More questions than answers: a response to 'Four questions for risk communication' by Roger Kasperson (2014)

摘要

There are many different reasons for risk communication. However, acceptance of risk communication is strongly influenced by its goals. If consumers are informed about how to prepare poultry safely (Bearth, Cousin, and Siegrist 2013), for example, this is risk communication that is accepted by most people. It is more difficult to agree on the goals of risk communication in domains such as acceptance of nuclear power. The nuclear industry's goal for risk communication is to increase acceptance of the technology, whereas the goal of some NGOs is to decrease the acceptance of nuclear power. As discussed in the introduction chapter of the recently published book Effective Risk Communication, 'there is a very wide range of opinion regarding what risk communication really is' (Arvai and Rivers 2014, 2). Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that I only partially agree with Roger Kasperson's perspective. I will comment on Kasperson's (2014) first three observations, and I will share some thoughts about the research in my view that is most needed to improve risk communication.