
3. Q. What have you done about it? Why are you taking so long?
Underlying Public Need: The public would like to know if we are
being responsive in correcting the problem, and if we care.
A. Sir, you'd like to know what we're doing, and you're angry that
it's taken so long. We share your concerned about taking care of
this as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, there are no simple
solutions for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Each site must
be carefully characterized before a clean up plan can be made to
enable us to do a good job. This takes longer than we would all
like but it is needed to ensure that it is done right in order to
safeguard public health. We are proceeding as fast as we can, and
here's what we are doing: (Principles: Listen, feedback,
share concern, and answer.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Ah, Ah, Ah Don't you know we're doing our
best! (Didn't have an answer, wasn't prepared to answer a basic
question, and became defensive. This increases the public
outrage which delays discussion on options and solutions.)
A. Poor Response: I have 5 other sites that I'm working on and I'm
working hard on all of them. (The public is not interested in
other sites or excuses. They want to know what we are doing
about their site to protect them.)
4. Q. Why haven't you closed the plant? How many more cancers do
you want?
Underlying Public Need: The public is worried about cancer (or some
other health issue) and needs to know how we're planning on
addressing the problem and if we care about them. To the public,
closing the plant is a logical solution.
A. We haven't closed the plant because it isn't posing an
immediate hazard. There will be a public health hazard if we do
nothing. The long term exposure could present a health hazard.
Here's what we are proposing, and we believe it will correct the
problem, protect your health, and not create a hardship for the
people who are currently employed at the plant. (Principles:
Give a direct answer that addresses our concern for protecting
people's health and welfare, and state our actions.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 5
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 • Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
A. Poor Response: Let me finish my presentation!
A. Poor Response: We've been working with the plant, and we
don't think that it's necessary!
5. Q. Is it safe? Are my kids safe?
Underlying Public Need: The public needs to know if there is any
immediate danger to their family and that we care about that. They
want "micro" risk answers to the "Am I safe?" questions, not "macro"
risk answers which the Agency has been concerned with in their
decision making, i.e., "The hazard presents a 10~5 risk to the
community."
A. Any cancer causing agent is potentially dangerous (The non-
threshold concept). DNC is such a substance. Based on our
knowledge of the amount of DNC that people are being exposed
to, we feel it is safe for all residents east of Electrobotics because
it isn't in the air or drinking water. For residents to the west of
Electrobotics, DNC is only present in the air, but in such small
quantities that exposure will only be a health concern if it is not
reduced in the next several years. We are proposing to reduce
and minimize the exposures to DNC by permanently capping
the source of the DNC to eliminate its presence in the air, and
cleaning up the contaminated soil to minimize the
contamination of the water. This will make it safe. (CR 3, 4)
For a more typical case when the contamination cannot be
totally removed from the ground water, a response could be:
A. Any cancer-causing agent is potentially dangerous (The non-
threshold concept). DNC is such a substance. Based on our
knowledge of the amount of DNC which people are being
exposed to, we feel it is safe for all residents east of Electrobotics
because it isn't in the air or drinking water. For residents to the
west of Electrobotics, DNC is only present in the air, but in such
small quantities that exposure will only be a health concern if it
is not reduced in the next several years. We are proposing to
reduce and minimize the exposures to DNC by permanently
capping the source of the DNC to eliminate its presence in the
air, and cleaning up the contaminated soil to a safe level. (In this
case there will be a finite but small concentration of DNC
remaining in the drinking water, but it will be at a level which is
between 10"^ to 10~6 risk which we, as Agency personnel, have
established in the regulatory processes for various air, and water
standards as being "safe." This still may not be acceptable to
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 6
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
some people, and understandably so, especially if they hadn't
been involved in the decision making process. Similarly, it
may not be acceptable to you because the risk is not zero, and a
residual risk remains.) (CR 3, 4)
A. We believe it is safe for you and your kids to drink the water and
breath the air. There is no DNC in the drinking water, but we
feel there will be in the future if a leak from the company's
holding pond is not controlled. There is some DNC
contamination in the air and this will become a dangerous
situation if it is not controlled and people are exposed to it over
their entire life. (CR 3, 4)
A. Poor Response: The life time risk of getting cancer based on the
current level of DNC in the air is 10"^. Based on that estimate,
we feel that we should reduce the risk to a level of 10'6. (What's
probably not needed here is more jargon.)
