1 Communicating Risk on individual-, system- and societal level to an entire population Stig Ole Johnsen Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway and SINTEF
2 Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Key theories and practice 3. Engaged, inclusive and proactive 4. Conclusion
3 Introduction Risk communication (i.e. communication of some risks) is the term of art used for situations when people need good information to make sound choices; Fischhoff, Brewer, Downs (2011) Safe driving and flu pandemic are examples of some situations where good information is needed.
4 Goal of risk communication Three potential goals of risk communication: Fischhoff, Brewer and Downs (2011) Share information - inform about risks Change beliefs, attitudes and understanding Change behaviour - reduce risks, when we know the best course of action
5 Level of communication Three levels of communication processes: McQuail (2000) Societal: Society-wide e.g. mass communication System: Institutional/ organizational or business firm or Intergroup or association; or local community Individual: Intrapersonal and interpersonal
6 Organizational levels and stakeholders Societal level - Government, Regulators, General public System level - Company, Supplier, Management, Group Stakeholders are those affected by the outcomes; or by the risk management options taken to counter the risk: -Industry, directly affected groups or the general public. Individual level
7 Risk communication and traffic accidents 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Adams (2005)
8 Failed process of risk communication? BP's Texas City Refinery explosion, killing 15 workers in 2005, missing proactive indicators, Baker et al (2007) The Macondo blowout in 2010 killing 11 workers, NA (2011) releasing 4.9 millions barrels of oil, (No worst case scenario training)
9 Learning from successes and failures Success Past avoidance and recovery Build future ability to avoid or reduce accidents (resilience) Failure Past accidents failed communication Explore risk governance and risk communication Past Future
10 Problems and challenges Some problems and challenges of risk communication are: Problem: Uncertainty and complexity of the risk How can we engage people in risk governance to improve knowledge and do the right actions? Problem: Non transparent decision process, risk assessment may be confidential and there is missing trust How can we include political, business, scientific and civil society players to improve knowledge and help identify the right actions? Problem: Poor anticipation, such as not exploring worst case scenarios How can we include the right stakeholders in proactive risk communication to improve anticipation? From Drottz-Sjöberg (2012)
11 Key thesis Engaged, inclusive and proactive risk communication can improve knowledge of risks and improve safety through changed behaviour Engaged: Interactive dialogue with key stakeholders Inclusive: Orchestrating individuals, system level and societal level Proactive: Problem anticipation, preoccupation with failure
12 Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Key theories and practice 3. Engaged, inclusive and proactive 4. Conclusion
13 Method 1. Literature review theory, challenges and best practice 2. Discussion with safety scientists and practitioners 3. Exploration of empirical research, cases
14 Uncertainty impacts risk Computer attack may halt oil production (2009, CISO Statoil)
15 Two key concepts Risk can be seen as the combined answer to three questions: What can go wrong? What is the likelihood of that happening? What are the consequences? From Kaplan and Garrick (1981). Risk - An expression of the impact and possibility of a mishap in terms of potential mishap severity and probability of occurrence, from Department of Defense (2000). Uncertainty Lack or incompleteness of information. Qualitative uncertainty assessment attempt to analyze and describe the degree to which a calculated value may differ from a true value; it sometimes uses probability distributions. Uncertainty depends on the quality, quantity and relevance of data and of the reliability and relevance of models and assumptions US National Research Council (2009).
16 Process of transparent risk governance Pre-Assessment Framing Risk Management Communication Tolerability & Acceptability Risk Appraisal Estimates Social concerns (Renn, 2005) Right actions Right manner
17 Practices - communicating risks Breakwell (2007), Lundgren and McMakin (2009) Focus: Communication process Mental model Other important practices: Social construction; Transparency model RISCOM; Social amplification; Crisis communication; Convergent communication; Three-challenge approach (Knowledge, process, communication); Hazard and outrage; Mental noise; Social trust; Evolutionary theory
18 Communication process A traditional simple model of communication: A source of communication that generates a message that goes through a channel to a receiver Shannon (1948). There are more complex models, such as communication human information processing (C-HIP) including: attention, comprehension, attitudes/beliefs, motivation and behaviour, Wogalter (2006). Research are exploring how changes in one component affects the others.
19 Mental model The mental models approach in risk communication comes largely from researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University, Fischhoff, Morgan, Bostrom and associates; Morgan et al. 2001. The stakeholders are identified. Stakeholders are interviewed to identify how they see the risk and the answers are used to compile a "mental model" of the risks. This model can be compared to the "expert model. The differences can be analyzed to identify gaps or inconsistencies between the two models.
20 Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Key theories and practice 3. Engaged, inclusive and proactive 4. Conclusion
21 Key thesis Engaged, inclusive and proactive risk communication can improve knowledge of risks and improve safety through changed behaviour
22 Evolution to engaged communication Risk communication has been a widely discussed framework since 1986 Plough and Krimsky (1987). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practices is described by Leiss (1996): I. Convey probabilistic thinking to the general public, to inform and educate II. III. One-way communication practice of conveying a message to the public to convince Two way communication process between public and risk managers to engage in a social learning process
23 Technical information I&II) Inform Experts Non experts Technical information III) Interactive, Engaged Experts Non experts Values, emotions, social learning
24 Engaged risk communication Engaged and interactive risk communication based on information/training, use of mental models and two way communication works - Information and training improves knowledge of risks; based on survey of 12 articles evaluating effect of information and training Lund and Aarø (2004) - The use of mental models, i.e. the intuitive model of a hazard among the stakeholders improves risk communication, learning and behaviour Breakwell (2007); Fischhoff, Brewer, Downs (2011). - Deeper two-way communication exploring culture and engaged bottom up communication can improve safety; Antonsen, Ramstad, Kongsvik (2007), (but can demand too much effort?)
25 Deeper two way communication Ref: Antonsen S., Ramstad L. and Kongsvik T., (2007) 25
26 Inclusive risk communication Inclusive risk communication orchestrated through individual, system and societal level can establish common views and change behaviour. (Orchestration is a combination of information, education/training and regulation). - Collaboration between individual stakeholders (employees), system (organizations) and societal level through mechanisms such as Working together for Safety can establish common best practices, common views and strengthen trust. - Risk communication from societal level, supported trough audits, can impact practice (as seen by audits performed by the petroleum safety authority, available on-line) - Orchestration has shown to change behaviour, and improve safety; as documented by a review of 22 cases by Lund and Aarø (2004)
27 Collaboration Working together for Safety History: Different views of safety level Low trust Foundation in Gov. White Papers Mandate: Improve Safety Strengthen trust and cooperation Some results: Common best practices: - Investigations - best practices
28 Orchestrated risk communication Societal level - Legislation, Audits System level - Goals, Strategies, Procedures Individual level - Knowledge, Awareness, Behaviour Discourse Change behaviour reduce risks
29 Discourses and processes Discourses and processes are dependent on types of risks such as simplicity, uncertainty, complexity or ambiguity, Renn (2005) Risk problems due to uncertainty: Collective reflection about balancing the possibilities for overand under-protection Actors: Policy-makers, representatives of major stakeholder groups and scientists Arena: Round tables, open space forums, negotiated rule making exercises, mixed advisory committees including scientists and stakeholders
30 Proactive risk communication Proactive risk communication should try to anticipate problems and variability - Use precursor incidents or near misses, continued measurement through leading indicators, NA (2011) - Focus on proactive indicators to be able to avoid and mitigate events, Baker et al (2007) - Early and interactive involvement with those at risks, as suggested by the National Research Council, ref, Lundgren and McMakin (2009) - Difficult to measure effect, but common indicators improves collaboration and communication among key stakeholders
31 Pressure may lead to unacceptable risk indicators should give advance warning The boundaries of acceptable safety performance Rasmussen (1997)
32 Supporting proactive focus
33 Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Key theories and practice 3. Engaged, inclusive and proactive 4. Conclusion
34 Engaged, inclusive and proactive Engaged, inclusive and proactive risk communication can improve knowledge of risks and improve safety through changed behaviour. Actors (stakeholders, policy-makers, scientists) must be involved through appropriate arenas, working open in the public sphere, communicating to the public through mass communication. Ref Renn (2005).
