understanding risk perception - international atomic … · · 2012-11-26understanding risk...
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Risk Perception
Nadja Železnik
ARAO, Slovenia
International training event on Interaction between technical
and social aspects for waste disposal programmes
July 2011, Istanbul Turkey
Table of content
►Introduction
►Attitudes toward nuclear technology
►Perception of risk
►Factors which effects perception of risks
►Social amplification of risk
►Value judgements and biases
►Forming of attitudes
►Case study: LILW repository
►Influence on communication plans
►Conclusions
2
Attitude towards radioactivity and
radiation/nuclear facilities
►Very different views between experts and lay people
towards radioactivity and radiation/nuclear facilities:
▲For experts – not complex area, easy to manage, the
consequences of doses are small, there are available
approaches to safe and technically feasible solutions.
▲For lay people – fear, perception of danger, effects on health and
environment, dread, decreasing of properties values, opposition
to radiation facilities, NIMBY*, NIABE**, BANANA***, LULU4*
►No understanding for that different views between 2
groups:
▲no effective and real communication,
▲very rigid and limited mental models between 2 groups!
► *Not In My BackYard, **Not In Anyone‘s Backyard ever, ***Built Absolutlely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody, 4*Locally unwanted land use 3
Historical development of attitude
►Development of attitude regarding radioactivity and
nuclear technology:
▲from enthusiasm and fascination
▲to nuclear stigma (the field is connecting with
negative connotation).
4
Why are views so different?
▲Expert and lay people consider different things when evaluating
risk, public has much broader perception of risk,
▲Military origin of nuclear technology,
▲Dramatical accidents on nuclear facilities (TMI, Chernobyl,
Fukushima,…),
▲Very rigid, technocratic and hierarchical approaches in industry,
▲Nontransparent attitudes towards public from responsible
organizations and nuclear industry,
▲Complex topic, several areas, communication not adjusted to
public,
▲Differences in mental models between experts and public.
5
Referendum on LILW
repository construction:
Slovenia 2006-2011
Perception of risk
►Risk = always connected with perceived danger:
▲Probability and seriousness of possible no desirable
consequences,
▲Quantitative definition of risk: probability of loss, order of
loss, expectation of loss, ….
►When is risk acceptable: attitudes towards risk and
consequently perception of risk – subjectivity!
►Public does not usually bother with thinking about
the risk connected with radiation, nuclear technology
and environmental problems unless challenged with
(only 10 % of risks are related).
►Therefore they do not have developed tools for risk
assessment of radiation and nuclear topics. 6
„Objective“ assessment of risk
►Objective assessment of risk defined with risk
analysis – different component:
▲Risk assessment - risk management - politics
▲Risk = negative consequences x frequency
►Challenges for experts:
▲use different approaches, assumptions, predictions,
▲new technologies,
▲use of event tree,
▲ low probability of events,
▲definition of consequences,
▲lack of relevant data,…
►Subjectivity -also!
7
Lay people and experts risk assessment
►Different ways of risk assessment resulting from
different definitions of the concept of risk,
►different assessment of the magnitude of
riskiness.
8
Example of risk
assessment ranks
►Ordering of perceived
risk for 30 activities and
technologies for different
gropus of public and
experts (Slovic, Fischhoff,
Lichtenstein, 1980):
▲ Women
▲ Students
▲ Association
▲ Experts
► Ranking depends on
familiarity of risks
9
Results of surveys of perceived risk in
public
10
►Ranking of perceived risk for nuclear power and X- rays
across nine risk factors in risks profiles (Fischhoff et al, 1978):
1 – minimum, 7- maximum: - - - nuclear power, ---------X-rays
►Nuclear power assessed more negative on almost all
factors.
Results of perceived risk, Slovic 1990
11
Distribution of risks on 2 factors space: unknown and dread risk, third factor
is potential for catastrophy
Factors which effects perception of risk -1
►Voluntarity or involuntarity to the possible risk
► Immediate or delay effects of dangers
►Knowledge or lack of knowledge on activity or
technology within public and experts,
►New or old technology and related risk
►Chronic, long term consequences with slow effects or
catastrophic risk with large consequences
►Seriousness and fatality of the risk consequences
►Common risk with which we are familiar or fear and
dread against risk
►Control over risk and consequences or no
12
Factors which effects perception of risk -2
► Perceived benefit or loss: irreversible dependence between risk and
benefit – small benefit - big risk and vice versus.
► Potential for catastrophy
► Relationship between personal and public interest (NIMBY
syndrome): paragliding is for some very acceptable although is very
risky
► Factors which are equally important for perception of risk between
lay public and experts:
▲ Gender (women more concerned)
▲ Worldviews (egalitarist more against nuclear use, fatalist, hierarhist and
individualist more for)
▲ Artificial or natural ( artificial more dangerous)
► Trust and principle of asymmetry:
▲ negative events more visible and have greater impact,
▲ sources of negative news perceived as more credible,
▲ the role of media, civil and lobi groups,
▲ the contradicted opinion,…
13
The social amplification of risk
►Perception of risk for certain technology is spread over
society
►Social amplification of risks (SAR, Kasperson, 1988):
▲Event
▲Characteristics of event
▲ Interpretation
▲Spread of impact
▲Type of impact for society: regulatory control, lawsuits, loss of
trust,…
14
Mechanism important for SAR
▲Signal value or potential of event in connection with
perception of personal danger (new, not known risk):
▲Relationship between societal groups (political
options, nongovernmental organization, lobbyist,
interest groups,…).
