An empirical analysis of communication flow, strategy and stakeholders' participation in the risk communication literature 1988-2000

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 499-511

  Gurabardhi, Zamira ^a   Gutteling, Jan M ^a   Kuttschreuter, Margôt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Control mutuality; Development; Empirical content analysis; Risk; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

DECISION THEORY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

CONTROL MUTUALITY; DEVELOPMENT; EMPIRICAL CONTENT ANALYSIS; RISK COMMUNICATION;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 32144439414     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870500064192     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Beierle, T. (1998) Public participation in environmental decisions: using social goals, in Resources for the Future, http://www.rff.org/about_rff/ web_bios/beierle.htm
2. Chess, C. (2001) Organisational theory and the stages of risk communication, Risk Analysis 21 (1), 179-88.
3. Covello, V. and Sandman, P. (2001) Risk communication: Evolution and revolution, in A. Wolbarst (ed.) Solution to an Environment in Peril, pp. 164-78. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
4. Fiorino, D. (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms, Science Technology and Human Values 15 (2), 226-43.
5. Fischhoff, B. (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process, Risk Analysis 15 (2), 137-45.
6. Grunig, J. E. and Hon, L. C. (1999) Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations, University of Florida: The Institute for Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.
7. Gurabardhi, A., Gutteling, J. M. and Kuttschreuter, M. (2004) The development of Risk Communication: An empirical analysis of the literature in the field, Science Communication 25 (4), 323-49.
8. Heath, R. and Palenchar, M. (2000) Community relations and risk communication: A longitudinal study of the impact of emergency response messages, Journal of Public Relations Research 12 (2), 131-61.
9. Juanillo, N. K. J. and Scherer, C. W. (1995) Attaining a state of information judgments: Toward a dialectical discourse of risk, in B. B. Burelson (ed.) Communication Yearbook 18, pp. 278-99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Leiss, W. (1996) Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545 (May), 85-94.
11. st century, AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. 04-10, http://ssrn.com/abstract=545724
12. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds.) (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Rowan, K. E. (1994) The technical and democratic approaches to risk situations: their appeal, limitations, and rhetorical alternative, Argumentation 8, 391-409.
14. Rich, R. C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W. K. and Wandersman, A. H. (1995) Citizen participation and empowerment: the case of local environmental hazards, American Journal of Community Psychology 23 (5), 657-76.
15. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation, Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1), 3-29.
16. Sandman, P. (1994) Risk communication, in R. A. Eblen and W. R. Eblen (eds) Encyclopedia of the Environment, pp. 620-23. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.