Effective risk communication –

the driving force of

responsible environmental behaviour

Paper for the ECPR Joint Sessions, Uppsala 2004

Workshop 5: Citizenship and the Environment

Mojca Drevensek

Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ljubljana

Kardeljeva pl. 5 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Phone: +386 1 41 877 558 Fax: +386 1 2391 210

e-mail: mojca.drevensek@prp-dd.si

Effective risk communication –

the driving force of responsible environmental behaviour

1. Introduction: outline of the paper

2. The communicative relevance of the (post)modern issue of risk

3. Environmental risk communication – the case study of LILW disposal in

Slovenia

3.1 Research questions

3.2 Methodological tools: SARF and the layering method

3.2.1 SARF – a brief outline

3.2.2 Layering method – a brief outline

3.3 Case study analysis and implications for communication activities

4. Instead of the conclusion: a research project proposal for analysing the risk debate

levels

5. References

1. Introduction: outline of the paper

Since the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” have been coined, little

attention has been given to what different organizations can do in order to carry out (or at

least begin carrying out) risk projects they are authorized by the state or by their business

goals to fulfil. Although the field of risk (risk analysis, risk assessment, risk management

and, nevertheless, risk communication) covers a broad range of issues, the paper focuses

predominantly on environmental risks, by no means confining the application of the

conclusion to several other risk areas, relevant for making societies more sustainable (e.g.

health and safety, food, agriculture, energy supply, traffic).

According to the author, one of the most important ways to encourage environmental

citizenship at the institutional (profit and non-profit, governmental) and personal

(everyday life) level, is to begin planning and implementing environmental risk

communication activities more effectively and more consciously. The findings can refer to

different communication activities ranging from formal and informal education programs,

two-way communication with local communities regarding risk projects, establishing

social/environmental responsibility programs within different organizations, media

relations, lobbying etc.

The key term worth analysing either at the theoretical or at the practical (everyday) level

is trust. Therefore the paper tries to answer some of the following questions: What is the

role of trust in environmental risk communication? Which are the key factors influencing

the amount of trust an expert/decision-maker/institution receives from its publics? How to

analyse whether the environmental risk communication activities of an institution have

been planned and implemented effectively and are as such contributing to the increase of

the societies’ sustainability?

2. The communicative relevance of the (post)modern issue of risk

The concept of “Risk Society”, introduced by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck in the

homonymous 1986 book, received a world-wide response and launched a new

paradigmatic approach to the problems and challenges of the (post)modern societies. But

in the context of the broad risk debate a common sense, logical question appeared

immediately: Is the feeling that there are more and more risks in our lives objectively

justified? According to Furedi (2002) there are objectively not that more risks and dangers

around us but the sensibility of people to risks and their interest for them have increased.

Even very rare instances of negative and not necessarily personal experiences with

modern technologies and people that manage them can cause significant problems in

further use of these technologies and in the amount of trust people devote to the experts

(e.g. the nuclear stigma caused by the Czernobil catastrophe).

So, trust in the reliability and safety of the expert systems is conditio sine qua non for the

normal everyday functioning of modern differentiated systems. Therefore, the experts and

expert systems (institutions) have to be aware of the trust influencing factors. There are

several theoretical and empirical studies analysing this issue (e.g. Peters et al., 1997;

Kasperson, 1991; Renn and Levine, 1991; Covello, 1991) and their common denominator

refers us to the following three components (factors) of establishing, maintaining and

increasing trust: expertise, honesty and caring (see Figure 1: Perceptions of trust and

credibility – three factors).

Figure 1: Perceptions of trust and credibility – three factors

perceptions of knowledge and expertise

perceptions of openness and honesty

perceptions of trust and credibility – three factors

perceptions of concern and care

Source: Peters et al. (1997)

Each of these factors is of course tightly connected to communication. In other words:

each of these elements is a communication challenge. In the communication context, one

has to understand the complexity of the issue of trust on one hand and the different

analytical levels of trust on the other hand. Renn and Levine (1991) developed a

classification scheme that is composed of five different levels of analysis: trust in a

message, confidence in a communicator, confidence in an institution based on source

perception, credibility of institutions in general based on institutional performance, and

climate for trust and credibility in a macro-sociological context.

Each level is, of course, embedded in the next, higher level and the consistent violation of

trust-building efforts on one of the lower levels will eventually impact the next higher

level (see Figure 2: Five levels of analysing trust). Distrust on a high level sets the

conditions and determines the latitude of options gaining or sustaining trust on a lower

level.

Socio-political Climate

Institutional Performance

Institutional Perception

Message

Personal Appeal

complexity

Vir: Renn (1991a: 181)

Degree of abstraction

Figure 2: Five levels of analysing trust

The order of levels is also associated with an ascending order of complexity and

abstraction: it is therefore easier to predict the effects of communication activities on the

lower levels (message, communicator) compared to changes on the higher levels

(institutional performance or even socio-political climate). The circumstances prevalent

on the higher levels also operate as constraints on communication (and other) efforts to

improve trust on a lower level.

As we know, in times of predominant distrust in institutions and the decline in social

capital the expectation that communicators are trying to deceive their audience, especially

in the environmental field, is the default option in receivers’ attitudes toward a

communication source, at least in Slovenia. Under these conditions an active trust

management is certainly required.

Regarding this, the experts and decision makers or (more precisely!) their communication

experts should consider the trust influencing factors more seriously. This can contribute

considerably to the effectiveness of their work. In this context and according to Renn and

Levine (1991), it is obligatory to define the three analytical levels of risk communication

of which each requires a specific style and composition of the communication program

(see Figure 3: Three analytical levels of risk communication).

Figure 3: Three analytical levels of risk communication

Social Identification (World View)

Personal and institutional Experience and Judgement

Factual Evidence

Intensity of Conflict

Degree of complexity

Vir: Renn (1991a: 181)

- On the lowest level, risk debates may focus on factual evidence and scientific

findings. This requires a specific style and composition of the risk communication

program as this type of debate mainly focuses on technical issues, so trust can be

obtained by referring to data and scientific findings. The role of the communicator

is to prepare the scientific, factual information in such a way that it is

understandable and convincing to the lay audience. Although the scientists and risk

management agencies usually prefer to focus on technical debates, such debates

are, unfortunately, very rare in practice. The debate usually quickly focuses on e.g.

the distribution of risks and benefits, the social and/or economic adequacy of the

proposed risk project/solution etc., which brings us to the second level.

- The second level represents the realm of professional judgement and experience

(past record of reasonable decision making, social recognition of performance etc.

are major elements for discussion here). This level of debate does not rely on

technical expertise but on personal and institutional judgements and experience.

This requires an input from stakeholder groups and affected populations. The issue

of the conflict is not so much the magnitude of the risk, but the distribution of the

risk and the tolerability of such a risk (costs/benefits). In such circumstances, trust

cannot be accumulated by demonstrating technical skills and expertise, but by

compiling evidence about the cost-effectiveness of the communicator in the

allocation of resources and in his openness towards social demands and requests.

Therefore, a competent management (and communication) and openness towards

social demands are two major factors providing credibility to an institution in the

context of a risk debate on the second level.

- The third level involves a personal identification with a set of values and

lifestyles. Communication on this level relies on finding and establishing a shared

meaning of the risk management efforts. Namely, if the participants in a risk

debate focus on values and future directions of societal development, neither the

technical expertise (first level) nor the institutional competence and openness are

sufficient conditions for conveying trust. According to Renn and Levine (1991) the

trust in this situation can only be a result of a more fundamental consensus on the

issues that underlie the risk debate1.

Technical (first-level) and organizational (second-level) solutions to a risk conflict can

be successfully implemented only:

“(…) if the risk debate never reached the third level or could be removed from the

third to the second level, at least for the majority of the interested audience, because

as long as the value issues remain unresolved, even the best expertise and the most

profound competence cannot overcome the distrust that people will have in the task

performance of the acting institution.”

(Renn and Levine, 1991: 201)

Regarding the above mentioned, the author poses herself the following question: Do the

communicators, responsible for carrying out different environmental risk projects, know

the level of the risk debate in their public(s)? Do they at all analyse the risk debate levels

before they plan and implement the risk communication activities? How do they

commission and implement research activities – do they try to find data on the risk debate

levels?

1 To illustrate that point, Renn and Levine (1991:201) mention the referendum on nuclear energy in Sweden: »The nuclear debate was as heated in Sweden as it was anywhere else in Europe. But through the referendum a consensus was accomplished. This consensus specified the limits for the growth of nuclear power, but also defined the legitimate range of nuclear power utilization in Sweden. This prior agreement helped to move the issue from the third to the second level where technical and organizational solutions could be discussed without expanding the debate into o fundamental conflict over lifestyles and basic values.«

3. Environmental risk communication – the case study of LILW disposal in

Slovenia

3.1 Research questions

Taking into account the politically and environmentally urgent problem of finding the

location for the low and intermediate level radioactive waste (LILW) disposal in Slovenia,

we try to answer the following research questions:

The core research question is: How to ensure the risk communication efforts of an expert

or decision-making institution to be effective, i.e. contributing to a successful and

responsible implementation of risk projects?

The core research question can be divided into three research sub-questions:

- What is the role of trust in environmental risk communication?

- Which are the key factors influencing the amount of trust an expert/decision-

maker/institution receives from its publics?

- How to analyse whether the risk communication activities have so far been planned

and implemented effectively?

