Search results

Intro -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Part I: Context and Design -- Chapter 1: Creating Attractions and Tolerating Inequity -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Processes Leading to Wealth and Health Clusters Around Heritage Sites -- 1.2.1 The Industrial Revolution, 1800-1960s: Building Wealth, Heritage Sites and Injustice -- 1.2.2 Erosion of the U.S. Manufacturing Base and Emergence of Leisure and Hospitality Industries: The 1960s-1980s -- 1.2.3 Redlining, Gentrification, and the Primacy of Economic Growth Beliefs -- 1.2.4 Social and Environmental Justice -- 1.3 Five Key Themes -- 1.4 This Volume -- References -- Chapter 2: Designing a Multiple-Scale and Multiple-Metric Data Analysis -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Finding Heritage Attraction Sites -- 2.3 Finding and Using Data -- 2.3.1 Shapes for Collecting Data: The Census Tract Challenge -- 2.3.2 Selection of Metrics and Statistical Tools -- 2.3.3 Displaying the Data as Maps -- 2.4 Expanding the Search for Non-Heritage Attraction Cluster Sites -- References -- Part II: Case Studies -- Chapter 3: America's Forever Beautiful Heritage Attraction Sites: The U.S.'s Most Popular National Parks -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Data and Methods -- 3.2.1 Choosing National Park Sites -- 3.2.2 Choosing Metrics -- 3.3 Results -- 3.3.1 Comparisons Among the National Park Areas and Their Hosts -- 3.3.2 Associations Among the Environmental, Demographic, Public Health and Built Environment Metrics -- 3.4 National Parks and the Justice Challenge -- 3.4.1 Glacier National Park -- 3.4.2 Indiana Dunes National Park -- 3.5 Discussion -- References -- Chapter 4: Remnants of the Industrial Revolution: America's Historic Grand Concourses as Heritage Attractions -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Data and Methods -- 4.3 Results -- 4.4 Grand Concourses and the Evolutions of their Cities.

AbstractThis introductory article describes a multistep process for communicating complex information from the perspective of the communicator. As part of the introduction to a special issue, it suggests three premises grounded in the literature and practice. One is an organization cannot risk communicate its way out of problems created by poor risk assessment and risk management. Second, poor risk communication can undermine satisfactory risk assessment and management. Third, a proactive plan grounded in risk analysis is essential and implemented with periodic training exercises. The article presents a step‐by‐step communication planning process that has been used in the field. Much of the special issue is devoted to the experiences of practitioners and communication experts in successfully communicating and listening to government and private organization representatives, media representatives, and the public about complex risk issues, focusing on nuclear‐related ones. The goal is to add to our collective experience on practices that work and do not work under the many conditions that involve risk communications. The ground is changing under risk communication because of the rapid expansion of media sources and technologies. What worked a decade ago may no longer be best practice. Common to success across media and audience is the need for a planning process that is adaptable to changing conditions.