Search

Government agencies and other authorities often communicate earthquake risks using maps derived from geographic information systems. Yet, little is known about the effects of these maps on risk perceptions. While mental models research and other approaches are available to inform risk communication text design, similar empirically derived guidance is lacking for visual risk communications, such as maps, which are likely to trump text in their impact and appeal. This paper reviews the empirical research that might inform such guidance. Research on graphs, spatial and visual perception, and map design suggests that graphics increase risk avoidance over numerical risk representations, and countable visuals, like dots, can increase the accuracy of perceived risks, but not always. Cartographic design features, such as color, animation, interactivity, and depth cues, are all candidates to represent risk and uncertainty and to influence risk perception. While there are robust known effects of color (e.g., red = danger), with some cultural variability, animation can increase the salience of otherwise obscure features but is not uniformly effective. Depth cues, dimensionality, and the extent to which a representation depicts versus symbolizes a scene will influence the viewer's perspective and perception, depending on the viewer's familiarity with the scene; their effects on risk perception remain unclear. The translation and representation of technical information about risk and uncertainty is critical to risk communication effectiveness. Our review suggests a handful of candidate criteria for evaluating the effects of risk visualizations, short of changes in behavior: accuracy, accessibility, retention, and perceived risk and usefulness.

This chapter focuses on the perspective of consumers of visual information about natural hazards — particularly decision makers and individuals who must make difficult personal choices in the face of vast quantities of data that have been produced for other purposes. Ellen Peters draws on empirical studies to show that “Less is More” in the presentation of information. She also argues that visualizations should be tailored to specific decision needs by choosing precision levels and visual cues appropriate to the evaluation context. Ann Bostrom expands the discussion on the definitions of risk and uncertainty and discusses how spatial information in particular is perceived by users. She emphasizes the particular visual tools that have been shown to be effective in affecting individuals’ judgments about certain risks. Finally Susan Cutter discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various visual approaches to representing uncertainty, and recommends keeping the overall presentation simple.

Risk assessment, modeling and decision suppor , Risk assessment, modeling and decision suppor , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی شاپور اهواز

The risks of unfamiliar technologies are often evaluated by comparing them with the risks of more familiar ones. Such risk comparisons have been criticized for neglecting critical dimensions of risky decisions. In a guide written for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Covello et al.(1) have summarized these critiques and developed a taxonomy that characterizes possible risk comparisons in terms of their acceptability (or objectionableness). We asked four diverse groups of subjects to judge the acceptability of 14 statements produced by Covello et al. as examples of their categories. We found no correlation between the judgments of acceptability produced by our subjects and those predicted by Covello et al..

