The high levels of public worry and distrust of authorities, especially as associated with nuclear energy and radioactive waste, are well established in the literature and in the experience of risk communicators dealing with the general public. Though much of the experience with the heightened sense of worry that accompanies planned exposure situations associated with proposed radioactive/nuclear facilities (e.g., radioactive waste repositories, nuclear power plants, yet to be approved or built), there are also examples of existing exposure situations such as those following radiological accidents (e.g., Chernobyl or Fukushima). Some risk perception factors (e.g., trust, dread) are common to both planned and existing exposure situations, whereas others (e.g., volition, controllability) may be more prevalent in post‐accident exposure situations. Specific risk perceptions held by a given population and its various subgroups must be acknowledged and incorporated into successful risk communication and public engagement strategies. Post‐accident recovery programs and remediation projects, while in many countries requiring stakeholder and public acceptance to proceed, often fail to incorporate the specific risk perceptions held by the various affected groups in their risk communication and public involvement strategies. Such failures can foster a skeptical or angry public reaction, and hamper recovery in terms of both primary measures (radiological risk reduction interventions) and secondary measures (aiming at “return to normal life,” removal of stigmatization, health and well‐being, etc.). Existing exposure situations and the corresponding mitigations are often approached as local or national scale issues, but by their nature of following radiological emergencies or nuclear accidents, issues of multinational risk perceptions may also arise. Confronting risk perceptions featuring high levels of uncertainty, issue complexity, distrust, information asymmetry, and so forth, requires more interactive forms of governance and adaptive approaches to securing public acceptance. A suggestion is made to deploy an iterative continuous improvement model for incorporating specific risk perceptions into risk communication programs in concert with mutual‐gains‐based public engagement mechanisms.

中文翻译：

---

放射污染/事故后恢复工作中面向社区的风险沟通

公众的高度担心和对当局的不信任，尤其是与核能和放射性废物有关的当局，在文献中以及与普通大众打交道的风险交流者的经验中都得到了充分的证明。尽管与拟议的放射性/核设施相关的计划暴露情况（例如，放射性废物处置库，核电厂，尚待批准或建造）伴随着许多使人更加担心的经验，但也有一些现有暴露情况的例子例如放射事故后的事故（例如切尔诺贝利事故或福岛事故）。一些风险感知因素（例如，信任，恐惧）对于计划的和现有的都是共同的暴露情况，而其他（例如，意志力，可控性）在事故后暴露情况下可能更为普遍。必须承认给定人群及其各个亚组所具有的特定风险意识，并将其纳入成功的风险交流和公众参与策略中。事故后恢复计划和补救项目虽然在许多需要利益相关者和公众接受的国家中，但往往没有将各个受影响群体持有的特定风险观念纳入其风险沟通和公众参与策略中。此类失败可能会引起公众的怀疑或愤怒，并从主要措施（降低放射风险的干预措施）和次要措施（旨在“恢复正常生活”，消除污名，健康等）。现有的暴露情况和相应的缓解措施通常作为地方或国家规模的问题来对待，但是由于其在放射紧急情况或核事故之后的性质，也可能引起多国风险感知的问题。面对具有高度不确定性，问题复杂性，不信任感，信息不对称性等特征的风险感知，需要更具交互性的治理形式和适应性方法，以确保公众的接受。建议采用迭代的持续改进模型，以与基于互利互惠的公众参与机制相结合，将特定的风险感知纳入风险沟通计划中。现有的暴露情况和相应的缓解措施通常作为地方或国家规模的问题来处理，但是由于其在放射紧急情况或核事故之后的性质，也可能会引起多国风险感知的问题。面对具有高度不确定性，问题复杂性，不信任感，信息不对称性等特征的风险感知，需要更具交互性的治理形式和适应性方法，以确保公众的接受。建议采用迭代的持续改进模型，以与基于互利互惠的公众参与机制相结合，将特定的风险感知纳入风险沟通计划中。现有的暴露情况和相应的缓解措施通常作为地方或国家规模的问题来处理，但是由于其在放射紧急情况或核事故之后的性质，也可能会引起多国风险感知的问题。面对具有高度不确定性，问题复杂性，不信任感，信息不对称等特征的风险感知，需要更具交互性的治理形式和适应性方法来确保公众的接受。建议采用迭代的持续改进模型，以与基于互利互惠的公众参与机制相结合，将特定的风险感知纳入风险沟通计划中。面对具有高度不确定性，问题复杂性，不信任感，信息不对称性等特征的风险感知，需要更具交互性的治理形式和适应性方法，以确保公众的接受。建议采用迭代的持续改进模型，以与基于互利互惠的公众参与机制相结合，将特定的风险感知纳入风险沟通计划中。面对具有高度不确定性，问题复杂性，不信任感，信息不对称性等特征的风险感知，需要更具交互性的治理形式和适应性方法，以确保公众的接受。建议采用迭代的持续改进模型，以与基于互利互惠的公众参与机制相结合，将特定的风险感知纳入风险沟通计划中。