Risk,Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats

Public responses to nuclear technologies are often strongly negative. Events, such as accidents or evidence of unsafe conditions at nuclear facilities, receive extensive and dramatic coverage by the news media. These news stories affect public perceptions of nuclear risks and the geographic areas near nuclear facilities. One result of these perceptions, avoidance behavior, is a form of "technological stigma" that leads to losses in property values near nuclear facilities. The social amplification of risk is a conceptual framework that attempts to explain how stigma is created through media transmission of information about hazardous places and public perceptions and decisions. This paper examines stigma associated with the U.S. Department of Energy's Rocky Flats facility, a major production plant in the nation's nuclear weapons complex, located near Denver, Colorado. This study, based upon newspaper analyses and a survey of Denver area residents, finds that the social amplification theory provides a reasonable framework for understanding the events and public responses that took place in regard to Rocky Flats during a 6-year period, beginning with an FBI raid of the facility in 1989.     

The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk

Empirical examinations of the "social amplification of risk" framework are rare, partly because of the difficulties in predicting when conditions likely to result in amplification effects will occur. This means that it is difficult to examine changes in risk perception that are contemporaneous with increases and/or decreases in social or media discussion of the risks associated with a particular risk event. However, the collection of attitude data before, during, and after the increased reporting of the risks of genetically modified food in the United Kingdom (spring 1999) has demonstrated that people's risk perceptions do increase and decrease in line with what might be expected upon examination of the amplification and attenuation mechanisms integral to the framework. Perceptions of benefit, however, appeared to be permanently depressed by negative reporting about genetically modified food. Trust in regulatory institutions with responsibility for protecting the public was not affected. It was concluded that the social amplification of risk framework is a useful framework for beginning to explain the potential impact on risk perceptions of a risk event, particularly if that risk event is presented to the public as a new hazard occurring in a crisis context.     

Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks

This research integrates theoretical frameworks of risk perception, social amplification of risk, and the role of place-specific contexts in order to explore the various perceptions surrounding Florida red tides. Florida red tides are naturally occurring events that are increasing in frequency, duration, and severity. This has implications for public health, the local economy, and ecosystem health. While many of the negative impacts of Florida red tides are not easily controlled, some of the secondary impacts may be mitigated through individuals' responses. However, public perception and consequent reactions to Florida red tides have not been investigated. This research uses questionnaire surveys, and semi-structured interviews, to explore the various perceptions of the risk surrounding red tides. Surveys and interviews were conducted along two Florida west coast beaches. The results indicate that the underlying foundations of the social amplification of the risk framework are applicable to understanding how individuals form perceptions of risk relative to red tide events. There are key differences between the spatial locations of individuals and corresponding perceptions, indicating that place-specific contexts are essential to understanding how individuals receive and interpret risk information. The results also suggest that individuals may be lacking efficient and up-to-date information about Florida red tides and their impacts because of inconsistent public outreach. Overall, social and spatial factors appear to be influential as to whether individuals amplify or attenuate the risks associated with Florida red tides.     

An Integrated Framework for Environmental Multi‐Impact Spatial Risk Analysis

Quantitative risk analysis is being extensively employed to support policymakers and provides a strong conceptual framework for evaluating decision alternatives under uncertainty. Many problems involving environmental risks are, however, of a spatial nature, i.e., containing spatial impacts, spatial vulnerabilities, and spatial risk‐mitigation alternatives. Recent developments in multicriteria spatial analysis have enabled the assessment and aggregation of multiple impacts, supporting policymakers in spatial evaluation problems. However, recent attempts to conduct spatial multicriteria risk analysis have generally been weakly conceptualized, without adequate roots in quantitative risk analysis. Moreover, assessments of spatial risk often neglect the multidimensional nature of spatial impacts (e.g., social, economic, human) that are typically occurring in such decision problems. The aim of this article is therefore to suggest a conceptual quantitative framework for environmental multicriteria spatial risk analysis based on expected multi‐attribute utility theory. The framework proposes: (i) the formal assessment of multiple spatial impacts; (ii) the aggregation of these multiple spatial impacts; (iii) the assessment of spatial vulnerabilities and probabilities of occurrence of adverse events; (iv) the computation of spatial risks; (v) the assessment of spatial risk mitigation alternatives; and (vi) the design and comparison of spatial risk mitigation alternatives (e.g., reductions of vulnerabilities and/or impacts). We illustrate the use of the framework in practice with a case study based on a flood‐prone area in northern Italy.     

Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

This study investigates the potential impacts of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, upon tourism, retirement and job-related migration, and business development in Las Vegas and the state. Adverse impacts may be expected to result from perceptions of risk, stigmatization, and socially amplified reactions to "unfortunate events" associated with the repository (major and minor accidents, discoveries of radiation releases, evidence of mismanagement, attempts to sabotage or disrupt the facility, etc.). The conceptual underpinnings of risk perception, stigmatization, and social amplification are discussed and empirical data are presented to demonstrate how nuclear images associated with Las Vegas and the State of Nevada might trigger adverse economic effects. The possibility that intense negative imagery associated with the repository may cause significant harm to Nevada's economy can no longer be ignored by serious attempts to assess the risks and impacts of this unique facility. The behavioral processes described here appear relevant as well to the social impact assessment of any proposed facility that produces, uses, transports, or disposes of hazardous materials.     

Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility

Much risk communication research has demonstrated how mass media can influence individual risk perceptions, but lacks a comprehensive conceptual understanding of another key channel of communication: interpersonal discussion. Using the social amplification of risk as a theoretical framework, we consider the potential for discussions to function as amplification stations. We explore this possibility using data from a public opinion survey of residents living in potential locations for a new biological research facility in the United States. Controlling for a variety of key information variables, our results show that two dimensions of discussion—frequency and valence—have impacts on residents’ perceptions of the facility's benefits and its risks. We also explore the possibility that an individual's overall attitude moderates the effect of discussion on their perceptions of risks and benefits. Our results demonstrate the potential for discussions to operate as amplifiers or attenuators of perceptions of both risks and benefits.     

The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada

Following the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada, and subsequently in the United States, confidence in the safety of beef products remained high. Consumers actually increased their consumption of beef slightly after the news of an increased risk from mad cow disease, which has been interpreted as public support for beef farmers and confidence in government regulators. The Canadian public showed a markedly different reaction to the news of domestic BSE than the furious and panicked responses observed in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. Using the social amplification of risk framework, we show that, while other countries displayed social amplification of risk, Canada experienced a social attenuation of risk. The attenuated reaction in Canada toward mad cow disease and increased human health risks from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) was due to the social context at the time when BSE was discovered domestically. Mortality, morbidity, and psychosocial impacts resulting from other major events such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), West Nile virus (WNV), and the U.S.-Iraq war made the theoretical risks of BSE and vCJD a lower priority, reducing its concern as a risk issue.     

Adaptive Management: A Paradigm for Remediation of Public Facilities Following a Terrorist Attack

Terrorist actions are aimed at maximizing harm (health, psychological, economical, and political) through the combined physical impacts of the act and fear. Immediate and effective response to a terrorist act is critical to limit human and environmental harm, effectively restore facility function, and maintain public confidence. Though there have been terrorist attacks in public facilities that we have learned from, overall our experiences in restoration of public facilities following a terrorist attack are limited. Restoration of public facilities following a release of a hazardous material is inherently far more complex than in industrial settings and has many unique technical, economic, social, and political challenges. For example, there may be a great need to quickly restore the facility to full operation and allow public access even though it was not designed for easy or rapid restoration, and critical information is needed for quantitative risk assessment and effective restoration must be anticipated to be incomplete and uncertain. Whereas present planning documents have substantial linearity in their organization, the “adaptive management” paradigm provides a constructive parallel paradigm for restoration of public facilities that anticipates and plans for uncertainty, inefficiencies, and stakeholder participation. Adaptive management grew out of the need to manage and restore natural resources in highly complex and changing environments with limited knowledge about causal relationships and responses to restoration actions. Similarities between natural resource management and restoration of a public facility after a terrorist attack suggest that integration of adaptive management principles explicitly into restoration processes will result in substantially enhanced and flexible responses necessary to meet the uncertainties of potential terrorist attacks.     

Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk

This article investigates the role of culture in the social production of risks and risk communication surrounding industrial development in a region located at a rural-urban interface. A case study examined a public consultation that was undertaken to inform local residents about an eco-industrial development proposal being planned near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The research employed the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) to examine the relationships among culture, place, and socially constructed risk. A total of 44 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 33 landowners (farmers, acreage owners), public officials (municipal politicians, administrators), journalists, and industry representatives. Analysis revealed that risk communication occurred in relation to situated experiences of place that were based on conflicting cultural worldviews. The research shows that place is a useful component of the SARF, providing a spatial explanation for why some people amplify, and others attenuate, risks in locally contentious environmental debates.     

Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment: The CRAM Perspective

In 1989, a Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology (CRAM) was convened by the National Research Council (NRC) to identify and investigate important scientific issues in risk assessment. One of the first issues considered by the committee was the development of a conceptual framework for ecological risk assessment, defined as "the characterization of the adverse ecological effects of environmental exposures to hazards imposed by human activities." Adverse ecological effects include all biological and nonbiological environmental changes that society perceives as undesirable. The committee's opinion was that a general framework is needed to define the relationship of ecological risk assessment to environmental management and to facilitate the development of uniform technical guidelines. The framework for human health risk assessment proposed by the NRC in 1983 was adopted as a starting point for discussion. CRAM concluded that, although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the underlying decision process is the same for both. Therefore, CRAM recommended that the 1983 risk assessment framework be modified to accommodate both human health and ecological risk assessment. CRAM defined an integrated health/ ecological risk assessment framework consisting of the four components: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Exposure-Response Assessment, and Risk Characterization. CRAM further provided recommendations on the scope of issues to be addressed in ecological risk assessment, critical research needs, and mechanisms for providing more detailed guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.     

The Role of Interdisciplinary Analysis in Bridging the Gap Between the Technical and Human Sides of Risk Assessment1

It is readily observable that there is a wide gulf between the manner by which the lay public and the manner by which technical experts assess the risks of complex technologies and assimilate these assessments in decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of technological options. On the public side, this gap in methods and value assessments is a major source of distrust of technical experts and disaffection with the social management of technology. From the viewpoint of the technical experts who introduce or regulate technologies, this gap is both a cauldron of frustration and a perceived justification for paternalistic technocratic decision-making that further alienates important segments of the public. It is the author's belief that unless our society learns how to progress in bridging these gaps within the framework of a comparative mode of risk-cost-benefit analysis of options, the potential net benefits of certain technologies such as commercial nuclear power could well be lost to our society. Research on public risk perception, while potentially an important component in achieving this objective, needs to be restructured from its present static orientation to meet the needs of forward-looking decision-making that accommodates dynamic learning processes of both the public and technical experts as well as the “learning curves” of technological improvements historically accompanying successful innovations. Moreover, no less attention needs to be devoted to improved benefit assessment along with ethical and equity considerations in decision-making involving the reconciliation of conflict between individual and societal interests. This paper examines the vital importance of interdisciplinary analysis in fulfilling these needs.     

