Decision makers, communication

The core function of QRA is to provide information for decision making. QRA results in and of themselves cannot prove anything. However, decision makers can compare QRA risk estimates to their own risk tolerance criteria to decide whether a plant or operation is safe enough. The same QRA results can support both the plant manager s contention that the plant is safe, as well as the community activist s claim that the plant is unsafe. The difference lies in the individual s risk tolerance, not the QRA. 

How will the modeling and simulation results be communicated to decision makers ... 

CLL mapping is extremely useful in communicating findings of environmental impact studies both for general public and decision-makers. 

The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. A global forum for communication between scientists and decision makers in government and industry (HICKEY Chris, USA)... 

Effective environmental management and decision making. Discuss how scientists and decision makers can best develop risk assessment, risk management and risk communication systems to achieve environmental goals. Use the POPs treaty and Chinese obligations under the treaty as an example for which effective management systems can be developed. 

How can we communicate methods and outputs effectively to decision makers and stakeholders ... 

Technical experts with responsibility for communicating results to decision makers and other stakeholders... 

Technical experts with responsibility for communicating results to regulators, registrant-decision makers, and others Assists in communication to regulators, and other stakeholders — understanding of risk assessment necessary... 

Dialogue between risk assessor, decision maker, and stakeholders Dialogue between risk assessor, decision maker, and other experts (e.g., academics) as necessary to complete the analyses Risk assessor communicates results to decision maker Risk assessor communicates results to decision maker... 

Communication from risk assessor and decision makers to stakeholders... 

Communicating in a manner that accurately portrays risk and the nature of confidence in results is integral to and a major challenge for practitioners of probabilistic risk assessment. Inadequate communication of scientific uncertainty about the effect, severity, or prevalence of a hazard tends to increase unease among decision makers, stakeholders, and other participants. Efforts of the risk assessors should provide clarity for decision makers who must in turn bear ultimate responsibility for communicating the parameters of any decision. The risk assessor will work within a framework that must be clearly communicated by decision makers during the problem formulation. Decision makers at the outset of the risk assessment process must articulate the following points ... 

Risk assessors and decision makers both need to be prepared to communicate risk results in an understandable form to other practitioners (regulatory and registrant), stakeholders, and the public. This is particularly critical in the case of uncertainty in the assessment. Most scientists hired to perform risk assessment are thoroughly trained in their subject matter but less familiar with the demands of public presentation or the essentials of educating at multiple levels. Regulators must provide scientists and decision makers with the support and opportunity to develop skills necessary to effectively communicate with stakeholders and the public. 

The type of decision that needs to be made will influence the choice of uncertainty analysis method. Consequently, the process must include a dialogue between the risk assessor and decision maker throughout the risk assessment. The uncertainty associated with the risk assessment must be clearly communicated so that all parties involved in the risk assessment process understand it. 

HOW CAN WE COMMUNICATE METHODS AND OUTPUTS EFFECTIVELY TO DECISION MAKERS AND STAKEHOLDERS ... 

Effective communication among risk assessment practitioners, decision makers, and other stakeholders is essential and is the responsibility of all parties involved in the risk assessment process. Poor communication together with ambiguous, inexplicit, or inaccurate interpretations of risk assessment outputs result in 1) an erosion of scientific credibility, 2) ineffective decision making, and 3) futile use of resources. 

Communication between risk managers, risk assessors, and analysts is essential from the start of the assessment process, not just in communicating results. For example, the choice of uncertainty analysis methods will be dependent on 1) the questions posed by decision makers, 2) the closeness of the risk estimate and its bounds to thresholds of acceptability or unacceptability, 3) the type of decision that must be made, and 4) the consequences of the decision. 

Probabilistic techniqnes are relatively new in the pesticides arena and are prone to criticism and debate. It is therefore especially important to clearly communicate the approach taken, and to explain to decision makers how the risk estimates were quantified. 

In order to sensitize decision-makers it is necessary to develop initiatives that involve all stakeholders of the public sector and the civil society through organizations representing health professionals, patients, manufacturers, distributors, as well as communication professionals and the media. 

---