Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Importance of Risk Communication as an Integral Part of Risk Management in the Republic of Serbia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Risk and Cognition

Part of the book series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library ((ISRL,volume 80))

Abstract

Risk management is heavily dependent on information quality (e.g. reliability, pertinence) for making timely and efficient decisions. Obviously, information deficiencies will negatively affect the whole risk management organization and may have also negative impacts on the population, which rapidly may evolve into uncontrollable behaviours. Risk communication is usually considered to be one of the important phases within the risk management process. To illustrate this importance, the case of a country (the Republic of Serbia) where the risk communication system shows many deficiencies, is presented and analysed. One of the results is that message processing depends on the cognitive characteristics and cognitive limitations of the recipients, as well as message properties. It is of prime importance that policy makers keep these two considerations in mind. The most critical result observed in this case study is when citizens are not any more in trust with their authorities. The Republic of Serbia is facing great challenges to design its new risk communication system. The chapter engages a set of questions for public discussions. It initiates the government and other important actors to manage risks and to communicate about them more efficiently, keeping in mind that these actions affect local, regional, national and international relations. By the use of cognitive approaches, it is suggested to the stakeholders to design new organizations and new methodological tools, which could help them to solve problems in the domain of the risk and increase the overall security in the Serbian society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a major initiative launched in September 2006. Within the context of the GFDRR the World Bank and UN/ISDR secretariat have initiated a South Eastern Europe Disaster Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Program (SEEDRMAP).

  2. 2.

    It is a part of ongoing project financed by European Union Twinning number SR11 IBJH 01.

  3. 3.

    Two-way communication in this document is defined as communication that has a goal to encourage open, straightforward, constructive dialogue, and facilitate the accessibility to information, influence, and engagement, listening to and consulting with internal and external user.

  4. 4.

    The Preparedness, Planning and Economic Security Programs (PPES) are being implemented by DAI in Serbia, and organized in two components: Preparedness and planning (PP) and Economic Security (ES).

  5. 5.

    The second kind of risk communication according to Otway is a more ideal form, which aim is fulfilling the information needs of the audience so as to enable them to make their own decisions.

References

  1. Bostrom, A. (2003). Future risk communication. Futures, 35(6), 553−573. www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00163287/35.

  2. Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailenson, J. N., & Fox, J. (2008). Cognitive science. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication, 2(9), (pp. 548−551). Malden, MA. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. H. (1987). The Emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, Human Values, 12(3/4), 4−10. Sage Publications. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  5. International Programme on Chemical Safety. (2004). IPCS risk assessment terminology. Harmonization Project Document No. 1. WHO document production services, Geneva, Switzerland. www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/ipcterminologyparts1and2.pdf.

  6. Sandman, P. (2003). Four kinds of risk communica-tion. http://www.petersandman.com.

  7. Glik, D.C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28,33–54. The Annual Review of Public Health http://publhealth.annualreviews.org.

  8. European Environmental Agency. (2010). Technical Report/No 13/2010. Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview of the last decade. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping-the-impacts-of-natural/mapping-the-impacts-of-the.pdf.

  9. Global Risk Identification Program (GRIP). (2010). Serbia Assessment Report. For a purpose of regional program on disaster risk reduction (DRR) in South East Europe, sponsored by WMO/UNDP Joint activities. http://www.gripweb.org/gripwebo/gripweb/sites/default/files/Serbia%20assessment%20report%20from%20government%20input_SRBinput_0.pdf.

  10. World Risk Report (2012). BündnisEntwicklungHilft, UNU, EHS Swiss RE, Weathering climate change: Insurance solutions for more resilient communities (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette of RS” No. 98/06).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Radovic, V., Vitale, K., & Tchounwou, P. B. (2012). Health facilities safety in natural disasters: experiences and challenges from South East Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 1677−1686.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Law on emergency situations (Official Gazette of RS, number 111/09).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karabasil, D., & Radović, V. (2010). Is there a need to improve the fire service in the area of emergency management within the Republic of Serbia. In Proceedings of International Scientific Conference, Fire Engineering. October 5−6, Zvolen, Slovenia.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Radović, V., & Domazet, S. (2010). The role of the privatization process in Serbia as a function of jeopardizing the safety of citizens and the environment—drastic examples. Business Economics, 4(2), 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Environmental Agency. (2010). Technical Report/No 13/2010. Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview of the last decade. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping-the-impacts-of-natural/mapping-the-impacts-of-the.pdf.

  17. Strategy of development and promotion of the social responsible business in the Republic of Serbia for the period from 2010 to 2015, Retrieved December 16, 2014, from http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/dokumenti_sekcija.php?id=45678. In Serbian language, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No 55/05;71/05,corrections101/07 and 65/08.

