Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks

Environmental health risks are often complex, largescale, and uncertain. The uncertainties inherent in these problems permit differences among experts in the appraisal of risks. This raises the question of whether different expert roles exist and, if so, how this affects the policy advice that is given. Here, we present a pilot study of the different roles and viewpoints that can be discerned among scientific experts in the Netherlands. Q methodology was used to empirically explore existing theoretical treatises on different expert roles. In total, 26 electromag­netic field (EMF) experts and 21 particulate matter (PM) experts participated. The responses were analyzed separately for EMF and PM respondents using Q factor analysis. In both the EMF and PM domain, three different expert roles were identified. This suggests that particular expert roles depend on the specific environmental health risk. The results indicate that different expert roles exist among scientists who provide policy advice on environmental health risks. This empirical study adds new data and insights to the literature on expert roles. The results of this study are relevant for the selection and composition of expert committees and the interpretation of expert advice.     

Determining Differences in Expert Judgment: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Validation*

In knowledge acquisition, it is often desirable to aggregate the judgments of multiple experts into a single system. In some cases this takes the form of averaging the judgments of those experts. In these situations it is desirable to determine if the experts have different views of the world before their individual judgments are aggregated. In validation, multiple experts often are employed to compare the performance of expert systems and other human actors. Often those judgments are then averaged to establish performance quality of the expert system. An important part of the comparison process should be determining if the experts have a similar view of the world. If the experts do not have similar views, their evaluations of performance may differ, resulting in a meaningless average performance measure. Alternatively, if all the validating experts do have similar views of the world then the validation process may result in paradigm myopia.     

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.     

Managing Potential Health Risks from Electric Powerlines: A Decision Analysis Caught in Controversy

Over the past 20 years, several epidemiological studies have found an association between exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and health effects, including childhood leukemia and adult brain cancer. However, experts strongly disagree about whether this association is causal and, if so, how strong it is. In this article, we examine several alternatives to reduce EMFs from sources of the California power grid, including undergrounding distribution and transmission lines and reconfiguring or rephasing lines. The alternatives were evaluated in terms of the potential health risk reduction, cost, impacts on service reliability, property values, and many other consequences. Because of the uncertainty about an EMF-health link, the main effort was to determine the sensitivity of the decisions to the probability and seriousness of an EMF hazard. User-friendly computer models were developed to allow stakeholders to change the model assumptions and parameters to analyze the impacts of their own assumptions and estimates on the decision. The analysis clearly demonstrated that only four of the many concerns raised by the stakeholders could make a difference in the decision: health risks, costs, service reliability, and property values. Whether undergrounding, moderate alternatives for EMF reduction, or no change was the best decision depended on a few key factors, including the probability that EMF exposure is a hazard, the severity of this hazard, how the EMF reduction measures are financed, and the impacts on property values. While the analysis did not resolve the EMF issues, it showed that even in the most controversial settings, a little analysis goes a long way to clarifying the issues and to focus the debate.     

The Asbestos Case: A Comment on the Appointment and Use of Nonpartisan Experts in World Trade Organization Dispute Resolution Involving Health Risk

The World Trade Organization is currently evolving its approach to incorporating scientific and technological evidence into its dispute-resolution process. In European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, the Panel was faced with a large amount of complex and conflicting scientific evidence presented by the partisan experts. The Asbestos Panel's solution was to appoint independent, nonpartisan experts to help it understand and evaluate the scientific evidence. While this was far better than trying to unravel the conflicting scientific evidence on its own, two aspects of the Panel's adopted procedure merit scrutiny. First, the expert-selection process used by the Panel may not assure that the collective expertise of the appointed experts is broad enough when the dispute involves multidisciplinary scientific issues. Second, the process adopted by the Panel for consulting the appointed experts-which involved individual consultation rather than a consensus process-may leave a panel with a distorted or confused picture of the science. A consensus approach is the best means of obtaining scientific advice from appointed experts; it is most calculated to provide a clear and accurate report of the scientific information needed by a panel to make a fair and informed decision on the dispute before it. The underlying principle of world trade agreements is that it is beneficial to all of us to have free trade. Among other things, this requires an effective means of resolving disputes, and increasingly that includes disputes involving complex scientific and technological issues. This can be achieved only if the parties have confidence that their disputes will be decided in a fair and informed manner, based on the best science available. To achieve this goal, we suggest that future WTO panels depart in certain respects from the procedures utilized by the Asbestos Panel.     