6. Q. Are there any safe levels for a carcinogen? (Class A, B, or C
carcinogens)
A. EPA has identified some chemicals as (A) known, (B) probable
or (C) possible human carcinogens based primarily on human
data (A), and on animal studies (B and C). If we believe it to be a
carcinogen, we assume that all levels of exposure will have
some level of cancer risk. The smaller the exposure, the smaller
the risk. We generally describe these risks in terms of
probability. If in asking your question, you want to know if there
are levels of exposure that are free from risk, the answer is no.
If, on the other hand, you are asking whether certain levels of
chemical exposure are too small to be of a health concern, then
the answer is yes. Our goal is to reduce the level of exposure to a
safe level where it will be safe to drink the water and breath the
air. (Remember that a safe level does not necessarily mean zero
risk. It could mean for example that 1(H or 10'5 risk is a safe
level. There are many reasons why zero risk may not be
feasible, but one must also remember that 10~4 or 10'5 are
upperbound or maximum risks. This means that the actual
probability may be much lower and might even be zero because
of all the health protective assumptions that are used.) (CR 3, 4)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 7
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
7. Q. Would you drink our water? What about breathing our air?
Underlying Public Need: Again, the public would like to know how
this affects their family and if we are sincere about our concern for
them.
A. Yes, I would drink the water because it is not contaminated, and
I am here breathing the air because it is such a low risk that it
isn't a health problem. I understand that some may feel that any
concentration of PNC in the air is unsafe. If you feel that way, I
would recommend that you consult with your doctor or do what
you feel will make you more comfortable. However, we feel
there is no immediate hazard, and we can clean up the situation
so that there will be no long term health concern. (If there was
an immediate health hazard, an emergency response action
would be ordered, or bottled water could be offered or
recommended if the drinking water was contaminated.)
(CR3,4,7)
A. Poor Response: That's a personal choice whether to drink the
water or not.
A. Poor Response: (Hesitates and doesn't answer.)
8. Q. How can you say it's acceptable? My family has cancer! Look at
the neighborhood and all the sickness and cancers! •
Underlying Public Need: Public wants to have some control over
determining what is acceptable, and to have it be as safe as possible.
(The phrase "acceptable risk" should not be used because it
requires a value judgement which can only be made by the
public, not solely by an agency. An agency can decide what it
considers "safe" and the public has every right to say that it isn't
acceptable.)
A. I'm hearing that you're not satisfied with our clean-up proposal,
and that you're very concerned about the cancer which the
contamination may cause. We too are concerned, and that is
why the clean-up plan that we are proposing addresses the
concern for safety. The plan will clean up the contamination to
a safe level. However, it sounds like you might be more
comfortable with a greater-than-safe level which we are
proposing. I can't make any promises, but I would be interested
in any ideas or concerns which you may have. But at this time, I
am confident that our proposal will make it safe for you and
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 • Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
provide the level of health protection which you are expecting.
A. It's unfortunate that there is so much sickness. I am concerned
and sad to hear that. Our goal is to make it as safe as possible
with your input. I believe we can develop a solution to control
the risk. (CR3,4,7)
A. Poor Response: It's acceptable because the risk is 10~6. Based on
that risk level, we don't see how those illnesses and cancers can
be attributed to DNC.
A. Poor Response: We don't know what caused the cancers.
However, you should know that 1 out of 4 of you will get cancer
in your lifetime because of everyday activities and exposures.
For example, it's more likely that you'll get cancer from eating
peanut butter or charcoal broiled steaks than it would be from
exposure to DNC. (Whether this is true or not is irrelevant
when people are upset. The people want to be involved.
They are not asking for an explanation. In this case, an
explanation belittles the public and their concerns over the site.)
9. Q. What does 1 X 10 '6 mean? What is risk?
Underlying Public Need: The public needs to know if we're trying to
"snow them" with jargon or if we're looking after their best interest.
Discussing first how the situation affects them personally, i.e., "Is it
safe?" will reach people directly and get at their needs. Then, the public
may want to have specific technical discussions about risk calculations.
Often, if the agency has done a good job addressing the "Is it safe?"
question with honesty and compassion, the agency will have
established some level of trust and credibility where the public will be
willing to focus on the IQ~6 terminology. Surprisingly, if the agency
has done its job well in establishing trust and credibility with the
public, the public's need to know about 10~6 will not be needed! Often
times agencies tend to focus on the 10~^ issues too soon with the public
without adequately addressing the real public concerns. This then
creates a diversion to argue about 10~6 and misleads the agency to
think that if only they could have explained W~6 better, it would have
not created an argument with the public. The argument was probably
over the agency not listening, and as a result some underlying public
needs were probably not met.