3.2 Methodological tools: SARF and the layering method

For analysing and evaluating the available secondary data regarding the low and

intermediate level radioactive waste disposal we use the Social Amplification of Risk

Framework (SARF) and the layering method (Breakwell and Barnett, 2001).

SARF was developed in the late 1980’s as a response to the disjunctions between the

various strands of risk research that were seen to limit our understanding of the meaning

and social causes of risk. Therefore SARF aims to facilitate a greater understanding of the

social processes that can mediate between a hazard event and its consequences. Events

pertaining to hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional and cultural

processes in ways that can heighten or attenuate public perceptions of risk and shape the

risk behaviour. Behavioural patterns in turn generate secondary social or economic

consequences. These consequences extend far beyond direct harms to human health or the

environment to include significant indirect impacts (Renn, 1992a).

3.2.1 SARF – a brief outline

According to Kasperson et al. (2000:237), social amplification of risk denotes the

phenomenon “/…/ by which information processes, institutional structures, social-group

behaviour and individual responses shape the social experience of risk, thereby

contributing to risk consequences” (see Figure 4: Detailed conceptual framework of social

amplification of risk). The interaction between risk events and social processes makes

clear that, as used in this framework, the risk has meaning only to the extent that it treats

people to think about the world and its relationships.

Thus, there is no such thing as “true” (absolute) and “distorted” (socially determined) risk.

Rather, the information system and characteristics of the public response that compose

social amplification are essential elements in determining the nature and magnitude of

risk.

SARF identifies categories of mediator / moderator which intervene between the risk

event and its consequences and suggests a casual and temporal sequence in which they

act. Information flows through various sources and channels, triggering the so called

social stations of amplification, which initiate individual stations of amplification,

precipitating behavioural reactions. These engender the so called ripple effects, resulting

in secondary impacts.

Figure 4: Detailed conceptual framework of social amplification of risk

(next page)

risk event

Sources of amplification: personal experience direct communication indirect communication Channels of Amplification: Individual Senses informal social networks professional information brokers

Social Stations of Amplification

Opinion leaders cultural and social groups government agencies information offices news media Individual stations of amplification: Attention filter decoding intuitive heuristics evaluation reference to social context Group and Individual Responses: Attitude/attitude change political and social action behavioral and organizational responses social protest and disorder

s

ripple

effect

Othe

s

Company

Local community

Affected persons

Industry

Professional group

Stakeholder group

r technologies

Societal issues

Impacts: loss of business, financial losses, regulatory constraints, organizational changes, litigation, increase or decrease in physical risk, sabotage or terrorism,

loss of confidence in institution

The SARF identifies two stages: - Stage 1 focuses upon the risk event, the relationship between the various stations of

amplification and their relationship with public perceptions and first order behavioural

responses.

- Stage 2 of the framework is concerned with secondary impacts. Secondary

consequences include the following effects (Kasperson et al., 2000):

o enduring mental perceptions, images and attitudes (e.g. anti-technology

attitudes, alienation from the physical environment, social apathy,

stigmatisation of an environment or risk manager),

o local impacts on business sales, residential property values, and economic

activity,

o political and social pressure (e.g. political demands, changes in political

climate and culture),

o changes in the physical nature of the risk (feedback mechanisms that increase

or reduce risk),

o changes in training, education, or required qualification of operating and

emergency-response personnel,

o social disorder (e.g. protesting, rioting, sabotage, terrorism),

o changes in risk monitoring and regulation,

o increased liability and insurance costs, and

o repercussions on other technologies (e.g. lower level public acceptance) and on

social institutions (e.g. erosion of public trust).

Secondary impacts are, in turn, perceived by social groups and individuals so that another

stage of amplification may occur to produce third-order impacts that may spread or ‘ripple’ to

other parties, distant location or future generations. The analogy of dropping a stone into a

pond serves to illustrate the spread of the higher order impacts associated with the social

amplification of risk. The ripples spread outward, first encompassing the directly affected

victims or the first group to be notified, then touching the next higher institutional level (a

company or an agency), and, in even more extreme cases, reaching other parts of the industry

or other social arenas with similar problems.

3.2.2 Layering method – a brief outline

According to Breakwell and Barnett (2001), in evaluating SARF it is clearly essential to use a

method that simultaneously explores a number of layers of data. Ideally this should be done

over the life cycle of a hazard. As SARF’s applicability to risk communication is currently

limited2 it is, thus, essential that a methodology for understanding the social processing of

risk also facilitates a consideration of the processes that determine the manner in which

mediators/moderators operate or the nature of their interactions.

