No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
On 14 April 2010 the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajökull, erupted resulting in a volcanic ash cloud across European airspace. The ash cloud caused a moratorium on flying and concerns over health effects to vulnerable populations. Not even a year since the volcanic ash cloud; on 11 March 2011 a massive 9.0-magnitude earthquake occurred near the northeastern coast of Japan, creating extremely destructive tsunami waves which hit Japan just minutes after the earthquake, triggering evacuations and warnings across the Pacific Ocean. The disaster also led to concerns over nuclear power plant meltdowns in the affected areas and risk of radiation. High perceived risks associated with the Japanese tsunami and volcanic ash crisis are examples of scenarios where accurate and timely health and safety communications are vital for effective emergency response. However, communications immediately following such events face unique challenges. This report describes the challenges faced in terms of crisis communication immediately following high perceived risk events and positions the example case studies in the context of an existing crisis communication paradigm.
1 P. Sandman and J. Lanard, “Crisis Communication: Guidelines for Action. Planning What to Say When Terrorists, Epidemics, or Other Emergencies Strike” (2004), available on the Internet at <http://www.psandman.com/handouts/AIHA-DVD.htm> (last accessed on 12 February 2011).
2 Fischhoff, B. et al., “Analyzing Disaster Risks and Plans: An Avian Flu Example”, 33 Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (2006), pp. 131–149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 B. Fischhoff, “Scientifically Sound Pandemic Risk Communication. Prepared for House Science Committee Briefing: Gaps in the National Flu Preparedness Plan – Social Science Planning and Response” (14 December 2005), available on the Internet at <http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Events/05dec14Fluplan/fischhoff_fluplan_14dec05.pdf> (last accessed on 28 February 2011).
4 Slovic, P., “Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy”, 13(6) Risk Analysis (1993), pp. 675–682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Fischhoff et al., “Analyzing Disaster Risks”, supra note 2.
6 B. Reynolds, “Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002), available on the Internet at <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/cerc/pdf/CERC-SEPT02.pdf> (last accessed on 21 February 2011).
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 MSNBC.com., “Fallen Volcano Ash Could Pose Health Risk”, MSNBC. com News Services, 16 April 2010, available on the Internet at <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36595264/ns/health-more_health_news> (last accessed on 21 February 2011).
11 Covello, V. and Sandman, P., “Risk Communication: Evolution and Revolution”, in Wolbarst, A. (ed.), Solutions to an Environment in Peril (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2001), pp. 164–178 Google Scholar.
12 David Spiegelhalter, “Japan Nuclear Threat: The Tsunami is the bigger Tragedy”, BBC news, 18 March 2011, available on the Internet at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274> (last accessed on 19 March 2011).
13 Kasperson, R. et al., “The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years of Research and Theory”, in Pidgeon, N. et al. (eds), The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 13–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.