Unrecognized,concealed, or forgotten – the case of absent information in risk communication

There are differing and partially incompatible views about what kind of issues should be included into risk discussions and what kinds of risks should be emphasized and dealt with. While the emergence of new risks has been extensively studied, relatively little attention has been paid to the roles that the absence of information can play in risk debates. Potentially relevant information may be downplayed or omitted and less relevant overemphasized when actors with varying interests, knowledge bases, and risk frames interact. Multiple and cumulative environmental and health risks caused by chemicals and other stressors pose particular challenges for risk communication. We identify and discuss different forms of unrecognized, hidden, and forgotten information by using chemical risks as a case. A widely applicable typology of absent information in risk communication is outlined.     

A multi-attribute approach to assess homeland security risk

The United States Department of Homeland Security manages a wide spectrum of risks involving crime, terrorism, accidents, and natural disasters. This paper supports disaster management by identifying which attributes should be used to describe risks comprehensively and assessing the need to incorporate such multiattribute information into risk management processes. Attributes for describing homeland security risks were selected through a literature review. These attributes were then used in a risk assessment of homeland security hazards that informed risk ranking sessions conducted with members of the general public. The results taken together support the use of a range of attributes and perspectives. While aspects of life/health and economic damage were considered most important by both experts and the lay public, other attributes were of widespread importance, including attributes related to dread and uncertainty. These results demonstrate how to present risks in a deliberative risk management process and the importance of doing so using a complete set of attributes to describe the risks.     

Comparative optimism and risky road traffic behaviors among high‐risk sports practitioners

This study examines the relationship between participation in risky sports, comparative optimism (CO), and risky road traffic behaviors among a sample of adult men. We surveyed high‐risk (n = 313) and low‐risk (n = 53) sports practitioners, and non‐sportsmen (n = 89), assessing their CO, as well as their self‐reported risky behaviors and their accident experiences while driving a car. Results show that high‐risk sports practitioners expressed CO regarding the quality of their reflexes while driving and their vulnerability to traffic accidents. High‐risk sportsmen reported more risky behaviors while driving a car than the members of the other groups, and some of them, namely BASE‐jumpers, have experienced more traffic accidents. High‐risk sportsmen’s risky behaviors and accident experiences did not prevent them from expressing CO regarding their vulnerability to road accidents. Results are discussed, as well as putative psychological mechanisms underlying high‐risk sport practitioners’ CO and risky behaviors while driving.     

Associations between risk judgments and demand for transport risk mitigation

The present study tested a hypothesized model regarding associations between risk sensitivity, risk perception, transport priorities, worry, and demand for risk mitigation in transport. An additional aim was to investigate differences in risk perception, worry, risk sensitivity, transport priorities, and demand for risk mitigation in age-groups, gender, and educational levels. A mail survey was conducted in a representative sample of the Norwegian public over 18?years (n?=?1947) in 2008. The response rate was 31%. The results showed that transport priorities were the strongest predictor of demand for risk mitigation. Risk perception seems to be mediated by worry. Risk sensitivity was directly associated with transport risk perception and, not as predicted, also directly with demand for risk mitigation. The two youngest age-groups (18–30 and 31–50?years) perceived the probabilities of transport accidents in private transportation as significantly larger and also judged other nontransport risks to be larger than those over 50?years of age. The youngest age-group was more worried about injuries from private transportation, but reported lower demands for risk mitigation. The findings merit further research into the relationship between risk perception and demand for risk mitigation. The results indicated that younger individuals were more worried about injuries and assessed the probability of accidents to be larger, while they report a lower demand for risk mitigation compared to older age-groups.     

Determining overall risk

The risk journal literature lacks a clear and simple account of the conceptual issues involved in determining the overall risk of an action, and in explaining how risk is additive. This article attempts to bring a measure of clarity to these issues in as basic and non‐technical a way as possible. First of all, the view that risk is ‘expected harm’ is explained. The view that risk is a quantitative concept is then defended. The distinction between the risk run by doing action A in respect of possible outcome x, and the overall risk run by doing action A in general is explained, as is the position that the overall risk of A is determined by summing the risks of each possible harm that A could give rise to. The article then explains how risks can be summed over time, as long as the probabilities involved are determined according to probability theory. Finally, the article explains that in a doing a risk‐benefit analysis of A, positive aspects of a possible outcome x, where x is harmful on balance, must be incorporated into x's level of harm rather than incorporated into the benefit side of the risk‐benefit analysis of A.     

