Risk Communication for Resilient Communities
 
Core Principles
 
Core Principle #1: Risk communication is an iterative and interactive process.
 
Traditionally, technical communication is concerned with the dissemination of information
from the top down rather than across communities. In this model, risk messages are handed down from "experts" who control the message - revising it in response to feedback from the audience. While abundant scholarship exists on the complex feedback loops that are often part
of the processes of technical communication, very little exists on the ways in which
communities communicate their perceptions of risk back to technical experts (among which emergency managers, as technical experts in risk mitigation and program management, are counted). The traditional view that the success or failure of risk communication programs is directly related to the influence of "feedback loops" on the composition and revision of risk messages no longer holds in relation to resilient communities. An approach to risk communication in resilient communities should more fully integrate community stakeholders in the iterative process of risk communication. We should chose integration over hierarchy, "flattening" this process and viewing the expert knowledge and discourses of all participants as symmetrical. Instead of delivering messages about risk and waiting for specific feedback from the community, the focus should be on risk communication as a continually iterative process,
one that synthesizes a common picture of risks across the entire community.
 
Like it or not, the so-called "flattening" of asymmetric, hierarchical systems of communication has already begin to occur within organizations who can leverage technological infrastructure
as a force multiplier (Fukuyama 1997). Communities themselves have found that social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook afford them similar, if not even greater leverage. A
2010 study commissioned by the American Red Cross found that 74% of respondents expect response agencies to respond to calls for help transmitted via SMS and 69% "said that emergency responders should be actively monitoring social media sites in order to quickly
send help."
 
Increasingly, networked social media sites have flattened risk communication hierarchies to the point where the very concept of "feedback" has become anachronistic. An iterative, two-way, community-oriented risk communication process affords communicators at all levels the ability to much more rapidly acquire a sense of how their information is received by audiences,
parsed, and passed along. This holds for both subject matter experts in emergency management as well as community members who have their "boots on the ground" (Cvetkovich, et al. 2002).
 
If we consider risk communicators to be subject matter experts in some rarified field, then community members share a similarly rarified knowledge about risk perception on a
community-level. Respecting the innate expert knowledge of each domain is critical to maintaining the interactive character of the risk communication process. Meaningful risk communication projects benefit from the audience analysis afforded by an awareness of community factors as much as they benefit from accurate, timely information dissemination by technical experts.
 
Core Principle #2: Risk communication does not occur in a vacuum.
 
Effective risk communication relies heavily on this very concept, especially when there is marked distrust within the community for the risk communicator or the organization from which messages originate (Cvetkovich and Winter 2001; Cvetkovich, et al. 2002; Morgan, et al.
2002). Risk messages are contextualized by the messages that precede them, whether those messages originate from emergency management agencies or from within the community. This has been noted as a significant impediment to the evacuation of hurricane-prone areas such as the US Gulf coast (Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned 2006). A rash of warnings about potential risks that never arrive make people less likely to heed future warnings unless those warnings somehow correspond to the current concerns of the community and its analysis of risks.
 
Additionally, risk communication programs must take into account the way that risk messages inform, shape, or otherwise affect the ability of all stakeholders to share, contribute to, and
make use of a situationally-aware common operating picture. Risk messages that emerge from the community should contribute equally to the common operating picture because of both their immediacy (in the sense of time) and their ability to inform future communications.
 
Communities must be prepared to accept risk communication messages. There needs to be a fundamental level of "risk literacy" that is established in advance of attempts to communicate risk. Community members must be able to understand risk communication messages and the contexts in which they are presented before they can make informed decisions about how to respond.
 
Core Principle #3: Risk communication depends heavily on infrastructure.
 
In many cases, purposeful or collateral disruption of risk messages themselves and/or the infrastructural systems across which they are transmitted are real concerns. Risk
communicators must understand the infrastructural affordances and constraints that affect
their messages. Risk messages must be focused enough that they reach their audiences and
affect their attitudes without being so specific as to exclude a segment of that audience. This is both a technical and a rhetorical problem. When faced with disaster, many communications systems degrade or fail completely: power is disrupted, telephone lines are damaged, community bonds are strained, families and other primary loyalty groups are dispersed, etc.
The best risk communication projects tend to repeat their core messages in a number of
different formats and venues. Multilingual communities and populations with "special needs" such as disabilities require such redundancy to ensure message throughput.
 
Core Principle #4: Risk communication is not neutral in its allegiances or assertions.
 
Risk communication messages often have a clearly persuasive component that is not meant to simply communicate information, but to contextualize and communicate that information in such a way that it informs specific actions. Audiences need to not only know that there is a threat, but they must also know about the severity of a threat, its potential impact on them, and the immediate steps that communities and individuals can take to mitigate risk. The presentation of these factors can create a common "worldview" that influences audience perceptions about risk and authority. The overt and implicit argumentative components of a risk message cannot be overlooked because community behaviors in response to disaster are often shaped by the messages that characterize the nature of the risks it poses. One of the main goals of risk communication is to influence behaviors - usually behaviors that mitigate risk - at an individual level. Since these behaviors can often mean the difference between resilience and collapse, it is important to consider the ethical components of composing and disseminating these messages. Ethical questions may include: questions about return on investment; questions about individual vs. community vs. organizational benefits; and questions about who receives messages first.
 
Core Principle #5: Risk communication messages are amplified or otherwise distorted by the time they reach their audience.
 
Risk communicators rarely communicate directly with their audiences; they communicate via intermediaries such as the news media, government officials, and community leaders. Each time a message is repeated, it tends to change in relation to the orientation and agenda of the speaker, who may not share the concerns that informed the initial message. Risk communicators must be careful to continually assess the ways audiences are responding to messages that may conflict with other messages or amplify their effects.
 
Core Principle #6: There is no one time or place or venue for risk communication; it is a process, not a product.
 
Risk communication occurs all the time and through a number of media and forums - formal training, early-intervention educational programs, public information brochures, public service announcements, etc. As such, it is an important concern within every part of the Cycle of Emergency Management. Messages that characterize each phase - preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation - co-articulate with one another and with the evolving agenda of community resilience. Each discrete product - each message, each publication, each class, each PSA - is part of the process of risk communication. The kind of deep community engagement engendered by community resilience projects should reorient us towards a view of risk communication as an iterative process. Risk communication programs should be continually updated to address current needs and, often, these updates should occur in cooperation with the community stakeholders. Such coordination allows resilient plans to be developed well before
a risk presents itself and more fully involves everyone as stakeholders in the message.
 
Risk Communication Home
 
Background
 
Knowledge Gaps
 
Bibliography