Assuming that this question is asked in a technical meeting,
some answers could be:
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 9
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Esgicr.9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Tvoical Questions & Sample Responses
A. Risk is the probability or chance of getting cancer. 1 x 10 "6 is
another way of saying one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer
(above the normal background cancers). In our definition, one-
in-a-million is a probability based on data and many health
protective assumptions that there may be one extra cancer case
in a population of 1 million people over a lifetime of exposure
to a chemical. The probability is an upperbound estimate and
can be thought of as a maximum probability because worst case
situations are assumed where science has no definite answers in
order to be on the safe side of protecting public health. For
example, "How is cancer caused?" is still an unanswered
scientific question. To make up for this uncertainty, and since it
is difficult to study human subjects over their lifetime, we rely
on animal studies to determine the carcinogenicity of most
chemicals. Because the one-in-a-million probability is an
upperbound or maximum probability it means that a cancer case
may not occur at all, but if it does, there is at most a one-in-a-
million likelihood for an extra cancer case above the expected
250,000 cancer cases that would normally occur in a population
of 1 million. (Remember, in the absence of sufficient data,
worst case and upperbound assumptions are used in the risk
assessment. This means that calculated risks are probably orders
of magnitude higher than they should be, but since we don't
have definite data and we are dealing with carcinogens, we want
to be protective of public health and safety.) (CR 3,4)
A. In this situation, we are talking about cancer risk. Cancer risk is
the likelihood or chance of getting cancer. When we write,
. "1 x 10~6" or say "one times ten to the minus sixth," we are using
scientific terms to say "one-in-a-million." If we were to say there
is a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk from a given level of
exposure to a chemical, we mean that each individual exposed to
that chemical at that level over his/her lifetime has a one-in-a-
million chance of getting cancer from that particular exposure.
This is similar to saying that because of that chemical we could
expect to see one additional cancer case in a population of one
million people who are all exposed under the same
circumstances. However, we say "excess cancer risk" and
"additional cancer" because we already expect to see, due to all
other causes, about 250,000 cancer cases in a population of one
million people.
You should also realize, however, that there is a great deal of
uncertainty that accompanies our risk estimates. Science has not
yet progressed far enough to explain exactly how cancer is
caused. Nor can we ever be absolutely sure of the levels of a
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 10
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Regjor.9 Revised 5-I-9I
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
chemical that are present in the environment. But in order to be
protective of public health, our risk assessments are designed to
account for the various uncertainties. In fact, where our
information is incomplete, we use assumptions that tend to
overestimate the risk in order to further insure that we are being
health protective. As a result, when we estimate that there is a
one-in-a-million risk, the actual risk has very little chance of
exceeding one-in-a-million. In actuality, one-in-a-million most
likely overestimates the actual risk, and, in fact, may be zero.
Assuming that this question was asked at a non-technical public
meeting, some answers could be:
A. IX 1(H> is an expression which scientists often use to express one
chance in a million. This in risk terms means one chance in a
million of getting cancer from being constantly exposed to a
certain level of a chemical over one's lifetime of 70 years. If that
still isn't a good enough explanation, let me explain it another
way and hopefully, this will be more helpful: DNC is a
dangerous chemical because we have reasons to believe that it
may cause cancer. Currently, there is no danger to you if you
drink the water because it isn't contaminated. The air is
contaminated with DNC, but in such small levels that it is safe
in the short-term provided we further reduce the contamination
to a lower level where it will be also safe in the long-term. I'm
sorry if this sounded confusing because on the one hand we're
saying it's safe in the short term, but on the other hand we're
proposing to clean it up which will make it safe in the long term.
