Examining Public Trust in Risk‐Managing Organizations After a Major Disaster

This research investigates the public's trust in risk‐managing organizations after suffering serious damage from a major disaster. It is natural for public trust to decrease in organizations responsible for mitigating the damage. However, what about trust in organizations that address hazards not directly related to the disaster? Based on the results of surveys conducted by a national institute, the Japanese government concluded, in a White Paper on Science and Technology, that the public's trust in scientists declined overall after the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake. Because scientists play a key role in risk assessment and risk management in most areas, one could predict that trust in risk‐managing organizations overall would decrease after a major disaster. The methodology of that survey, however, had limitations that prevented such conclusions. For this research, two surveys were conducted to measure the public's trust in risk‐managing organizations regarding various hazards, before and after the Tohoku Earthquake (n = 1,192 in 2008 and n = 1,138 in 2012). The results showed that trust decreased in risk‐managing organizations that deal with earthquakes and nuclear accidents, whereas trust levels related to many other hazards, especially in areas not touched by the Tohoku Earthquake, remained steady or even increased. These results reject the assertion that distrust rippled through all risk‐managing organizations. The implications of this research are discussed, with the observation that this result is not necessarily gratifying for risk managers because high trust sometimes reduces public preparedness for disasters.     

The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach

Radon and overhead powerlines are two radiation risk cases that have raised varying levels of concern among the general public and experts. Despite both involving radiation—a typically feared and unseen health hazard—individuals' perceptions of the two risk cases may invoke rather different factors. We examined individual and geographic-contextual factors influencing public perceptions of the health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines in a comparative research design, utilizing a postal questionnaire with 1,528 members of the general public (response rate 28%) and multilevel modeling techniques. This study found that beliefs about the two risk cases mainly differed according to the level of "exposure"—defined here in terms of spatial proximity. We argue that there are two alternative explanations for this pattern of findings: that risk perception itself varies directly with proximity, or that risk is more salient to concerned people in the exposed areas. We also found that while people living in high radon areas are more concerned about the risks of indoor radon gas, they find these risks more acceptable and have more trust in authorities. These results might reflect the positive effects of successive radon campaigns in high radon areas, which may have raised awareness and concern, and at the same time may have helped to increase trust by showing that the government takes the health risks of indoor radon gas seriously, suggesting that genuine risk communication initiatives may have positive impacts on trust in risk management institutions.     

Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters

Local public resistance can block the site‐selection process, construction, and operation of nuclear waste repositories. Social science has established that the perception of risks and benefits, trust in authorities, and opinion on nuclear energy play important roles in acceptance. In particular, risk and benefit evaluations seem critical for opinion formation. However, risks and benefits have rarely been studied independently and, most often, the focus has been on the two most salient groups of proponents and opponents. The aim of this exploratory study is to examine the often‐neglected majority of people holding ambivalent or indifferent opinions. We used cluster analysis to examine the sample (N = 500, mailed survey in German‐speaking Switzerland) in terms of patterns of risk and benefit perception. We reveal four significantly different and plausible clusters: one cluster with high‐benefit ratings in favor of a repository and one cluster with high‐risk ratings opposing it; a third cluster shows ambivalence, with high ratings on both risk and benefit scales and moderate opposition, whereas a fourth cluster seems indifferent, rating risks and benefits only moderately compared to the ambivalent cluster. We conclude that a closer look at the often neglected but considerable number of people with ambivalent or indifferent opinions is necessary. Although the extreme factions of the public will most probably not change their opinion, we do not yet know how the opinion of the ambivalent and indifferent clusters might develop over time.     

Dengue Disease Risk Mental Models in the City of Dhaka,Bangladesh: Juxtapositions and Gaps Between the Public and Experts

