The “value of a life” sounds like an existential question, more suited for philosophers and ethicists than economists. Yet we make economic decisions almost every day that reflect the value we each place on reducing our own risk of dying. We might pay more for safer food, for a house in a safer neighborhood, or for a car with added safety features. We might buy protective sports equipment, hand sanitizer, or face masks. The examples are almost endless, according to Lisa Robinson, senior research scientist and deputy director of the Center for Health Decision Science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Robinson also directs the Harvard Chan School’s online professional development program, Benefit-Cost Analysis: Valuing Life and Health. That program aids those who conduct these analyses and those who use the results in understanding these methods and their implications.

In benefit-cost analysis, the “value of a life” – or more precisely, the “value per statistical life” (VSL) – refers to these day-to-day tradeoffs, although the language is confusing, Robinson explains. Economists use surveys and other data to estimate the monetary value we each place on small changes in our own risks, then aggregate the results to estimate the expected value of averting future deaths. They use a similar approach to estimate the value of averting nonfatal illnesses and injuries. By doing so, they are able to directly compare the monetary value of these and other benefits against the costs of alternative interventions and policies.

Policymakers and other stakeholders find these comparisons crucial for evidence-based decision-making, as illustrated by the requirements of many government agencies and other organizations. Benefit-cost analysis is often used to evaluate approaches for reducing environmental, transportation, occupational, nutritional, behavioral, and other risks, including climate change. It is applied to interventions that may be financed directly by government programs or other organizations, or that may be funded by imposing costs on industry, households, and other entities through regulations or through taxes and subsidies aimed at changing behavior, Robinson adds.

Why Benefit-Cost Analysis?

Robinson points out that benefit-cost analysis is often used to aid in determining how to best allocate scarce resources – labor, materials, and other things that money can buy – in order to achieve the greatest improvements in health and longevity, as well as welfare more generally. Perhaps most importantly, conducting benefit-cost analysis ensures that the impacts of alternative policies are rigorously investigated. Such exploration is essential to avoid unintended or unexpected consequences.

“A benefit-cost analysis is a way of determining what the impact of a policy would be before it’s enacted,” she says. “It forces us to look more closely at the policy in a systematic way and to ask questions that no one might otherwise think to ask.” We may find information that reveals that the policy won’t be effective, or that it will have far more beneficial effects than anticipated.

The Role of the Value per Statistical Life

When it comes to valuing reduced mortality, Robinson says using value per statistical life (VSL) estimates is most appropriate methodology. “Before implementing a new policy, we don’t know whose life that policy might be saved,” she says. “What we do know is that the policy will reduce the risk of dying among those affected.” For example, reducing air pollution in a large metropolitan area will decrease the mortality risks faced by that population. Requiring back-up cameras in cars will reduce the risks of death among those in their proximity.

Usually, the risk changes associated with these policies are very small on an individual level, around 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000, but the number of deaths averted can be quite large when the policy affects a sizable population. For example, a policy that reduces the annual risk of death by 1 in 10,000 among the 4 million residents of Los Angeles would avert 400 deaths per year.

In the U.S., research on individuals’ willingness to exchange their own money for a change in the risk they would experience suggests that on average a U.S. resident is willing to pay about $1,200 for a 1 in 10,000 reduction in their own risk – or $12,000,000 when converted to a VSL estimate. So preventing those 400 deaths annually would be valued at $4.8 billion in any given year, suggesting that it may be worth investing a substantial amount to achieve these benefits.

Putting VSL in Proper Context

Despite the importance of these estimates, Robinson points out that this concept is often misunderstood. Many incorrectly believe VSL refers to the value of saving an individual’s life—how much their life is deemed to be truly worth in a moral or ethical sense. But in fact it is derived from how much that individual is likely to pay to reduce their own risk of dying by a small amount. Not surprisingly, this willingness to pay likely varies depending on the characteristics of the individual, such as their age and income, as well as the characteristics of the risk, such as whether it is caused by something outside of their own control or whether it involves significant pain and suffering prior to death. Estimating the effects of these factors can be difficult. Nonetheless, Robinson says that getting as close as possible to the appropriate value is essential for informed decisions.

Weighing the Costs and Benefits

This brings Robinson to an example. “Let’s say a government agency is thinking about a new requirement that will cost $400 million per year, and is expected to reduce annual deaths by 200. With a VSL of $12 million, the costs are clearly exceeded by the benefits. But if the costs were instead $4 billion, the policy would no longer be cost-beneficial. By understanding this early in the process, policymakers can consider whether alternative policies are worth pursuing, given the likelihood that the benefits will exceed the costs.

