Session 5 Communicating Risk

1
Session 5Communicating Risk

• Ute J. Dymon, Professor
• Nancy L. Winter, PhD
• Kent State University

2
PURPOSE OF A RISK ASSESSMENT

• The major aim of risk assessment is
• To quantify a risk through its probability of
  occurrence and consequences in order to help
  manage it.

3
DEFINITION OF RISK ASSESSMENT

• A scientific process of evaluating theadverse
  effects caused by a substance, activity,
  lifestyle, or natural phenomenon

4
UNAVOIDABLE UNCERTAINTY

• With uncertainty unavoidable, theimplication is
  that a statement of risk is not necessarily a
  statement of absolute fact.

5
DEFINITION OF RISK PERCEPTION

• Humans perceive risk as the degree of imminent
  danger they feel they are in.
• Risk Perception
• is the study of the bases for these human
  insights.

6
DEFINITION OF RISK COMMUNICATION

• Risk Communication
• is the process of developing and delivering a
  message from the risk expert to the general
  public.
• (Cutter 1993)
• Or in the words of Ortwin Renn "an intentional
  transfer of information."

7
QUANTITAVE DEFINITION OF RISK

• RISK P x C
• RISK PROBABILITY times CONSEQUENCE

8
RATING A RISK

• HIGH PROBABILITY (Common occurrence)
• LOW CONSEQUENCE (with few serious outcomes or
  consequences)
• Example A hiker stumbles slightly while walking
  a wooded trail.
• LOW PROBABILITY (rare happening)
• HIGH CONSEQUENCE (with very serious outcomes or
  consequences)
• Example A large tree falls and crushes a hiker
  walking a wooded trail.

9
DEFINITION OF A HAZARD

• Threats to humans and what they value
  (Kates,1985).

10
WHAT MAKES A TRUE RISK MAP?

• A. Mathematical calculation of the risk
• B. A method for depicting the calculated range
  of probabilities of the risk
• C. Legend with range of probabilities shown as
  calculated numbers ranging from zero to one.
• D. View Interactive Earthquake Probability Maps
  at http//equint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/cgi-bin/eqprob.cg
  i
• True risk maps are rare. In most cases the range
  of probabilities is shown with coarse rankings
  such as high, medium and low.

11
NATURAL HAZARDS SUMMARY RISK AREA
http//www.csc.noaa.gov/rvat/hazid.html
12
COMPARING RISK TO VULNERABILITY

• RISK is usually tied to a factual event or
  condition.
• VULNERABILITY often pertains to a system such as
  power supply.

13
HAZARD ANALYSIS

• Locate, gather and process data
• Assign scores to risk areas with higher rankings
  indicating higher risk
• Identify high-risk locations by finding areas
  with the highest scores
• Focus your vulnerability assessment on
  areasand/or structures located in the highest
  risk locations.

14
"PUBLICS"

• For convenience we refer to the citizenry as the
  "public" or the "general public".
• However, in real life there are many different
  groupings that could be called "publics".
• In risk communication there are many different
  audiences or "publics" to consider when shaping a
  message ..
• Victims
• public officials
• the elderly
• the media
• etc.

15
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING RISK PERCEPTION

• OUTRAGE the level of public anger and fear
  about an environmental risk issue.
• OUTRAGE FACTORS are those characteristics of a
  risk situation which cause,
• Fear
• Anger
• Defensiveness
• Frustration
• OUTRAGE, or these emotional responses to risk
  news, play a bigger role in public reaction than
  the scientific information.

16
TEN OUTRAGE FACTORS

• People have an emotional response when they
  perceive a risk to be
• INVOLUNTARY
• INCONTROLLABLE
• IMMORAL
• UNFAMILIAR
• DREADFUL
• UNCERTAIN
• CATASTROPHIC
• MEMORABLE
• UNFAIR
• UNTRUSTWORTHY

17
TEN OUTRAGE FACTORS

• INVOLUNTARY - People don't like to be forced to
  face a risk such as trace chemicals in tap water,
  
• BUT...they will VOLUNTARILY take risks such as
  drinking diet soda.
• UNCONTROLLABLE - People feel helpless to change
  the situation when someone else such as
  government or industry has the power to prevent a
  risk,
• BUT...citizens find a risk more acceptable if
  THEY can prevent or reduce it, such as using
  household chemicals properly.

18
TEN OUTRAGE FACTORS (continued)

• IMMORAL - Pollution is seen as an evil,
• THEREFORE...people find it unethical for
  government and industries to claim that a risk is
  acceptable based on cost-benefit analysis or
  because there is "only" a low incidence of harm.
• UNFAMILIAR - An industrial process making a
  strange chemical is a much less acceptable risk
  than something more everyday, such as driving a
  car or eating junk food.

