Developing Effective Risk
Communication throughUnderstanding Risk Perception
Factors
Ms. Yuliya Lyamzina, PhD, MBA
IAEA Consultancy Meeting on Science, Technology and Society
Perspectives on Nuclear Science, Radiation and Human Health – TheInternational Perspective
23-24 May, 2017
Hiroshima, Japan1

Agenda1. Risk Communication Issues In General and Relevance tothe IAEA

2. Incorporating Risk Perception into Risk Communication
3. Why address Perceived and Actual Risks?
4. Complexity of the Risk Perception Factors
5. Recommendations

Meeting Purpose• To elaborate on the issue of Public (Risk) Communication• In general and for the specific regulations• To discuss recommendations on how to enhance public (risk)
communications through integration of risk perception factors
communication strategy with stakeholders ;• To improve public acceptance of i.e. “remediation initiatives”(decontamination, waste management, monitoring ,remediation) by addressing the concerns of the local residents• Concerns for factual information and addressing perceived risks.

3

Risk Communication

4

Communication• Communication is simply the act of transferring informationfrom one place to another.

• Exchange of information between an organization and its stakeholders

IAEA Safety Standards
A process for
public andstakeholder
engagement isrecommended
or noted in
manyStandards.
6

Other IAEA publications

Who are stakeholders?
Stakeholder: Anyone who holds a vested interest in an issue andwhich the organization has an obligation to acknowledge:• Members of “the public”, as groups or individuals, holding a vested
interest in an issue or decision-making process;• Commercial / business interests, trade unions, and suppliers;• Governmental authorities at the national, regional and local level;• News media, professional and academic organizations (scientificcommunity);• National and local NGOs;• Different stakeholders have different degrees of influence on

decision-making processes (from opinion seeking to controllinginfluence).

8

Definitions• Actual Risk (Quantitative, Objective, Intellectual)• What we know

• Perceived Risk (Qualitative, Subjective, Emotional)• What we feel

• Understanding both is essential to effective risk

communication and to promote public acceptance9

Risk Communication• Communication with the purpose to develop acommon understanding of factual information, and to
influence decisions or behaviours by addressing
stakeholder interests.

• Need to address both intellectual needs (information) andemotional needs (feelings);• Risk communication plays an integral role in shaping

individual risk perceptions as well as behaviours forrisk aversion, reduction, or acceptance.

Incorporating Risk Perception
Into Risk Communication

Why Address Perceived Risk?

• Communicating actual risk by sharing scientific results• is necessary• but not sufficient to secure public acceptance or to assuage
public concerns;• Understandable data (maps, reports, analyses) address
intellectual needs for information;• Communications need to address emotional needs(fear, dread, stress).

Risks and Risk Communications• Actual risk (reality) is quantified, usually by dose
calculations and/or probabilities;• Perceived risk (belief, attitude, judgement and feelings)
is subjective for the individuals and quantifiable in a
population and individuals;• The study of actual vs. perceived risk, especiallyregarding ‘nuclear’ is well established (e.g. Slovic, et. al.),but the utilization of perceived risk for public
communications in RWM situations is lacking.
13• Controllable• Not dread• Not global
catastrophic• Not fatal
consequence• Low risk tofuturegenerations• Voluntary• Observable• Known tothoseexposed• Immediateeffect• Old risks• Risks known
to science• Not observable• Unknown tothose exposed• Effect delayed• New Risks• Risk unknown
to science• Uncontrollable• Dread• Globalcatastrophic• Fatalconsequence• High risk tofuturegenerations• Involuntary

14

Examples of Risk
Communications without
Addressing Risk Perception

Well known mistakes in public communication fromChernobyl• People need information linked to their own lives;• People need clear messages from sources they trust on:• Health effects of radiation;• Living with radiation; and• Healthy lifestyles in general.
• People want Yes/No answers, not probabilities like “5,5·10-7”.
• Perceived risk of an activity is greater when the activity is seen as evoking fear,terror, or anxiety, or irreversible adverse effects• People need a clear message from their governments on the future of local
economies and national social protection systems.

• People ignore information if it does not correlate with theirconcerns or beliefs.

Multiple Consequences of the Accident:• Fear of cancer and other medical complications;• Rumours and anecdotal reports;• Intelligible communications about radiation;• Contradictory information from “reliable sources”;• Distrust in authority;• Ecological and socioeconomic disruption (unemployment, etc.);• Social stigma;• Media coverage (not always fair and balanced);• Psychological consequences:•••••

Health related anxiety,
Excess morbidity from depression,
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
Alcoholism and abuse of other substances,
Long-term threat to health, including next generations• After accidents involving radiation, fears start early and the emotional toll goeson for years.