Towards a fair procedure for risk management

The need for fairness in risk management is frequently expressed in the risk literature. In this article, fairness is connected to the procedure for decision‐making. Two models for procedural justice in the management of risks are discussed, one that focuses on a hypothetical thought experiment, and one that focuses on actual dialogue. The hypothetical approach takes John Rawls’ theory of justice as a starting point. The actual inclusion approach employs Iris Marion Young’s theory of inclusive deliberative democracy. With Rawls’ theory, important issues concerning risk distribution are emphasized, and a parallel between social primary goods and risk management is drawn. The hypothetical reasoning should mainly serve as a guide concerning risk issues that affect people who cannot be included in the decision procedure, such as future generations. However, when the affected can be included, an interactive dialogical reasoning is to be preferred. Here, Young’s theory is fruitful. It aims at fair decisions by fulfilling conditions of inclusiveness, equality, reasonableness and publicity.     

What role for social scientists in risk expertise?

When it comes to risks – health and environmental risks, like those linked to the use of nanotechnologies, pesticides, etc. – three main groups of actors are easily identified, brought together through boundary organisations such as environmental and sanitary risk agencies: the natural and technical scientists, who provide their expertise to assess risks (especially toxicologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists); the policy makers, who take decisions regarding risk management and risk regulation; the lay public, who are more and more involved in participatory frameworks. Sometimes three other groups of actors are added: the ‘economists’ who can for instance conduct cost–benefit assessments or multi-criteria analyses (especially ecological economists, public economists, political economists and social economists); the ‘philosophers’/‘ethicists’ who can use ethics to highlight moral choices and responsibilities in face of risks; and the ‘jurists’/‘legal experts’ who can justify authorisation or interdiction according to law. Inversely, there is a group of actors which is not clearly identified, that of social scientists, even though a considerable quantity of social science knowledge on risk has been produced. Why is there such a discrepancy? This article, based on a critical review of the literature, aims to make sense of the fuzziness surrounding the involvement of social scientists when it comes to risk expertise. The article shows that one reason for this puzzling situation is to be found in the gap between what social scientists often want to do when they are called in as risk experts and what natural scientists and public policy makers actually expect from them.     

Hourly changes in accident risk for bus drivers

Traffic accident risk has in some studies been found to change with the time of day, after controlling for exposure, probably due to diurnal changes in the human body, which changes alertness. However, exposure data are not always of good quality, and culpability for accidents is not always taken into account. The change in culpable accident risk over the day for bus drivers was therefore investigated, with single accidents analysed separately, using induced exposure (non‐culpable bus accidents) as well as general traffic density and number of buses on the road as controlling factors. It was found that the risk distribution was fairly similar to some previous results before controlling for exposure, but dissimilar to other, probably indicating that bus drivers have a somewhat different risk profile, but also that previous studies may not have controlled for exposure in a reliable way. When exposure was held constant, the risk distribution was different from all other studies. The three different exposure measures correlated strongly between themselves, and each would seem to be adequate for a basic control. However, although general traffic density was most strongly correlated with culpable bus accidents, the induced exposure parameter added some explained variance. Single accidents had a very different risk distribution as compared to other culpable accidents when exposure had been held constant. A number of unexpected effects were also noted, mainly that single accidents were associated most strongly with general traffic density.     

