221
issues and across the different sectors that are affected by these risks. Such
platforms are missing in our risk cases (cf. Dreyer et al. 2011 ). It is also clear from
our cases that risk communication in BSR today does not make much use of digital
media platforms. In the digitalised network society we live in, there are a number of
possibilities to ‘meet’ and communicate made available by different virtual platforms, even if in practice, these possibilities are not used to their full potential (cf.
Jönsson 2012 ; Zavestoski 2006 ).
9.3.6 Bridges and Barriers for Public Risk Communication
It can be concluded that while the fi ve environmental risks are all established as
environmental policy issues at different political levels including that of BSR
(mainly through HELCOM and the EU), they are generally poorly represented and
to different degrees in public discourse in the region. A certain level of public
awareness is required in order to move towards more effective regionalised environmental risk governance as aimed at by HELCOM in particular (Dreyer et al.
2011 ).
Governance of marine environments often involves particular challenges for participation and communication due to the fact that many marine environments
include several different actors and states. In the case of BSR, some challenges for
regional governance such as a lack of a historic regional identity have been identifi ed as signifi cant (cf. Dreyer et al. 2014 ). It is worth considering that the Baltic Sea
is a rather heterogeneous area where countries display rather divergent historical
and contemporary traits while also having different ideas about, for example,
democracy and public participation (Vangas 2010 ).
As discussed above, risk communication can be a bridge for environmental governance and a step towards sustainability and EAM . At the same time, nonexistent
or not-working risk communication can be a barrier. Common arenas and agendas
for communication are of great importance for risk communication with the public,
but it is also crucial that all parties involved share the same language and concepts
(this is also important for frame sharing). The difference in use of frames in communication between experts and other actors has often been a barrier for (risk) communication. So has the tendency within risk governance processes to stick to a
narrow scientifi c/technocratic framing . For example, in the case of hazardous chemicals , one expert said: ‘The information is really technical and it is really hard for
common people to understand what we are doing’ (Udovyk et al. 2010 : 50). The
role of English creates a problem particularly for delegates from Russia and other
eastern states. One Russian journalist says ‘everything that is in English is kind of
“silent” for Russia’ (Udovyk et al. 2010 : 48). In the area of risk communication,
different laws and regulatory documents can be seen as tools for creating a common
language if it establishes common objectives and a common terminology. In this
context, language thus refers to both the use of, for example, English and the use
and understanding of a common concept.
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…
issues and across the different sectors that are affected by these risks. Such
platforms are missing in our risk cases (cf. Dreyer et al. 2011 ). It is also clear from
our cases that risk communication in BSR today does not make much use of digital
media platforms. In the digitalised network society we live in, there are a number of
possibilities to ‘meet’ and communicate made available by different virtual platforms, even if in practice, these possibilities are not used to their full potential (cf.
Jönsson 2012 ; Zavestoski 2006 ).
9.3.6 Bridges and Barriers for Public Risk Communication
It can be concluded that while the fi ve environmental risks are all established as
environmental policy issues at different political levels including that of BSR
(mainly through HELCOM and the EU), they are generally poorly represented and
to different degrees in public discourse in the region. A certain level of public
awareness is required in order to move towards more effective regionalised environmental risk governance as aimed at by HELCOM in particular (Dreyer et al.
2011 ).
Governance of marine environments often involves particular challenges for participation and communication due to the fact that many marine environments
include several different actors and states. In the case of BSR, some challenges for
regional governance such as a lack of a historic regional identity have been identifi ed as signifi cant (cf. Dreyer et al. 2014 ). It is worth considering that the Baltic Sea
is a rather heterogeneous area where countries display rather divergent historical
and contemporary traits while also having different ideas about, for example,
democracy and public participation (Vangas 2010 ).
As discussed above, risk communication can be a bridge for environmental governance and a step towards sustainability and EAM . At the same time, nonexistent
or not-working risk communication can be a barrier. Common arenas and agendas
for communication are of great importance for risk communication with the public,
but it is also crucial that all parties involved share the same language and concepts
(this is also important for frame sharing). The difference in use of frames in communication between experts and other actors has often been a barrier for (risk) communication. So has the tendency within risk governance processes to stick to a
narrow scientifi c/technocratic framing . For example, in the case of hazardous chemicals , one expert said: ‘The information is really technical and it is really hard for
common people to understand what we are doing’ (Udovyk et al. 2010 : 50). The
role of English creates a problem particularly for delegates from Russia and other
eastern states. One Russian journalist says ‘everything that is in English is kind of
“silent” for Russia’ (Udovyk et al. 2010 : 48). In the area of risk communication,
different laws and regulatory documents can be seen as tools for creating a common
language if it establishes common objectives and a common terminology. In this
context, language thus refers to both the use of, for example, English and the use
and understanding of a common concept.
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…