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