08 Sep 2011
A new report on risk communication and CCS (available on the Institute's website, )
explores the insights from social science research relating to the
extent people view risk more expansively than might be considered in a
technical or scientific risk assessment. The report reviews some of this
research and also draws on interviews with representatives from five
CCS projects to underscore the importance of understanding this expanded
view of potential CCS project risk. Support or opposition to new
technology by members of the public can be influenced substantially by
their perceptions of the risks and benefits of a technology and how they
perceive it will impact their lives. Those involved in CCS - including
project developers, regulators, elected officials, civic groups and
others - all have an interest in understanding how the public will
perceive the benefits and risks of CCS generally and in relation to
specific projects.
Evolving thinking about the perceptions of risk
Although risk assessment results are often reported in quantitative terms, there are inherently subjective judgments involved in determining the defining factors such as the nature of the risk being assessed as well as the receptors and impacts of concern. For example, should an air quality standard be set in consideration of the average impact on the average population or should it be set to address a range of impacts (e.g., discomfort, death) and the most sensitive populations (e.g., children, the elderly, those living in socio-economically disadvantaged conditions)? Identifying this underlying subjectivity, social science research turned to the question of trying to understand how the public perceives the same risks that are quantified in technical risk assessment.
The essential conclusion of early research was that whereas technical experts tend to measure risk in terms of quantitative impacts such as mortality, lay people tend to consider additional factors. This resulted in a situation in which technical risk assessments seemed to "treat risk as an objective reality against which ‘faulty’ or ‘inaccurate’ public perceptions could be measured." Accordingly, risk communication 'was seen as the answer to many thorny problems – most notably as a means to bridge the gulf between expert views and public perceptions of risk'.
Later research modified this approach to recognize the important role of a public’s social context in which knowledge is produced, interpreted and used. Namely, people’s risk perceptions (including developers and their technical experts, as well as the potentially affected public) are based on an existing cultural frame of reference – their values, interests, and ways of interpreting and responding to the world. The fundamental shift in this newer approach is that it starts with the social background and characteristics of the perceivers rather than with the characteristics of the technology.
Insights for understanding risk perception
The report highlights several observations from the reviewed research:
Evolving thinking about the perceptions of risk
Although risk assessment results are often reported in quantitative terms, there are inherently subjective judgments involved in determining the defining factors such as the nature of the risk being assessed as well as the receptors and impacts of concern. For example, should an air quality standard be set in consideration of the average impact on the average population or should it be set to address a range of impacts (e.g., discomfort, death) and the most sensitive populations (e.g., children, the elderly, those living in socio-economically disadvantaged conditions)? Identifying this underlying subjectivity, social science research turned to the question of trying to understand how the public perceives the same risks that are quantified in technical risk assessment.
The essential conclusion of early research was that whereas technical experts tend to measure risk in terms of quantitative impacts such as mortality, lay people tend to consider additional factors. This resulted in a situation in which technical risk assessments seemed to "treat risk as an objective reality against which ‘faulty’ or ‘inaccurate’ public perceptions could be measured." Accordingly, risk communication 'was seen as the answer to many thorny problems – most notably as a means to bridge the gulf between expert views and public perceptions of risk'.
Later research modified this approach to recognize the important role of a public’s social context in which knowledge is produced, interpreted and used. Namely, people’s risk perceptions (including developers and their technical experts, as well as the potentially affected public) are based on an existing cultural frame of reference – their values, interests, and ways of interpreting and responding to the world. The fundamental shift in this newer approach is that it starts with the social background and characteristics of the perceivers rather than with the characteristics of the technology.
Insights for understanding risk perception
The report highlights several observations from the reviewed research:
- Treating risk as an objective 'fact' is inaccurate and leads to misleading guidance for interactions with the public.
- Attempts to make technology decisions on the basis of technically defined risk fail to incorporate the full societal dimensions of the policy issues at stake – including the implication of decisions about the level, acceptability, and distribution of risk.
- A more productive filter for considering stakeholder views might focus on the differing rationalities underlying judgments, for example ‘technical rationality’ and ‘cultural rationality'.
- A more expansive view of project risk is warranted.
- The public is not a passive 'target audience' to whom messages should be delivered but rather is an active participant in interpreting information.
- Differences in perceptions of risk are not limited to differences between experts and the public.
- The essential communication issue is not technical risk per se but the overall potential impact of a technology on a host community and the relationship with the project developer.
No comments:
Post a Comment