The Role of Society in Engineering Risk Analysis: A Capabilities-Based Approach

This article proposes a new conceptual framework in engineering risk analysis to account for the net impact of hazards on individuals in a society. It analyzes four limitations of prevailing approaches to risk analysis and suggests a way to overcome them. These limitations are a result of how societal impacts are characteristically accounted for and valued. Prevailing approaches typically focus too narrowly on the consequences of natural or man-made hazards, not accounting for the broader societal impacts of such hazards. Such approaches lack a uniform and consistent metric for accounting for the impact of the nonquantifiable consequences (like psychological trauma or societal impacts) and rely upon implicit and potentially inaccurate value judgments when evaluating risks. To overcome these limitations, we propose an alternative, Capabilities-Based Approach to the treatment of society in risk analysis. A similar approach is currently used by the United Nations to quantitatively measure the degree of development in countries around the world. In a Capabilities-Based Approach, the potential benefits and losses due to a hazard are measured and compared in a uniform way by using individual capabilities (functionings individuals are able, still able, or unable to achieve) as a metric. This Capabilities-Based Approach provides a foundation for identifying and quantifying the broader, complex societal consequences of hazards and is based on explicit, value judgments. The Capabilities-Based Approach can accommodate different methods or techniques for risk determination and for risk evaluation and can be used in assessing risk in diverse types of hazards (natural or man-made) and different magnitudes that range from minor to catastrophic. In addition, implementing a Capabilities-Based Approach contributes to the development of a single standard for public policy decision making, since a Capabilities-Based Approach is already in use in development economics and policy.     

Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites

This study integrates previous research methodologies to compare the risk perceptions and responses to risk messages of agency personnel and neighbors of Superfund sites in Michigan. The integration attempted and the focus on risk messages are shaped by a critical review of the social amplification conceptual framework. The study involved all four agency groups and three groups of site neighbors actively involved in Superfund planning across the state. The first part of the study utilized the psychometric techniques of hazard rating and hazard profiles that had not previously been used in studies involving stakeholders. While agency personnel responded similarly to experts in previous studies, the responses of individuals in the neighbor groups reflected experience with toxic sites and were dissimilar to previous ratings by the general public. The second part of the study consisted of a hypothetical toxic site scenario that focused on specific risk messages at different times in the site history. Results indicate that the difference in perception of risk occurs after the first testing at a site, and that dramatic differences arise between agency and resident groups regarding the credibility of information sources and the need for independent testing. A general lack of trust in the Superfund program was demonstrated by all groups. The results indicate that problems of institutional credibility and program adequacy cannot be addressed by better risk communication.     

Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Public perception of risk is being cited as a documented reason to rethink a very contentious congressionally mandated process for siting interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste. Rigorous survey research has shown that the public holds intense, negative images of "nuclear" and "radioactive" technologies, activities, and facilities. Potential host states and opponents claim that these negative images, coupled with an amplification of negative risk events, will potentially stigmatize the area surrounding such facilities and result in significant economic losses. At issue is whether a supporting social amplification of risk model is applicable to communities hosting facilities that are part of the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex. An initial assessment of high-profile discrete and cumulative key negative risk events at such nuclear facilities does not validate that there has been stigmatization or substantial social and economic consequences in the host areas. Before any changes to major national policy are implemented, additional research is required to determine if the nearby public's "pragmatic logic," based on practical knowledge and experience, attenuates the link between public opinion and demographic and economic behaviors.     

Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication

Differences in the conceptual frameworks of scientists and nonscientists may create barriers to risk communication. This article examines two such conceptual problems. First, the logic of "direct inference" from group statistics to probabilities about specific individuals suggests that individuals might be acting rationally in refusing to apply to themselves the conclusions of regulatory risk assessments. Second, while regulators and risk assessment scientists often use an "objectivist" or "relative frequency" interpretation of probability statements, members of the public are more likely to adopt a "subjectivist" or "degree of confidence" interpretation when estimating their personal risks, and either misunderstand or significantly discount the relevance of risk assessment conclusions. If these analyses of inference and probability are correct, there may be a conceptual gulf at the center of risk communication that cannot be bridged by additional data about the magnitude of group risk. Suggestions are made for empirical studies that might help regulators deal with this conceptual gulf.     

