Abstract
The aim of this paper was to investigate experts' perceptions on communication in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism crises, including challenges and good practices. This is pursued by means of a qualitative online questionnaire aimed at international crisis communication and crisis management experts. The challenges of communication concerning CBRN terrorism arise from the complexity of such incidents, having to do with the nature of the threat, leading to problematic public perceptions and response. Critical areas that need to be taken into consideration include resources, competences, and cooperation in preparedness communication and when providing information during a crisis. The findings and conclusions of this study will serve the development of an audit instrument for communication preparedness towards CBRN terrorism.
Highlights
Several authors have described factors that make CBRN terrorist events unique and demanding
The purpose of the part on CBRN terrorism was to investigate experts’ perceptions on communication with the aim of answering the following research questions: RQ1: What communication challenges do CBRN terrorism crises according to expert views present? RQ2: What are considered good practices when communicating with citizens in CBRN terrorism crises?
This supports the views in the literature according to which negative reactions towards differing “others” or minorities need to be prevented by e.g. cautious framing of related messages (Stevens et al, 2009; Veil & Mitchell, 2010). The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate experts’ perceptions on communication in CBRN terrorism crises, including challenges and good practices. This was pursued with the help of an online questionnaire, containing mostly open questions, aimed at international crisis communication and crisis management experts
Summary
Several authors have described factors that make CBRN terrorist events unique and demanding These factors relate to terrorism and the hazardous – chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear – materials involved (Ruggiero & Vos, 2013), including, for example, the element of surprise, unseen agents, lethal devices, risk of repetition, and new kinds of risks (Covello, Peters, Wojtecki, & Hyde, 2001; Slovic, 2002; Sheppard, 2011). These factors may create intense reactions among publics (Rubin, Amlôt, & Page, 2011) that have to do with risk perception factors such as involuntariness, uncontrollability, unfamiliarity, unfairness, lack of understanding, uncertainty, and ethical/moral violations Many respondents (20) worked primarily in Europe (France, Greece, Romania, Belgium, Germany, Wales, Finland, Spain, Italy, Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland), while some (5) worked primarily outside Europe (Turkey, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Myanmar, Haiti, Philippines, Myanmar, Indonesia, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, worldwide), or had (3) combined work experience in and outside Europe (Italy, Turkey, Germany, USA, Chile, New Zealand, Japan, global, worldwide).The majority of the respondents worked both in urban and rural areas (17), while some worked only in an urban area (8) and others only in rural areas (2)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
