Download rapport - Center for Alternativ Samfundsanalyse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18basis for en form for gensidig dialog om risikoforhold kan være gennem netværkskommunikation,hvor man møder folk i deres egne fora.
2 Summary and conclusionsRisk communication is full of paradoxes. One of the largest is that many people,on the one hand, believe that the authorities must report cases as soon aspossible if they have reason to suspect that a risk has arisen – e.g. that a specificproduct is associated with a health hazard. On the other hand, the samepeople believe that the authorities must investigate things thoroughly beforethey report about cases, in order not to cause unnecessary concern among thepublic and to avoid the “cry wolf” effect.These aspects must be considered by the authorities whenever they decidehow to approach an issue, including considerations of what measures they willimplement to address a risk and how they will inform the general public abouttheir efforts.The authorities must often take action on the basis of unclear or inadequateknowledge and a combination of “the quality of the evidence”, the precautionaryprinciple and value-based aspects. With this backdrop, the authoritiesmust take action and advise the public, who expect to be protected fromproducts that are harmful to health and the environment at all times.Because of their extensive knowledge, in some cases the authorities have torepudiate an unreasonable suspicion that is presented in the media.In suchsituations the authorities are often operating in a minefield of different interestsand concerns where the first, perhaps hasty choice of communicationmay be crucial for the future process of a case involving risk.The authorities have to take action quickly and start a dialogue with the widerworld when they obtain new knowledge or when others communicate newknowledge of importance to human health and the environment.The authoritiesmust be well prepared when they report new knowledge or when othershave indicated a problem, which the authorities must explain and address.This analysis suggests how, in the future, the Danish Environmental ProtectionAgency (Danish EPA) as an authority can best handle cases involvingrisks and communicate its messages to the public, professionals, and the media.The analysis covers the experience gathered from a study of the literature andanalyses of three previous cases involving risks that have started a debate inthe media within the last two and a half years.An important aspect of the analysis has been to understand the public’s requirementsand expectations of the authorities’ management of and informationabout potential cases involving risks. This has been obtained through twofocus-group interviews and through an omnibus survey (telephone interviews).The aim of the project has been to develop a set of operational guidelines forthe Danish EPA for optimum risk management and communication in thefuture.The guidelines are primarily presented in the form of an Internet tool19
Page 2: Miljøstyrelsen vil, når lejlighed
Page 9 and 10: 1 Sammenfatning og konklusionerRisi
Page 11 and 12: evne til at fremstå med høj trov
Page 13 and 14: Arenamodellen - her er medierne are
Page 15 and 16: del af befolkningen end fokusgruppe
Page 17: de informere politikerne og oplyse
Page 21 and 22: In assessing a given risk, it is im
Page 23 and 24: 2.1.3 Perception of the Danish EPA
Page 25 and 26: 2.1.5 Assessment of how the authori
Page 27: This project has developed an Intra
Page 30 and 31: • Hvordan kommunikerer Miljøstyr
Page 32 and 33: Borgersynspunkterne er efterfølgen
Page 34 and 35: 3. At skabe betingelser for dialog
Page 36 and 37: et element i samfunds- og teknologi
Page 38 and 39: Niveau 3, som er mest relevant for
Page 40 and 41: Eksempler i relation til en teknisk
Page 42 and 43: Eksempler på sandsynlighed set ud
Page 44 and 45: tausikkerhed) eller ved at forudsig
Page 47 and 48: Den tredje er information i forbind
Page 49 and 50: 4.2 Risikosamfundet og interesserDe
Page 51 and 52: Mange frygter i stedet tilsætnings
Page 53 and 54: efolkningens side til de råd og an
Page 55 and 56: • ”De leger gud. I dag er det s
Page 57 and 58: Thomas Breck refererer til en ameri
Page 59 and 60: lig. Et godt udgangspunkt angives a
Page 61 and 62: 4.3.1.1 Oplevelse af risiko ved for
Page 63 and 64: Radon kan hverken ses eller lugtes,
Page 65 and 66: tragiske ulykke - inden for systeme
Page 67 and 68: Et aktuelt eksempel, hvor man møde
Page 69 and 70:
”I risikokommunikationen i forbin
Page 71 and 72:
Myndigheders og andre aktørers udt
Page 73 and 74:
sandsynliggøre og/eller betvivle e
Page 75 and 76:
live stemplet som ”forkert”. De
Page 77 and 78:
De overordnede linier for Miljøsty
Page 79 and 80:
Miljøstyrelsen skal udarbejde vejl
Page 81 and 82:
Danmark har en af verdens højeste
Page 83 and 84:
di eksponeringen kan ske på alle s
Page 85 and 86:
I februar 2002 blev der fundet et t
Page 87 and 88:
den ikke er farlig. Problemet er, a
Page 89 and 90:
• Udgifter, valgmuligheder, faren
Page 91 and 92:
e på den måde ud fra en lille und
Page 93 and 94:
5 Erfaringer fra caseanalyserHvorda
Page 95 and 96:
fordrejninger af fakta eller skjult
Page 97 and 98:
5.2.5 Etablering og genetablering a
Page 99 and 100:
undersøgelser. Danva (Dansk Vand o
Page 101 and 102:
5.4.2 Case 2: Analyse af VEET- sage
Page 103 and 104:
(Afmelding/studievært)”Og Miljø
Page 105 and 106:
3. Dernæst skal alle billige olive
Page 107 and 108:
6 BorgersynspunkterBorgerne er som
Page 109 and 110:
I sagen om plastrørene undrer delt
Page 111 and 112:
fleste samtidig ønsker, at sagerne
Page 113 and 114:
Der var ingen reelle forskelle på
Page 115 and 116:
deltagere, at produkter, der er pro
Page 117 and 118:
gøringsmidler, kræver anden mærk
Page 119 and 120:
3. Borgernes bekymring om risikosag
Page 121 and 122:
Vurderingerne fordeler sig nogenlun
Page 123 and 124:
Som det fremgår har en stor del af
Page 125 and 126:
706050Procent403020100Forsker fra u
Page 127 and 128:
signifikant højere for borgere med
Page 129 and 130:
7 Intranet guidelinesParallelt med
Page 131 and 132:
samlinger af borgernes synspunkter,
Page 133 and 134:
Figur 7.3: Trin 1: Vurder risikost
Page 135 and 136:
Figur 7.5: Trin 3: Interessemodsæt
Page 137 and 138:
Et tredje aspekt er, hvorledes hjem
Page 139 and 140:
8 Kildeliste8.1 Rapporter og bøger
Page 141 and 142:
Bilag A1 Miljøstyrelsens rolleI de
Page 143 and 144:
Miljøstyrelsen har som vigtig mål
Page 145 and 146:
er. Tiltag for at beskytte miljøet
Page 147 and 148:
I forbindelse med dansk miljøregul
Page 149 and 150:
De seneste 10 år er niveauet for d
Page 151 and 152:
med hensyn til langtidseffekter som
Page 153 and 154:
hederne anlægger et bredt perspekt
Page 155 and 156:
Bilag B1 Caseanalyser1.1 Plastrør
Page 157 and 158:
dokumenterede materiale, man kan br
Page 159 and 160:
plastrør der er bedst at bruge. Ma
Page 161 and 162:
Miljøudvalg på mindst seks punkte
Page 163 and 164:
kunne anvendes på det danske marke
Page 165 and 166:
godkendelsesprocedure, vandrør af
Page 167 and 168:
Aktør/gruppe Stilling Holdningforb
Page 169 and 170:
”skånsom” på emballagen er vi
Page 171 and 172:
1. august 2002 Forbrugerrådet har
Page 173 and 174:
Seedorff fra Miljøstyrelsen tror,
Page 175 and 176:
Forbrugerrådet glæder sig over, a
Page 177 and 178:
Aktør/gruppe Stilling HoldningKirs
Page 179 and 180:
farlig. Henrik G. Jensen udtaler i
Page 181 and 182:
pr. kilo. Produkterne skal fjernes
Page 183 and 184:
tisk. Det kritiseres, at Fødevared
Page 185 and 186:
til virksomhederne i regionen, og h
Page 187 and 188:
Aktør/gruppe Stilling HoldningPoul
Page 189 and 190:
Bilag C1 OmnibusundersøgelsenI det
show all

Download rapport - Center for Alternativ Samfundsanalyse

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?