Social risk screening using a socio-political ambiguity approach: the case of organic agriculture in Iran

While ecological sustainability of organic agriculture (OA) has been frequently investigated, there are limited studies on its social sustainability, especially in developing countries. Given significant benefits of OA, screening the potential social risks associated with OA seems necessary. This paper introduces a socio-political ambiguity approach based on a hybrid model of ‘risk and social impact assessment’ for screening the risks of OA. As a case study, the paper focuses on the OA development in Iran using qualitative research to elicit opinions and judgments of farmers, consumers, and policy-makers. The results of the study revealed that there are serious ambiguities and risks associated with OA. This paper demonstrates that risks (especially social risks) of OA have received too little attention and were considered as can be neglected.     

Risk perception of mobile communication: a mental models approach

Some lay people confronted with a new base station project fear serious health consequences from the high‐frequency radiation, while experts consider exposure under the current international standards as unproblematic. These conflictive estimations may be attributed to the different mental models of lay people and experts. Less is known about lay people’s knowledge in regard to mobile communication and their intuitive understanding of the associated health risks. An adaptation of the ‘Mental Models Approach’ was used to reveal lay people’s beliefs about mobile communication and to learn more about lay people’s information requirements, potential knowledge gaps, and misconceptions. Through the means of open interviews with Swiss experts (N = 16), lay people (N = 16), and base station opponents (N = 15), different mental models were constructed and evaluated. Comparisons between the expert and the lay groups showed several qualitative differences in all identified knowledge domains. Knowledge gaps in regard to changing exposure magnitudes due to the interaction patterns of cell phones and base stations as well as misconceptions about regulation issues and scientific processes were found in both lay groups. In addition, lack of trust in responsible actors and disaffection with base station location processes were mentioned. The reported qualitative insights may be useful for the improvement of further risk communication tools.     

Comprehensive scenario analysis for mitigation of risks of the maritime traffic in the Strait of Istanbul

In this paper, the results of a scenario analysis are presented using the models developed by the authors in their prior work. Therein an aggregate risk-simulation model of the maritime traffic in the Strait of Istanbul was developed giving consideration to traffic rules, vessel profiles, pilotage services, meteorological, geographical conditions, and vessel scheduling. A risk assessment was carried out by incorporating a probabilistic accident risk model into the simulation model to establish a baseline level of risk. Herein, 16 scenarios are described as modifications of the baseline scenario for the purpose of studying maritime risk mitigation in this geographic context. We have evaluated the impact of several factors such as vessel arrival rates, vessel pursuit distances, number of pilots, local traffic density, and vessel scheduling practices such as the single-lane traffic regime start time on safety risks. We also present a discussion on the impact of each factor on vessel passages and waiting times at both entrances of the Strait. We conclude with risk mitigation recommendations that reduce both risk and waiting times, and thus can be considered ‘win-win’ from both an operational and risk reduction perspective.     

Towards a new approach for the identification of atypical accident scenarios

Proper hazard identification (HAZID) in safety reports has become progressively more difficult to achieve. Several major accidents in Europe in recent years, such as Buncefield and Toulouse, were not even considered by their site ‘Seveso-II’ Safety Case. One of the reasons is that available HAZID methodologies take no notice of apparently least likely events. Nonidentified scenarios thus constitute a latent risk, whose management is extremely complex and open ended. For this reason, the EC project iNTeg-Risk, in one of its tasks, aimed to investigate the issue of atypical scenarios and explain how they could have been identified. This study wants to describe the approach used and its immediate results, paving the way towards a new method for the identification of atypical accident scenarios. An in-depth accident analysis of some of these accidents was performed, in order to outline general features of plants in which they occurred, their causes, consequences, and lessons learned. This analysis followed a precise common scheme, which allowed a systematic approach to the problem by the experts involved. Based on the findings, failures connected to risk management and risk appraisal were identified. Three main basic issues in risk appraisal were identified: the low perception of emerging risks related to atypical accident scenarios, the lack of knowledge about related events, such as early warnings, and the incapability of current techniques in leading analysts to the identification of atypical scenarios.     