Desired Risk: Broadening the Social Amplification of Risk Framework1

Recently Kasperson et al.⁽⁶⁾ have proposed a conceptual framework, “The Social Amplification of Risk,” as a beginning step in developing a comprehensive theory of public experience of risk. A central goal of their effort is to systematically link technical assessments of risk with the growing findings from social scientific research. A key and growing domain of public risk experience is “desired” risk, but this is virtually neglected in the framework. This paper evaluates the scope of the “Social Amplification of Risk Framework,” asking whether it is applicable to desired risks, such as risk recreation (hang gliding, mountain climbing, and so forth). The analysis is supportive of the framework's applicability to the domain of desired risk.     

Trust,Emotion, Sex,Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept risk and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.     

Public participation in life cycle assessment and risk assessment: a shared need.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and risk assessment are operationally different but share the common purpose of supporting decisions about reducing threats to human welfare. Both analysis methods also involve a complex mixture of science and value judgments reflecting epistemological as well as moral and esthetic values. The inability of risk assessment and LCA to be "value free" has been a source of considerable controversy in both communities. Recognition of the contingent and social nature of human interpretation of the risks and environmental impacts created by public and private decisions has led to an increased appreciation of the importance of involving interested and affected parties in risk characterization. Comparison of the value-based nature of LCA and risk assessment demonstrates the need for participation in LCA. Although the need for participation by affected parties in decision-making processes is gaining acceptance, there is little agreement as to how participation should be structured. Risk assessment and LCA have a shared need for research examining the design and analysis of participation processes appropriate to a given decision context. A proposed framework recommends participation strategies designed to enhance the effectiveness of policy-driven analyses such as risk assessment and LCA based on the level of trust that interested and affected parties have for other policy participants.     

Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone,Australia

This article is a retrospective analysis of liquefied natural gas development (LNG) in Gladstone, Australia by using the structure of the risk governance framework developed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Since 2010 the port of Gladstone has undergone extensive expansion to facilitate the increasing coal export as well as the new development of three recently completed LNG facilities. Significant environmental and socio‐economic impacts and concerns have occurred as a result of these developments. The overall aim of the article, therefore, is to identify the risk governance deficits that arose and to formulate processes capable of improving similar decision‐making problems in the future. The structure of the IRGC framework is followed because it represents a broad analytical approach for considering risk assessment and risk governance in Gladstone in ways that include, but also go beyond, the risk approach of the ISO 31000:2009 standard that was employed at the time. The IRGC risk framework is argued to be a consistent and comprehensive risk governance framework that integrates scientific, economic, social, and cultural aspects and advocates the notion of inclusive risk governance through stakeholder communication and involvement. Key aspects related to risk preassessment, risk appraisal, risk tolerability and acceptability, risk management, and stakeholder communication and involvement are considered. The results indicate that the risk governance deficits include aspects related to (i) the risk matrix methodology, (ii) reflecting uncertainties, (iii) cumulative risks, (iv) the regulatory process, and (v) stakeholder communication and involvement.     

Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes

People's past experiences with a hazard theoretically influence how they approach future risks. Yet, past hazard experience has been conceptualized and measured in wide‐ranging, often simplistic, ways, resulting in mixed findings about its relationship with risk perception. This study develops a scale of past hazard experiences, in the context of tornadoes, that is content and construct valid. A conceptual definition was developed, a set of items were created to measure one's most memorable and multiple tornado experiences, and the measures were evaluated through two surveys of the public who reside in tornado‐prone areas. Four dimensions emerged of people's most memorable experience, reflecting their awareness of the tornado risk that day, their personalization of the risk, the intrusive impacts on them personally, and impacts experienced vicariously through others. Two dimensions emerged of people's multiple experiences, reflecting common types of communication received and negative emotional responses. These six dimensions are novel in that they capture people's experience across the timeline of a hazard as well as intangible experiences that are both direct and indirect. The six tornado experience dimensions were correlated with tornado risk perceptions measured as cognitive‐affective and as perceived probability of consequences. The varied experience–risk perception results suggest that it is important to understand the nuances of these concepts and their relationships. This study provides a foundation for future work to continue explicating past hazard experience, across different risk contexts, and for understanding its effect on risk assessment and responses.