  18. National Strategy for Protection and Rescue in Emergency Situations, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No 86/11 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Covelo, V., & Sandman, P. (2001). Risk communication: Evolution and revolution. In A. Wolbarst (Ed.), Solutions to an environment in Peril (pp. 164–178). Baltimore. MD: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dutton, J., Fahey, L., & Narayanana, V. (1983). Toward understanding strategic issue diagnosis. Startegic Manangement Journal, 4, 307–323.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Radovic, V., & Komatina Petrovic, S. (2012). From failure to success: Serbian approach in mitigation of global climate change and extreme weather events. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 4(13), 2207−2214.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Law on Financing Local Self-Government, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 47/11 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Orlovic, L., & Radovic, V. (2011). Evaluation and practical implications of adult training activities: from the experiences of disaster management capacity development program in Serbia. In Proceedings of the 14th International BASOPED Conference ‘‘Evaluation in Education in the Balkan Countriess’’. Belgrade, Serbia.

    Google Scholar 

  24. O’Rordan, T., et al. (1989). Themes and tasks of risk communication. Report of an International Conference held at KRA Julich. Risk Analysis, 9(4), 514.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health (SciPICH). (1999). In Thomas R. Eng & David H. Gustafson (Eds.), Wired for Health and Well-Being: the Emergence of Interactive Health Communication. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, US Government Printing Office, April 1999. http://www.health.gov/scipich/pubs/finalreport.htm.

  26. Brewer, N. (2011). Introduction to evidence based communication. In B. Fischhoff, N. Brewer, & J. Dowins, (Eds.), Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide (Chapter 2). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RiskCommunication/default .htm.

  27. Zhang, Ch., Okada, N., & Matsuda, Y. Three types of risk communication patterns and corresponding models discerned from the analysis of actual disaster management process. www.jsce.or.jp/library/open/proc/maglist2/00039/200511-no32/pdf/108.pdf.

  28. Otway, H. (1987). Experts. Risk Communication and Democracy. Risk Analysis, 7(2), 127.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Beder, S. H., & Shortland, M. (1992). Siting a hazardous waste facility: The tangled web of risk communication. Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Prokic, D., & Mihajlov, A. (2012). Contaminated sites. Practice of solid waste management in a developing country (Serbia). Environment Protection Engineering, 38(1), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Serovic, R. (2011). Hazardous Waste Management in Republic of Serbia. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Belgrade. http://www.twinning-hw.rs/wp-content/uploads.

  32. Ministry for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment (NWMS). (2003). National Waste Management Strategy with EU. Approximation Programme: Belgrade, Republic of Serbia.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ekberg J. (2007). Risk Cognition Methodologies for Development of Mental Models of Risk Communication during Pandemic Influenza Outbreak. Master thesis in Cognitive Science. Linköping University, Sweden. Retrieved December 17, 2014 from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:22977/FULLTEXT01pdf.

  34. Lucky, R. (2000). The quickening of science communication. Science, 289(pp. 5477), 259−264. http:www.sciencemag.org.

  35. Thomas, L. (1986). Risk communication: Why we must talk about risk. Environment, 28(2).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Report Freedom of the Press. (2012). Global Press Freedom rankings. http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Global%20and%20Regional%20Press%20Freedom%20Rankings.pdf.

  37. National Strategy for Protection and Rescue in Emergency Situations. (2011). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 86/11.

    Google Scholar 

  38. United Nation International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2005). Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Retrieved January 12, 2014 from http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf

  39. Sandman, P. (2003). Four kinds of risk communication. http://www.petersandman.com.

  40. Reynolds, B., Galdo J.H., & Sokler L. (2002). Crisis and emergency risk communication. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/communications/emergency/cerc.htm.

  41. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (1992). Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: a methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C.J. (2001). Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. A. (2005). Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton: FL, CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Ekberg, J. (2007). Risk cognition methodologies for development of mental models of risk communication during pandemic influenza outbreak. Master thesis in Cognitive Science. Department of computer and information science Linköpings universitet http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-8102.

  45. Britton, N.R. (2004). Higher education in emergency management: What is happening elsewhere. Paper presented at the 7th Annual By-Invitation Emergency Management Higher Education Conference. National Emergency Management Training Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Department of Homeland Security. Emmitsburgh, Maryland. 8–10 June 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Applied Security, Educons University, Vojvode Putnika 87, 21 208, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia

    Vesela Radovic

  2. Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Information et des Systèmes, Aix-Marseille Université, Avenue Escadrille Normandie-Niemen, 13397, Marseille cedex 20, France

    Jean-Marc Mercantini

Authors
  1. Vesela Radovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Marc Mercantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesela Radovic .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Avenue Escadrille Normandie-Niemen, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille Cedex, France

    Jean-Marc Mercantini

  2. Avenue Escadrille Normandie-Niemen, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille Cedex, France

    Colette Faucher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Radovic, V., Mercantini, JM. (2015). The Importance of Risk Communication as an Integral Part of Risk Management in the Republic of Serbia. In: Mercantini, JM., Faucher, C. (eds) Risk and Cognition. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 80. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45704-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45704-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45703-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45704-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation