[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]社交媒體外文翻譯--應(yīng)急管理中的社交媒體：twitter作為向公眾傳播風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的工具（節(jié)選）

1、中文 中文 5450 字， 字，3200 英文單詞， 英文單詞，1.8 萬(wàn)英文字符 萬(wàn)英文字符文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Panagiotopoulos P, Barnett J, Bigdeli A Z, et al. Social media in emergency management: Twitter as a tool for communicating risks to the public[J]. Technological

2、Forecasting Emergency management; Social amplification of risk; Crisis and emergency risk communication；model；Technological impact1. IntroductionWhen Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast of the United States in late Octob

3、er 2012, the popular microblogging application Twitter was extensively used as a hub of timely information provision to help people stay informed and safe. Public authorities such as the New York Fire Department were abl

4、e to provide essential support and even target the rescue of victims through the effective use of their Twitter account (CNN, 2012). This is only one of the highly visible cases where the immediacy of Twitter has proven

5、valuable in emergency communication; others include tsunamis, floods and man-made violent incidents like terrorist attacks or food contamination (Al- Saggaf and Simmons, 2014; Gaspar et al., 2016; Heverin and Zach, 2012;

6、 Oh et al., 2013).Twitter Alerts (2015), the network’s official warning system launched in 2013, helps users receive official emergency alerts from registered authorities such as police forces, ambulance services, meteor

7、ological and environment agencies.As a major technological innovation of recent years, social media applications have reshaped the nature of digital information sharing and networking. As part of this, they have come to

8、function as spaces where both officials and citizens seek to interpret emergency situations and intervene accordingly (e.g. Macias et al., 2009; Neubaum et al., 2014; Palen et al., 2010). The relevance of social media ha

9、s become evident in different aspects of communication before, during and after emergency events with Comfort et al. (2012, p. 547) noting that channels like Twitter and Facebook ‘a(chǎn)re being rapidly integrated into disast

10、er environments and warrant systematic study of their viability in support of improved public response’. Compared to previous work in information and knowledge management applications for emergency support (e.g. from wea

11、ther-related incidents (e.g. floods, fires) to transportation accidents, intentional events and civil disorders. Emergency management research has focused on issues such as inter- organisational coordination, integrated

12、planning risk mitigation, response and recovery, as well as how community resilience can be developed and sustained (Comfort et al., 2012, 2010; Zulean and Prelipcean, 2013).Relevant to several of these areas, communicat

13、ing with the public during emergencies is a research domain in its own right. When unexpected events occur, there is high demand for information from the media, and from publics that may be affected, engaged or simply ob

14、serving. Channels of timely, actionable and reliable information are of vital importance, especially in situations that involve high fear and uncertainty (Horsley and Barker 2002; Ansell et al. 2010). For information flo

15、ws and high transparency to be established during emergencies, an open and flexible approach to communications is required (Harrald 2006; Somers and Svara 2009). However, lack of time, limited resources, inter-organisati

16、onal barriers and coordination difficulties commonly hinder organisations’ ability to meet the challenge (Hale 2005; Ansell et al. 2010). Alongside dealing with the actual events of an emergency, public organisations are

17、 increasingly required to exhibit transparency in the use of resources and manage expectations about how they are dealing with a situation (Henstra, 2010). It is in this context that social media have become increasingly

18、 part of the armoury of communication practitioners.2.1. Social amplification of riskOrganisational communication in emergencies in part will be shaped by the imagined characteristics and requirements of those to whom co

19、mmunications are directed (Barnett et al., 2012). Such perceptions influence responses by authorities and the framing of risk messages. For example, one characteristic often attributed to the public - for which in fact

20、 there is little evidence - is that people are likely to panic in response to a warning (Mileti and Peek, 2000). The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) focuses on the discrepancies between public, stakeholder

21、and organisational appraisals of risk events. The frequent lack of alignment between expert assessments of the situation and those of key actors constitute one of the major challenges in risk communication that SARF seek

22、s to explain (Kasperson et al. 1988; Pidgeon et al. 2003).SARF was developed in order to systematise the findings of a disparate risk perception and communication literature and in particular to help explain why patterns

23、 of socio-political attention that surround a risk event are often of a different order (both in terms of the focus of that attention and its scale) than experts consider to be warranted. Thus, hazard events may attract

24、considerable social attention and expressions of concern by publics, media or stakeholders yet experts may consider them to present a low risk (risk intensification) and, conversely, hazards designated as serious by expe

25、rts might receive comparatively little attention (risk attenuation). SARF makes it clear that both individuals/experts, organisations as well as informal interactions can serve as ‘stations of amplification’ as they comm

26、unicate in ways that may intensify or attenuate risk signals (Brenkert-Smith et al., 2013) or may indeed simply ‘re-present’ them (Breakwell and Barnett, 2003). Although organisations, viewed within SARF as social statio

27、ns of amplification, cannot predict the impact of a risk message during emergencies, they need to accommodate diverse communication needs. They may view the nature of public concern and behaviour to warrant alerts about

28、what are seen as emerging risks, seek to raise concern and generate action or seek to reduce uncertainty and avoid the escalation of reactions (Smith and McCloskey 1998; ’t Hart, 2013). Renn (1991) notes that in seeking