Views of Risk in Sweden: Global Fatalism and Local Control — An Empirical Investigation of Ulrich Beck's Theory of New Risks

Ulrich Beck's theory of risk society has been criticised because there is lack of empirical evidence. By comparing people with different life contexts and experiences, the aim of this study was to investigate how these people view risk, and if ‘new’ risks are perceived differently by different groups in society. Five focus‐group interviews were conducted in Sweden, in 2004/05, with people in rural and urban areas, people with a foreign background and experts. The groups consisted of four people each and lasted for two hours. The results show that ‘new’ risks are not something people worry about; ‘risk’ is associated with personal experiences and life context. This indicates a traditional or at least modern way of viewing risk, and contradicts the idea of a reflexive view of risk. However, a division between the urban versus the rural‐migrant groups appears: the expert‐urban groups show a more global—fatalistic strategy to handle of risk, while the rural—migrant group shows a more traditional approach to risk, where control and the local context are in focus.     

The ‘Plateau‐ing’ of the European Better Regulation Agenda: An Analysis of Activities Carried out by the Barroso Commission

In this paper we examine cases commonly characterised as risk‐risk tradeoffs (i.e., creating new risks while solving existing ones), in an attempt to learn lessons that can be valuable for future regulatory decision‐making. A broad range of environmental and health literature was reviewed and numerous cases of proclaimed risk‐risk tradeoffs were analysed in order to determine: 1) why regulatory measures were initially taken, 2) why these measures caused a countervailing risk to emerge, 3) how tradeoffs could have been avoided, and 4) whether the case is a good example of a risk‐risk tradeoff. The analysis reveals that only a small number of these cases can actually be considered risk‐risk tradeoffs. In a large number of cases safer alternatives are and were available at the time decisions were made. In some cases the proclaimed risk‐risk tradeoff simply did not exist or occur, and in some cases countervailing risks were ignored for reasons unknown. In many cases, the countervailing risks could have been anticipated and avoided by proactively seeking safer alternatives, completing a tradeoff and impact assessment, or increasing stakeholder input in the decision‐making process. We conclude that concerns about risk‐risk tradeoffs are not a reasonable argument against future application of the precautionary principle. Indeed, sound decision‐making processes in the face of uncertainty should always consider and attempt to mitigate reasonable risk‐risk tradeoffs.     

Demographic determinants of incident experience and risk perception: do high-risk groups accurately perceive themselves as high-risk?

This paper analyzes demographic determinants of incident experience and risk perception, as well as the relationship between the two, for eight different risk domains. Analyses were conducted by merging the results of a Swedish population-based survey, which includes approximately 15,000 individuals, with demographic and socio-economic register data. Being male was associated with higher incident experience yet a lower risk perception for nearly all risk domains. Lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher incident experience for falls, and being a victim of violence but lower incident experience for road traffic accidents. Lower socioeconomic status was also associated with higher risk perception for falls. On aggregate, ranking the different domains, respondents’ risk perception was in almost perfect correspondence to the ranking of actual incident experience, with the exception that the risk of being a victim of violence is ranked higher than indicated by actual incident experience. On a demographic group level, men and highly educated respondents perceive their risks to be lower than what is expected considering their actual incident experience.     

Roland W. Scholz: Environmental Literacy in Science and Society. From Knowledge to Decisions. Cambridge University Press 2011

This study pursues the following aims: to examine how news stories use frames, emotions, and uncertainty to present environmental risk information; to identify which aspects of risk issues they highlight; and to analyze how these stories’ representations of risk and uncertainty might differ according to the sources they use. Content analysis of 641 news stories in South Korea over the last decade yields three findings: (1) reassurance was the most frequently used news frame, while uncertainty and emotion were used less often than expected; (2) news stories using government/industry/experts as sources vs. activists/lay people highlighted different news frames and risk information; and (3) the two most frequently used uncertainty presentation formats were single point estimate and verbal estimate. This study contributes to existing literature on the roles of media in environmental risk communication in two ways. First, it examines the specific formats journalists use to present uncertainty about risks. Second, it integrates news frames with the emotional characteristics of risk communication and with differences in risk information characteristics according to source. Implications are discussed regarding how a better understanding of news representations of risk could inform and enhance cooperation between experts and journalists, and lead to more effective environmental risk communication. Finally, this content analysis provides a stepping stone for future research that could further investigate and test how publics respond to risk messages that have varying permutations of emotional content and risk presentation formats.     

Consumer versus Expert Hazard Identification: A Mental Models Study of Mutation‐bred Rice

Novel foods have been the object of intense public debate in recent years. Despite efforts to communicate the outcomes of risk assessments to consumers, public confidence in the management of potential risks has been low. Various reasons behind this have been identified, chiefly a disagreement between technical experts and consumers over the nature of the hazards on which risk assessments should focus, and perceptions of insufficient openness about uncertainties in risk assessment. Whilst previous research has almost exclusively focused on genetically modified foods, the present paper investigates plant varieties developed by means of mutation breeding, a less‐debated class of novel foods. Two studies were conducted that investigated the mental models of experts and laypeople. The results revealed that the mental models of both groups differed in terms of scope, depth and the role of uncertainty. Furthermore, a number of misconceptions became apparent in the study of laypeople's mental models, often related to the regulatory system governing risk assessments of novel foods. Critical issue are outlined and communication needs are discussed.     

Evaluating an analytic–deliberative risk‐ranking process in a Chinese context

In previous research, a deliberative process for integrating stakeholder perspectives in the ranking of risks was introduced and empirically tested with lay groups composed predominantly of Americans. In this paper, we explore the viability of this process with lay groups of Chinese, because previous research has shown that Americans and Chinese differ substantially along many dimensions of cognition and social organization relevant to decision‐making. Using 10 environmental hazards based on current Chinese environmental regulatory programs as the risk domain, five groups of 8–9 participants ranked hazards using both holistic and multi‐attribute approaches. Results show that (1) risk rankings from the holistic and multi‐attribute approaches are consistent, (2) participants indicate that they are satisfied with the procedures and resulting rankings, and (3) agreement between participants increases over the course of the ranking exercise. Results for Chinese participants were compared with previously reported results for Americans to look for cultural effects involving deference to technical expertise and quantitative analysis, and skepticism toward public participation in policy‐making. Although there were some hints of cultural differences, neither difference significantly affected measures of the method’s validity or replicability. Because this process offers a scientifically sound and measured approach to stakeholder involvement in risk management, it may be attractive to Chinese leaders as they respond to growing demand for public participation in the policy‐making process. Whether Chinese citizens would consider the process described here to be satisfactory in a real policy context remains to be tested.     

Book Review

This research examines two modes of assessment of environmental health risks and the transformation of these risks into public health issues while relying on the specific case of well‐water toxicity and mega dose of electromagnetic radiation found in one prosperous town in the center of Israel – Ramat ha‐Sharon. Based on official and scientific documentation and interviews conducted at three time periods with randomly selected town residents from contaminated neighborhoods (N = 169), this study shows the discrepancy between the ‘objective’ experts’ standards for assessing environmental health risks and the public’s subjective perception and evaluation of the impact of these risks on their health and well‐being. Even though, by experts’ standards, the well‐water toxicity remained constant over the three interview sessions, Ramat ha‐Sharon town residents’ subjective levels of concern and perception of risk fluctuated as a function of news media and municipality announcements and residents’ perceived ability to minimize the risk. This study also shows the complex and multidisciplinary nature of environmental health risk assessments and the need to relocate them into the broader socioeconomic and political context in which they are embedded.     

The acerbity of the social: how to include the social in governmental risk assessments

This paper addresses the expansion of risk practices through a case study of a government led project in Sweden purposed to develop a method to include social events in mandatory risk practices. Social heterogeneity was to be transformed into straightforward causality in order to turn the social into a manageable object. In this regard, the project was quite successful. By inviting social scientists into the process, otherwise often marginalized within risk practice, causality and quantifiable risk factors could be established and the model became a rigorous and legitimate scientific model. Although experts were granted significant autonomy and became experts far beyond their own area of expertise, the success of the model lies rather in allowing experts authority within confined boundaries. Grand narratives and critical perspectives are disregarded as too abstract and if social scientists are to infuse aspects of social critique they must adapt to these circumstances: they must become instrumentalists.