“Remember, if we spend money for one thing, we can’t spend that money on something else,” she says. Therefore, it’s essential that we invest limited resources wisely, weighing the costs and benefits to identify the policies that lead to the greatest improvement in wellbeing.

---

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health offers Benefit-Cost Analysis: Valuing Life and Health, an online program that teaches the advantages and limitations of this method, and improves your ability to evaluate the results.

Sources:

Robinson, Lisa A. Deputy Director, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Zoom interview April 2024 and follow-up May 2024.

Rising global temperatures are threatening our health—but there are reasons to be hopeful News. (2023, May 17). http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?p=111354859339

---

Over the past few years, traditional and online news outlets and social media channels have been filled with information about COVID-19—and much of it has been misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete. This has made it challenging for members of the public to make educated decisions about how to protect their own health: from deciding whether to get a vaccine or booster or when and where to wear masks, to weighing the risks of gathering in crowds, according to Kasisomayajula “Vish” Viswanath, PhD, Lee Kum Kee Professor of Health Communication in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH). Viswanath also serves as Program Director of the Havard Chan School’s Applied Risk Communication for the 21^st Century, an online program that equips participants with the knowledge and skills needed to design effective risk communication messages that can guide them through a public health crisis.

The Need to Refocus Public Health Messaging on the Successes

Viswanath points out that throughout the pandemic, some of the major news coverage has missed an essential part of the story by focusing on the failures that have occurred without also celebrating the many successes.

“If you look at the data, the public is smarter than we think. [In the midst of COVID-19], many people were wearing masks, and didn’t go into restaurants, workplaces, or public places,” Viswanath explains. Nonetheless, both the mainstream and alternative news coverages have been focused on the minority of people who defied the recommendations or had differing opinions. For example, there have been many stories of people who refuse to get vaccinated, rather than those who have gotten the vaccine and booster(s). Yet more than 67 percent of people in the U.S. are now vaccinated, even though the unvaccinated minority get the lion’s share of publicity, he says. “By focusing on what we didn’t accomplish—rather than on what we did—we are actually sending the wrong message to the community,” he stresses.

Exploring the Current Dynamics

The reason the media tends to focus on the negative is multi-fold. First, Viswanath says that people often have a preconceived idea in their mind and so they focus on the details that back up their case, often using it to fill a political agenda rather than making sure to communicate the most reputable information.

“This may give the impression that fewer people are complying than really are, and therefore, this might discourage others from adopting the latest public health guidelines,” he says.  In addition, people who are non-compliant with the COVID-19 recommendations often are much more vocal than their counterparts; as a result, they make their voices heard more easily. Finally, examples of people who are defiant to the recommendations can be viewed as more “interesting” for news outlets to cover than someone who follows the directions and does what is expected.

Looking for the Local Data and Story

“We need a completely different way of looking at the distribution of risk. Instead of only presenting a negative view in the news, we can be much more positive and nuanced when we look at the country’s response to COVID. We as a community need to look at both the successes and the failures in order to move forward,” Viswanath says.

Navigating the Changing Risk Communication Landscape

One challenge we need to recognize when it comes communicating risk in a public health crisis such as COVID-19 is that the science is constantly evolving so the recommendations will continue to change as we learn more, he points out. For instance, at the beginning of the pandemic, much was unknown about COVID-19. Over time, we have gained a deeper understanding of how it spreads and how to treat it. As we learn more, the recommendations continue to shift and may vary from one community to the next, depending on each region’s specific circumstances.

“We can’t expect people to be epidemiologists themselves to be able to get the right information and weigh their risks,” he points out. “We need to be able to help them [to assess their local risk] and to model behavior [such as masking], to help encourage people to keep themselves as safe as possible.” In addition, healthcare professionals and community stakeholders also can take this opportunity to explain to people how evidence evolves so they can truly understand the changing nature of the recommendations.

