IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i2p177-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Customer Perceptions of Agency Risk Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Ann Fisher
  • Ya‐Chin Chen

Abstract

A government agency commissioned a baseline study of how its customers view the agency's risk information. The 70% response rate to a mail survey allows analysis by subgroups representing customers’primary interests. Although this agency traditionally has been responsible for ensuring plant and animal health at the farm gate (or where imported), responses emphasized emerging customer concerns about the environment and human health. Customers think many risk communication activities are important, but that the agency is not especially effective in conducting those activities. Customers are moderately satisfied with much of the risk information they receive, although many have little contact from or interaction with the agency. Customers identified other sources they use, which suggest potentially effective channels for this agency's risk messages. The study provides a baseline for measuring change in the agency's risk communication effectiveness. It also can be a model when other organizations plan their own risk communication evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann Fisher & Ya‐Chin Chen, 1996. "Customer Perceptions of Agency Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 177-184, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:177-184
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01447.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01447.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01447.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. Ann Fisher & Atsushi Chitose & Philip S. Gipson, 1994. "One Agency's Use of Risk Assessment and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 207-212, April.
    2. Sheila Jasanoff, 1993. "Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 123-129, April.
    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. Elisa Morgera, 2015. "Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Emmanuel Somers, 1995. "Perspectives on Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 677-684, December.
    3. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    4. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    5. Arnold Tukker, 2002. "Risk Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment—The Common Challenge of Dealing with the Precautionary Frame (Based on the Toxicity Controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 821-832, October.
    6. Joanna Burger & Robert A. Kennamer & I. Lehr Brisbin & Michael Gochfeld, 1998. "A Risk Assessment for Consumers of Mourning Doves," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 563-573, October.
    7. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    8. Aimee Guglielmo Kinney & Thomas M. Leschine, 2002. "A Procedural Evaluation of an Analytic‐Deliberative Process: The Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 83-100, February.
    9. Bill Durodié, 2003. "The True Cost of Precautionary Chemicals Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 389-398, April.
    10. Branden B. Johnson & Caron Chess, 2006. "From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1395-1407, October.
    11. Robert P. Anex & Will Focht, 2002. "Public Participation in Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment: A Shared Need," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 861-877, October.
    12. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2018. "A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-18.
    13. George E. Apostolakis & Susan E. Pickett, 1998. "Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 621-634, October.
    14. Matthew S. VanDyke & Andy J. King, 2018. "Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1378-1389, July.
    15. Peter Neuteboom, 2003. "A European comparison of the costs and risks of mortgages for owner-occupiers," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 155-171.
    16. Kenneth Pettersen Gould, 2021. "Organizational Risk: “Muddling Through” 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 456-465, March.
    17. John Downer & M. V. Ramana, 2021. "Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1304-1325, October.
    18. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    19. Helene Hermansson, 2012. "Defending the Conception of “Objective Risk”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 16-24, January.
    20. Eliana Fischer & Alessio Emanuele Biondo & Annalisa Greco & Francesco Martinico & Alessandro Pluchino & Andrea Rapisarda, 2022. "Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, July.

    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:16:y:1996:i:2:p:177-184. 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.