If this is still confusing, let me use an analogy which may make
this a little dearer. Some of you may say that my example is
ridiculous because it will never happen, and you're right, but for
a lack of a better example, allow me to try this one just to see if it
gives you at least a better feel for what we have been talking
about:
Imagine that there's a pallet of cement weighing 900 Ibs
suspended over your house. The pallet is being held by a cable
which is rated at 1000 Ibs. You are safe because the cable hasn't
snapped and it isn't likely to. You may feel safe for a long time
if the pallet remains overhead because the cable can probably
support 2000 Ibs. There is usually a safety factor built into
the strength rating; however, you and your family may feel very
nervous because you don't normally have a pallet of cement
hanging over your home and there may be some risk that the
cable will break. Because you're concerned about your family's
well being, you'd probably like to get rid of it completely but let's
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 11
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
assume that it would be too difficult or unaffordable. Then
you'll probably try to do something like reinforce the cable or
reduce the load so that you increase your confidence that your
family won't get hurt. This is an unlikely example, but as an
illustration, it may be useful. It is similar to our situation with
DNC in the air. In that situation, the the weight of the cement
or DNC contamination is closer to 500 Ibs and our dean up plan
calls for the cement or DNC to be reduced to less than 5 Ib. Even
with 500 Ibs of cement there is still some small chance that the
cable might break, and reducing the weight to less than 5 Ib
would greatly reduce that chance. In other words, for our
situation around the Electrobotics Plant, we think it is presently
safe, but we would feel much more confident about everyone's
safety over the long term, if we could make it safer by further
reducing the contamination of DNC. That is what we are trying
to do. Even though this example doesn't give you a precise
answer to what 10~6 is, I hope it gives you a better idea of how
small 10'6 risk is, and why we are proposing these actions.
(CR3,4,7)
As in any response, this one may not be satisfying to everyone,
and you may need to be prepared to offer other examples to be
more helpful. For example:
A. It looks like that analogy wasn't too good for everyone. Maybe
some of you now have some more specific questions that could
help me to explain this better, or maybe I could meet with those
of you who would like to discuss it further after this meeting.
If you want, I could give you another example?
Other examples: A 10~6 risk level is equal to the risk level
associated with EPA's drinking water standard for TCE, a
probable human carcinogen; or 100 times more stringent than
EPA's drinking water standard for vinyl chloride, another cancer
causing chemical; or 10 times more stringent that EPA's air
standard for benzene, also a carcinogen.
A. Poor Response: It's almost like getting four-of-a-kind in a
poker game. (If people are expressing doubt or confusion about
the terms, and you proceed to explain the terms with more
unfamiliar or technical terms instead of looking for a more
relatable explanation or example, it will be non-productive and
create outrage.)
OfHce of the Senior Science Advisor page 12
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
10. Q. Am I the one-in-a-million? Why isn't it zero?
Underlying Public Need: The public is concerned about how they will
be affected personally, but now is also indicating they might be
interested in being a part of the risk management process to decide on
"acceptable" risk.
A. We sincerely doubt if you will get cancer from DNC because
we've used several worst case exposure scenarios to be on the
safe side in arriving at this figure. For example, we've assumed
a maximum exposure to DNC of 24 hours/day, 365 days/year for
the next 70 years. If this describes your current situation, you
may have at most a one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer
from DNC. Conversely, under those extreme exposures you
have at least a 999,999 in-a-million chance of not getting cancer
from DNC. In your case, I would guess that you will not
constantly be exposed to DNC for all of your life, and thus your
chance of getting cancer from DNC is much less than one-in-a-
million, and for all practical purposes is zero. After the clean-up,
we will be able to say that your chances of getting cancer from
DNC is as likely as getting cancer from drinking bottled water all
of your life. (CR3,4, 7)
A. Poor Response: Chances are you will not be the one-in-a-
million to get cancer from being exposed to DNC. You're more
likely to get cancer from eating peanut butter and charcoal
broiled steaks which also contain carcinogens.
11. Q. What does 1 ppb mean; lug/1; Iug/m3?
(The context of this question is that we've been using 1 ppm in
all our previous discussions and now we've introduced 1 ppb.
This is a technical question requiring a technical answer which
should be given in terms that are familiar to the audience. The
second response provided below can also be used to clarify "ppb"
when it is introduced in a public discussion.)
For example,
A. I'm sorry if we've confused things by switching from.l ppm to
1 ppb concentration. Here's one way to explain it:
1 ppm is 1000 ppb, or
1 ppb is a 1000 times smaller than 1 ppm
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 13
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
Another way to visualize 1 ppm is that is it is 1/1,000,000, and
this would make 1 ppb 1/1,000,000,000. (Write the numbers on a
flip chart to help illustrate your points.)
Even though these may be small numbers or small
concentrations, a small concentration of a certain toxic chemical
may still hurt you. Whether it can hurt you depends on the
chemical, how much and how long you're exposed to it.
A. 1 ppb is a term for expressing concentration. 1 ppb is similar to
one drop of water in an Olympic size swimming pool, 1 second
in 32 years, or 1 item out of a billion of those items. I hope these
examples are of some help. (CR 4, 7)
Does that clear up the confusion? (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: (Answering with technical terms or jargon
similar to the previous response when the question was actually
a non-technical question is a poor response because it doesn't
address the real needs of the audience.)
12. Q. What does RCRA mean?
A. See Answers to Question #11. (Avoid jargon and explain terms
early in your presentation. Referring to "RCRA" as the "law" or
the "regulations" may also be sufficient and won't sound so
jargony once people are familiar with your term.) (CR 7)
13. Q. How can you trust the company?
Underlying Public Need: The public needs to know that our primary
concern is for their health and well being.
A. We don't take the company's data on face value. We critically
review the data and the process by which it was derived to
ensure its credibility. If we had any doubts, we would get
additional, more reliable data. Our goal is to protect your health
by ensuring that we have the most reliable data from which to
base our decisions. Unfortunately, because we have a limited
budget and there are more problems than we can address, we
must rely on company data and do our best to ensure its quality.
(CR3,4)
A. Poor Response: Why do you think we trust the company?
(Defensive, and does not answer the question.)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 14
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Regions Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
Q. Why did the company have to tell you? Why didn't you spot
the problem and why did it take so long?
14.
Underlying Public Need: The public probably needs to vent their
frustration about the situation, and to feel that we have been and are
currently doing everything that we can. They may need an honest
apology from the agency for any delays, and to know more
periodically that progress is being made.
A. You would have wanted us to have known about the problem
earlier. We wish we could have also. Unfortunately, we operate
under limitations. (As some examples: We didn't have any
authority in this matter until recently when the regulations
came into affect; Nobody knew DNC was a carcinogen until
recently when the cancer data was published; and, We have
limited resources to deal with these problems.) However, we
are taking actions to solve the problem, and here's what we are
doing to protect your health: (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: We're doing the best we can, and I would
appreciate it if you could be patient and try to understand that we
are doing our best.
15. Q. What does 0.07 deaths mean? How can you have a partial
death?
Underlying Public Need: The public is confused by the information
and would like clarification so that they can better understand it.
(A suggestion here is to revise the presentation and increase
the population size even if it is larger than the real population
to make 0.07 be a whole number. For example, 7 out of 100
million would be less confusing.)
A. I apologize for our poor example. Another way that may help to
explain what we mean is to say that out of a population of 100
million people who might be exposed to this chemical, we might
expect that no more that 7 cancer would result in a lifetime. So
for a population of 100,000, it would be unlikely that there would
be any cancers attributed to exposures to this chemical. Does that
explain it better? (CR3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: I'm not sure. (Even though this may be an
honest response, it is embarrassing that such a basic question
could not have been answered; this hurts credibility. The public
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 15
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 5-i-Si
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
would have expected an agency representative to have answered
this question.)
A. Poor Response: Of the 100,000 people that would be exposed, a
maximum of 0.07 deaths might result.
16. Q. What do you mean you don't know?
Underlying Public Need: The public probably needs to vent their
frustration and concerns, and may also need a genuine apology from
agency officials. IMPORTANT RULE: If you don't know, you should
be open, honest, and frank and say so. You may have to repeat this
several times, but never guess or make up an answer because you feel
pressured; this is a sure way of losing any trust and credibility you may
have established.
A. I'm sorry I don't have the answer today. Would it be O.K. if I
called you next week after I've done some checking to see if I can
get the answer for you. May I get your phone number after this
meeting? (CR3,4,7)
A. You sound very disappointed, but I'm sorry, science just doesn't
have all of the answers for us. (CR 3, 4, 7)
A. Poor Response: We don't know, and you can't expect me to
know everything. (A rational response in this case fuels more
anger when all people probably needed was to vent; any sarcasm
added to the rational response just makes it even worse.)
17. Q. If we can't get action from EPA on maintaining the value of our
property, who can we go to?
Underlying Public Concern: The public is no longer just outraged, but
it is now ready to consider solving the problem. They also realize that
EPA can't do all they had initially expected.
A. I share your concerns about the value of your property. We are
trying to protect your health and in doing so, we may have to
consider some remedies that may not make you happy but will
protect your health. Our goal is to find a remedy that will protect
your health and not affect your property values; but our primary
concern is with your health. Your ideas and input will help us
make the best decision. I encourage you to comment on the
options that we will be considering, and I hope that in doing so
we can correct this problem to your satisfaction. (CR 3,4, 7)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 16
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Kegion9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
A. Even though we can't do anything directly about your property
values, here are some suggestions: which
may be helpful. Are there other ideas that someone else would
care to offer? (CR1,3,4,7)
A. Poor Response: We have been working hard to solve the
hazardous waste problems. Right now I'm working on 5 other
NPL sites and your site is getting most of my attention. We
don't have legal authority to address your property value
concerns. (We're not listening to people's needs and reacting
naturally, and inappropriately being defensive; this tends to
create a negative perception that we're unwilling to consider or
consult with other credible sources when it is needed.)
18. Q. I've been working here for 15 years and I'm fine. How can you
say there's a problem?
Underlying Public Need: The public needs to know how credible we
and our science are. This may represent some denial of the
individual risk at hand.
A. Sir. I'm very happy that you are fine, and I hope you remain
that way. Unfortunately, I can't make that assumption about
everyone else because some of your fellow residents may not be
as healthy as-you, and I must be cautious to ensure that
everyone's health is being protected.
In saying that DNC is a probable carcinogen and that it has
contaminated the air, we are not trying to create more of a
problem. Unfortunately, science doesn't have all the answers
that you and I would like, but we have to deal with that. In
dealing with this, we use many health protective assumptions
to make up for the uncertainties that remain in science. In our
deliberation and examination of the health effects information
related to DNC, we believe that it is a carcinogen which should
be treated seriously. We do this to ensure that you and your
family do not suffer from any future health problems. Because
of the uncertainty in science about the causes of cancer, your
statement of good health doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, I
cannot say with your degree of confidence that DNC is safe; the
health data says we should treat DNC contamination with
caution. Our goal is to ensure that you, your family and
everyone in your community can say with your degree of
confidence that the DNC exposure is so small that it doesn't
pose a danger. (CR 3,4, 7)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 17
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
A. Poor Response: Your case is an exception. Our animal studies
combined with our use of health protective assumptions in the
risk assessment indicate that there is a cancer risk which may not
be seen for another 20-30 years. (Even though you understand
risk assessment, being argumentative and not acknowledging
people's views can create obstacles in future communications.
In this case, it creates unnecessary or false concerns.)
19. Q. One of our very close friends who lived near the hazardous
waste site just died from cancer. (Person breaks down in tears.)
How long are you bureaucrats going to take before we see some
action? How many more people must die? We're taxpayers and
we pay your salaries! I'm totally frustrated and angered by the
amount of pressure we need to put on your office who we pay
before we can get any action. What do you have to say for
yourself? I want to hear! (Person breaks out into tears.)
Underlying Individual Need: The individual is very upset about the
loss of a dear friend, and is probably needing, most of all, some place
to vent their legitimate emotions, and perhaps to get some
compassionate response.
A. Silence. (No response is needed or expected. One can satisfy the
person's need for compassion by genuinely listening with
empathy until the person stops. While listening, you may hear
and decide that people may want to know more frequently what
is being done, and what the schedule for future action is.
Providing that information later may give people a better idea
that things are being done and when they can expect them to be
completed. Often times, not regularly presenting that
information, will give people a false impression that nothing or
very little is being done.) (Principle: Listen with compassion.)
(CR3)
One listens and allows the individual to vent emotions, and
empathically responds:
A. I'm sorry for your loss. If you would like, we could discuss this
some more after the meeting. (Principle: Listen and respond
with compassion.) (CR 3, 4, 7)
One listens and allows the individual to vent emotions, and
empathically responds:
A. This is an especially sad and difficult time for you. I'm so sorry
for your loss. (CR3,4,7)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor Page 18
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
A. One just keeps quiet. (Because you were surprised by the
emotional outburst, and may not know what to say, being quiet
is the next best thing to do, given that no response was expected.
Being quiet may also be hard to do because one may feel that a
response was expected. Most of the time, all a grieving person
wants is just a chance to vent their emotions and to share their
grief.) (CR3,4,7)
A. Poor Response: (Interrupts the individual and gets somewhat
defensive.)
