If Crisis or War Comes: A Study of Risk Communication of Eight European Union Member States

E. Petridou, Erna Danielsson, A. Olofsson, Minna Lundgren, C. Große
{"title":"If Crisis or War Comes: A Study of Risk Communication of Eight European Union Member States","authors":"E. Petridou, Erna Danielsson, A. Olofsson, Minna Lundgren, C. Große","doi":"10.30658/jicrcr.2.2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do European Union (EU) member states communicate risks to their citizens? In this study, we define risk communication as the information provided by different levels of government to citizens regarding possible future crises to which the general public might be subjected. We seek to answer the following questions: Are there any patterns in the risk communication strategies among EU member states in terms of the sender of information, the message conveyed, the method used, and the intended audience? Finally, to what extent is the state involved in ensuring the safety of its citizens? To tackle these questions, we examine the risk communication strategy of eight countries: Sweden, Finland, Germany, England, France, Estonia, Greece, and Cyprus. Our data consist of governmental web sites, publications, campaigns, and other modes of communication, such as videos posted on YouTube, with questions centering on institutional actors, methods of delivery, content, and effectiveness. We find that the institutional architecture of risk communication aligns with the broad administrative system of each member state. Countries tend to focus on risks that are specific to their context, with Sweden and, to a lesser extent, Germany having a special focus on consequences and providing guidelines to the public on how to survive for a certain period of time in the absence of the state. Especially in Sweden, though the state is a salient actor in risk communication through the dissemination of information at the agency level, the state retreats while urging the resilient citizen to take control of his or her own crisis management.","PeriodicalId":34327,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30658/jicrcr.2.2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

How do European Union (EU) member states communicate risks to their citizens? In this study, we define risk communication as the information provided by different levels of government to citizens regarding possible future crises to which the general public might be subjected. We seek to answer the following questions: Are there any patterns in the risk communication strategies among EU member states in terms of the sender of information, the message conveyed, the method used, and the intended audience? Finally, to what extent is the state involved in ensuring the safety of its citizens? To tackle these questions, we examine the risk communication strategy of eight countries: Sweden, Finland, Germany, England, France, Estonia, Greece, and Cyprus. Our data consist of governmental web sites, publications, campaigns, and other modes of communication, such as videos posted on YouTube, with questions centering on institutional actors, methods of delivery, content, and effectiveness. We find that the institutional architecture of risk communication aligns with the broad administrative system of each member state. Countries tend to focus on risks that are specific to their context, with Sweden and, to a lesser extent, Germany having a special focus on consequences and providing guidelines to the public on how to survive for a certain period of time in the absence of the state. Especially in Sweden, though the state is a salient actor in risk communication through the dissemination of information at the agency level, the state retreats while urging the resilient citizen to take control of his or her own crisis management.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
危机还是战争:欧盟八个成员国的风险沟通研究
欧盟(EU)成员国如何向其公民传达风险?在本研究中,我们将风险沟通定义为各级政府就公众可能遭受的未来危机向公民提供的信息。我们试图回答以下问题:欧盟成员国之间的风险沟通策略在信息发送者、传达的信息、使用的方法和目标受众方面是否存在任何模式?最后,国家在多大程度上参与确保其公民的安全?为了解决这些问题,我们研究了八个国家的风险沟通策略:瑞典、芬兰、德国、英国、法国、爱沙尼亚、希腊和塞浦路斯。我们的数据包括政府网站、出版物、活动和其他通信模式,如YouTube上发布的视频,问题集中在机构参与者、交付方法、内容和有效性上。我们发现,风险沟通的制度架构与每个成员国的广泛行政系统是一致的。各国倾向于关注本国特有的风险,瑞典和德国(在较小程度上)特别关注后果,并向公众提供指导,告诉他们如何在没有政府的情况下生存一段时间。特别是在瑞典,虽然国家通过在机构层面传播信息,在风险沟通中扮演着重要角色,但国家在敦促有弹性的公民控制自己的危机管理的同时,却退缩了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reputation Management of Organisations in the Public Sector: Social Listening as a Method for Analysing Big Data Challenging the Status Quo in Higher Education Crisis Detection in the Age of Digital Communication: The Power of Social Listening as a Method to Identify Corporate Events in Time Series Data The Mediation Effects of COVID Vaccine Anxiety, Safety, and Fear on the Relationships Between COVID-19 Threat and Efficacy Levels with Parents’ Intent to Vaccinate Children Emotional Responses to Wireless Emergency Alerts for COVID-19 and Predictors of Public Health Compliance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1