• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The impact on the public of preventive information about risks
 

The impact on the public of preventive information about risks

on

  • 275 views

Sandrine GLATRON

Sandrine GLATRON

CNRS (National center for scientific research), France

Statistics

Views

Total Views
275
Views on SlideShare
266
Embed Views
9

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 9

http://conftool.grforum.net 9

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The impact on the public of preventive information about risks The impact on the public of preventive information about risks Presentation Transcript

    • The impact of preventive informationabout risk on the publicSandrine GlatronIDRC Davos 2012Risk communication sessionDavos, August 26-31
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements Context of preventive information - Preliminary remarks - Legislative framework - Main preventive information elements Industrial risk (Seveso directive) The main points to be communicated to the public (annex V) - Name, adress and operator of the establishment - Explanation of the activity - Name(s) of the dangerous substances - How the public will be warned and the appropriate behaviour - Details of where to find relevant informationIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 2
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements Context of preventive information - Preliminary remarks - Legislative framework - Main preventive information elements Industrial risk (Seveso directive) The main points to be communicated to the public (annex V) - Name, adress and operator of the establishment - Explanation of the activity - Name(s) of the dangerous substances - How the public will be warned and the appropriate behaviour - Details of where to find relevant informationIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 3
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements How the public will be warned and the appropriate behaviour Alert (industrial disaster) http://www.irma- grenoble.com/03risques_majeur s/03consignes_afficher.php?id_ RSD=19&PHPSESSID=c170b2c b5a649d9d2f7ad04d949c6daf  Emergency instructions Internet link (instructions must now be available on internet) http://www.risquesmajeurs.com/consignes/index.html#IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 4
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements Outline I. Case studies II. Impact of preventive information on the public III. What is problematic? IV. How to improve the impact of public information about risks ?IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 5
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements Case studies Document Sample Place (name of the survey) Date Kind of risk size diffused La Mède (South of France) 1992- Refinery explosion 1989 514 (Lalo et al, 1993) 1993 (Total) Mulhouse (France, 2004- Industrial and 2005 491 Alsace)Beck et al., 2008, 2010) 2006 natural risks 2008 Huningue (France, Alsace) 2004 Industrial risks - 101 Alsace - villages (France) 2006 Muddy flood - 435 (Heitz et al. 2008) La Réunion 2008 Volcano 2006 117 (Glatron, Dumas, Bastian) Sicily 2009 Industrial risks - 1221 (Banos et al, 2009) post disaster surveys Recent document about the risks people are exposed toIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 6
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements I. Impact of preventive information on the public (1) Do people know the safety procedures? Mulhouse Alsace La La Industrial Natural Huningue villages Réunion Mède risk hazard Feel they know 9.8 8.4 11.9 17.7 23.1 26 well or very well Feel they know 33.6 37.8 37.6 - - 19 more or less Feel they 56.6 53.8 50.5 81.2 76.9 55 don’t know at all Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9* 100.0 100  Only ¼ (max) feel they know well or very well  more than half don’t know at allIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 7
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements I. Impact of preventive information on the public (2) Did people behave « correctly » when the disaster occured? What people What people do % of do after % of the after they heard the during the sample the explosion sample volcano eruption Went back to bed 32.8 Bad 35.9 Stayed at home 27.3 behaviour More or less Went oustide to have 33.8 39.3 correct a look Correct Ran away 2.0 24.8 behaviour Listened to the radio 18.1 Table 1 : Piton de la Fournaise, La Réunion, Gave a phone call 2.6 2007 Table 2 : la Mède, 1992IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 8
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements  People feel not being informed enough Mulhouse Huningue Sicile Yes, informed enough 27.9 % 13.9 % 8.9% No, not enough informed 68.0 % 86.1 % 89.6% No answer 4.1% - 1.5% Even when a document was recently received Document Sample Place (name of the survey) Date Kind of risk size diffused Mulhouse (France, Alsace)Beck 2004- Industrial and 2005 491 et al., 2008, 2010) 2006 natural risks Huningue (France, Alsace) 2004 Industrial risks - 101 Sicily 2009 Industrial risks - 1221IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 9
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements III. What is problematic? (1) Filters « noise » interferences context message Sender channel Receiver code retroaction Jakobson communication schema (1960) - Who  key point in risk communication - Message and channel  document to be chosenIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 10
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements III. What is problematic? (2) - Trust, confidence and legitimacy - Question : who do you trust to tell you the truth about risk and behaviour -IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 11
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements III. What is problematic? (3) - Trust, confidence and legitimacy Question : who do you think should provide you with preventive information ? Not a perfect concordance between information discloser who are trustworthy and those who are judged legitimate Depends on the type of places (villages vs town)IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 12
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements IV. What to improve? (1) Rethinking the preventive information context message Sender channel Receiver code retroaction 1) Who  trust and legitimacy  various senders / receivers Impacts on beliefs, 2) How  persuasive communication attitudes,  binding communication behaviour ex: Mulhouse, «réserve communale»  Pro-active measures Actor and learningIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 13
    • Context Case studies Measured impact What’s problematic? Improvements IV. What to improve? (2) Rethinking the preventive information Filters Diffusion « noise » zone Interferences context (ex. fear) message Sender channel Receiver code retroaction 3) Where (and when) 4) Integrative communication for various risks (in order to be able to compare, priorize, etc.)? 5) Filters « problems »: fear and panic in case of a disaster ActorIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 14
    • Conclusion Insufficient knowledge of the public about what to do in case of a disaster, even with preventive campaigns  impacts to be tested (pre and post-crisis) = scientific and administrative protocols to follow the impact improvement.  New informative modalities: - who informs ? - participation Thank you for your attentionIDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 15