Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Special Feature: West Nile Virus: Public Health Issues Raised by an Emerging Illness
  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US General Accounting Office.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, eds.Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989:3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Research Council,Improving Risk Communication, Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Slovic P. Perception of risk.Science. 1987;236:280–285.

    Article  CAS  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, eds.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; 1998:179–214.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of progress.Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):137–145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Covello VT, Sandman PM. Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In: Wolbarst A, ed.Solutions to an Environment in Peril, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 2001:164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sandman PM. 1989. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, eds.Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989:45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  9. National Research Council.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, eds.Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongoverment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989:127–135.

    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.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burger J, Pflugh KK, Lurig L, Von Hagen LA, Von Hagen S. Fishing in urban New Jersey: ethnicity affects information sources, perception, and compliance.Risk Anal. 1999;19(2):217–229.

    CAS  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.

    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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McBeth MK, Oakes AS. Citizen perception of risks associated with moving radiological waste.Risk Anal. 1996;16(3):421–427.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jasanoff S. Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis.Risk Anal. 1993;13(2):123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson R, Stallen P, eds.Communicating Risks to the Public. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991;175–218.

    Google Scholar 

  21. US Environmental Protection Agency.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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Weinstein ND. Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility.Health Psychol. 1984;3:431–457.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelkin D. Communicating technological risk: the social construction of risk perception.Annu Rev Public Health. 1989;10:95–113.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fischhoff B. Helping the public make health risk decisions. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, eds.Effective Risk Communization: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989:111–116.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilson R, Crouch E. Risk assessment and comparisons: an introduction.Science. 1987; 236:267–270.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neuwirth K, Dunwoody S, Griffin RJ. Protection motivation and risk communication.Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):721–733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Maslow AH.Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gould L, Walker C, eds.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.

    CAS  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. New York City Department of Health.Comprehensive Arthropod-Borne Disease Surveillance and Control Plan 2000. New York: New York City Dept of Health; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  37. National Research Council.Chemical and Biological Terrorism: Research and Development to Improve Civilian Medical Response. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

    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.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Risk Communication, 29 Washington Square West, Suite 2A, 10011, New York, NY

    Vincent T. Covello, Richard G. Peters, Joseph G. Wojtecki & Richard C. Hyde

Authors
  1. Vincent T. Covello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard G. Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph G. Wojtecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard C. Hyde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard G. Peters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Covello, V.T., Peters, R.G., Wojtecki, J.G. et al. 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. J Urban Health 78, 382–391 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.2.382

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.2.382

Keywords

Search

Navigation