Guidelines for Risk Communication

  • Lori Walker
  • William Leiss
  • Klára Faragó
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 11)


The main thrust of this book has been the case studies of risk communication from which readers can draw their own conclusions. A great deal of general advice on risk communication has already been published. Some of this advice may not be very effective, especially in terms of its applicability to all cultural situations and to Europe in particular, since much of it originates in the rather different context in North America, but it still has a potentially useful role.


Risk Perception Target Audience Risk Communication Communication Planner Occupational Health Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cole, G. & Withey, S.B. (1981). Perspectives on risk perceptions. Risk analysis, 1 (2): 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dienel, P. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technical projects. In: Vlek, C. & Cvetkovich, G., ed. Social decision methodology for technical projects. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Fischhoff, B. (1987). Treating the public with risk communications. Science, technology, and human values, 12 (3 & 4): 13–19.Google Scholar
  4. Hance, B. et al. (1988). Improving dialogue with communities: a risk communication manual for government. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Science and Research.Google Scholar
  5. Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes (1992). An overview of the Jefferson Center and of the “citizens’ jury” process. Minneapolis, MN, Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes.Google Scholar
  6. Kotler, P. & Roberto, E.L. (1989). Social marketing: strategies for changing public behavior. New York, Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Manoff, R.K. (1985). Social marketing: new imperatives for public health. New York, Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. National Research Council (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Pritzker, D.M. & Dalton, D.S. (1990). Negotiated rulemaking sourcebook. Washington, DC, Administrative Conference of the United States.Google Scholar
  10. Reich, M.R. & Goldman, R.H. (1984). Italian occupational health: concepts, conflicts, implications. American journal of public health, 74: 1031–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Renn, 0. (1992). Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of hazardous materials, 29: 465–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitude & values. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236: 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Weinstein, N. et al. (1987). Public responses to the riskfrom radon. Rutgers University Final Report. Trenton, NJ, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  15. Wiedemann, P.M. et al. (1991). Information needs concerning a planned waste incineration facility. Risk analysis, 11: 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wright, S.A. (1991). The NIMBY syndrome: environmental failure and the credibility gap. Hazardous materials control, March/April, pp. 56–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lori Walker
  • William Leiss
  • Klára Faragó

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations