1. Risk perception is related to people's evaluations and judgments of hazards that they (or their environments, or facilities) are exposed to. Risk perceptions steer the decisions about risk acceptance and are an important influence on the behaviours before and after a disaster.
Risk appraisal by people is made of complex results of personal philosophies and hazard features (Rohrmann). Risk perception is important as it examines people’s opinions when they are asked about ways they can evaluate and categorize hazardous activities. For the purpose of effective risk communication, having a sound knowledge of risk perceptions is indispensable (Slovic, Fischhoff & Lichtenstein 83). Risk perceptions are interpretative analysis of the world around us, based on the beliefs and/or experiences. Risk perceptions help in steering decisions regarding the risk acceptability and have a core influence on the behaviours of people prior to, during and after the disaster.
2. There are different possible outcomes of communication action implementation. If the query provides a message, which matches the information needs initiated at the search, then the information seeking process has been a success and the decision-maker can revert to the point that started the information search. Although, if the source remains unavailable the query delivers no additional information, or fails to produce no useful information, then seeking information is unsuccessful. If an individual fails to determine a logical answer to the information query posed at the decision stage, then any progress toward the implementation of an action is probably going to be delayed and later would be terminated. If the process gets terminated due to a negative response regarding risk assessment, identification, or acceptability of the protective action; the decision-maker would likely return to monitoring the situation, normal activities or enter a state of panic or denial (FEMA).
3. The basic functions that need to be addressed in a continuing hazard phase are strategic analysis, resource mobilization, operational analysis, program implementation and program development (Lindell & Perry 181-213). There four different tasks of risk communication. Firstly, conducting a community analysis for hazard/vulnerability where emergency managers attempt to evaluate the hazards that their community is exposed to and the geographic region under risk. Secondly, analysing the community context and checking if there are any hazards that are a threat to the community. If environmental threats do not lie high on the priority list of the community, the focus needs to be shifted towards smaller programs. Thirdly, identification of the prevailing perceptions of the community and hazard related adjustments are also important. Identification of hazards that can possibly provide the greatest amount of harm is kept in the priority list of the community. Finally, setting the appropriate goals for the risk communication program is one of them most important step in hazard adjustment that people need to be aware about (Lindell & Perry 214-220).
4. There are some actions that can be taken by emergency managers to ensure they reach out to different groups within the community. Emergency managers can identify different risk communication channels in a community and utilize them all at once to ensure minimum damage is caused by the hazard. By utilizing all channels, the emergency manager ensures that the risk of damage is limited. Using mass media along with regional media is also important as people within the community might be comfortable using non-traditional media and their sense of danger might be activated through a different media form. It’s also very important that information is disseminated in different languages when the community has multi-ethnic presence. Finally, it is important to find credible sources such as local leaders, church ministers, etc. who have a trustable reputation to reach out to people living in a community under danger of an environmental hazard (FEMA).
Works Cited
FEMA. Lesson 3. Communicating in an Emergency. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fema.gov. n.d. Web. 1 April 2016.
FEMA. Chapter 4 Risk Perception and Communication. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fema.gov. n.d. Web. 1 April 2016.
Lindell, Michael K, and Ronald W. Perry. Communicating Effectively in Multicultural Contexts, Volume 7 : Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. London: Sage Publications, Incorporated, 2003. Print.
Rohrmann. Bernd. Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, Risk communication, Risk management: a Conceptual Appraisal. TIEMS. Times.ifo. 2008. Web. 1 April 2016.
Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. "Why Study Risk Perception?" Risk Analysis 2.2 (1982): 83-93. Print.