Tips to Guide Risk Communication Strategies

When developing a risk communication strategy, here are several key principles Viswanath recommends:

• Position yourself as a source of reliable information. You can educate people about the latest details in easy-to-understand language. This requires translating the science into plain English that people without a medical background can understand. Also, be sure your messages have clear action steps so people understand what you need them to do to stay safe or respond to the situation. In addition, collaborate with trusted institutions and organizations to help spread your messages to your target audience.
• Build the trust of the general public. This requires listening to their concerns and addressing them in an upfront manner. Even when the information you are sharing is not what people want to hear, it’s important to be transparent so they will respect you as a reputable source. This also means admitting when you don’t know the answer to all of the questions, and being honest when information changes, and your recommendations change along with it. “We also need the public to know that all knowledge is partial knowledge at this time. We need to accept what we know today and also accept that this will keep changing, so the recommendations and guidelines will also keep changing to keep up with the latest information,” he says.
• Create messages that resonate with your community partners and residents. You need to understand people’s needs and concerns so you can frame public health messages to resonate with them. By making sure your recommendations are relevant to your audience—and are also practical for them to implement—this will increase the likelihood of their making the effort to follow them.

Finally, when shaping public health messaging to communicate risk in a public health crisis, also keep in mind that it’s important not to confuse people with details they don’t need or that are filled with speculation. Just stick to the facts and provide clear, actionable information, Viswanath says. Well-crafted risk communication strategies can be essential to ensuring that people make educated decisions in the midst of complex conditions and environments.

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health offers Applied Risk Communication for the 21st Century, an online program designed to provide you with the knowledge and skills you need to design effective risk communication messages.

---

Should you stop, or drastically reduce, eating fish to avoid mercury? Depending on what you read or watch on TV, the answers might be contradictory. According to James K. Hammitt, program director for the former Environmental Health Risk: Analysis and Applications program the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the risk analysis isn’t as simple as avoiding fish entirely. In fact, people are ultimately missing out on key nutrients when taking that approach.

The Current FDA Recommendations of Mercury in Fish

Eating fish has significant benefits. In fact, fish are often considered the healthiest protein one can eat, particularly because of nutrients like vitamin D and selenium. Omega-3 fatty acids can help protect against heart disease, reduce inflammation, and improve organ health, among other things.

The FDA has documented which species of fish, on average, have the highest levels of mercury. Generally speaking, depending on the amount of consumption, fish like swordfish, shark, and certain kinds of tuna—large fish that eat a lot of smaller fish—have higher levels of methylmercury (the only form of mercury to bioaccumulate in the human body). At very high exposures, this can lead to fatigue, muscle weakness, and dizziness and damage organs like the kidneys and liver. Chronic low-level exposure to methylmercury has also been shown to impair brain function.

“There are benefits to eating fish, and there’s nothing good about having methylmercury in them. It may be true that there’s value in eating mercury-rich fish, but it would be better to eat mercury-poor fish,” says Hammitt.

So, as far as formal advice, one should avoid heavy consumption of those specific species, and instead eat food lower on the food chain that weren’t caught in areas contaminated by high methylmercury levels. In other words: eating fish has healthy benefits, and the fear of mercury shouldn’t prevent you from choosing fish as a food source.

There are benefits to eating fish, and there’s nothing good about having methylmercury in them. It may be true that there’s value in eating mercury-rich fish, but it would be better to eat mercury-poor fish.

Specific Recommendations About Methylmercury for Pregnant Women

In 2001, the FDA came out with mercury-in-fish recommendations in relation to women who were pregnant, and cautioned that they should avoid exposure to methylmercury. It’s now well-known that there are negative effects on children if their mothers were exposed to high amounts during pregnancy.

Some research indicated that households that ate a significant amount of seafood decreased fish consumption by 21%, and that this led to a 17% reduction in exposure to mercury, but there was a cost—a 21% reduction in omega-3 fatty acids. However, other research showed that exposure declined significantly in women of childbearing age who were the most highly exposed to methylmercury, but that their seafood consumption remained similar as before. In other words, the latter research shows that the advisory was effective at helping pregnant women curb their methylmercury intake, but they continued to reap the benefits.

One of Hammitt’s studies suggests that if women of child-bearing age avoided all fish consumption for many years (and if men of child-bearing age do as well), the net health harms to adults can offset the benefits of reducing cognitive risk to children if women reduce their fish consumption.

Thus, eating fish, or taking n-3 fatty acid supplements, provides clear benefits; it’s the methylmercury in the environment, and subsequently the fish that live in that environment, that’s the problem.

If you’re sitting at a sushi restaurant wondering what to eat, one meal isn’t necessarily going to make a difference.

