Guidance on communicating about uncertainties in nuclear emergency management

Open Access

Issue		Radioprotection Volume 55, May 2020 Coping with uncertainties for improved modelling and decision making in nuclear emergencies. Key results of the CONFIDENCE European research project


Page(s)		S169 - S174
Section		SOCIAL UNCERTAINTIES
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020028
Published online		17 April 2020

Acar A, Muraki Y. 2011. Twitter for crisis communication: Lessons learned from Japan’s tsunami disaster. Int. J. Web Based Communities 7(3): 392–402. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
American Press Institute and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (API). 2016. A new understanding. What makes people trust and rely on news. Media Insight Project. Available from https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-news/single-page/. [Google Scholar]
Duranova T, Beresford NA, Perko T, Raskob W. 2020. Education and training activities in the Euratom CONFIDENCE project. Radioprotection 55(HS1). https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020011. [Google Scholar]
Fischhoff B, Davis LA. 2014. Communicating scientific uncertainty. PNASS 111: 13664–13671. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
IAEA. 2012. Communication with the public in a nuclear or radiological emergency. EPR-Public Communications. Vienna: IAEA. [Google Scholar]
IAEA. 2015. Method for developing a communication strategy and plan for a nuclear or radiological emergency, emergency preparedness and response. EPR Public Communication Plan. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, p. 23. [Google Scholar]
Jensen JD, Pokharel M, Scherr CL, King AJ, Brown N, Jones C. 2017. Communicating uncertain science to the public: How amount and source of uncertainty impact fatalism, backlash, and overload. Risk Anal. 37: 40–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Marignac Y, Hazemann J, Baudé SJR. 2016. Managing the complexity of societal needs in a nuclear emergency situation: Towards further experts collaboration for the “enlightened protection” of populations. Radioprotection 51: S159–S161. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
OECD/NEA. 2015. Stakeholder involvement in decision making: A short guide to issues, approaches and resources. Paris, France: OECD. [Google Scholar]
Perko T. 2016. Risk Communication in the case of the Fukushima accident: Impact of communication and lessons to be learned. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 12: 683–686. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Perko T, Thijssen P, Turcanu C, Van Gorp B. 2014. Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages: Nuclear emergency communication. J. Risk Res. 17: 1207–1232. [Google Scholar]
Perko T, Tomkiv Y, Prezelj I, Cantone MC, Gallego E, Oughton DH. 2016a. Communication with media in nuclear or radiological emergencies: General and practical recommendations for improvement. J. Radiol. Prot. 51(HS2): S163–S169. [Google Scholar]
Perko T, Zeleznik N, Mays C, Diaconu D, Kralj M, Koron B. 2016b. Communication recommendation related to ionising radiation, EAGLE, Enhancing educAtion, traininG and communication processes for informed behaviors and decision-making reLatEd to ionizing radiation risks. Brussels, Belgium: EC. [Google Scholar]
Perko T, Benighaus L, Tafili V, Oughton DH, Tomkiv Y, Sala R, Germán S, López S, Oltra C, Duranova T, Raskob W, Müller T, Nishizawa M, Wolf HV, Thijssen P, Camps J, Turcanu C, Benighaus C, Moschner J, Renn O. 2019a. Guidelines on tools for communication of uncertainties. CONCERT Deliverable D9.29. Available from https://www.concert-h2020.eu/en/Publications. [Google Scholar]
Perko T et al. 2019b. Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection. J. Radiol. Prot. 39: 766–784. [Google Scholar]
Reuter C, Kaufhold MA, Leopold I, Knipp H. 2017. KATWARN; NINA or FEMA? Multi-method study on distribution, use, and public views on crisis Apps. In: 25th Eur. Conf. on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal. Available from http://www.peasec.de/paper/2017/2017_ReuterKaufholdLeopoldKnipp_CrisisApps_ECIS.pdf. [Google Scholar]
Shirabe M, Fassert C, Hasegawa R. 2015. From risk communication to participatory radiation risk assessment. Fukushima Glob. Commun. Progr. Work. Pap. Ser. 21: 2–8. [Google Scholar]
Stern E. 2017. Unpacking and exploring the relationship between crisis management and social media in the era of “smart devices”. Homel. Secur. Aff. 13, Article 4. Available from https://www.hsaj.org/articles/13986. [Google Scholar]
Turcanu C, Perko T, Sala R, Wolf HV, Camps J, Oughton DH. 2020. Social uncertainties related to stable iodine intake in a nuclear emergency. Radioprotection. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020027. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Utz S, Schultz F, Glocka S. 2002. Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relat. Rev. 39(2013): 40–46. [Google Scholar]
Van der Meer K et al. 2010. Thyroid measurement campaign after an accidental release of 50 GBq 131I in Fleurus, Belgium. In: Third European IRPA Congress on Radiation Protection, Helsinki. [Google Scholar]
Reynolds RA, Reynolds JL. 2002. Evidence. In: The SAGE hand book of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (J.P. Dillard, M. Pfau, Eds.), pp. 427–444. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wojcieszak M, Kim N. 2016. How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups. Commun. Res. 43(6): 785–809. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215618480. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.