Worldwide, more than 50 million cases of dengue fever are reported every year in at least 124 countries, and it is estimated that approximately 2.5 billion people are at risk for dengue infection. In Bangladesh, the recurrence of dengue has become a growing public health threat. Notably, knowledge and perceptions of dengue disease risk, particularly among the public, are not well understood. Recognizing the importance of assessing risk perception, we adopted a comparative approach to examine a generic methodology to assess diverse sets of beliefs related to dengue disease risk. Our study mapped existing knowledge structures regarding the risk associated with dengue virus, its vector (Aedes mosquitoes), water container use, and human activities in the city of Dhaka, Bangladesh. “Public mental models” were developed from interviews and focus group discussions with diverse community groups; “expert mental models” were formulated based on open‐ended discussions with experts in the pertinent fields. A comparative assessment of the public's and experts’ knowledge and perception of dengue disease risk has revealed significant gaps in the perception of: (a) disease risk indicators and measurements; (b) disease severity; (c) control of disease spread; and (d) the institutions responsible for intervention. This assessment further identifies misconceptions in public perception regarding: (a) causes of dengue disease; (b) dengue disease symptoms; (c) dengue disease severity; (d) dengue vector ecology; and (e) dengue disease transmission. Based on these results, recommendations are put forward for improving communication of dengue risk and practicing local community engagement and knowledge enhancement in Bangladesh.     

An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard-Related Trust: The Case of GM Food

Few scholars doubt the importance of trust in explaining variation in public perception of technological risk. Relatively little, however, is known about the particular types of judgments that people use in granting or withholding trust. This article presents findings from an empirical study that explores several dimensions of trust relevant for citizens' judgments of scientists involved in the development of GM food. The relationship between particular dimensions of trust and perceptions of GM food risk is also explored, using structural equation modeling. Results suggest that trust judgments based on the perception of shared values are most important in relation to GM food risk, but that judgments about scientists' technical competence are also important.     

Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland

Experts on the risk of flooding have developed very detailed maps for different parts of Switzerland that indicate the types of damage possible and the probabilities of adverse events. Four categories of risk severity are defined on the maps, ranging from high risk to no risk. Based on these existing maps, we selected respondents for a mail survey, some from areas high in risk and others from low-risk regions. Respondents answered several questions related to flood risk perception and preparedness. Survey results showed that respondents' risk perceptions were correlated with the experts' risk assessments. Respondents who lived in areas designated "no risk" by the experts had lower perceptions of risk than respondents who lived in areas with higher levels of designated risk. With regard to concrete prevention behavior, no differences between people living in different risk areas were observed. Survey results further suggest that many inhabitants do not know that flooding maps exist for their region. Results suggest that in some regions people overestimate the risks associated with flooding. Consequently, some people are more afraid of flooding than is justified by the facts. Some people show prevention behavior that most likely is superfluous. However, in other regions people underestimate the risks associated with flooding. These people do not show prevention behavior, and they are not well prepared for an adverse event. Furthermore, results suggest that respondents' experiences with flooding are positively related to their perceptions of flood risk. Findings of the present study are in line with the availability heuristic.     

Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources,Perceived Risks,and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power

We examined how individuals perceive nuclear energy in the context of climate change mitigation and how their perceptions are associated with trust in different risk information sources. We analyzed the interrelationships between trust, perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, perception of nuclear energy as an acceptable way to mitigate climate change, and willingness to pay (WTP) for alternatives to nuclear power. A nationwide survey (N = 967) collected in Finland was analyzed with structural equation modeling. The associations between trust and perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, and perception of nuclear power as a way to mitigate climate change varied by the type of information source. Political party support and other background variables were associated with trust in different information sources. The effect of trust in information sources on WTP was mediated by perceived risks and benefits. The results will increase our understanding of how individuals perceive nuclear energy as a way to cut CO₂ emissions and the role of trust in different information sources in shaping nuclear risk perceptions and energy choices.     

Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception

It was postulated that shared values determine social trust in institutions and persons related to a technology: One has trust in people holding similar salient values. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that social trust has a positive influence on perceived benefits and a negative impact on perceived risks. Results of a survey of University of Zürich students indicated that the proposed causal model explained perception of pesticides, nuclear power, and artificial sweetener very well. When social trust was controlled, the relation between risks and benefits perceived diminished. Results indicate that social trust is a key predictive factor of the perceived risks and benefits of a technology, and provide support for the salient values similarity theory of social trust.     

Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.     

An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses

The outbreak of the toxic capsule crisis during April 2012 aroused widespread public concern about the risk of chromium‐contaminated capsules and drug safety in China. In this article, we develop a conceptual model to investigate risk perceptions of the pharmaceutical drug capsules and behavioral responses to the toxic capsule crisis and the relationship between associated factors and these two variables. An online survey was conducted to test the model, including questions on the measures of perceived efficacy of the countermeasures, trust in the State FDA (Food and Drug Administration), trust in the pharmaceutical companies, trust in the pharmaceutical capsule producers, risk perception, concern, need for information, information seeking, and risk avoidance. In general, participants reported higher levels of risk perception, concern, and risk avoidance, and lower levels of trust in the three different stakeholders. The results from the structural equation modeling procedure suggest that perceived efficacy of the countermeasures is a predictor of each of the three trust variables; however, only trust in the State FDA has a dampening impact on risk perception. Both risk perception and information seeking are significant determinants of risk avoidance. Risk perception is also positively related to concern. Information seeking is positively related to both concern and need for information. The theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.     