We're doing the best we can. Why, last week we finished the
proposed permit, report or RI/FS, and by next month we should
be making a decision. Please be patient with us.
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry your friend died, but all of you should
know that 1 out 4 of you will get cancer in your lifetime anyway
from normal daily activities. Specifically, for the hazardous
waste site, the added lifetime risk of getting cancer is only 1 in
10,000. Since there are 5,900 people in this community, we
would not statistically expect to see any excess cancers in such a
small population.
A. Poor Response: I'm sorry your friend died, but it probably
wasn't because of the hazardous waste site because it's only been
there for 5 years and it normally takes 15 years or longer for
someone to develop cancer. We are doing everything we can.
A. Poor Response: Your friend's death is unfortunate, but you
shouldn't be blaming us or the hazardous waste site because we
had nothing to do with it.
20. Q. You don't have to live in our neighborhood! You don't have to
deal with the stigma associated with this hazardous waste site!
I've got my life savings tied up in my home! Would you live
here? Would you buy my home?
Underlying Individual Need: This person is very concerned about
their property losing some of its value, and would like to know if the
Agency is doing everything possible to ensure that property values will
be protected, i.e., Are you, as the Agency representative, doing as much
for the neighborhood as you would if you were a resident?
A. Sir, it sounds like you'd like to know if I would buy a home
here, but I think your real question or concern is about the type
of clean up we will be doing to ensure that your property values
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 19
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 " " Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
are not affected, and that are we doing everything we possibly
can. Would answering that question be more helpful?
(CR 1,3,4,7)
Option 1. If so, here's what we are doing: I would
like to stress that our goal is to ensure that your environment is
safe to live in. In other words, to ensure that the air you breath,
the soil that your children play in, and the water that you drink
are safe. We wouldn't like your property values to decline, and
returning your environment to a healthful state or preventing it
from being unsafe is our responsibility, and this is what we can
offer to help protect your property values. As you know, there
are other factors which also affect property values such as public
perception which unfortunately neither you or we have any
control over.
Option 2. If not, I don't know if I can really answer your
question about whether I would buy a house here because like
other major investments there's many things to consider such
as schools, employment, environment, etc., before I could make
such a decision. I know that if I were living here or if I had to
buy a home here, I would at a minimum want the environment
to be safe, and that is the goal of our Agency: to ensure that your
environment is safe.
A. This whole situation has not been an easy or pleasant one for
you, and we're also very concerned. As to whether I would live
or buy a home here, that's usually a very complex question for
most situations. But if my only considerations for making a
decision were whether the air was safe to breath or the water safe
to drink, I would say yes because our Agency's goal is to ensure
that it is. As you know, there are other important and personal
considerations such as cost, neighborhood, quality of schools,
mortgage rates, etc., which most of us take into account before
deciding on the purchase of a home. (CR 1,3,4,7)
A. Poor Response: Personally, I wouldn't live here. That's off the
record, of course.
A. Poor Response: (You appear to be caught off guard and seem to
be searching for an answer but can't give one, or are afraid to.
This may give the community a false impression that you
wouldn't ever buy a home here because the clean-up will not be
effective.)
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 20
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
-------
Public Meeting: Typical Questions & Sample Responses
A. Poor Response: Property values are beyond our control and not
our responsibility. I'm sorry we cannot help you.
21. Q. I am considering buying some property here. Given all that has
happened, would you buy or recommend buying property here
now or in the future?
Underlying Individual Need: This person is concerned about
investing his money here, and would like to know if that would be a
wise thing to do.
A. Property investments are important transactions requiring
careful consideration. I can appreciate your concern. Property
investments are also very personal choices. Where I may be
willing to invest my money may be very different from where
you or someone else might be willing to invest their's. For me
to tell you how you should spend your money would probably
not be very helpful because I'm not very knowledgeable in that
area, nor do I know what criteria you consider important. What
I think would be more helpful would be to give you all the
information about the hazardous waste problem that we have so
that you or another potential buyer or seller can make the most
informed choice possible. (CR 1,3,4,7)
A. Poor Response: Sorry, but we don't make those types of
recommendations. (Even though this is true, it does not address
the individual's underlying need, and may give the impression
that you wouldn't recommend buying property here. In the
preceding answer, the response was not only honest, but it also
offered information that was helpful.)
• Reminder Note: Underlined answers are examples of "active listening."
Office of the Senior Science Advisor page 21
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9 Revised 8-1-91
------- |