Renn, Ortwin2010-05-122016-03-312010-05-122016-03-311992323633595http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-53015http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/7232http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-7215Professional risk managers and the general public strongly disagree about the seriousness of many risks. Most members of the public are concerned about long-term effects of risks, inequitable siting, lack of personal control, and the pace of technological diffusion into their cultural envi- ronment, whereas professional risk managers focus on the task to minimize the probability of adverse effects caused by a technology or other human activity. To bridge the gap between the professional mandate and the public perception of risk, a dialogue has to be initiated between risk mana- gers, interest groups and representatives of the affected public. This dialogue should serve the function of reconciling conflicts among various groups. A prerequisite for a successful conflict resolution is the willingness of each group to respect the perspective of all the other partici- pating groups and to include their concerns into the decision-making process. This paper reviews the literature on the three main functions of risk communication: message recognition, inducement of attitude and behavioral changes, and resolution of risk-related conflicts. The paper also discusses the structure of the communication process from a descriptive and a normative point of view, and draws on studies about risk perception and communication to develop some guidelines for successful risk communication.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRisikomanagement , Bürgerbeteiligung , Kommunikation300article