19
TEN OUTRAGE FACTORS (continued)

• DREAD - A risk that could cause a much-feared or
  dread disease (such as most cancers) is felt as
  more dangerous than a risk that could cause a
  less-feared disease.
• UNCERTAIN - People become uneasy when scientist
  are not certain about the risk posed by
• a hazard
• its exact effect
• its severity
• its prevalence.

20
TEN OUTRAGE FACTORS (continued)

• CATASTROPHIC - A risk resulting in a large-scale
  disastrous event (plane crash, nuclear plant
  meltdown) is more dreaded than a risk affecting
  single individuals (auto crashes, radon).
  
• MEMORABLE - If a potential risk is similar to a
  hazardous event imbedded in everyone's memory,
  such as Three Mile Island, Bhopal or the
  Southeast Asian Tsunami of 2005, it is perceived
  as much more dangerous than the risk of some
  unheard-of or little-known disease.

21
TEN OUTRAGE FACTORS (continued)

• UNFAIR - People are outraged if they feel they
  are being wrongfully exposed to a risk, such as..
• being exposed to a risk that a neighboring
  community or people in a different economic
  bracket are not being exposed to
• being exposed to a risk with no benefit from it,
  e.g., living next to a nuclear waste dump but
  getting no electricity from nuclear power.
• In contrast, people will risk being exposed to
  medical X-rays because they perceive a benefit
  that outweighs the risk.
• UNTRUSTWORTHY - People are outraged if they have
  no confidence in the industry or government that
  is the source of a risk.
• They will accept risks from what they view as a
  reliable risk source, such as a doctor.

22
VALID EMOTIONAL REACTIONS vs. A TECHNICALLY
BASED VALUE SYSTEM

• Conflicts around risk issues result from groups
  with vastly different values opposing each other.
• Emotional responses to risk are based on
  psychologically valid factors.
• When humans become aware of a threat they
  naturally
• fear the unknown
• want to keep control
• protect home and family
• are alienated by their dependence on others
  (government, industry officials)
• protect their belief in a just world.
• Technically trained officials trust scientific
  analysis, engineering solutions and contingency
  plans and believe that experts know best.

23
MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS

• The valid psychological emotional needs of people
  are often ignored or condemned by those with
  technical training.
• Outrage factors must be recognized and met by
  those trying to communicate scientific facts
  about a risk before a mutually acceptable
  solution to a risk problem can be found.

24
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNICATING RISKS WITH MAPPING

• SIMPLICITY
• know your audience
• choose appropriate vocabulary
• TRANSPARENCY
• explain uncertainties in data
• CLARITY
• keep map uncluttered
• dont do too much with one map

25
ROLES OF MAPS AND MODELS IN RISK COMMUNICATION

• The broad roles maps and models can play in risk
  communication
• Hazard maps
• locate threats
• Risk maps
• depict the range of probabilities in the
  occurrence of a hazardous event.
• Models
• reveal paths and processes in nature and in
  hazard management.
• Visualization
• offers exploration of the data available on a
  given hazard

26
HUMANS OPERATE BY MENTAL MODELS

• Mental models are diagrams and maps people have
  stored in their heads from their past experiences
  and from learning how the world works.

27
LOCATION

• is a key concept in the perception of risk.

28
ABUNDANT MAPPING THAT ANSWERS

• Where is it?
• What do we know about it?
• What might happen if we did nothing?
• What are we doing?
• What should you (local officials, the public,
  newspaper readers) do?

29
http//www.husdal.com/gis/images/CatMapUS_8inch.gi
f
30
VISUALIZATION

• A tool for
• Searching through enormous volumes of data.
• Analysis to find hidden relationships.
• Communicating complex patterns.
• Providing a formal framework for data
  presentation.

31
VISUALIZATION IN PRACTICE TODAY

• Geospatial data such as vector and raster maps
  are being used to generate new cartographic
  products for visualization over the Internet.
• Digital elevation models (DEMs), orthomosaics and
  3D animations are replacing traditional
  techniques for the display of geospatial
  information and geographical phenomena.
• Compelling presentations of rendered landscapes
  with animated fly-throughs are powerful tools for
  decision-making in fields such as hazard
  identification, environmental protection, safety
  and security, and natural resource management.
• Cartographic Visualization on the Internet can
  the found on the website
• http//maps.nrcan.gc.ca/visualization/results/terr
  ain_visual.html

32
MODEL OF STEPS IN VISUALIZATION MIRROR THE GOALS
OF MAP USE
33
RISK ASSESSMENT MAPS
34
http//www.husdal.com/gis/images/p2.gif
35
VOLCANIC HAZARD MAPS http//eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/ht
ml/map_graphic.html
36
Maps of West Nile Virus Risk

• http//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage
  s/images.php3?img_id10784