IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i8p1695-1707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Åsa Boholm

Abstract

The dynamics of organizational risk communication is an understudied topic in risk research. This article investigates how public officials at six government agencies in Sweden understand and relate to risk communication and its uses in the context of agency organizational work on policy and regulation. Qualitative interviews were used to explore the practitioners’ views on some key topics in the academic literature on risk communication. A main finding is that there is little consensus on what the goals of risk communication are; if, and how, uncertainty should be communicated; and what role is to be played by transparency in risk communication. However, the practitioners agree that dissemination (top down) to the public of robust scientific and expert knowledge is a crucial element. Dialogue and participation is used mainly with other agencies and elite stakeholders with whom agencies collaborate to implement policy goals. Dialogue with the public on issues of risk is very limited. Some implications of the findings for the practice of risk communication by government agencies are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Åsa Boholm, 2019. "Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1695-1707, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1695-1707
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13302
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood, 2007. "What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 191-210, June.
    2. Ann Fisher & Atsushi Chitose & Philip S. Gipson, 1994. "One Agency's Use of Risk Assessment and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 207-212, April.
    3. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    4. Cynthia G. Jardine, 2003. "Development of a Public Participation and Communication Protocol for Establishing Fish Consumption Advisories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 461-471, June.
    5. Ylva Uggla, 2008. "Strategies to create risk awareness and legitimacy: the Swedish climate campaign," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 719-734, September.
    6. Harry Otway & Brian Wynne, 1989. "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 141-145, June.
    7. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    8. Ragnar Lofstedt & Frederic Bouder & Jamie Wardman & Sweta Chakraborty, 2011. "The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 409-429, April.
    9. Dominic Way & Frederic Bouder & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2016. "Medicines transparency at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the new information age: the perspectives of patients," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(9), pages 1185-1215, October.
    10. Roger Kasperson, 2014. "Four questions for risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1233-1239, November.
    11. Joseph Árvai, 2014. "The end of risk communication as we know it," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1245-1249, November.
    12. Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    13. Caron Chess & Alex Saville & Michal Tamuz & Michael Greenberg, 1992. "The Organizational Links Between Risk Communication and Risk Management: The Case of Sybron Chemicals Inc," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 431-438, September.
    14. Mattias J. Viklund, 2003. "Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 727-738, August.
    15. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance, 1995. "Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 127-135, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu Lei & Guirong Zhang & Xiuping Liao & Wei Feng, 2023. "Information Delayering Safety Management (IDSM): A New Method of System Safety in Urgent Situations Needs to Be Established," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    3. Liwei Zhang & Kelin Chen & He Jiang & Ji Zhao, 2020. "How the Health Rumor Misleads People’s Perception in a Public Health Emergency: Lessons from a Purchase Craze during the COVID-19 Outbreak in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-15, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    2. Jamie K. Wardman & Gabe Mythen, 2016. "Risk communication: against the Gods or against all odds? Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1220-1230, November.
    3. Matthew S. VanDyke & Andy J. King, 2018. "Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1378-1389, July.
    4. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    5. Nancy A. Connelly & Barbara A. Knuth, 1998. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 649-659, October.
    6. Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2002. "Gender and Race in Beliefs about Outdoor Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 725-738, August.
    8. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Patricea Elena Bertea & Adriana Zait, 2013. "Perceived risk vs. intention to adopt e-commerce - a pilot study of potential moderators," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 25(2), pages 213-229.
    10. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    11. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    12. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    13. Luigi Cembalo & Daniela Caso & Valentina Carfora & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Gianni Cicia, 2019. "The “Land of Fires” Toxic Waste Scandal and Its Effect on Consumer Food Choices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Melissa Zaksek & Joseph L. Arvai, 2004. "Toward Improved Communication about Wildland Fire: Mental Models Research to Identify Information Needs for Natural Resource Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1503-1514, December.
    15. Gianluca Stefani & Alessio Cavicchi & Donato Romano & Alexandra E. Lobb, 2008. "Determinants of intention to purchase chicken in Italy: the role of consumer risk perception and trust in different information sources," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 523-537.
    16. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Jeff Everett & Constance Friesen & Dean Neu & Abu Shiraz Rahaman, 2018. "We Have Never Been Secular: Religious Identities, Duties, and Ethics in Audit Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 1121-1142, December.
    18. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    19. Jerry V. Mitchell, 1992. "Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 19-26, March.
    20. Kang, Minah & Reich, Michael R., 2014. "Between credit claiming and blame avoidance: The changing politics of priority-setting for Korea's National Health Insurance System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 9-17.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1695-1707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.