Community‐Oriented Risk Communication in Recovery Efforts after Radiological Contamination/Accidents

Abstract

The high levels of public worry and distrust of authorities, especially as associated with nuclear energy and radioactive waste, are well established in the literature and in the experience of risk communicators dealing with the general public. Though much of the experience with the heightened sense of worry that accompanies planned exposure situations associated with proposed radioactive/nuclear facilities (e.g., radioactive waste repositories, nuclear power plants, yet to be approved or built), there are also examples of existing exposure situations such as those following radiological accidents (e.g., Chernobyl or Fukushima). Some risk perception factors (e.g., trust, dread) are common to both planned and existing exposure situations, whereas others (e.g., volition, controllability) may be more prevalent in post‐accident exposure situations. Specific risk perceptions held by a given population and its various subgroups must be acknowledged and incorporated into successful risk communication and public engagement strategies. Post‐accident recovery programs and remediation projects, while in many countries requiring stakeholder and public acceptance to proceed, often fail to incorporate the specific risk perceptions held by the various affected groups in their risk communication and public involvement strategies. Such failures can foster a skeptical or angry public reaction, and hamper recovery in terms of both primary measures (radiological risk reduction interventions) and secondary measures (aiming at “return to normal life,” removal of stigmatization, health and well‐being, etc.). Existing exposure situations and the corresponding mitigations are often approached as local or national scale issues, but by their nature of following radiological emergencies or nuclear accidents, issues of multinational risk perceptions may also arise. Confronting risk perceptions featuring high levels of uncertainty, issue complexity, distrust, information asymmetry, and so forth, requires more interactive forms of governance and adaptive approaches to securing public acceptance. A suggestion is made to deploy an iterative continuous improvement model for incorporating specific risk perceptions into risk communication programs in concert with mutual‐gains‐based public engagement mechanisms.