Laypeople''s and Experts'' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards

Public perception of nanotechnology may influence the realization of technological advances. Laypeople's (N=375) and experts' (N=46) perception of 20 different nanotechnology applications and three nonnanotechnology applications were examined. The psychometric paradigm was utilized and applications were described in short scenarios. Results showed that laypeople and experts assessed asbestos as much more risky than nanotechnology applications. Analyses of aggregated data suggested that perceived dreadfulness of applications and trust in governmental agencies are important factors in determining perceived risks. Similar results were observed for experts and laypeople, but the latter perceived greater risks than the former. Analyses of individual data showed that trust, perceived benefits, and general attitudes toward technology influenced the perceived risk of laypeople. In the expert sample, confidence in governmental agencies was an important predictor of risks associated with nanotechnology applications. Results suggest that public concerns about nanotechnology would diminish if measures were taken to enhance laypeople's trust in governmental agencies.     

公众社区参与意愿对危化品危害利益相关者感知的影响

面对危化品危害,政府及相关单位面临着日益严峻的既要保证公众知情,又要避免信息过度传播的难题,"信任"是导致这种沟通困境的重要因素。为解决危害信息有效沟通问题,从重构公众与政府之间信任关系的角度入手,以公众利益相关者感知衡量信任,探究公众社区参与意愿对利益相关者感知的影响关系,并将社区参与分为代表单向沟通的仪式性参与和代表双向沟通的实质性参与。研究结果表明:公众社区参与意愿有利于提升公众危化品危害利益相关者感知,特别是仪式性参与意愿的直接作用效果更为显著;实质性参与意愿和危害利益相关者感知的关系中,预决策过程起到完全中介的作用;危化品危害知识在社区参与意愿和利益相关者感知的影响关系中起到显著的正向调节作用,特别是在预决策过程与利益相关者感知的影响路径中。研究结论为构建公众和政府之间的信任关系,进而为缓解危化品危害信息沟通难题提供理论支撑和实践价值。     

Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public

Determining the difference in perception of risk between experts, or more educated professionals, and laypeople is important so that a potential hazard can be effectively communicated to the public. Many surveys have been conducted to better understand the difference between expert and public opinions, and often laypeople exhibit higher perceptions of risk to hazards in comparison to experts. This is especially true when health risk is due to radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. This article focuses on one section of a risk perception survey given to two groups of individuals with a more specialized education (scientists and physicians) and laypeople (villagers) in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. All of these groups live near the former Soviet nuclear test site. Originally, it was expected that the scientists and physicians would have similar perceptions of radiation risk, while the public perceptions would be higher, but this was not always the case. For example, when perceptions of risk pertain to the health impacts of nuclear testing or the dose-response nature of radiation exposure, the physicians tend to agree with the laypeople, not the scientists. The villagers are always the most risk-averse group, followed by the physicians and then the scientists. These differences are likely due to different frames of reference for each of the populations.     

Who Would Be Willing to Accept Disaster Debris in Their Backyard? Investigating the Determinants of Public Attitudes in Post‐Fukushima Japan

In the wake of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Ministry of Environment in Japan asked municipalities nationwide to accept and treat disaster waste. This call for cross‐jurisdictional waste treatment provoked considerable public controversy. To explore how the national and municipal governments can seek more public acceptance in the wake of future disasters, this study implemented a nationwide survey and addressed the question of what factors influence the public's willingness to support their municipalities’ plans to host disaster waste. Three strands of the literature—on risk perception, public dissent, and prosocial behavior—offer valuable insights into hypothesis building, although none has addressed the above question. Estimates from an ordered logistic regression (N = 1,063) reveal that the conditions of a nuclear accident and living with a small child in the household would lower the level of support for accepting disaster waste, although this does not mean that people would give their support in the absence of a nuclear accident. The results also suggest that the national and municipal governments should communicate more with the public about the risks, benefits, and costs associated with hosting disaster debris, and make efforts to improve public trust in the national government.     

Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan

Nuclear power is a highly controversial and salient example of environmental risk. The siting or operating of a nuclear power plant often faces widespread public opposition. Although studies of public perceptions of nuclear power date back to 1970s, little research attempts to explain the spatial heterogeneity of risk attitude toward nuclear power among individuals or communities. This article intends to improve the knowledge about the major factors contributing to nuclear power plant risk perceptions by mapping the geographical patterns of local risk perception and examining the determinants in forming the nature and distribution of the perceived risk among potentially affected population. The analysis was conducted by a case study of the Second Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) in Taiwan by using a novel methodology that incorporates a comprehensive risk perception (CRP) model into an ethnographic approach called risk perception mapping (RPM). First, we examined the determinants of local nuclear power risk perceptions through the CRP model and multivariate regression analysis. Second, the results were integrated with the RPM approach to map and explain the spatial pattern of risk perceptions. The findings demonstrate that the respondents regard the nuclear power plant as an extremely high‐risk facility, causing them to oppose the SNPP and reject the compensation payment to accept its continuing operation. Results also indicate that perceptions of nuclear power risk were mainly influenced by social trust, psychological and socioeconomic attributes, proximity, and the perceived effects of the SNPP on the quality of everyday life.     

Implicit Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power and Mobile Phone Base Stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic

The implicit association test (IAT) measures automatic associations. In the present research, the IAT was adapted to measure implicit attitudes toward technological hazards. In Study 1, implicit and explicit attitudes toward nuclear power were examined. Implicit measures (i.e., the IAT) revealed negative attitudes toward nuclear power that were not detected by explicit measures (i.e., a questionnaire). In Study 2, implicit attitudes toward EMF (electro-magnetic field) hazards were examined. Results showed that cell phone base stations and power lines are judged to be similarly risky and, further, that base stations are more closely related to risk concepts than home appliances are. No differences between experts and lay people were observed. Results of the present studies are in line with the affect heuristic proposed by Slovic and colleagues. Affect seems to be an important factor in risk perception.     

Why Study Risk Perception?

Studies of risk perception examine the opinions people express when they are asked, in various ways, to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and societal decision making by (i) improving methods for eliciting opinions about risk, (ii) providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards, and (iii) improving the communication of risk information among laypeople, technical experts, and policy makers.     

How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks

There is a considerable body of knowledge about the way people perceive risks using heuristics and qualitative characteristics, and about how risk information should be communicated to the public. However, little is known about the way people use the perception of known risks (associated risks) to judge an unknown risk. In a first, qualitative study, six different risks were discussed in in-depth interviews and focus group interviews. The interviews showed that risk associations played a prominent role in forming risk perceptions. Associated risks were often mentioned spontaneously. Second, a survey study was conducted to confirm the importance of risk associations quantitatively. This study investigated whether people related unknown risks to known risks. This was indeed confirmed. Furthermore, some insight was gained into how and why people form risk associations. Results showed that the semantic category of the unknown risks was more important in forming associations than the perceived level of risk or specific risk characteristics. These findings were in line with the semantic network theory. Based on these two studies, we recommend using the mental models approach in developing new risk communications.     

Hazard Perception, Risk Perception, and the Need for Decontamination by Residents Exposed to Soil Pollution: The Role of Sustainability and the Limits of Expert Knowledge

This case study examines the hazard and risk perception and the need for decontamination according to people exposed to soil pollution. Using an ecological-symbolic approach (ESA), a multidisciplinary model is developed that draws upon psychological and sociological perspectives on risk perception and includes ecological variables by using data from experts' risk assessments. The results show that hazard perception is best predicted by objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, estimated knowledge of experts, and the assessed risks. However, experts' risk assessments induce an increase in hazard perception only when residents know the urgency of decontamination. Risk perception is best predicted by trust in the risk management. Additionally, need for decontamination relates to hazard perception, risk perception, estimated knowledge of experts, and thoughts about sustainability. In contrast to the knowledge deficit model, objective and subjective knowledge did not significantly relate to risk perception and need for decontamination. The results suggest that residents can make a distinction between hazards in terms of the seriousness of contamination on the one hand, and human health risks on the other hand. Moreover, next to the importance of social determinants of environmental risk perception, this study shows that the output of experts' risk assessments—or the objective risks—can create a hazard awareness rather than an alarming risk consciousness, despite residents' distrust of scientific knowledge.