 Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis qualityTerje Aven Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2018, vol. 178, issue C, 290-296 Abstract: In general, successful risk communication can be said to require “an understanding of the target audience, including the best means for reaching the audience: a credible or trusted source; and a message that has ideally been pre-tested to ensure its effectiveness†[43]. The scientific quality of the risk analysis is not questioned. The sources can be credible or trusted, but the scientific risk analysis quality can be poor. For example, the risk communication can be based on a scientifically unsound risk characterisation, yet be communicated successfully if the reference is a communication perspective as above. Good risk communication cannot, however, be seen in isolation from the broader process of risk analysis and management. The present paper provides some reflections on this topic, the main aim being to strengthen the argumentation for the thesis that scientific and foundational issues of risk analysis are critical for the successful communication of risk. Several examples are used to demonstrate this thesis. Date: 2018 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:reensy:v:178:y:2018:i:c:p:290-296 DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.06.018 Access Statistics for this article Reliability Engineering and System Safety is currently edited by Carlos Guedes Soares More articles in Reliability Engineering and System Safety from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.