To meet these requirements the layering method was developed. The key requirements of the

method are that:

- it accesses data at various levels of analysis (that as far as possible pertain to the same

time period),

- it includes data which act as metrics for a broad range of constructs in the model (e.g.

individual representation, action, media representation etc.) which refer to the same

periods of time as far as possible,

- it uses forms of analysis which examine relationships of constructs at one time and

over time. Change (or the lack of it) as hazard events undergo a variety of

amplification processes is crucial within framework: “This cannot be clearly seen with

a snapshot simply portraying the configuration of factors evident at any one moment.

Where the data permit, the layering method includes the time dimension as a

systematic focus of the analysis.” (Breakwell and Barnett, 2001: 6).

The layering method is thus an integrative, multidimensional technique for capturing data and

identifying relationships. A valuable contribution of SARF is that it motivates the collection

of data in a layered way. Incorporated with a consideration of the processes operating within

and between these layers, the method has the potential to identify, explore and predict

amplification processes.

2 The critics of SARF refer to the: a. amplification metaphor, b. the theoretical value of the framework, c. the role of mass media, as discussed in the framework, d. the individual vs. social processes comparison, e. the explanatory and predictive power of the framework.

3.3 Case study analysis and implications for communication activities

In the case study (Drevenšek, 2004), we analyse the communication aspects of the low- and

intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal project in Slovenia (using different kinds of

available secondary data)3. Then we try to combine the critics of SARF and the newly

proposed layering method with the “traditional”, theoretical and empirical findings regarding

the role of trust in risk communication, with a special emphasis on the three analytical levels

of risk communication (factual evidence; personal and institutional experience and judgement;

social identification - world view). This combination of SARF/layering method and the three

levels of risk debate theory is theoretically established for the first time in the literature.

Using these frameworks and methods we empirically examine whether the research the

Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Radioactive Waste commissions and collects enables

an effective use of the SARF and layering method.

The main conclusion of the case study:

1. The available secondary data regarding the LILW disposal in Slovenia do not allow a

typical social amplification of risk analysis as there have not been any amplifications

(or attenuations) noticed since the research data have been collected (mainly since

1995). Nevertheless, we can be quite sure that in the future such amplification(s) will

occur. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the Agency for Radioactive Waste,

authorized for the disposal project, designs and commissions the research activities

in such a way that the data collected will allow the SARF/layering method

analysis.

2. It is especially important to commission the research activities in such a way that they

will allow the social amplification of risk analysis with the help of the layering method 3 We selected the following secondary data for the analysis:

- the amount of LILW in the Krško Nuclear Power Plant repository (1987 – 2002), - the amount of spent fuel in the Krško Nuclear Power Plant (1987 – 2002), - the number of article in the mass media regarding the LILW project (1994 – 2003), - number of visitors in the Educational Center for Nuclear Technology (1994 – 2001), - data from the public opinion polls 1995 – 2002: Which kind of waste represents the largest ecological

problems? On which of the following fields do you uphold the use of radioactive or nuclear materials in Slovenia? Can you name the organization, responsible for radioactive waste management in Slovenia? Whom do you trust mostly regarding the radioactive waste management in Slovenia? Would you like to find out more about radioactive waste in Slovenia? Who is, in your opinion, in charge of making the final decision regarding the radioactive waste disposal in Slovenia? Do you dis/agree with the statement that nuclear technologies are useful for people? Etc.

- data from the journalists' opinion research, - data from the environmental NGO opinion research, - data from the opinion research in selected local communities.

and the indispensable assessment of the risk debate level (factual, judgemental or

world-view level).

3. Due to the lack of the secondary data it is impossible to give detailed starting-points

regarding the planning and implementation of Agency’s communication activities.

Nevertheless, we can offer some general suggestions that are, if adequately adapted,

applicable also to other risk communication areas. In offering these suggestions we

hypothetically presuppose that the risk debate at some moment in time or in some of

the target publics evolves on the a.) factual, b.) judgemental or c.) world-view level.

Below we discuss some of the suggestions for planning and implementing

communication activities if the risk debate evolves on the following levels:

a. factual level

If the risk debate evolves on the level of factual evidence (e.g. there is no consensus

regarding the necessity of the rad-waste disposal in Slovenia, the amount of rad-waste

or the capacity of the available repository etc.), then the role of the Radwaste Agency

is mainly to inform, educate and raise the publics’ awareness.

The Agency has to determine whether the existent communication activities in this

field are adequately planned and implemented or need some changes/improvements. It

is of great necessity that the planning and implementation of these activities is a two-

way process with frequent and continuous evaluation efforts. Compared to the next

two levels the communication activities on this level are relatively simple and

controllable. As discussed in the case study (Drevenšek, 2004) the Agency is already

implementing several communication activities in this field but no evaluation data are

available.

b. judgemental level

If the risk debate evolves on the level of judgements and experiences about the

Agency, the perceptions of its successfulness, honesty, transparency etc. in the eyes of

the target publics, the communication activities have to be lifted to this second level.

Above all, this implies more intense public participation methods and the adaptation

of communication activities to the reactions of these publics (feedback consideration).