Perceived Risk Remains in JapanFukushima Prefecture Actual and Perceived Risk

• Risk perceptions are stillprevalent andrecognized in FP• We are addressing
actual risk

• We should also address
perceived risk

Measuring Risk Perception• It can be quantified on a standardized scale• Existence and strength of perceived risks can be assessed andcorrelated to specific demographic groups• Risk Perception Factors are well vetted

Conceptual model of risk perception

Demographics, trust and perception of the effectiveness of public engagement are the major factorsthat explain••high risk perceptions andopposition to nuclear related activities (remediation, waste treatment, etc.)

Complexity of the Risk Perception Factors

Additional issues to consider• Which of these perceptions exist among the community?
• How strong are the perceptions?
• Which demographic groups does exist?
• What subgroup demographics exist?
• How they correlate to each other?
• How should messages be framed for the public, throughwhich channels?

• Should they be captured in the Regulatory documents?
• What can we do to help?

Relevance to Fukushima Prefecture24

Background• Massive amounts of monitoring data is available:•

Multiple sources, multiple types of data

• Supports expert determination of actual risk i.e. “doses are within safe levels”• Used for reporting doses (µSv/h) as safe and/or comparable to other places:•••

Intended to convince people there is no health concernWebsites
Communications for perceived risks are limited• Is this approach effectively improving public acceptance?
• Is it aiding MS to make progress?
• Does it help MS to gain public confidence?

Which of the risk perception factors might be relevant tothe sub-populations of the Fukushima Prefecture?

26

Psychological Effects(Fukushima Medical University survey)

MISCONCEPTION (PERCEPTIONS) OF
CONTAMINATION EXTENTPeople in FP
believe

People nearTokyo
believe

People in
Hokkaido
believe

People inOsaka &Kyoto
believe

People inOkinawa
believe

The Worldbelieve

Source: http://www.yukawanet.com/archives/3930193.html

28

FY2014 Opinion Survey of Evacuees Current
Concernsn = 18767 households

Source: Fukushima Prefectural Government

Understanding and uncertainty

Perceived risks of an activity is greater when the activity is seen as
poorly understood, unknown and uncertain

Way forward

31

IPARSC “Nutshell” picture
Actual Risk Assessments+Assessments of Perceived Risks

Prime goal of the cooperation• Provide support to the MS in securing public acceptanceof remediation measures by addressing and integrating
public risk perception with actual risk assessment of thepopulation in the regions;• Foster trust and acceptance (between stakeholders,operator and the affected population leaving in theaffected areas );• Ensure transparency through well documented
professional judgments and with tailored risk
communication based on perception of risk.

Planned activities
1.

Collect and analyse experience from other countries;

2.

Develop the MS specific framework for acquiring the risk perception data;3.

Acquire and develop risk perception survey by one or more methods;

4.

Conduct risk perception survey, data analysis;

5.

Incorporation the RPF results, into the final communication products.

34

Expected Outcome
1. Knowledge enhancement (a better understanding of, and context for, the technical data related to theremediation and waste management),

2. Informed decision-making (the incorporation of new data and understanding into more rational decision basis
regarding the remediation and waste management initiatives),

3. Behavioural change (enabling choice and comfort with personal decisions affecting the return to normal life byresident and returning evacuees),

4. Consensus building (stronger cohesion and agreement among groups holding influence on the progress ordirection of the remediation and waste management initiatives),

5. Public acceptance (improved regard and support for the role of the MS in the priorities and approaches to theremediation and waste management efforts).

Conclusions• Population-based estimates of risk (dose) are difficult to convert into precise
statements of individual risk:• The individual bases opinion and action on perceived risks;• Perceived risks are usually expressed through emotions (fears, anxiety, etc.) of consequential
effect(s), not a given dose:• Latent cancers, childhood health, food and water safety, social stigma, economic
security, etc.

• Monitoring data and dose reports are factual and necessary to assess actual
risk, but insufficient to address perceived risk;• Knowledge campaigns rarely convince people of the lack of concern…(experts
lament “if the public just understood…”)• If perceived risks go unaddressed, then the public remains unconvinced of thesafety, and public confidence in the authorities is lost.

36

Take away message• Education is important, but not sufficient to address
perceptions of the affected population• Need to understand perceived risks and demographics inorder to:o shape risk communication for different demographic
groupso improve public acceptanceo reduce fear,o re-build trust37Thank you for attention!
The risk management is a two-way street: just as the publicshould take experts’ assessments of risk into account, so shouldexperts respect the various factors, from cultural to emotional,
that result in the public’s perception of risk (Paul Slovic).

lyamzina@fmu.ac.jp38