▲Stigmatization of group, environment, technology or
field.
15
Event Mesage
Emission of danger gases to environment New risk with high potential catastrophy
Report in media about contamination of
environment
Management does not control the danger
Underrating od danger State is not concerned with health of public
Heuristics and Biases
►Heuristics (mental strategies with which we simplified difficulties of views
or shortcuts which assure the decision-making or assessments without all
data) and value judgments:
▲Availability (under- and overestimation)
▲Representativity
▲Anchoring
▲Bias in probability assessment
▲Over self-confidence of judgment
▲Framing
▲Search for certainty
►Wrong, misleading risks
assessment
►Mistakes in judgments - biases 16
Comparison of assessments and
calculated values of death, Lichtenstein,
1978
Factors which effects the estimations
17
Attitudes towards radiation and nuclear
► Three components of attitudes:
▲ facts, knowledge and beliefs on
perceived risks and benefits
(cognitive component),
▲emotions and feelings (affective
component), and
▲ Information on past and present
responses (behavioral
component).
► Changing of attitudes:
▲ filtering of inputs selectively
based on formed attitudes.
▲Very slow process, depends on
trust of the announcer.
18 Basic structure of attitudes towards risky
technologies, Lee, 2002
Defining mental models
► Mental models represents individual‘s understanding how diferent
processes or phenomena are functioning and present smal theoris
with which people are explaining and forecasting events.
► Characteristics of mental models:
▲Are incomplete, limited and fragmentary, usualy wrong,
contradictory and inconsistent, not science founded,
▲Are unstable, evolving, people forget details and are mixing old
and new information,
▲Are not having clear and firm boundaries, different models are
mixed and changed,
▲Are limited and enable simplified interpretation of complex
processes.
► Lay people's ability to respond to an environmental hazard is
determined, at least in part, by their understanding of the processes
that govern its creation and control.
19
Different mental models
►System t,
►Expert‘s model C(t),
►Mental model M(t),
►Researcher model C(M(t))
20 Prirejeno po D.Norman-u, 1988
Historical development of mental models
► Research in lay people comprehension and understanding of simple
physical phenomena: impetus theory, naive motion theories,
development of expert knowledge, …
► Other areas:
▲Economy, IT, agriculture,…
▲Complex system (aviation, chemistry),
▲Link with risk communication on projects
environmental, engineering, health,…
21
Bawkunst Oder Architectur Allers
Furnemsten, W.H.Ryff, 1582
Expert model of radon, Morgan, 1992
Role of mental models in decision
making
►Recognition-primed
decision (RPD) model is a
model of how people make
quick, effective decisions
when faced with complex
situations (Klein, 2003):
▲ Intuition and experiences, not
analytical search for options,
▲Search for still acaptable
option,
▲Use of mental simulation,
▲Dependant on mental models.
22
Mental models of radioactivity and nuclear
technology
23
Asosiation with LILW
repository (Slovic, 1991)
%
Danger; health and environment 45
Dread, harm, dirty, 9,3
NIMBY 9
Accidents, war 7,5
Personal opposition 5,9
Positive attitude 12,4
Other 5,2
An example: LILW repository
►The study of the factors influencing the acceptability of
LILW repository in Slovenia.
►Mental model approach (after Morgan et al., 2002) was
used:
24
Comparison of expert and lay mental
models -1 Topic Expert models Some of lay mental models that differ
from the expert model
Radioactivity, time
dependence, process
Nuclei are unstable and decay
exponentially with various half
life, they gradually become
stable, not radioactive after 300
years, natural and man-made
process
Radioactivity is an artificial process
Radioactivity increases with time or is not
time dependent
Natural radiation is different to artificial
radiation, since people are used to it.
There is no radiation in nature
How radiation effects
humans,
High doses can kill or modify
living cells, but there are repair
mechanisms that correct the
damage. Doses compared with
natural background (low doses)
have no effect. Late (stochastic)
and acute (deterministic) effects.
Irradiated objects become radioactive
themselves
All radiation, even low doses, causes cancer,
Hiroshima effect
Radiation influences fertility, genetic changes,
it stays for many generations
A person disappears and burns down,
There is a chain reaction of contamination in
the cells – like viruses
Comparison of expert and lay mental
models -2 Topic Expert model Some of lay mental models that differ
from the expert model
Processes in the LILW
repository,
No active processes in the repository,
decay of radioactive waste, possible
chemical disintegration, very slow
degradation of the barriers, corrosion,
then possible release through water
and air, ingestion, inhalation, direct
contact, all accidents studied and
protected …
Processes like earthquake, war, terrorist
attack may release inner forces with possibility
of atomic bomb,
Waste emits radiation which is then
transported through the barriers to humans,
Psychological consequences,
A stroke of lightning that can release radiation,
Plants absorb radioactivity,
Radiation evaporates from repository
Transport of
radioactive waste,
Transport by road or rail, use of
special packages and containers
with pre-testing. Normal
procedure with licensing.