35 Prioritize engaged, inclusive and proactive risk communication in high risk areas The Macondo blowout in 2010 killing 11 workers, NA (2011) releasing 4.9 millions barrels of oil, (No worst case scenario training) BP's Texas City Refinery explosion, killing 15 workers in 2005, missing proactive indicators, Baker et al (2007)
36 Suggested research 1. Exploration of uncertainty and proactive risk communication. 2. Evaluate effect of engaged, interactive and proactive risk communication. 3. Evaluative research, systematic evaluation of governance of crises looking at both strengths and weaknesses.
37 Process of risk governance (Renn, 2005)
38 References Antonsen S., Ramstad L. and Kongsvik T., (2007) Unlocking the organization: Action research as a means of improving organizational safety, Safety Science Monitor, vol. 11(1). Adams, J. Presentation Norwegian Research Seminar Risk in Transportation (RISIT) 2005.09.19 Baker, J.A., Bowman, F.L., Erwin, G., Gorton, S., Hendershot, D., Leveson, N., Priest, S., Rosenthal, I, Tebo, P.V., Wiegmann, D.A., Wilson, L.D. (2007). The BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel. Breakwell GM (2007) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (2003). Introduction to risk communication. Current trends in risk communication: theory and practice. Oslo: Directorate for Civil Defence and Emergency Planning. Drottz-Sjoberg BM (2012) Tools for Risk Communication in Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. Handbook of Risk Theory, Springer DoD (2000), U.S. Department of Defense, Standard Practice for System Safety MIL-STD-882D. Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N.T, Downs, J.S. (2011) "Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide" FDA
39 References Kaplan, Stanley and B. John Garrick (1981) On The Quantitative Definition of Risk, Risk Analysis, vol. 1, pp.11-27. Leiss, W.: Three Phases in Risk Communication Practice, in: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue, H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic (eds.): Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management (Sage: Thousand Oaks 1996), 85-94. Lundgren, R. E. and A. H. McMakin (2009). Risk communication A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. New Jersey, WILEY. Lund, J. and Aarø, L. E. (2004). Accident prevention. Presentation of a model plac-ing emphasis on human, structural and cultural factors Safety Science Volume: 42, Issue: 4, Publisher: Elsevier, Pages: 271-324. McQuail D (2000) McQuail s mass communication theory,4th edn. Sage, London Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2001). Risk Communication: The Mental Models Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. NA (2011) National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council "Macondo Well-Deepwater Horizon Blowout: Lessons for Offshore Drilling Safety The National Academies Press, 2011-12-14. OECD: Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management. (OECD: Paris 2002)
40 References Plough A, Krimsky S (1987) "The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context" Science, Technology and Human Values 12(3 4):4 10 Renn, O. (2005). Risk Governance Towards an Integrative Approach White paper no.1 international risk governance council. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk Management in a Dynamic Society: A Modeling Problem Safety Science Vol. 27, No. 2/3 pp. 183-213. Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield. Risk Analysis 19 (4). Shannon, CE: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, pp. 379 423 and 623 656, July and October, 1948 US National Research Council Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (2009) Waddell, C. (1995). Defining Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Environmental Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, Spring 1995, 4 (2). Pp. 201-216. Wogalter, M. 2006. Communication-Human Information Processing (C-HIP) Model. In Wogalter, M., ed., Handbook of Warnings. Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38:3, pp. 357-38, September. Weick, K. E. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.