The document discusses preventive risk communication with the public. It provides context on legislative requirements and outlines key points to be communicated, including facility details, activities, and emergency procedures. Case studies show most people feel underinformed about safety procedures. Even after receiving documents, over 2/3 felt not enough informed. Issues include low trust in information sources and a lack of concordance between trusted and legitimate sources. Improving communication requires considering who discloses information, the message, channel, and ensuring two-way feedback to build understanding over time.

1. The impact of preventive information
about risk on the public
Sandrine Glatron
IDRC Davos 2012
Risk communication session
Davos, August 26-31

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 information
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 2

3. 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 information
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 3

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 to
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 6

7. 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 all
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 7

8. 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, 1992
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 8

9. 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 - 1221
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 9

10. 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 chosen
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 10

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 learning
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 13

14. 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 Actor
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 14

15. 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 attention
IDRC Davos 2012 S. Glatron 15