Transport only with special vehicles with
police escort
In case of accident total contamination of
land with many people irradiated, injured
or dead
Many accidents but not openly reported
Level of knowledge
False statement General
public %
Krško and
Brežice %
natural radioactivity not dangerous for people 63,5 64,5
strawberries near NPP are poisonous 67,9 49,5
contamination of the nearby cells 79,5 78,0
irradiated humans become radioactive themselves 82,1 74,0
humans are not radioactive 69,1 56,0
entrance to LILW repository only in space suit 86,1 79,0
old rtg equipment is radioactive waste 83,3 86,0
only in some countries there are repositories but in bad
conditions
81,7 77,5
many transport accidents in the world 78,4 72,5
fresh fuel elements are deadly dangerous for people 88,4 84,5
all radiations can get true the skin 78,9 82,0
Associations on LILW repository (in %)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Negativefeelings, fear,
dread
Consequencesfor health andenvironment
Technology andphysical
phenomena
Danger NIMBY Positiveconsequences
I do not know
General public
Local public
► Prevailing negative associations: ▲ General public 76 % ▲ Local public 67 %
Perceived risk
► Nuclear technologies and practices are assessed between still
acceptable (3) and not acceptable, too dangerous (4) – bot public.
► Irreversibly dependence between risk perception and
▲perceived benefit;
▲knowledge,
▲acceptability.
►Gender: women always assess risk higher (up to 20 %)!
29
2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8
2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4
3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Trust
30
1
2
3
4
5
Okoljskagibanja
ARAO TVSlovenija
Občinskisvet
Vlada
splošna javnost
lokalna javnost
Importance:
• Empathy and care 45 %
• Honesty and openness 20 %
• Commitment and dedication 20 %
• Competence and experience 15 %
Acceptability of repository construction
31
47.0
8.1
24.7
11.8 8.4
36.5
8.0
22.0
14.0
19.5
sploh ne ne morda verjetno vsekakor
Local host
Splošna javnost Lokalna javnost
37.9
11.5
27.9
13.5
9.2
34.5
10.0
22.0
13.0
20.5
sploh ne ne morda verjetno vsekakor
Regional host
Splošna javnost Lokalna javnost
General public
Local host
Local public
Local host
General public
Regional host
Local public
Regional host
Against (%) 55,1 44,5 49,4 44,5
For (%) 20,2 33,5 22,7 33,5
Maybe (%) 24,7 22,0 27,9 22,0
Average 2,27 2,72 2,45 2,75
Factors influencing the acceptability
32
General public Local public
Local host Regional host Local host Regional host
Perceived risk due to
NPP
Knowledge Perceived risk due to
nuclear power plant
Knowledge
Fair compensation Trust in ARAO Knowledge Perceived risk due
to nuclear power
plant
Perceived risk due to
LILW repository
Perceived risk due
to nuclear power
plant
Fair compensation Trust in ARAO
Trust in ARAO Perceived risk due
to LILW repository
Trust in ARAO Fair compensation
Knowledge Fair compensation Sharing values with
local council
Perceived risk due
to transport of
radioactive waste
Gender (male) Gender (male)
Age Age
Communication of risky perceived
activity or technology -1
► Preparation of communication strategy, identification of target
groups, definition of operation plan of activities with
responsible persons, contents, resources (human, financial,
technical,..).
► Use of public opinion research for obtaining of necessary data
(mental models).
► Preparation of the materials for information and
communication in which lay people attitudes, especially
wrong, should be addressed.
► Preparation of reports regarding activities with emphasis on
problems, open questions, new findings or requirements.
► Use of classical media and participation of independent
representatives (also NGO!), contacts with journalists.
33
Communication of risky perceived
activity or technology -2
► Communication and participation also in the wider area not only in
affected municipality.
► Assurance of open, transparent and sincere discussion, in which
agreement should be respected and where decision making from
position of power should be abandoned.
► Involvement of also same specific groups like women, youngsters
and older people.
► Suppress the competition between communities in the process and
assure justice and fairness
► Work on credibility and trust – most important factor.
34
Conclusions
► The field is quite complex, many different factors which effect the
perceived risk.
► Lay public has many different ways to evaluate risk, only part of
theme are similar to expert concepts.
► Prevailing negative attitudes towards radiation stay, also in local
public with long history of living with nuclear or radiation facility.
► The acceptability of nuclear and radiation practices is influenced
above all by emotional component, cognitive component is less
important, but more within local public.
► Knowledge is the most important for acceptability in region where
NIMBY is not so important.
► The key issues:
▲ remains the trust in the holder of the project and in responsible institutions,
▲ and secondly, the process of solving the problem.
35