The necessity of the two-way processes, already mentioned on the first level, becomes

a conditio sine qua non on this level.

As mentioned in the case study (Drevenšek, 2004) in the last few years the Agency has

improved its work a lot especially in the light of the participatory processes.

According to the provisions of the Aarhus Convention the environmental and other

NGO’s and other interested parties are now tightly involved in the project-planning

process. They have also employed a so called mediator whose role is the mediation

between the Agency and the Slovene local communities potentially interested in

offering a location for the rad-waste disposal.

Regarding the rich European experiences in the field of nuclear communications there

are, of course, also several other communication possibilities for improving the

organizational perceptions on the second level.

c. world-view level

The available secondary data (Drevenšek, 2004) offer some (but not complete)

information regarding the general (world-) view of the Slovene public towards the

usefulness of the nuclear technologies and the necessity for the responsible rad-waste

management. On the declarative and values-based level we could conclude that the

attitude of the Slovene residents towards radioactive waste is responsible and therefore

sustainable (the idea that “we have to take care for the waste we are producing and not

leave it up to the next generations”).

Nevertheless, the so far existing opinions and behavioural patterns contradict this

‘responsible ideal’. The situation gets radically changed at the moment when the risk

debate focuses on a concrete location: namely, the people are not willing to take the

“national rad-waste burden” on their own, “local or regional shoulders”.

Therefore, the question of the consistency of the public opinions has to be taken into

account in either further research and communication activities.

According to the author researching and considering the risk debate level is

undoubtedly necessary in order to plan and implement the communication activities

effectively and responsibly. Only such an approach can help the Agency to establish,

maintain and increase the amount of trust it receives from its target publics and which

it needs for doing its work. In other words: only such an approach can

(communicatively) support the fulfilling of this environmental risk project and

contribute to finding a sustainable solution for the Slovene radioactive waste

management.

4. Instead of the conclusion: a research project proposal for analysing the risk

debate levels

As already mentioned, the precise understanding of what happens in the public debates is

of utmost importance to the environmental risk managers and their communicators. Only

by understanding the situation they can responsibly and effectively plan and implement

their risk communication and other activities that can lead to a successful completion of

the environmental risk project, contributing to a more sustainable society. From the

analytical point of view it is essential to discuss the three levels of the public risk debate:

the level of factual evidence, the level of personal and institutional experience and

judgement, and the social identification (world-view) level.

In the real world and in real conflicts the debate is only rarely (but there are instances!)

evolving on only one of the levels mentioned. Usually we witness an interweaving of at

least two levels that pertain to one or more publics. But even in this case we can

analytically describe that in certain time periods, in certain publics or in certain

circumstances the elements of one of the three levels are more obvious than the others4.

Therefore we can conclude that an institution responsible for a successful completion of a

risk project has to have a thorough overview on the situation in different publics in

different time and place. This is conditio sine qua non for adequately adjusting the

environmental risk communication activities and successfully striving to increase the

professional (expert) aspects of the project in different publics, whereby all the time and

with each message fulfilling the standards of truthful, correct and sincere communication.

Therefore, instead of a conclusion we can offer a brief but practical outline of a research

proposal for analysing different risk debate levels. It is suggested that the hypotheses

regarding the level of the risk debate are formulated according to the different sets of

opinions and believes: 4 In a hypothetical environmental risk project, we can imagine for example a furious local community, acting on the basis of its values (third level of risk debate), the sensational reporting by the media, focusing predominantly on the perception of the organization as dishonest, closed and incompetent (second level), and different streams of the expert public, debating on the level of factual evidence (first level).

- cognitive beliefs (knowledge and acquaintance with the risk issue – first level),

- perception of the institutional performance (successfulness, efficiency, honesty –

second level),

- basic values and world-view (third level).

The relative importance of each set can be established through the regression or factor

analysis.

An adapted, indirect use of the SARF model is meaningful and highly recommended for

the experts, decision makers and above all their communication experts.

We also conclude that analysing the risk debate level with the help of the proposed

methodological tools is of utmost importance not only in environmental but also in several

other risk communication areas.

The transference of the SARF model, the layering method and the risk debate level analysis

are therefore by no means confined to the environmental risk projects. The author of the

paper is convinced that this transference can contribute significantly also to other areas,

relevant for establishing sustainable societies, e.g. urban planning, energy supply, health

care, food industry, chemical industry, safety at work, transport regulation etc.

The proposed research model cannot solve all the dilemmas regarding the management and

the communication of environmental (and other) risk projects, but it is, nevertheless, more

than just a necessary but insufficient condition. According to the author, the application of

the research model in risk communication practice is one of the most important and largest

first steps for effective and responsible planning and implementation of environmental and

other risk communication activities.