The Risks of Too Much Methylmercury to the Body

Mercury poisoning from fish does occur. One legal case—centered around actor Jeremy Piven—was connected to his alleged mercury poisoning from eating too much sushi. In that case, Piven apparently ate sushi twice a day for years according to his doctor. In a medical case involving Richard Gelfond, he too ate significant amounts of fish in the service of eating a healthier diet. In his case he continues to suffer aftereffects and symptoms, even after he changed his diet to remove the relevant fish from his diet.

So, the risk is present and the impact can be significant. However, “If you’re sitting at a sushi restaurant wondering what to eat, one meal isn’t necessarily going to make a difference,” says Hammitt.

Studying the negative impacts can be nuanced. There’s evidence that mercury increases the risk of heart attacks, more significant than the potential cognitive effects for infants. But fish provide nutrients that can help ward off heart disease. Then again, the nutritional benefit of fish plateaus, but the risk associated with methylmercury continues to increase at high exposures.

Cooking is known to reduce mercury content in fish by up to 30 percent. Additionally, the half-life of methylmercury is only two months for human beings and less for other species, so large intake of those species in the past isn’t necessarily an irreversible problem.

Monitoring methylmercury in the environment, especially as climate change continues, is essential to ensure that the positive benefits from fish continue.

The Unknowns of Methylmercury in Fish

Unfortunately, as the oceans warm due to climate change, there’s research led by Elsie Sunderland (who also taught at the Environmental Health Risk program) to suggest that certain kinds of fish in certain environments like the Gulf of Maine now have increased mercury levels. Thus, the levels, and the recommendations, may change over time, and it’s critically important to try and remove mercury and carbon dioxide from the environment.

Monitoring methylmercury in the environment, especially as climate change continues, is essential to ensure that the positive benefits from fish continue. Global warming may act as a sort of wild card, throwing off existing numbers and changing the makeup of fish’s food sources—particularly for large, predator fish. Smaller fish, and vegetarian fish, have less risk of exposure.

It’s important for the individual person to watch the scientific community for updates as well as local advisories about the safety of fish, and also to pay attention to what goes in one’s body. With a bit of awareness and careful consideration, one can still keep fish in one’s diet. But, reductions in both mercury and carbon dioxide are needed to protect the integrity of seafood as an important food source.

---

Dihydrogen Monoxide: it’s found everywhere, including in our body, ice caps and the air. There’s no stopping its infiltration into our lives, and if we get too much of it, we’ll die. Sound scary? It might, until we realize that Dihydrogen Monoxide is just the chemical name for water.

Risk analysis is, at its core, a form of structured thinking developed to help grapple with the many risks that humans live with every day. The basic task is to quantify the risk of an action, examine alternatives and determine if the benefits of the action justify its costs. Its practical implications are both important and complex, because context plays an important role in risk analysis. As the quote from Paracelsus goes, “The dose makes the poison.”

Dr. James K. Hammitt, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and professor of Economics and Decision Sciences, explains. “If you call water by its chemical name, it sounds scary,” he says. “The idea that some things are risky and some things are not is an oversimplification. So, given that everything can be risky, how do we manage living in the world, and how do we set government regulations to assess risk effectively?”

Because the world is so complex, no one person can understand the nuanced details in every decision of daily life: what food to eat, medicine to take, mode of transportation to use and so on. The concept known as “rational ignorance” means that it’s rational to delegate authority to others to help make decisions and minimize the dangers in our lives.

Given that everything can be risky, how do we manage living in the world, and how do we set government regulations to assess risk effectively?

A doctor can provide guidance about medication, and a government body can potentially provide guidelines for exposure to chemical and other public safety risks. Risk analysis helps these experts make recommendations and also help a layperson make informed decisions with that knowledge.

In part, it’s the study of tradeoffs. When we take a flight, for example, there’s always a small but quantifiable risk that the plane will crash. By that logic, the potential of a violent death vastly outweighs the pleasure one might experience at one’s destination. However, the key to risk analysis is that it takes into account both consequence and probability. The probability of a plane crash is very low (much lower, in fact, than that of a car crash). Thus, risk analysis would conclude that the relative risk of taking a flight is low, despite the severity of its consequences.

In the example above, the analysis is somewhat straightforward, because the risk and results are bigger, distinctive and able to be studied separately from other effects. The difficulty of conducting risk analysis with smaller and less quantifiable risks, like coming in contact with very small doses of chemicals like aspartame or radon, is much trickier. It would be unethical to test harmful, long-term chemical impacts on humans, and anecdotal information that comes from real-world data doesn’t necessarily show cause and effect.

Every choice has inherent risks, and replacing one potential action with another also means replacing certain risks with other risks.

By studying epidemiology, researchers can follow individuals who have been exposed to particular chemicals, but sometimes effects can take years or decades to manifest. When it’s a new chemical, there’s no information available yet.

A woman who chewed gum her entire life develops breast cancer, but it’s impossible to extricate what definitively caused the cancer (was it the aspartame? Was it something else? A combination of factors?) to be able to give a formal warning. In essence, Hammitt says, “We care about risks that are too small to measure, and there’s data missing.”

Even attempts to interpret these impacts can be tricky. When a study comes out that shows a small correlation between drinking wine and a longer lifespan, those results can become skewed and overblown in the media and public eye. It’s difficult to prove or disprove that claim as objectively false, and another study might find exactly the opposite reaction. “Trying to identify good chemicals versus. bad chemicals is fundamentally impossible,” says Hammitt.

These overblown fears also don’t effectively make use of rational risk analysis. Bringing in the idea of tradeoffs, Hammitt explains that every choice has inherent risks, and replacing one potential action with another also means replacing certain risks with other risks.

There are small amounts of methylmercury in fish, but eating fish has by and large been proven healthy, so removing fish from one’s diet removes a benefit. Vehicle crashes happen regularly in the U.S., and if the government were to make the speed limit 5 mph it would reduce the likelihood of accidents, but people would no longer be able to travel great distances.

“In the area of pesticides, banning the pesticide doesn’t ban the pest. A lot of organic produce is like this—certain synthetic chemicals cannot be used, so non-synthetic chemicals like sulfur compounds are sometimes used instead,” says Hammitt. In other words, organic doesn’t mean chemical-free, and the choice to eat food means accepting some form of pesticide into one’s diet.

Thus, risk analysis in practice involves recognizing the small risks that are sometimes not measurable, keeping an eye on the bigger risks the can be assessed and thoroughly understanding the tradeoffs. Hammitt teaches experts and administrators how to apply these principles of rigorous risk analysis to their own particular environment as a part of Environmental Health Risk: Analysis and Applications at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which is currently on hiatus.

There are small amounts of methylmercury in fish, but eating fish has by and large been proven healthy, so removing fish from one’s diet removes a benefit.

A layperson, while not responsible for setting standards, can also use a more rational and thoughtful kind of risk analysis. Hammitt references Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel Prize winner in economics Daniel Kahneman.

“Essentially, we have two decision-making systems. One is System 1, which is fast, intuitive and takes little effort. This is a gut decision. System 2 is cognitive, reflective and analytical. It takes work, so it’s natural not to consciously do it as much. We can be governed by System 1, so the way to improve is to use System 2 as much as you can.”

In other words, automatically rushing to identify “good” versus “bad” decisions is tempting, when the truth is more nuanced and far less easily defined. Since people can’t examine every aspect of their lives, a selective and thoughtful process of risk analysis can be effective when conditions change or new information becomes available.

Ultimately, everyone conducts risk analysis, whether consciously or not. The more that informed, thoughtful decisions can become part of one’s thought process, the more one can integrate effective risk analysis into one’s life.

---

There has been growing awareness in recent years about the risks of serious injuries associated with playing football. But exactly how can organizations best communicate that risk to the people who care about this issue, such as parents of youngsters on little league teams, college football players, and professional athletes?

One common element most effective risk communication strategies share is that they are customized to meet the specific interests, concerns, and habits of the target audiences. This means that parents would require different types of messaging, as well as different distribution channels, than professional athletes to inform them about the risks football poses, according to Kasisomayajula “Vish” Viswanath, PhD, Lee Kum Kee Professor of Health Communication at the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Viswanath is also the program director of Applied Risk Communication for the 21st Century through the Harvard Chan School, where he educates experts and other professionals working in corporations, medicine, government, and nonprofits about the need to manage risk communication properly to achieve a variety of public health and safety goals, garner support for key issues or causes, and handle damage control or reputation management.

“Risk communication is a part of everyday life. It’s something we take for granted,” Viswanath explains. “To communicate risk effectively, we need to understand who the target audiences are and the challenges they are likely to face in assessing the risk and acting on it,” he adds.

Risk communication is a part of everyday life. It’s something we take for granted.