Childhood vaccines are among the most effective preventive interventions that exist. In recent years, however, concerns about the risks of vaccination have arisen and, in some cases, have caused parents to consider not having their children immunized. In order to improve the process of communication and decision-making by parents and physicians, the Institute of Medicine’s Vaccine Safety Forum convened a workshop to discuss risk communication. This article summarizes the workshop’s discussions; a more complete report1 is available on the World Wide Web at www2.nas.edu/hpdp/. Health risk communication has traditionally consisted of messages designed to encourage behavior that reduces individual and societal risk (e.g., smoking cessation and seat-belt use).2 Increasingly, risk communication is seen as an interactive process of an exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions.3 To be effective, risk communications must address the experiences, beliefs, values, and attitudes of message recipients as well as providers. Understanding how risks are perceived and the inherent biases of both message providers and recipients is key to good risk communication.4 Although health risk communication has been an active research area for several decades, the science and practice of vaccine risk communication are not yet well developed. Many of the problems with risk communication in general, however, apply to vaccine risks.5 Recent studies illustrate specific factors influencing how vaccine risks and benefits are perceived by and acted on by consumers and vaccine providers. Individuals’ immunization decisions, for instance, are influenced by decisions that others make. People might prefer to do what a majority of others do or may take advantage of the protection afforded by high immunization rates and not be vaccinated; they may also be influenced to vaccinate by the fact that vaccination would protect others. Other factors include perceptions of disease risk and the ability to control those risks, and preferences for the risks of diseases per se over risks of the vaccine against them. In particular, the rarity of vaccinepreventable diseases in the vaccine era makes it more difficult to communicate the risks of these diseases. Information on vaccine benefits and risks is currently limited in availability and scope. Information available to consumers today includes the vaccine information statements (VIS) issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), material from other federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), manufacturers’ package inserts that accompany vaccines, oral communications from health care providers, and information provided by a variety of nonprofit and consumer organizations. Three major themes emerged during the workshop. First, risk communication is a dynamic process in which many participate, and these individuals are influenced by a wide range of circumstances, interests, and information needs. Effective risk communication depends on the providers’ and recipients’ understanding more than simply the risks and benefits; background experiences and values also influence the process. Good risk communication recognizes a diversity of form and content needs in the general population. Both the method and content of risk communication should reflect the goals of the communication, which could include advocacy, education, and development of a decision-making partnership (in any combination). To be effective, it was suggested, risk communication about vaccines needs to take into account what people already know or believe about the risks and benefits associated with immunization. Vaccine risk communicators should consider the varied information needs of the audience. Some recipients of risk communication material prefer short, simple messages that explain the risks and benefits of vaccines in nontechnical language; others want as much scientific information as is available. Currently, the primary sources of consumer information on vaccines are criticized either as being too simplistic and incomplete (the VISs, for instance) or having too much technical information for some people to understand and process effectively (for example, From the Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC 20418 Address Correspondence to: Michael A. Stoto, Institute of Medicine, 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20418

Risk communication is difficult even when we know our audience and what we want to say to it. These difficulties multiply for risk communication about the possible health effects of global climate change. Such communication requires detailed attention to the decisions that potential audiences face, faithful reliance on existing research results, and rigorous evaluation. In this paper we provide an overview of this challenge for policy-makers and risk managers, and highlight relevant research findings in risk communication and related fields, including behavioral decision-making, science education and cognitive psychology.

Objectives. We investigated vaccine risk perception among reporters of autism to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Methods. We conducted structured interviews with 124 parents who reported autism and related disorders to VAERS from 1990 to 2001 and compared results with those of a published survey of parents in the general population. Results. Respondents perceived vaccine-preventable diseases as less serious than did other parents. Only 15% of respondents deemed immunization extremely important for children’s health; two thirds had withheld vaccines from their children. Conclusions. Views of parents who believe vaccines injured their children differ significantly from those of the general population regarding the benefits of immunization. Understanding the factors that shape this perspective can improve communication among vaccine providers, policymakers, and parents/patients.

Recent studies show diabetes can be prevented. Growing knowledge of its biological bases opens further prevention opportunities. This article focuses on behavioral science research that may advance these opportunities. An ecological model guides attention to how prevention research may be pursued at the individual, group, or community levels. Three key areas are reviewed: risk communication, screening, and preventive interventions. Research on diabetes risk communication is limited but suggests that many are relatively unaware of risks and may have misconceptions about the disease. Amid policy debates and research regarding the potential benefits and costs of screening, identification of diabetes may itself be risky in terms of psychological and social consequences. The Diabetes Prevention Program and other studies make clear that diabetes can be prevented, both by the combination of weight loss and physical activity and by medications. Research needs to address promoting these methods to individuals as well as to groups and even whole communities. Fundamental as well as applied research should address how risks of diabetes are understood and may be communicated; how to enhance benefits and minimize psychological and other risks of screening; how to promote healthy eating and weight loss, physical activity, and appropriate use of medications to prevent diabetes; and how to reduce socioeconomic and cultural disparities in all these areas.

This chapter applies the general methods of the previous chapters to develop risk communications in four specific areas: climate change, power-frequency electric and magnetic fields, radon in homes, and nuclear energy sources on spacecraft. Climate Change The possibility that human activities are changing our climate has emerged as one of the primary environmental concerns of our era. Water vapor and carbon dioxide, which occur naturally in the earth's atmosphere, trap heat, giving the earth a temperature that supports life. This natural process is called the “greenhouse effect.” Burning fossil fuels releases additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean, but about half remains in the atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by about 30%. Without dramatic changes in how we produce or use energy, that concentration will continue to rise. The amount of heat that is trapped will also increase, probably making the earth's climate warmer, modifying patterns of atmospheric and ocean circulation, changing patterns of precipitation, and causing changes in the human and ecological systems that depend on climate. We began our studies of public understanding of global climate change by constructing a series of influence diagrams similar to the one reproduced in Figure 3.11. We used it to guide pilot mental models interviews with seven staff and graduate students at Carnegie Mellon University.

People today must make decisions about many health, safety, and environmental risks. Nuclear power, HIV/AIDS, radon, vaccines, climate change, and emerging infectious diseases are just some issues that may face them in the news media, ballot box, or doctor's office. In order to make sound choices they need to get good information. Because their time is limited, that information has to be carefully selected and clearly presented. This book provides a systematic approach for risk communicators and technical experts, hoping to serve the public by providing information about risks. The procedure uses approaches from risk and decision analysis to identify the most relevant information; it uses approaches from psychology and communication theory to ensure that it is understood. This book is written in nontechnical terms, designed to make the approach feasible for anyone willing to try it. It is illustrated with successful communications, on a variety of topics.

* Abbreviations: AAP = : American Academy of Pediatrics • ACIP = : Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices • IPV = : inactivated polio vaccine • FDA = : Food and Drug Administration • DTwP = : diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis vaccine • DTaP = : diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine • DTP = : diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine • CDC = : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • NCVIA = : National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act • VICP = : Vaccine Injury Compensation Program • IOM = : Institute of Medicine • OPV = : oral polio vaccine • VIS = : Vaccine Information Statements Concern over vaccine safety has been a major determinant of immunization policy—from passage of the Biologics Control Act in 1902 to the recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for expanded use of inactivated polio (IPV) and acellular pertussis vaccines.1-4 With the availability of new vaccines and vaccination options comes the challenge of how best to communicate these options to patients and their parents. Lessons from the field of risk communication on predictors of risk acceptability and vaccination decision heuristics provide insight into why some parents resist vaccination. This article provides a historical perspective on vaccine adverse events and applies lessons from risk communication research to help physicians improve their ability to discuss vaccine risks. Immunizations have been described as the single most effective health intervention after clean water and sewage disposal,5 and have an extraordinary safety record. However, public policy has long reflected concern for the safety of vaccines and related biologics. In 1902, Congress passed the Biologics Control Act in response to the death of 13 children who had received injections of diphtheria antitoxin contaminated with tetanus toxin.6 This act required biologics to be manufactured in a manner that assured their safety, purity, and potency. Responsibility for these regulations was assigned originally to the Hygienic Laboratory of the Public Health Service, which evolved into the National Institutes of Health. The regulation of biologics including vaccines was transferred to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1972. The first published accounts of serious adverse events after whole cell pertussis vaccine occurred in 1933 with Madsen's7 report of two deaths within 48 hours of immunization, and in 1948 with the report in Pediatrics by Byers and Moll8 of encephalopathy after diphtheria and tetanus toxoids combined with whole-cell pertussis …

We propose a decision-analytic framework, called the mental models approach, for evaluating the impact of risk communications. It employs multiple evaluation methods, including think-aloud protocol analysis, problem solving, and a true-false test that allows respondents to express uncertainty about their answers. The approach is illustrated in empirical comparisons of three brochures about indoor radon.

