MAKING IT REAL: WHAT RISK MANAGERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (02) ◽  
pp. 1250010 ◽  
Author(s):  
MELANIE MURO ◽  
STEVE E. HRUDEY ◽  
SIMON JUDE ◽  
LINDA HEATH ◽  
SIMON POLLARD
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Land Management ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Contaminated Land ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
Communicating Risk ◽  
Management Of Risk

The "decide-announce-defend" approach to decision-making offers few meaningful opportunities for engagement in decision processes and communities and individuals frequently feel isolated from decisions. Correspondingly, many practitioners believe science is misunderstood by communities and that messages on risk are susceptible to distortion or misrepresentation. Many voices have called for more inclusive approaches to the analysis and management of risk. Here, we draw on theoretical and practical insights from the fields of risk communication, community engagement and contaminated land management, to explore some of the unique issues involved in communicating risk issues to lay audiences, and to identify principles for engaging communities in contaminated land risk management.

scholarly journals The Development and Use of Sustainability Criteria in SuRF-UK’s Sustainable Remediation Framework

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1781 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Bardos ◽  
Hayley Thomas ◽  
Jonathan Smith ◽  
Nicola Harries ◽  
Frank Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Land Management ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Contaminated Land ◽  
Sustainability Criteria ◽  
Sustainable Remediation ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
The Uk

Sustainability considerations have become widely recognised in contaminated land management and are now accepted as an important component of remediation planning and implementation around the world. The Sustainable Remediation Forum for the UK (SuRF-UK) published guidance on sustainability criteria for consideration in drawing up (or framing) assessments, organised across 15 “headline” categories, five for the environment element of sustainability, five for the social, and five for the economic. This paper describes how the SuRF-UK indicator guidance was developed, and the rationale behind its structure and approach. It describes its use in remediation option appraisal in the UK, and reviews the international papers that have applied or reviewed it. It then reviews the lessons learned from its initial use and the opinions and findings of international commentators, and concludes with recommendations on how the indicator categories might be further refined in the future. The key findings of this review are that the SuRF-UK framework and indicator guidance is well adopted into practice in the UK. It is widely recognised as the most appropriate mechanism to support sustainability-based decision making in contaminated land decision making. It has influenced the development of other national and international guidance and standards on sustainable remediation. However, there is room for some fine tuning of approach based on the lessons learned during its application.

Initiating and Managing Risk Assessments within a Risk Analysis Framework: FDA/CFSAN'S Practical Approach

2004 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 2058-2062 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT L. BUCHANAN ◽  
SHERRI DENNIS ◽  
MARIANNE MILIOTIS
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Analysis Framework ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
The U.S

Management of risk analysis involves the integration and coordination of activities associated with risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. Risk analysis is used to guide regulatory decision making, including trade decisions at national and international levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) formed a working group to evaluate and improve the quality and consistency of major risk assessments conducted by the Center. Drawing on risk analysis experiences, CFSAN developed a practical framework for initiating and managing risk assessments, including addressing issues related to (i) commissioning a risk assessment, (ii) interactions between risk managers and risk assessors, and (iii) peer review.

Is Decision-Making: A Study in Information-Intensive Firms

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-66
Author(s):  
Mark J. Proudlock ◽  
Bob Phelps ◽  
Paul R. Gamble
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Decision Processes ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Product Selection ◽  
Exploratory Survey

This paper looks at IS decisions within small professional organizations. The study investigates three aspects of IS decision processes drawn from the literature. These focus upon organizational approaches to planning, risk management and product selection, and the factors that impact upon each process. The results of an exploratory survey undertaken in nine firms are presented and compared with the findings of existing research. One expectation is supported; two prove unsupported.

Risk management and decision making in remediation option selection

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-353
Author(s):  
S. Colombano ◽  
C. Merly ◽  
H. Gaboriau
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Option Selection

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Values Clarification ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

scholarly journals A Qualitative Study on the US Forest Service’s Risk Management Assistance Efforts to Improve Wildfire Decision-Making

Forests ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 344
Author(s):  
Courtney A. Schultz ◽  
Lauren F. Miller ◽  
Sarah Michelle Greiner ◽  
Chad Kooistra
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Fire Management ◽  
Perceived Value ◽  
Forest Service ◽  
The Us ◽  
Decision Biases ◽  
Line Officers

To support improved wildfire incident decision-making, in 2017 the US Forest Service (Forest Service) implemented risk-informed tools and processes, together known as Risk Management Assistance (RMA). The Forest Service is developing tools such as RMA to improve wildfire decision-making and implements these tools in complex organizational environments. We assessed the perceived value of RMA and factors that affected its use to inform the literature on decision support for fire management. We sought to answer two questions: (1) What was the perceived value of RMA for line officers who received it?; and (2) What factors affected how RMA was received and used during wildland fire events? We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with decision-makers to understand the contextualized and interrelated factors that affect wildfire decision-making and the uptake of a decision-support intervention such as RMA. We used a thematic coding process to analyze our data according to our questions. RMA increased line officers’ ability to communicate the rationale underlying their decisions more clearly and transparently to their colleagues and partners. Our interviewees generally said that RMA data analytics were valuable but did not lead to changes in their decisions. Line officer personality, pre-season exposure to RMA, local political dynamics and conditions, and decision biases affected the use of RMA. Our findings reveal the complexities of embracing risk management, not only in the context of US federal fire management, but also in other similar emergency management contexts. Attention will need to be paid to existing decision biases, integration of risk management approaches in the interagency context, and the importance of knowledge brokers to connect across internal organizational groups. Our findings contribute to the literature on managing change in public organizations, specifically in emergency decision-making contexts such as fire management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document