Risk communication

Fig. 1: Classification of risk and crisis communication in disaster risk management. Own illustration based on Renner & Gamp, 2014

While communication in disasters or crises is short-term – time is always too short in this context – and therefore only allows for limited background information, risk communication creates the background for a holisitc understanding (Voss & Lorenz, 2016). “It explains and also has the time to illustrate contradictions and uncertainties and put them up for discussion within society” (Dickmann, 2014, S. 94). Risk communication thus creates the conditions for successful crisis communication. At the same time, lessons should be learned from the experiences of situations that have been overcome and risk communication should be continuously improved as a result. However, since society is always changing anyway, risk communication is never static. This is why a textbook cannot adequately provide factual guidance for good risk communication in the context of the respective social conditions. Instead, risk communication is much more to be understood as a very demanding process. The Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) speaks of an integrative communication strategy that should help to ensure that risk and crisis communication works better after each event than before (BBK, 2022, S.29f).

Risk and crisis communication are closely intertwined (see Fig. 1) and must therefore be viewed in conjunction with each other. However, even if the two differ in terms of various characteristics, responses and objectives, they must not be separated from each other as a natural cycle due to the occurrence of a catastrophic event, as is often depicted in graphics. This would ignore the fact that risk and crisis communication often take place at the same time and is therefore misleading. Rather, the interplay of joined risk and crisis communication helps to strengthen the resilience of society as a whole through an ongoing learning process (visualised by the break out of the circle).

The role of risk communication

Risk communication therefore describes the exchange and discussion of relevant information on risk avoidance, minimization and acceptance (BBK, 2022, p. 17). The willingness of scientists, practitioners, the state and civil society to actively participate in this process is crucial for the development of a risk culture. Today, risks can be determined less than ever in purely technical and mathematical terms; rather, they arise from the interaction of very different dynamics and are assessed differently by the stakeholders. Risk communication must therefore be understood as a multidimensional process in which all those potentially affected by the risks should be involved, which entails a variety of challenges.

A communicatively generated risk culture provides the perceptual framework against which risks are identified and assessed. The fact that communication creates this framework of perception should not be understood in purely linguistic terms. All events are also perceived through communication. People do not simply observe, but interpret against the background of the knowledge they have acquired through communication and discuss events with others. Risk perception is therefore always influenced by one’s own experiences or observations and for this reason is also strongly influenced by events in the recent past and the form of perceived media reporting. The current state of risk perception in science, practice, the state and civil society is therefore also the result of previous communicative processes, which are significantly influenced by the authorities and organizations with security tasks (BOS). Although all social stakeholders should ultimately be actively involved in this process, the overarching responsibility lies with the BOS.

Risk perception is both the basis and the goal of risk communication. The current state of risk perception in science, practice, the state and civil society reveals how active the exchange of risk information is and determines where municipal or state support is needed to stimulate this discourse. At the same time, these measures aim to strengthen risk perception in the future. This is because risk perception plays a key role in determining whether a society is resilient to a wide range of hazards and it´s scope of awareness and willingness to adapt to those risks (BBK, 2022, p. 18ff).

What is understood by the term risk communication according to the current state of discussion has been described in detail above. In the following section, the focus will be led on the practice of risk communication.

The Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) provides key principles for risk communication for practical implementation in the publication “Risk Communication – A Handbook for Practice (2022)” (only available in german). Even if different communication strategies are pursued depending on the context of application, overarching principles can be formulated that are relevant across all areas: (BBK, 2022, p. 24ff).

Media channels and players in risk communication

For risk communication, not only processes and content are decisive, but also by whom and via which means of communication risk information is passed on. Both aspects are closely linked.

Fig. 3: Overview of actors involved in risk communication; own illustration based on Dickmann 2021

As part of the target group-specific orientation of risk communication, the choice of appropriate media instruments is essential. In addition to comprehensibility and interest in risk information, communication must also be tailored to the media behavior and media presence of the stakeholders (Potnis, 2015 and Bharadwaj und Khan, 2016).

In numerous studies, researchers have looked at which media different target groups use to absorb and search for risk-relevant information. The following figure shows a selection of communication channels through which actors from the state, science, practice and civil society exchange risk information. Digital means of communication are becoming increasingly dominant. Due to their permanent availability, practically any person is able to actively influence risk communication at any time and can circulate fake news (Schulz & Neelsen, 2019).

Communicating risk information to the public poses various challenges for different stakeholders. A variety of factors play a role here: (incorrect) assumptions about how people behave when confronted with risk information shape the behavior of many stakeholders, not only, but especially in the BOS. For example, information is sometimes not communicated because it is feared that it would unsettle people. However, social science research has shown for many decades that people are primarily unsettled by the fact that information is withheld from them, whereas deviant social behavior (such as violence, looting, endangering oneself or others, etc.) due to information – if it occurs at all – is the absolute exception (see Lorenz, Schulze, Voss 2018).

An important role in risk communication is played by the caution of state representatives not to cast doubt on the state’s promise of protection. In other words, the state does not like to show what it cannot do or what it lacks in order to provide assistance in crises and disasters, while it can never guarantee absolute protection. However, there are also high demands at a very specific level: no handbook can tell you when what needs to be communicated to whom and how. The respective form of communication plays just as an important role as the choice of media or the differentiated knowledge of the reception behavior of different social milieus.

Lessons-Learned & Lessons to Learn

Created: March 2024

Further Informationen