Culturally Sensitive Risk Communication, Outreach

[John V. Stone <jvstone@umd.umich.edu;jvstone@glerl.noaa.gov;;;;;;;>]

Hi everyone. Information Renaissance has requested that I repost sections from an earlier comment given under the heading "Statement of Differential Social Access and the Development of A Participatory Equity Principle," and posted for the Outreach topic discussed on July 11. It was felt that portions of that message bore relevance to the risk communication aspects of today's topic. However, as a caveat, I would like to point out that my earlier comment was offered to demonstrate how risk perception can be used as the basis for identifying the socio-perceptual and geographical boundaries of an affected population, and thus is an effective means upon which to build a population-specific outreach program. In that sense, risk communication and outreach are inextricably intertwined. My concern is that by reposting only portions of that earlier comment I may give the false impression that these are mutually exclusive items.

Thus, I encourage those of you who are interested to please revisit that earlier posting for a more complete discussion of the relationships between risk perception, outreach, and risk communication. Perhaps most importantly, though, that discussion introduces an ethnographic methodology called Risk Perception Mapping that has been demonstrated in EPA Region 5 as an effective means of identifying and communicating with perceptually-specific communities at risk (see, e.g., http://www.glc.org/about/scholarships/jvstone-report.html; http://www.sfaa.net/eap/eappapers.html; http://www.scirus.com/search_simple.php [keywords: Risk Perception Mapping]).

THE RISK PERCEPTION MAPPING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

I recently completed an EPA-sponsored environmental anthropology project through the Great Lakes Commission Fellows Program. The project was titled the "Risk Perception Mapping Demonstration Project," and its purpose was to demonstrate an ethnographic approach to public participation. This approach, called "Risk Perception Mapping" (RPM), was developed largely in response to differential social access to public participation in environmental decision-making. In the context of Great Lakes environmental management, RPM presented a social scientific mechanism for developing equitable population-specific information and education (i.e., Risk Communication) exchanges through which more culturally sensitive indicators of Great Lakes ecosystem integrity may emerge.

RPM uses social-perceptual data to define the boundaries of a locally affected population, and it employs ethnographic methods for identifying constituent populations and their relevant social contexts, and for accessing in locally appropriate and culturally sensitive ways the typically detailed environmental knowledge of local populations. Essentially, RPM is an ethnographic means of obtaining culturally sensitive input and participation from culturally heterogeneous populations. RPM rests in part on the assumption that the knowledge possessed by local people is equally as valuable to the environmental management equation as is strictly scientific "expert" information, although both must be present for meaningful risk communication to occur.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Impact assessments can help to guide decisions regarding whether or not to proceed with a project, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation strategies to minimize its potentially adverse consequences. Two key components in the assessment process are the definition and identification of the locally affected population,(LAP). Consultative relationships are typically established among the LAP, project proposers, and relevant environmental management agencies. Thus, the LAP provides the geographic and sociocultural framework for public participation programs in environmental management.

At issue are the procedures used to define the boundaries of the LAP, identify its socially relevant constituent populations, and access the knowledge and perceptions these people possess regarding their local environment and how they stand to be affected by deliberate changes to it. 

RISK PERCEPTION DEFINES LOCALLY AFFECTED POPULATIONS

LAPs have been defined by a variety of measures, such as: (1) pre-existing political jurisdictions; (2) pre-determined distance-from-site criteria; (3) various ecosystems approaches at levels ranging from macro-systems, to regional, to local; and (4) extent of known contamination. These definitions have proved problematic from a participatory standpoint because they have not been grounded in the social data necessary to identify the geographical extent and distribution of the LAP and to document its unique socio-perceptual characteristics that may predispose some populations to particular types of impacts.

Political units, for example, can be major channels for public response to specific projects and thus are frequently used to define the boundaries of the LAP for project-specific consultation and participation programs. This procedure, however, can limit participation to an overly restricted population and a limited set of impact issues. RPM studies have demonstrated that LAPs typically cross political boundaries (as well as other types of boundaries, such as extent of known contamination), thereby rendering such boundaries inaccurate, hence, inappropriate units for defining LAPs, for analyzing potential social impacts, and for accessing and incorporating local knowledge (i.e., risk communication) in project-specific decision-making.

RPM AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) studies have documented that a project's social effects occur to the extent that local populations perceive themselves to be at risk from the project. "Project awareness" is a necessary criterion for project-specific risk perception, and it has been used successfully to define the LAP in project-specific SIAs. An LAP may be most accurately defined as the generally contiguous human collectivity that calculates itself to be at risk from a proposed or operating project. After becoming aware of the project this entity essentially defines itself as being "at risk" thereby opening itself to measurable social impacts regardless of whether or not adverse human or environmental risks have been scientifically established.

Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) is an ethnographic method of public consultation that was developed explicitly to identify and map the geographical extent and socio-perceptual characteristics of an LAP, and to document the impact and mitigation issues raised by its various constituents. To the extent that the RPM method seeks to access these issues directly from all segments of the LAP, on their terms and in locations and social contexts that are familiar to them, it stands to provide them with a more equitable social access to public participation in environmental management, and it presents a more culturally-sensitive and locally appropriate means of communicating project-specific risks among the LAP, project proposers, and relevant environmental management agencies.

Further information on the RPM methodology, as well as on the EPA/Great Lakes Commission RPM Demonstration Project my be obtained directly from me at jvstone@umd.umich.edu or jvstone@glerl.noaa.gov, as well as at the following websites:

http://www.glc.org/about/scholarships/jvstone-report.html

http://www.sfaa.net/eap/eappapers.html

http://www.scirus.com/search_simple.php (keywords: Risk Perception Mapping)

Thanks again for the opportunity to share our perspectives and insights with each other; I'm really gaining quite a bit from the dialogue thus far and am looking forward to the rest of the discussion.

Respectfully,

John V. Stone