How Reassuring are Risk Comparisons to Pollution Standards and Emission Limits?

Pollutant emissions or ambient levels are often justified by reference to a higher benchmark, such as a public health standard or permit limit. However, does this risk comparison persuade the public audiences to whom it is frequently directed that such pollution levels are “acceptable”? A substantial proportion of people living within one mile of New Jersey's industrial facilities, perhaps as much as half, is indeed reassured by a comparison to such benchmarks. Positive attitudes toward discharge limits were linked to speaking English at home; positive attitudes toward drinking water standards were associated with seeing local benefits of industry as outweighing its risks, not speaking English, and relative youth (49 years old or less). Three scenarios involving drinking water contamination varied pre‐ and post‐treatment levels of the pollutant, though all post‐treatment levels were below the standard. In all cases great concern was expressed, with no significant differences across scenarios; net benefits, being white, and non‐English speaking were linked to lower concern. Relative trust seems a better explanation of different attitudes toward benchmark comparisons than varying levels of knowledge, but both hypotheses have drawbacks that merit further testing. These results imply that people with negative views of industry or government, the ones officials might most wish to reassure, will tend to doubt that regulatory benchmarks offer a valid risk comparison.     

Informing and Educating the Public About Risk

The objective of informing and educating the public about risk issues seems easy to attain in principle, but, in practice, may be difficult to accomplish. This paper attempts to illustrate why this is so. To be effective, risk communicators must recognize and overcome a number of obstacles that have their roots in the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the idiosyncrasies of the human mind. Doing an adequate job of communicating means finding comprehensible ways of presenting complex technical material that is clouded by uncertainty and inherently difficult to understand. The problems may not be insurmountable, however, if designers of risk information programs are sensitive to the difficulties.     

Communicating Low Risk Magnitudes: Incidence Rates Expressed as Frequency Versus Rates Expressed as Probability

The study investigated the effects of incidence rates stated as a probability (e.g., 0006) and incidence rate information expressed in terms of frequency (e.g., 600 in 1,000,000) on risk-avoidant behavior. Subjects were informed about the risks associated with an old and a new, improved medication. They were asked how much they were willing to pay for the safer medicine. Risk information was given either in a frequency or a probability format. The second factor manipulated was the level of risk, either high or low. As expected, analysis of variance yielded a significant interaction. Subjects confronted with high risk in the frequency format were willing to pay the highest prices for the improved medication. The choice between frequency or probability format can be made according to the goal of the communication of risk.     

The Risk of MTBE Relative to Other VOCs in Public Drinking Water in California

Ongoing publicity about methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) suggests that this chemical is of greater concern than other contaminants commonly found in drinking water. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the available MTBE data in context with other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are detected in public drinking water sources in California. We find that of the 28 VOCs with a primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) in California, 21 were found in 50 or more drinking water sources from 1985 to 2002. Over the last 10 years, the most frequently detected VOCs were chloroform, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE), which were found in about 9-15% of all sampled drinking water sources. These same chemicals were found to have the highest mean detected concentrations over the last 5 years, ranging from 13 to 15 microg/L. Many VOCs were also found to routinely exceed state and federal drinking water standards, including benzene and carbon tetrachloride. By comparison, MTBE was found in approximately 1% of sampled drinking water sources for most years, and of those drinking water sources found to contain MTBE from 1998 to 2002, over 90% had detected concentrations below California's primary MCL of 13 microg/L. Relative to the other VOCs evaluated, MTBE has the lowest estimated California cancer potency value, and was found to pose one of the least cancer risks from household exposures to contaminated drinking water. These findings suggest that MTBE poses an insignificant threat to public drinking water supplies and public health in California, particularly when compared to other common drinking water contaminants.     

Public Reliance on Risk Communication Channels in the Wake of a Cryptosporidium Outbreak

In the spring of 1993, about 39% of Milwaukee-area residents suffered through a nationally publicized illness brought about by cryptosporidium, a parasite that had infested the metropolitan drinking water supply. Our study, based on a telephone survey of 610 local adult residents, indicates that worry about becoming ill in the future with cryptosporidiosis relates more strongly and consistently to public reliance on, and use of, media for cryptosporidium information than do a range of risk perception and experience variables. We propose that more studies should take an audience-centered approach to understanding risk communication.     

Public Values in Risk Debates

Both the issues inherent in regulation of specific risks and the contexts in which such regulatory processes occur are often characterized by confusion and controversy. Tools based on multiattribute utility measurement (MAUT) can help to clarify public values in risk debates and thus to facilitate option invention and decision making. Stakeholder group representatives, in interaction with an analyst, structure their values relevant to the problem into a value tree. The analyst prepares a common tree, iterating until all stakeholder representatives accept it. Stakeholders express their values as weights on the common tree. This provides a basis for option invention and negotiation. The paper presents three illustrative applications.     

Summarizing Risk Using Risk Measures and Risk Indices

Our society is fascinated with risk in many different areas and disciplines. One of the main ways to describe and communicate the level of risk is through risk indices, which summarize risk using numbers or categories such as words, letters, or colors. These indices are used to communicate risks to the public, understand how risk is changing over time, compare among different risks, and support decision making. Given the different methods to construct risk indices, including flawed methods such as risk matrices, this article develops specific steps that analysts can follow to create a risk index. This article emphasizes the importance of describing risk with a probability distribution, developing a numerical risk measure that summarizes the probability distribution, and finally translating the risk measure to an index. Measuring the risk is the most difficult part and requires the analyst to summarize a probability distribution into one or possibly a few numbers. The risk measure can then be transformed to a numerical or categorical index. I apply the method outlined in this article to construct a risk index that compares the risk of fatalities in aviation and highway transportation.     

Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication

New societal obligations for communicating risk information are emerging in a variety of contexts. This article draws upon the lengthy societal experience with citizen participation programs to identify how risk communication efforts may be effectively structured and implemented. Six major propositions address such themes as means/ends differences in expectations, the timing of the program, the role of credibility and trust, the need for technical and analytical resources, differing thresholds of public involvement, and limitations upon current understandings. Key conclusions for the design of risk communication programs are set forth.     

Opportunities and Impediments for Risk-Based Standards: Some Views from a Workshop

Techniques for performing scientific risk assessments for a wide variety of chemical and radiological hazards present in the environment and workplace are available. Speakers at a workshop sponsored by the Environmental and Public/Occupational Health Standard's Steering Group addressed both the state-of-the-art in risk assessment and areas of difficulty that require further research. The Steering Group concluded that within the limits of the available data, risk-assessment techniques are a useful tool in decision-making. In the past, many government agencies have not been effective either in listening to public concerns or in communicating technical or scientific information about risks. This has been true at all levels of government. Workshop speakers discussed some ways that government agencies can more effectively communicate with the public. The Steering Group concluded that major efforts must be made to ensure that two-way communication takes place. Thus the results of the workshop show that effective management of risk requires both a scientific assessment of risk and a responsive consideration of the public's perception of risk. Intensive efforts must be made to ensure that effective two-way communication takes place between members of the public and the appropriate government agencies.     

Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust

Some analysts suggest that discussing uncertainties in health risk assessments might reduce citizens'perceptions of risk and increase their respect for the risk-assessing agency. We tested this assumption with simulated news stories varying simple displays of uncertainty (e.g., a range of risk estimates, with and without graphics). Subjects from Eugene, Oregon, read one story each, and then answered a questionnaire. Three studies tested between 180 and 272 subjects each. Two focus groups obtained more detailed responses to these stories. The results suggested that (1) people are unfamiliar with uncertainty in risk assessments and in science; (2) people may recognize uncertainty when it is presented simply; (3) graphics may help people recognize uncertainty; (4) reactions to the environmental problems in the stories seemed affected less by presentation of uncertainty than by general risk attitudes and perceptions; (5) agency discussion of uncertainty in risk estimates may signal agency honesty and agency incompetence for some people; and (6) people seem to see lower risk estimates (10^-6, as opposed to 10^-3) as less credible. These findings, if confirmed, would have important implications for risk communication.     

High Risk or Low: How Location on a "Risk Ladder" Affects Perceived Risk

Efforts to explain risk magnitude often rely on a "risk ladder" in which exposure levels and associated risk estimates are arrayed with low levels at the bottom and high ones at the top. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that perceived threat and intended mitigation vary with the location of the subject's assigned level on the risk ladder. Subjects were New Jersey homeowners, asked to assume a particular level of radon or asbestos contamination in their homes, to read a brochure explaining the risk, and then to complete a questionnaire. Both studies found that the difference between an assigned level one-quarter of the way up the ladder and the same level three-quarters of the way up the ladder significantly affected threat perception; the effect on mitigation intentions was significant in only one of the studies. Variations in assigned risk also affected threat perception and mitigation intentions. Variations in test magnitude (e.g., 15 fibers per liter vs. 450 fibers per cubic foot, roughly equivalent risks) had no effect, nor did the distinction between radon and asbestos affect the dependent variables. These findings suggest that communicators can design risk ladders to emphasize particular risk characteristics.     

Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions

Expanding a limited empirical base on effects of risk comparisons, a pilot experiment explored how varying elements of such comparisons might influence public response. The scenario used was a hypothetical trial of an asbestos-installing firm for putting students and staff at a junior high school at "unreasonable risk," first used by Slovic et al. (1990). Study participants played the role of jurors in the trial, asked to rate the risk, the firm's guilt, whether it should be made liable for future health effects, whether the school should be occupied in its current condition, and whether the asbestos should be removed at a cost of 3 million dollars. Opportunity samples of New Jersey residents (n= 309) received information intended to vary four comparison attributes: number of dimensions of comparison; single versus multiple ways of expressing mortality; a narrative to explain and justify the risk comparison; and the hypothetical role of the participant (juror vs. parent). The dependent variable was a hazard scale constructed from four of the five postcomparison judgments. ANOVA found format variations swamped in their effect by concern about asbestos, with the absence of a narrative and the parental role being the only attributes that increased negative risk reactions. Multiple regression analyses found that multidimensionality, narrative, role, and the presence of any risk comparison at all had significant effects when these (plus death formats) were the only independent variables. However, only multidimensionality (which increased negative reactions) retained significance when asbestos concern, risk beliefs (no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen; any exposure leads to cancer), and demographic variables were added to the analysis. Concern and risk beliefs alone explained 33% of variance in hazard scores; adding demographics and risk comparison variables only raised explained variance to 36% (having children at home and being exposed to multidimensional risk comparisons raised scores; age and income lowered them). The results underline the potentially small effect of risk comparison information on risk views (at least between subjects), but offer some insight into aspects of message design left unexplored in empirical literature to date.     

From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public

Relatively few studies have examined risk communication with the public from the viewpoint of the staff of institutions attempting such communications. This paper reports results of interviews with managers and staff of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, on their programs' current and ideal communications with the public. Q analysis revealed two orthogonal perspectives on current program communications, the Enthused and the Constrained views. The primary focus of their divergence was on the matter of commitment and support for such communications. The Enthused group felt that they had attitudinal support from program culture and managers; the Constrained group focused on the lack of concrete operational support in terms of time, money, and expertise. These differences between the two groups did not appear to be associated with gender, managerial status, education, communication training, or organizational unit. When ideal program communications were discussed, the focus was on the need for all kinds of commitment and support (i.e., culture, managers, time, money, building expertise through training), as well as on more proactive and responsive communication. Both perspectives agreed that communication with the public is essential to their programs' success, trying new ways to communicate is worthwhile, scientific bases for decisions are not compromised by communication, and communication is not delegated to specialists. While varying ideas were held of the public's capacity and interest in communication, citizens were largely not held responsible for communication problems.     

Conventional Wisdom on Risk Communication and Evidence from a Field Experiment

A recent comprehensive review of the literature identified a number of facts and principles governing risk communication. This paper evaluates several of these propositions using recent evidence from a field experiment in communicating the risks from radon in homes. At this point in the research, data relates primarily to the response of risk perceptions to different information treatments and different personal characteristics. The effect of various causal factors is sensitive to the particular test of risk perception applied. No information treatment was clearly superior for all tasks. An important implication of these findings is that risk communicators must determine what specific task or tasks the information program should enable people to do.     

Improving Risk Communication

This paper explores reasons for difficulties in communicating risks among analysts, the laypublic, media, and regulators. Formulating risk communication problems as decisions involving objectives and alternatives helps to identify strategies for overcoming these difficulties. Several strategies are suggested to achieve risk communication objectives like improving public knowledge about risks and risk management, encouraging risk reduction behavior, understanding public values and concerns, and increasing trust and credibility.     

Engaging with Comparative Risk Appraisals: Public Views on Policy Priorities for Environmental Risk Governance

Communicating the rationale for allocating resources to manage policy priorities and their risks is challenging. Here, we demonstrate that environmental risks have diverse attributes and locales in their effects that may drive disproportionate responses among citizens. When 2,065 survey participants deployed summary information and their own understanding to assess 12 policy‐level environmental risks singularly, their assessment differed from a prior expert assessment. However, participants provided rankings similar to those of experts when these same 12 risks were considered as a group, allowing comparison between the different risks. Following this, when individuals were shown the prior expert assessment of this portfolio, they expressed a moderate level of confidence with the combined expert analysis. These are important findings for the comprehension of policy risks that may be subject to augmentation by climate change, their representation alongside other threats within national risk assessments, and interpretations of agency for public risk management by citizens and others.     

What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?

The risks of unfamiliar technologies are often evaluated by comparing them with the risks of more familiar ones. Such risk comparisons have been criticized for neglecting critical dimensions of risky decisions. In a guide written for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Covello et al. (¹) have summarized these critiques and developed a taxonomy that characterizes possible risk comparisons in terms of their acceptability (or objectionableness). We asked four diverse groups of subjects to judge the acceptability of 14 statements produced by Covello et al. as examples of their categories. We found no correlation between the judgments of acceptability produced by our subjects and those predicted by Covello et al. .     

Quantitative Risk Assessments as Evidence in Civil Litigation

Those who prepare quantitative risk assessments do not always appreciate that those assessments might be used as evidence in civil litigation. This paper suggests that litigation attorneys, judges, and juries be regarded as audiences to whom the information in the risk assessment must be communicated. The way that a risk assessment is prepared can affect significantly whether litigation is brought at all, the resolution of evidentiary motions involving the risk assessment, as well as the ultimate outcome of the litigation. This paper discusses certain procedural and evidentiary aspects of the civil litigation process in the hope that a better understanding of that process might lead to the preparation of risk assessments that are more adequately understood by juries, judges, and litigants.     

Heuristic-Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment

The heuristic-systematic information processing model (HSM) holds that individuals will use one or both of these modes of information processing when attempting to evaluate information in order to arrive at a judgment. Systematic processing is defined by effortful scrutiny and comparison of information, whereas heuristic processing is defined by the use of cues to arrive more easily at a judgment. Antecedents to the two processing modes include information sufficiency, motivation, and self-efficacy. Structural equation modeling is used to examine competing configuration of this model and to evaluate the model as appropriate for predicting risk judgment. The model also is evaluated across three groups that vary with respect to their level of concern. These analyses are executed within a case study involving an epidemiological investigation of a suspected cancer cluster. The analysis confirms the HSM's theoretically proposed structure and shows it to be a useful vehicle for evaluating risk judgment. In the overall analysis, antecedent variables generally function as specified by theory. Systematic processing is predicted by greater motivation. Heuristic processing is predicted by information sufficiency. Self-efficacy is a significant predictor of both processing modes. And heuristic processing is shown to be associated with judgment of less risk. However, when the analysis is contrasted across three groups (those concerned about cancer, not concerned and uncertain) it is shown that the model is significantly more robust for the uncertain group. This finding may have implications for the use of the HSM in risk research specifically, and in field research generally.