Response to the article “Risk Communication, the West Nile Virus Epidemic, and Bioterrorism: Responding to the Communication Challenges Posed by the Intentional or Unintentional Release of a Pathogen in an Urban Setting”
The article “Risk Communication, the West Nile Virus Epidemic, and Bioterrorism: Responding to the Communication Challenges Posed by the Intentional or Unintentional Release of a Pathogen in an Urban Setting” focuses on the problem of the obstacles that hinder communication efforts in major risk situations. The cases that this article uses to illustrate this problem are the West Nile Virus Epidemic in New York in 1999 and 2000 and the existing threat of bioterrorism attacks.
An important part of this article is its addressing of the complications in transmitting effective risk communication messages to the public which result from the way the audience of the communication effort perceives the message. A major problem is that, in high risk or crisis situations, multiple influences and factors affecting peoples’ emotions obstruct the way they process information, causing them to not think and act reasonably at a time when logical and reasonable actions are critical to the situation’s outcome.
The article discusses what it calls the “Risk Communication Perspective.” This deals with the problems that occur in the exchange of information in risk communication. It identifies how risk communication can be inadequate, and similarly, the factors that cause citizens to not respond appropriately to risk communication. The article takes a look at risk communication in terms of four theoretical models, reflecting the nature of the transmission and processing of risk related information. These include the “Risk Perception Model,” the “Mental Noise Model,” the “Negative Dominance Model,” and the “Trust Determination Model.”
When examining the case of the West Nile Virus Epidemic, it is possible to identify the agent, action, motive, and outcome of the case. The agent was the New York City Department of Health. The action was the risk communication effort that the NYC Department of Health produced. This was in the form of “a detailed response plan that included public education and outreach”. The motive was the city’s need to combat the epidemic. This motive was reflected in the three objectives of NYC Department of Health’s public education and outreach plan. The objectives were “to improve the public’s awareness of risk for disease”, “to improve the public’s participation in eliminating potential breeding sites [of the mosquitoes]”, and “to provide timely and accurate information related to insecticide spraying.” The outcome of the risk communication effort was stated in the article as such: “In general, the New York City risk communication effort related to the West Nile Virus epidemic was far-reaching, resource intensive, competently handled, and effective. At the same time, several areas for improvement can be noted.” The “areas for improvement” are characterized by the communication effort’s lack of concern directed towards the understanding of stakeholders’ values and concerns regarding the crisis.
My topic does not fall under the category of high-risk or crisis communication, so many aspects of this article can not be directly related to my project. However, certain important ideas brought up in the article are useful to consider. For instance, it is very important that I carefully evaluate the perception of the risk of the stakeholders in my issue. The article brings up the point that “[s]ustained interaction and exchange of information with stakeholders about identified areas of concern” is an essential factor of effective risk communication. Another aspect of this article that I consider useful to my topic is ideas of establishing and maintaining the trust of my audience. I realize that this is a very important feature to develop in my project, and that I must be attentive to providing communication that can be trusted by my audience.