5. References Bechtel, Robert B. (1997): Environment and behaviour. An introduction. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London.

Beck, Ulrich (1996): Risk society and the provident state. V: Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, Brian Wynne (ur.): Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, str. 27 – 43.

Beck, Ulrich (2001): Družba tveganja. Na poti v neko drugo moderno. Krtina, Ljubljana.

Baram, Michael (1991): Rights and duties concerning the availability of environmental risk information to the public. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 67 – 78.

Bostrom, Ann (1999): Who calls the shots? Credible vaccine risk communication. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 140 – 152.

Bradbury, Judith A., Kristi M. Branch, Will Focht (1999): Trust and public participation in risk policy issues. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 117 – 127.

Breakwell, Glynis M., Julie Barnett (2003): Social amplification of risk and the layering method. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 80 – 101.

Breakwell, Glynis M., Julie Barnett et al. (2001): The impact of social amplification of risk on risk communication. Health & Safety Executive Books, Sudbury, Suffolk.

Breakwell, Glynis M. (2001): Mental models and social representations of hazards: the significance of identity processes. V: Journal of Risk Research, 4, 4, 341 – 351.

Chartier, Jean, Sandra Gabler (2001). Risk Communication and Government: Theory and Application for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. CFIA, Public and Regulatory Affairs Branch. Dostopno na: www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/riskcomm/riscomme.shtml.

Covello, Vincent T. (1991): Risk comparisons and risk communication: issues and problems in comparing health and environmental risks. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 79 – 124.

Cvetkovich, George (1999): The attribution of social trust. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 53 – 61.

Cvetkovich, George, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.) (1999): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London.

Drevenšek, Mojca (2004): The importance of trust in environmental risk communication. Master thesis. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana (in Slovene). Drew, Christina H., Timothy L. Nyerges (v tisku): Transparency of environmental decision making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area. V: Journal of Risk Research.

Drew, Christina H., Dairdre A. Grace et al. (2003): Nuclear waste transportation: case studies of identifying stakeholder risk information needs. V: Environmental Helath Perspectives. Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Sciences, 111, 3, 263 – 272.

Earle, Timothy C., George Cvetkovich (1999): Social Trust and Culture in Risk Management. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 9 – 21.

Easterling, Doug (2001): Fear and loathing of Las Vegas: will a nuclear waste repository contaminate the imagery of nearby places? V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 133 – 156.

Ellis, Derek (1989): Environments at Risk. Case Histories of Impact Assessment. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong.

Eldridge, John, Jacquie Reilly (2003): Risk and relativity: BSE and the British media. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic

Fischoff, Baruch et al. (2000a): How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 80 – 103.

Fischoff, Baruch et al. (2000b): Weighing the risks: Which risks are acceptable? V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 121 – 136.

Flynn, James (2003): Nuclear stigma. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 326 – 352.

Flynn, James, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.) (2001): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling.

Freudenburg, William R. (2003): Institutional failure and the organizational amplification of risks: the need for a closer look. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 102 – 120.

Frewer, Lynn J. (2003): Trust, transparency, and social context: implications for social amplification of risk. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 123 – 137.

Furedi, Frank (2002): Culture of Fear. Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. Continuum, London, New York.

Giddens, Anthony (2002): Runaway World. How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives. Profile Books, London.

Gowda, M. V. Rajeev (1999): Social trust, risk management, and culture: insights from native America. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 128 – 139.

Gowda, M. V. Rajeev (2003): Integrating politics with the social amplification of risk framework: insights from an exploration in the criminal justice context. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 305 – 325.

Gregory, Robin, Jamen Flynn, Paul Slovic (2001): Technological stigma. V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 3 – 8.

Grove-White Robin (1996): Environmental knowledge and public policy needs: On humanising the research agenda. V: Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, Brian Wynne (ur.): Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, str. 269 – 286.

Hammond, John S., Ralph L. Keeney, Howard Raiffa (2002): Smart choices: a practical guide to making better life decisions. Broadway Books, New York.

Gutteling, Jan M., Margôt Kuttschreuter (2002): The role of expertise in risk communication: laypeople’s and expert’s perception of the millennium bug risk in The Netherlands. V: Journal of Risk Research, 5, 1, 35 – 47.

Hiskes, Richard P. (1998): Democracy, risk, and community. Technological hazards and the evolution of liberalism. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.

Hohenemser, Christoph, Robert W. Kates, Paul Slovic (2000): The nature of technological hazard. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 168 – 181.

Horlick-Jones, Tom, Jonathan Sime, Nick Pidgeon (2003): The social dynamics of environmental risk perception: implications for risk communication research and practice. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 262 – 285.

Hunsperger, Wayne (2001): The effects of the rocky flats nuclear weapons plant on neighboring property values. V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 157 – 171.