Public health depends on laypeople’s ability to understand the health-related choices that they and their societies face. The study of risk perception examines that ability. The study of risk communication examines the processes that determine how communication with laypeople enhances or degrades their decision-making ability. Although focused on decisions involving risk, that research necessarily considers potential benefits as well, including the benefits of reducing risks (e.g. through medical treatment, lifestyle changes or improved air quality). Communication is seen as a two-way process. Without listening to people, it is impossible to understand what they know and value, hence impossible to provide them with relevant information in a comprehensible form. The basic science of behavioural decision research describes the general processes that find specific expression in risk-related decisions. It provides the conceptual framework, methodology and theory for this chapter. Risk perception and communication research is conceptually straightforward. First, characterize the decisions that people face in sufficiently precise terms to identify the information that is most critical to them. Second, describe people’s existing beliefs and values, in sufficiently precise terms to understand their roles in risk-related choices. Third, develop and empirically evaluate communications designed to bridge the critical gaps between what people know and what they need to know, in order to have the best chance of making choices that achieve what they value. These steps are interdependent. For example, descriptive research can reveal unexpected goals, obstacles and capabilities, forcing revision of the decision analysis; communication failures can force additional research regarding decision-making processes. Executing a communication research programme requires four kinds of expertise: (a) subject matter specialists, (b) risk and decision analysts, for characterizingchoices and identifying critical information; (c) behavioural scientists, for characterizing existing beliefs and values, then designing and empirically evaluating communications; and (d) communication practitioners, for executing sustainable programmes. Individuals with each kind of expertise should have final authority in their domain. Behavioural decision research provides extensive guidance on two topics central to this endeavour. One is identifying potential threats to risk-related decision making, along with an understanding of the underlying behavioural processes that communications must address. The second is the measurement procedures needed to ensure that people have been properly understood, when creating and evaluating communications. Without proper measurement, it is impossible to assess and address people’s information needs. A particular risk is underestimating laypeople’s decision-making competence, thereby denying them the opportunity for active participation in health decisions. That risk is aggravated when communications are disseminated without proper evaluation, after which their audience is held responsible for failing to understand content that was neither clear nor relevant. One should no more release untested communications than untested pharmaceuticals. The chapter seeks to reduce those risks, while helping experts to help laypeople to choose wisely.

Effective risk communication requires an understanding of the audience's mental models of the underlying hazardous process. A method was developed for eliciting such mental models through structured, open-ended interviews. It was applied in interviews with 24 lay people asked to think about the risks from indoor radon. Results were used to design brochures intended to improve these mental models. In an experimental test, these brochures proved superior to a brochure currently in wide use.

Coastal regions around the Pacific Ring of Fire share the risk of massive earthquakes and tsunamis. Along with their own political-economic, cultural and biophysical contexts, each region has their own history and experiences of tsunami disasters. Coastal areas of Washington State in the U.S. are currently at risk of experiencing a tsunami following a massive Magnitude 9 (M9) earthquake anticipated in the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Looking ahead to consider adaptive planning in advance of a tsunami following this M9 event, this paper explores how lessons from recent megaquake- and tsunami-related experiences of risk-based planning and relocation in coastal areas of Japan and Chile could inform anticipatory action in coastal Washington State. Based on a comparison of earthquake and tsunami hazards, social factors, and the roles of government, this paper outlines a framework to compare policy contexts of tsunami risk-based planning and relocation in three Ring of Fire countries, including factors shaping the possible transfer of approaches between them. Findings suggest some aspects of comparative significance and commonalities shared across coastal communities in the three countries and at the same time highlight numerous differences in governance and policies related to planning and relocation. Although there are limitations to the transferability of lessons in disaster adaptive planning and anticipatory action from one national/regional context to another, we believe there is much more that Washington and the Pacific Northwest can learn from Japanese and Chilean experiences. In any context, risk reduction policies and actions need to garner political support in order to be implemented. Additional case study research and detailed analysis is still needed to understand specific lessons that may be applied to detailed risk-based planning and relocation programs across these different national contexts.

Understanding how people interpret risks and choose actions based on their interpretations is vital to any strategy for disaster reduction. We review relevant literature with the aim of developing a conceptual framework to guide future research in this area. We stress that risks in the context of natural hazards always involve interactions between natural (physical) and human (behavioural) factors. Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty is inadequately described by traditional models of 'rational choice'. Instead, attention needs to be paid to how people's interpretations of risks are shaped by their own experience, personal feelings and values, cultural beliefs and interpersonal and societal dynamics. Furthermore, access to information and capacity for self-protection are typically distributed unevenly within populations. Hence trust is a critical moderator of the effectiveness of any policy for risk communication and public engagement.