Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine logoLink to Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
. 2001 Jun;78(2):382–391. doi: 10.1093/jurban/78.2.382

Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the commnication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting

Vincent T Covello 1, Richard G Peters 1,✉, Joseph G Wojtecki 1, Richard C Hyde 1
PMCID: PMC3456369  PMID: 11419589

Abstract

The intentional or unintentional introduction of a pathogen in an urban setting presents severe communication chanllenges. Risk communication—a science-based approach for communicating effectively in high-concern situations—provides a set of principles and tools for meeting those challenges. A brief overview of the risk communication theoretical perspective and basic risk communication models is presented here, and the risk communication perspective is applied to the West Nile virus epidemic in New York City in 1999 and 2000 and to a possible bioterrorist event. The purpose is to provide practical information on how perceptions of the risks associated with a disease outbreak might be perceived and how communications would be best managed.

Keywords: Bioterrorism, Risk Communication, Risk Perception, West Nile Virus

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (82.8 KB).

References

  • 1.West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT. Principles and guidelines for improving risk communication. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, editors. Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Covello VT. Risk perception, risk communication, and EMF exposure: tools and techniques for communicating risk information. In: Matthes R, Bernhardt JH, Repacholi MH, editors. Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Its Application to EMF Exposure: Proceedings of the World Health Organization/ICNRP International Conference (ICNIRP 5/98) Vienna, Austria: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; 1998. pp. 179–214. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of progress. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):137–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Covello VT, Sandman PM. Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In: Wolbarst A, editor. Solutions to an Environment in Peril. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 2001. pp. 164–178. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sandman PM. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, editors. Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arkin EB. Translation of risk information for the public: message development. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, editors. Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongoverment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 127–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Baron J, Hershey JC, Kunreuther H. Determinants of priority for risk reduction: the role of worry. Risk Anal. 2000;20(4):413–428. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.204041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ, Saville A. Results of a national symposium on risk communication: next steps for government agencies. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):115–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00306.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Burger J, Pflugh KK, Lurig L, Hagen LA, Hagen S. Fishing in urban New Jersey: ethnicity affects information sources, perception, and compliance. Risk Anal. 1999;19(2):217–229. doi: 10.1023/a:1006921610468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Elliot SJ, Cole DC, Krueger P, Voorberg N, Wakefield S. The power of perception: health risk attributed to air poplution in an urban industrial neighborhood. Risk Anal. 1999;19(2):621–633. doi: 10.1023/a:1007029518897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grobe D, Douthitt R, Zepeda L. A model of consumers' risk perceptions toward recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH): the impact of risk characteristics. Risk Anal. 1999;19(4):661–673. doi: 10.1023/a:1007085603876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McBeth MK, Oakes AS. Citizen perception of risks associated with moving radiological waste. Risk Anal. 1996;16(3):421–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01476.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D. Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal. 1999;19(3):497–509. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Morgan G, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Lave L, Atman CJ. Communicating risk to the public. Environ Sci Technol. 1992;26(11):2048–2056. doi: 10.1021/es00035a606. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jasanoff S. Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis. Risk Anal. 1993;13(2):123–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01057.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson R, Stallen P, editors. Communicating Risks to the Public. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991. pp. 175–218. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Public Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemical Risks in Six Communities: Analysis of a Baseline Survey. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sjoberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 2000;20(1):1–11. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Weinstein ND. Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychol. 1984;3:431–457. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.3.5.431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nelkin D. Communicating technological risk: the social construction of risk perception. Annu Rev Public Health. 1989;10:95–113. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.10.050189.000523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rogers GO. The dynamics of risk perception: how does perceived risk respond to risk events? Risk Anal. 1997;17(6):745–757. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01280.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wildavsky A, Dake K. Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why. Daedalus. 1990;112:41–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Renn O, Bums WJ, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Slovic P. The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. J Soc Sci Issues. 1992;48:137–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fischhoff B. Helping the public make health risk decisions. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, editors. Effective Risk Communization: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 111–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Johnson BB. “The mental model” meets “the planning process”: wrestling with risk communication research and practice. Risk Anal. 1993;13(1):5–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00719.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wilson R, Crouch E. Risk assessment and comparisons: an introduction. Science. 1987;236:267–270. doi: 10.1126/science.3563505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Neuwirth K, Dunwoody S, Griffin RJ. Protection motivation and risk communication. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):721–733. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.205065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Maslow AH. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row; 1970. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gould L, Walker C, editors. Too Hot to Handle. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battle-field. Risk Anal. 1999;19(4):689–701. doi: 10.1023/a:1007041821623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 1997;17(1):43–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Comprehensive Arthropod-Borne Disease Surveillance and Control Plan 2000. New York: New York City Dept of Health; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chemical and Biological Terrorism: Research and Development to Improve Civilian Medical Response. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lederberg J. Biological Weapons: Limiting the Threat. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Santos S, Covello VT, McCallum DB. Industry response to SARA Title III: pollution prevention, risk reduction, and risk communication. Risk Anal. 1996;16(1):57–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01436.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lynn FM, Busenberg GJ. Citizen advisory committees and environmental policy: what we know, what's left to discover. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):147–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00309.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine are provided here courtesy of New York Academy of Medicine

RESOURCES