Japp, Klaus Peter (1996): Soziologische Risikotheorie. Funktionale Differenzierung, Politisierung und Reflexion. Juventa Verlag, Weinheim, München.

Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. (2001): Modeling stigma: an empirical analysis of nuclear waste images of Nevada modeling stigma. V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 107 – 131.

Johnson, Branden B. (1999): Trust judgements in complex hazard management systems: the potential role of concepts of the system. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 62 – 72.

Kasperson, Jeanne X., Roger E. Kasperson, Nick Pidgeon, Paul Slovic (2003): The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 13 – 46.

Kasperson, Roger E., Pieter Jan M. Stallen (1991): Risk communication: the evolution of attempts. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 1 – 12.

Kasperson, Roger E. (1992): The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework. V: Krimsky, Sheldon, Dominic Golding (ur.): Social Theories of Risk. Westport, Praeger Publishers.

Kasperson, Roger E., Dominic Golding, Jeanne X. Kasperson (1999): Risk, trust and democratic theory. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 22 – 41.

Kasperson, Roger E. et al. (2000): The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 232 – 245.

Kasperson, Roger, Nayna Jhaveri, Jeanne X. Kasperson (2001): Stigma and social amplification of risk: toward a framework of analysis. V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard

Kirn, Andrej (1999): Komuniciranje z javnostjo o tveganjih. V: Teorija in praksa, 36, 6, 944 – 956.

Kos, Drago (2002a): Načela komunikacijskega delovanja. V: Aarhuška konvencija v Sloveniji. Regionalni center za okolje za srednjo in vzhodno Evropo, Ljubljana, str. 135-141.

Kos, Drago (2002b): Interaktivno komuniciranje in soodločanje. V: Aarhuška konvencija v Sloveniji. Regionalni center za okolje za srednjo in vzhodno Evropo, Ljubljana, str. 21-24.

Kos, Drago et al. (1999a): Analiza izkušenj v predhodnem postopku izbora lokacije odlagališča NSRAO: Mnenje lokalnih skupnosti. Naročnik: Agencija za radioaktivne odpadke (pogodba št. T 1238/99), Ljubljana.

Kos, Drago et al. (1999b): Izdelava strateškega in operativnega načrta komuniciranja z lokalnimi skupnostmi pri načrtovanju odlagališča. Zaključno poročilo. Naročnik: Agencija za radioaktivne odpadke (pogodba št. T – 1248/98), Ljubljana.

Kos, Drago (1997): Refleksno dojemanje ne-varnosti. V: Rizična družba. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo. XXV, 183, 93 – 106. ŠOU Študentska založba, Ljubljana.

Kos, Drago et al. (1998): Izbor lokacije za odlagališče NSRAO. Analiza izkušenj v predhodnem postopku izbora lokacije za odlagališče NSRAO: Družbenopravni vidiki. Naročnik: Agencija za radioaktivne odpadke (naloga sodi v program ARAO za leto 1997), Ljubljana.

Krimsky, Sheldon (1992): The role of theory in risk studies. V: Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, Wesport, str. 3 – 22.

Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 9 – 27. Krimsky, Sheldon, Dominic Golding (ur.) (1992): Social Theories of Risk. Westport, Praeger Publishers.

Leiss, William (2003): Searching for the public policy relevance of the risk amplification framework. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 355 – 373.

Lichtenberg, Judith, Douglas MacLean (1991): The role of the media in risk communication. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 157 – 174.

Löfstedt, Ragnar E., Tom Horlick-Jones (1999): Environmental regulation in the UK: politics, institutional change and public trust. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 73 – 88.

Luhman, Niklas (1997): Pojem rizika. V: Rizična družba. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo. XXV, 183, 11 – 28. ŠOU Študentska založba, Ljubljana.

Lukšič, Andrej (1997): Rizična Slovenija. V: Rizična družba. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo. XXV, 183, 11 – 28. ŠOU Študentska založba, Ljubljana.

Lupton, Deborah (1999): Risk. Routledge, London.

MacGregor, Donald G. (2003): Public response to Y2K: social amplification and risk adaptation: or, “how I learned to stop worrying and love Y2K”. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 243 – 261.

Mali, Franc (1997): Znanstveno-tehnološki razvoj in njegovi riziki. V: Rizična družba. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo. XXV, 183, 81 – 92. ŠOU Študentska založba, Ljubljana.

Margolis, Howard (1996): Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

Mayo, Deborah G., Rachelle D. Hollander (1991). Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.

Metlay, Daniel (1999): Institutional trust and confidence: a journey into a conceptual quagmire. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 100 – 116.

Mirel, Barbara (1994): Debating nuclear energy: theories of risk and purposes of communication. V: Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 1, 41 – 65.

Murdock, Graham, Judith Petts, Tom Horlick-Jones (2003): After amplification: rethinking the role of the media in risk communication. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 156 – 178.