Navigating the Complex Information Environment
This is a tall order to fill, especially with the steady stream of information immediately available today around key issues such as public health risks, environmental concerns, and natural disasters. With the ever-broadening array of traditional, alternative, and digital outlets that exist, some of the information flowing through these channels may not be filtered for accuracy, or may not be put into the proper context for the recipients so they can act on it properly. As a result, there’s the very real danger that people may miss critical facts to guide their decision making, or may take specific actions based on misinformation, which can ultimately lead to unwanted outcomes.

That puts the onus on health professionals, business leaders, elected officials, and others to be proactive in designing effective risk communication strategies. These strategies also need to be implemented in a timely manner at the first sign of any danger that exists in order to reach the right audiences in today’s complex information environment, Viswanath says.

The Need to Develop Effective Strategies

The reality is that risk communication is essential in most sectors and industries today—both for routine situations and also in times of crisis, Viswanath points out. Therefore, professionals must be well-versed in the principles of effective risk communication so they can determine how best to apply them to their own situations and needs, amidst all of the challenges that exists.

In the current complex communication environment with a multitude of platforms, it becomes difficult to communicate risk in a controlled and coordinated way.

“At one time, we were able to communicate risk in a much more controlled fashion,” he explains. “But in the current complex communication environment with a multitude of platforms, it becomes difficult to communicate risk in a controlled and coordinated way.” This means that competing opinions can enter into the mix, making it essential for professionals to steer the people they serve around various landmines that exist to find credible sources of information. What the best sources are, and how people will access them, can vary depending on different circumstances.

Examples of Risk Communication Efforts

For example, Viswanath refers to the H1N1 flu (also referred to as Swine flu) global pandemic in 2009-2010 as an example of a crisis that required the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to apply emergency risk communication principles to educate Americans about the importance of taking preventative measures to avoid getting sick. The messages included encouraging people to get flu vaccines, obtain anti-viral medications at the first sign of symptoms, and stay home while sick to avoid the spread of the illness. (For more details about the CDC’s communication response to the crisis, see its website at https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/cdcresponse.htm.) One striking fact is that the CDC’s efforts hinged on strategic partnerships with key public and private agencies, health care providers, and the media in order to reach a very broad audience.

Similar types of broad risk communication responses have been critical to respond to natural disasters, such as the danger Hurricane Harvey posed to the greater Houston, Texas area in the fall of 2017. With serious flooding and high winds forecast, public officials used local, state, and national news outlets and social media to advise residents in danger zones to evacuate their homes and seek shelter in safer areas.

It is essential for professionals to steer the people they serve around various landmines that exist to find credible sources of information.

“When Harvey and other hurricanes happened, people were able to take precautions to move to higher ground and shelters to protect themselves. But some people did not pay attention to the warnings and did not evacuate,” Viswanath says. In some cases of these types of natural disasters, people who initially failed to respond to evacuation orders ultimately put themselves and rescuers at increased risk when conditions because extreme.

Key Steps to Develop a Risk Communication Strategy

While every situation is different and needs a different type of response depending on the specific circumstances, there are five common elements Viswanath identifies that can serve as a good starting point for developing any applied risk communication plan.

1. Prepare for the crisis and be ready for it ahead of time, regardless of what type of crisis it is or whom it will affect. Planning for various scenarios can help you be ready to act when needed, he says.
2. It’s essential to know your clients or your audience and understand who they are, what they care about, and what their personal situation is. “For instance, you can’t talk about evacuating if people don’t have the means to access a car. You have to be sensitive to the conditions under which the information you share can be acted upon,” Viswanath says.
3. Sometimes saying less is more. “Being measured in one’s communication of risk, especially in times of uncertainty, is especially critical,” he points out. For instance, this step can be particularly important to save face when you have to change your guidelines or recommendations midway through the process.
4. Be open about what you know—and also what you don’t know. Telling people you are still waiting to find out more and will share the latest findings as they become available is important to maintain your credibility over the long term.
5. It’s important to practice and learn from experience. Every situation will be different, so take the time to debrief after a crisis situation and assess what you did well and what areas you may be able to strengthen in the future.

Risk Communication is an Ongoing Process

Regardless of what type of risk you are communicating, or who your audience is that you are trying to inform, it’s important to view your risk communication efforts as an ongoing process that may shift over time but will never go away.

“Remember that risk communication is not a one-time concern,” Viswanath says.  “Rather, you’ll need to continually evaluate your efforts and improve on them as you go along.”

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health offers Applied Risk Communication for the 21st Century, an online program designed to provide the knowledge and skills needed to design effective risk communication messages 

---