Improving risk communication and public participation through mutual understanding

Abstract

Purpose Risk communication and public participation are often hampered by conflicts and mistrust between involved actors. The present paper argues that these problems can be addressed through better mutual understanding. This argument is founded on the conceptualisation of risk communication as a social interaction, which is based on mutual understanding. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the relationship between conflict, mistrust and mutual misunderstanding through a case study. Design/methodology/approach The case study explores risk communication in relation to high-voltage grid extension in Germany. Conflicts and mutual understanding between involved actors are analysed with the help of the coorientation approach. In total, 16 semi-structured interviews are conducted with grid providers, local politicians and public authorities. Findings Misunderstandings are exposed between the analysed actors, which are related to mistrust and conflicts. The findings suggest that improved mutual understanding might foster more effective and mutually beneficial risk communication. Originality/value Current research fails to sufficiently explain and improve conflicts and mistrust between actors involved in risk communication and public participation. The present paper offers a novel solution by conceptualising risk communication as a social interaction and placing mutual understanding at the centre of the analysis. The paper also introduces the coorientation approach as an analytical tool. Practitioners are advised how to pursue mutual understanding. Future research is encouraged to advance the comprehension of risk communication.

Dealing with risk in stakeholder dialog: identification of risk indicators in a public service media organization's conversation and discourse with citizens

“…(1) may increase the risk of citizens sticking to their positions and of leaving conflict unclarified. ( 2) harbors the risk of actors' false consensus (Umansky and Fuhrberg, 2018), that is, mutual agreement on the stakes based on actors' inaccurate understanding of these stakes, as the categories and their implied meaning for citizens' stakes had no consequentiality during the interaction. False consensus can lead to actors' joint agreement on an action program that, in retrospect, turns out not to meet citizens' legitimate interests, hence questioning the validity of the SD.…”

“…Biased perceptions can lead to mutual distrust and conflicts. A need exists to establish mutual understanding and common ground (Umansky and Fuhrberg, 2018). JCOM 28,2 However, organizers' perception that controversies and conflicts equate to risk guides them in SD planning and implementation: Lane (2018) and Russmann and Lane (2020) show that organizers perceive opposing opinions as risks, prioritizing organizational goals, controlling interaction and avoiding controversies and interaction with stakeholders with dissenting views, and striving to accomplish predefined outcomes.…”

“…Deliberative standards are enacted while SD is happening (Gilbert et al, 2023). The extent to which organizers take perceived risks is evident in qualitative interviews with organizers (Lane, 2018;Russmann and Lane, 2020;Umansky and Fuhrberg, 2018) and surveys with citizens (McComas, 2003). Except for Van Burgsteden et al (2022), the extant literature has not advanced methods to examine the micro level of public meetings or the interactional logics of different SD formats, which the operationalization of SD risks requires.…”

Linking information provision to behavioural intentions

“…Due to the relative importance of disaster information on risk reduction, stakeholders at global, regional and local levels have doubled investment to intensify awareness (Paton et al, 2001;Ballantyne, 2000). Empirical evidence has shown that information sharing and response to enquiries between the senders and receivers reduce message ambiguity and improves message clarity (Bolkan et al, 2016;Broeckelman-Post et al, 2016;Sidelinger and McCroskey, 1997;Tang et al, 2015;Umansky and Fuhrberg, 2018).…”

“…Consequently, there is an emerging consensus on the need to understand the role of different aspects of risk communication in influencing disaster preparedness (Sutton et al, 2014). Given the global susceptibility to increasing disaster risks in light of rising climate change, especially in developing regions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018; Okyere et al, 2019), it is of fundamental importance to move beyond merely providing adequate information to Mediating effects of message clarity ensuring clear and comprehensible information delivered through trustworthy sources for public to act on preparing for disasters (Umansky and Fuhrberg, 2018). In pursuance of this, this paper examines the relationship between information sufficiency, message clarity, source credibility and intentions to prepare.…”