BLOG: Risk Communication

by Jennifer Wemhoff, The Groundwater Foundation

Have you ever participated in a public meeting or hearing that got out of control? (like this one) Have you ever sympathized with the person running the meeting, who's struggling to answer questions from emotional attendees and keep the meeting civil?

Communicating in a low trust, high concern environment is, without a doubt, challenging. However, being an effective communicator in contentious situations is possible by implementing principles of something known as "risk communication."

This past week, I participated in a two-day workshop focused on this very topic. Taught by Steve Wolf of JEO (whose credentials and experience make him a world-class expert on the topic) and sponsored by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the workshop was focused on applying these principles to real-life situations.

The workshop defined risk communication as a science-based approach for communicating effectively in high concern and low trust situations. It's a purposeful exchange of information about risk or perceptions about risk - risk being the probability of losing something of value, like one's health, safety, job security, self-esteem, wealth, natural resources, or community. An important thing to note in the definition is perception - if someone perceives something as reality, to them, it's reality. The goal of risk communication is to build trust and credibility, through:

• Accepting and involving the public as a legitimate partner.
• Planning carefully and evaluating efforts.
• Listening to the public's specific concerns.
• Being honest, frank, and open.
• Coordinating and collaborating with other credible sources.
• Meeting the needs of the media.
• Speaking clearly and with compassion.

One point that was repeated throughout the workshop was the need to "fill one's glass" of trust in a high concern, low trust situation. To quote Wolf, "People don't care what you know until they know that you care." To fill the glass, one has to demonstrate:

• Caring and empathy (50%)
• Competence/expertise (15-20%)
• Honesty/openness (15-20%)
• Dedication/commitment (15-20%)

We also spent time talking about public meeting formats, and how traditional town hall formats are not the best approach in contentious situations. Another option is an open house format, which includes displays (both from the host and any interest groups or detractors), opportunities to leave comments, and refreshments. This format has proven to be more efficient and more productive than a meeting where people take turns speaking at a microphone. Two Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) in Nebraska have adopted this format for their public hearings (see a hearing announcement here and news coverage) with much success.

The workshop also included a valuable role-playing exercise. We were broken down into groups and assigned a scenario (my group dealt with a scenario involving a wellhead protection plan), and tasked with developing a short presentation using risk communication principles. I think everyone who attended the workshop, and especially those who served as presenters, would say that it's not as easy as it sounds - and that preparation is vital to successfully communicating in these situations.

Have you ever been in a situation where risk communication could have helped you? Tell us about it. You can also find an introductory session about risk communication (given as part of a Nebraska Wellhead Protection Network meeting) given by Wolf here.