Authors
The process and product of communication on risks of a proposed incinerator in Winona County, Minnesota, were examined. The county's risk communication process involved constituting a citizen advisory committee, holding open meetings, and giving frequent speeches. The process allowed the public to play a role as a legitimate partner in decision‐making. However, the risk communication product was less than optimal due to its reactive, not pro‐active, treatment of the risk issue; its indirect focus on risk; and its use of a least preferred characterization of risk, which compared incineration with unrelated risks, rather than comparing the risks of alternatives under consideration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mary Ann Renz (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: