IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v14y1994i3p351-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role for Risk Communication in Closing Military Waste Sites

Author

Listed:
  • B. Jon Klauenberg
  • Erik K. Vermulen

Abstract

Lessons learned from environmental and occupational hazard risk management practices over the past 30 years have led the Department of Defense to explore alternative risk management approaches. Policies for cleanup of environmentally hazardous waste sites are undergoing examination and are being reframed. A Demonstration Risk Communication Program is described which incorporates principles that integrate risk‐based scientific information as well as community values, perceptions, and needs in a democratic process that includes the public as an active participant from the earliest stages. A strong scientific foundation for assessment and characterization of risk is viewed as necessary but not sufficient; the public's values must be actively integrated into the negotiated criteria. The Demonstration Program uses a model to prepare the participants and to guide them through the process. A five‐step process is presented: (1) create risk communications process action team including at least one member of the specific site audience; (2) professionally train participants on team dynamics including interpersonal communication skills; (3) train risk communicators to deliver a cogent presentation of the message to secure a decision acceptable to both the government and the public; (4) identify existing biases, perceptions, and values held by all participants; and (5) develop risk message incorporating science and values. The process action team approach assumes the participants enter into the effort with the goal of improved environment and safeguarded public health. The team approach avoids confrontational or adversarial interactions and focuses on a dialogue from which a negotiated team response develops. Central to the program is the recognition that communication is only effective when the dialogue is two‐way.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Jon Klauenberg & Erik K. Vermulen, 1994. "Role for Risk Communication in Closing Military Waste Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 351-356, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:14:y:1994:i:3:p:351-356
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00251.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00251.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00251.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George L. Carlo & Nora L. Lee & Kelly G. Sund & Sydney D. Pettygrove, 1992. "The Interplay of Science, Values, and Experiences Among Scientists Asked to Evaluate the Hazards of Dioxin, Radon, and Environmental Tobacco Smoke," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 37-43, March.
    2. Dennis J. Paustenbach, 1993. "Jousting with Environmental Windmills," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 13-15, February.
    3. Harry Otway & Brian Wynne, 1989. "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 141-145, June.
    4. Alice S. Whittemore, 1983. "Facts and Values in Risk Analysis for Environmental Toxicants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 23-33, March.
    5. F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1989. "Conventional Wisdom on Risk Communication and Evidence from a Field Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 209-213, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seymour J. Garte, 1990. "Communication of Relative Carcinogenic Risks: A Quantitative Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 467-468, December.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    3. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    4. Jerry V. Mitchell, 1992. "Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 19-26, March.
    5. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "Coping with Paradoxes of Risk Communication: Observations and Suggestions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 241-243, June.
    6. Bruna De Marchi, 1991. "The Seveso Directive: An Italian Pilot Study in Enabling Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 207-215, June.
    7. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld, 1991. "Fishing a Superfund Site: Dissonance and Risk Perception of Environmental Hazards by Fishermen in Puerto Rico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 269-277, June.
    8. Dominic Golding & Sheldon Krimsky & Alonzo Plough, 1992. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 27-35, March.
    9. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 485-494, August.
    10. Yu Lei & Guirong Zhang & Xiuping Liao & Wei Feng, 2023. "Information Delayering Safety Management (IDSM): A New Method of System Safety in Urgent Situations Needs to Be Established," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Ilyas Baker & Thawatchai Boonchote, 1998. "Sensitizing technical experts to public concerns about industrial hazards using theory, guided imaging and focused group discussion," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 39-45, March.
    12. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    13. Joanna Burger & Kerry Kirk Pflugh & Lynette Lurig & Leigh Ann Von Hagen & Stanley Von Hagen, 1999. "Fishing in Urban New Jersey: Ethnicity Affects Information Sources, Pe ception, and Compliance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 217-229, April.
    14. Dale B. Hattis, 1986. "The Promise of Molecular Epidemiology for Quantitative Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 181-193, June.
    15. Joseé CM. Van Eijndhoven & Rob A.P.M. Weterings & Cor W. Worrell & Joop de Boer & Joop van der Pligt & Pieter‐Jan M. Stallen, 1994. "Risk Communication in The Netherlands: The Monitored Introduction of the EC “Post‐Seveso” Directive," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 87-96, February.
    16. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    17. Harry Otway & Aniello Amendola, 1989. "Major Hazard Information Policy in the European Community: Implications for Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 505-512, December.
    18. Robert B. Cumming, 1983. "Risk Assessment and the Governmental Policy‐Making Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 1-3, March.
    19. Domian, Dale L. & Louton, David A. & Mossman, Charles E., 1998. "The rise and fall of the "Dogs of the Dow"," Financial Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 145-159.
    20. Castillo, R. & Ramos, S. & Ruiz-Garcia, J., 1997. "Brewster angle microscopy of fullerene monolayers," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 105-113.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:14:y:1994:i:3:p:351-356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.