Otway, Harry (1992): Public wisdom, expert fallibility: toward a contextual theory of risk. V: Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, Wesport, str. 215 – 228.

Peters, Richard G., Vincent T. Covello, David B. McCallum (1997): The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication. V: Risk Analysis, 17, 1, 43 – 54.

Petts, Judith (1998): Trust and waste management information expectation versus observation. V: Journal of Risk Research, 1, 4, 307 – 320.

Petts, Judith et al. (2001): Social amplification of Risk: The media and the public. Health & Safety Executive Books, Sudbury, Suffolk.

Pidgeon, Nick, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.) (2003): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Poumadère, Marc, Claire Mays (2003): The dynamics of risk amplification in context: a French case study. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 209 – 242.

Ratzan, Scott (ur.) (1998): The Mad Cow Crisis. Health and the Public Good. UCL Press, London.

Regester, Michael, Judy Larkin (2002): Risk issues and crisis management. Kogan Page, London.

Renn, Ortwin, Debra Levine (1991a): Credibility and trust in risk communication. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 175 – 217.

Renn, Ortwin (1991b): Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 287 – 324.

Renn, Ortwin (1991c): Strategies of risk communication: Observation from two participatory experiments. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 475 – 481.

Renn, Ortwin (1992a): Concepts of risk: a classification. V: Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, Wesport, str. 53 – 79.

Renn, Ortwin (1992b): The social arena concept of risk debates. V: Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, Wesport, str. 179 – 196.

Renn, Ortwin (2003) Social amplification of risk in participation: two case studies. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 374 – 401.

Rosa, Eugene A. (2003): The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF): Meta theoretical foundations and policy implications. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 47 – 79. Royal Society Study Group (1992): Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. The Royal Society, London.

Rozin, Paul (2001): Technological stigma: some perspectives from the study of contagion. V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 31 – 40.

Sjoberg, Lennart (1999): Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 89 – 99.

Slovic, Paul (1992): Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. V: Krimsky, Sheldon, Dominic Golding (ur.): Social Theories of Risk. Westport, Praeger Publishers.

Slovic, Paul (1999): Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. V: George Cvetkovich, Ragnar E. Löfstedt (ur.): Social Trust and the Management of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, str. 316 – 326.

Slovic, Paul (2000a): Informing and educating public about risk. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 182 – 198.

Slovic, Paul (2000b): Perception of risk from radiation. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 264 – 274.

Slovic, Paul, James Flynn, Mark Layman (2000c): Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 275 – 284.

Slovic, Paul (2000d): Perceived risk, trust and democracy. V: Paul Slovic (ur.): The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications, London, Sterling, str. 316 – 326.

Slovic, Paul, Mark Layman, Nancy Kraus, James Flynn, James Chalmers, Gail Gesell (2001): Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. V: James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Howard Kunreuther (ur.): Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan Publications, London, Stirling, str. 87 – 105.

Smith, Keith (1991): Environmental Hazards. Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. Rotledge, London and New York.

Snary, Christopher (2002): Risk communication and the waste-to-energy incinerator environmental impact assessment process: a UK study of public involvement. V: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45, 2, 267 – 283.

Strydom, Piet (2002): Risk, environment and society. Open University Press, Buckingham.

Svenson, Ola (1991): The time dimension in perception and communication of risk. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 263 – 285.

Thompson, Kimberly M., Diane L. Bloom (2000): Communication of risk assessment information to risk managers. V: Journal of Risk Research, 3, 4, 333 – 352.

Ule, Mirjana Nastran (2000): Temelji socialne psihologije. Tretja izdaja. Znanstveno in publicistično središče, Ljubljana.

Van Eijndhoven, José (1991): Risk communication: the need for a broader perspective. V: Roger E. Kasperson, Pieter Jan M. Stallen (ur.): Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, str. 393 – 412. Wåhlberg, Anders, Lennart Sjöberg (2000): Risk perception and the media. V: Journal of Risk Research, 3, 1, 31 – 50.

Von Winterfeldt, Detlof (1992): Expert knowledge and public values in risk management: the role of decision analysis. V: Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, Wesport, str. 321 – 342.

Weyman, A. K., C. J. Kelly (1999): Risk perception and risk communication: A review of literature. Health & Safety Executive Books, Sheffield.

Whipple, Chris (1992): Inconsistent values in risk management. V: Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, Wesport, str. 343 – 354.

Wiedemann, Peter M. (2000): Risikokommunikation für Unternehmen. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Düsseldorf.

Wiedemann, Peter M., Martin Clauberg, Holger Schütz (2003): Understanding amplification of complex risk issues: the risk story model applied to the EMF case. V: Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic (ur.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, str. 286 – 301.

Wynne, Brian (1996): May the sheep safely gaze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. V: Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, Brian Wynne (ur.): Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, str. 44 – 83.