Risk communication is a vital component of risk analysis and is critical to effective risk, crisis, and consequence management in the aftermath of a nationally significant or large-scale chemical incident. The goal of effective risk communication is to share information among key partners and stakeholders— including first responders, technical experts, and elected/appointed community leaders—and inform the public about what can and is being done to reduce risks. Risks should not be over- or under-stated.
Communication should deliver practical information and response guidance based on government and public responsibilities that flow from the incident. First responders and trusted community leaders should deliver these messages in a simple and straightforward manner.23 Risk communication is a continuous process because knowledge about the risks may be fragmentary at first but increase over time. Effective risk communication builds public knowledge and trust over time across all operational phases of the response and recovery effort.
“Through risk communication, the communicator hopes to provide the audience with information about the expected type (good or bad) and magnitude (weak or strong) of an outcome from a behavior or exposure. Typically, risk communication involves a discussion about adverse outcomes, including the probabilities of those outcomes occurring.” – U.S. CDC, 2014
In response to a nationally significant or large-scale incident, a JIC, where personnel coordinate incident- related public information activities, should be established immediately. The JIC serves as the central point of contact for all news media. Public information officials from all participating agencies co-locate at, or virtually coordinate through, the JIC. A JIC provides quick, accurate public information throughout the response and cleanup process. In addition, the JIC works closely with elected officials, community leaders, local hospitals and health officials, social and support groups, advocacy groups, news media, private-sector partners,24 and other involved stakeholders all the way through the return-to-use decision. Under the NRF, an information officer develops and releases information about the event to the news media and to all agencies and organizations involved. Regular and succinct public messaging will be critical to establish and maintain public confidence.
Public information regarding the complex technical, scientific, and risk issues arising from chemical incidents is challenging. This is particularly true in the face of the uncertainties involved in these incidents. However, by carefully placing the hazards of an incident into perspective for the public, appropriate risk communication can make complex scientific information accessible and understandable to a layperson. One effective approach to do this is to ensure that risk communication occurs in phases, with the content synchronized with the incident timeline. That is, there should be a preparation stage where a risk communication plan and strategy is developed, including public messages that anticipate varying and continuously evolving areas of concern during each phase of a given incident. EPA risk communication guidelines address the use of social media during and following response and clean-up activities.25
When risk communication is effective, it serves as a platform for discussing risks and goals with the public. In this way, risk communication is an approach for “scientists and public health professionals to provide information that allows an individual, stakeholders or an entire community, to make the best possible decisions about their well-being, under nearly impossible time constraints, while accepting the imperfect nature of their choices.”26
On the other hand, releasing incorrect, undocumented, inconsistent, or misleading information to the public causes confusion and leads to mistrust. Decision-makers must be especially careful when communicating uncertain information and information about the evolving situation to avoid undermining the trust of stakeholders.27 When a decision-maker maximizes communication about the goals of the response and cleanup processes, the decision-maker gains public trust, minimizes confusion, and fosters cooperation from the stakeholders and citizenry. These benefits will reduce the human, economic, and social costs of the incident.
Communication plans should also ensure access to information and for all communities, including underserved communities and those protected by law (e.g., race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, English proficiency and economic status). Communication efforts should also include outreach mechanisms resulting in engagement with community organizations and local partners that serve persons with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and underserved communities in the development and review documents and messaging.
There is also the potential that some information about certain chemical agents may be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and cannot be shared with the public.28 Caution will need to be taken when communicating to ensure this information is safeguarded.
The assessment and management of risk is the central focus of any response to the release of hazardous chemicals. However, it must also be noted that an integral part of the overall management of human health risk is risk communication. The planning and implementation of a risk communication strategy that bridges the various operational phases of chemical incident response and recovery is paramount to ensuring public understanding and trust, which in turn will contribute to the overall success of the response.