Science for Policy: A Case Study of Scientific Polarization,Values, and the Framing of Risk and Uncertainty

It is well documented that more research can lead to hardened positions, particularly when dealing with complex, controversial, and value‐laden issues. This study is an attempt to unveil underlying values in a contemporary debate, where both sides use scientific evidence to support their argument. We analyze the problem framing, vocabulary, interpretation of evidence, and policy recommendations, with particular attention to the framing of nature and technology. We find clear differences between the two arguments. One side stress that there is no evidence that the present approach is causing harm to humans or the environment, does not ruminate on uncertainties to that end, references nature's ability to handle the problem, and indicates distrust in technological solutions. In contrast, the other side focuses on uncertainties, particularly the lack of knowledge about potential environmental effects and signals trust in technological development and human intervention as the solution. Our study suggests that the two sides’ diverging interpretations are tied to their perception of nature: vulnerable to human activities versus robust and able to handle human impacts. The two sides also seem to hold diverging views of technology, but there are indications that this might be rooted in their perception of governance and economy rather than about technology per se. We conclude that there is a need to further investigate how scientific arguments are related to worldviews, to see how (if at all) worldview typologies can help us to understand how value‐based judgments are embedded in science advice, and the impact these have on policy preferences.     

Modeling for insights,not numbers: the experiences of the energy modeling forum

It has often been contended that the primary goal of policy modeling should be the insights quantitative models can provide, not the precise-looking projections—i.e. numbers—they can produce for any given scenario. Students of the energy policy process, in particular, have noted that preoccupation with the plethora of detailed quantitative results produced by large-scale computer models has substantially impeded their influence on key policy decisions. The creation of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) at Stanford University in 1976 represents one potential remedy for that situation. The EMF was formed to foster better communication between the builders and users of energy models in energy planning and policy analysis. The EMF operates through ad hoc working groups, composed of national and, more recently, international energy modeling and policy experts. These working groups conduct studies concentrating on a single energy topic. The diversity of backgrounds of the working group members ensures that the language of the EMF studies is English, not computer. Each working group identifies existing models relevant to the study's focus. A series of tests is then designed by the group to illuminate the models' basic structure and behavior. A comparison of results is published in a widely distributed report that identifies the models' strengths and weaknesses in the context of the study's topic. Seven EMF studies have been initiated to date: (1) Energy and the economy, (2) Coal in transition, (3) Electric load forecasting, (4) Aggregate elasticity of energy demand, (5) US oil and gas supply, (6) World oil and (7) Macroeconomic impacts of energy shocks. Each EMF study has broadened the understanding of the nature of the relevant policy issues and the models that have been, are, or could be used to address them. The present paper describes how each study's key insights were developed in the context of a simplified analytical framework that provided the proper perspective for understanding the model results.     

Mapping IS failure factors on PRINCE2® stages: an application of Interpretive Ranking Process (IRP)

The social, political and cultural issues faced by organisations and their senior management team in the delivery and adoption of strategic projects, is highly complex and problematic. Despite a mature body of literature, increasing levels of practitioner certification, application of standards and numerous government initiatives, improvements in success have been minimal. In this study, we analyse the key underlying factors surrounding the failure of Information Systems (IS) projects and explore the merits of articulating a narrative that focuses on senior management embracing practical pessimism. Specifically, we develop a hypothesis supported by empirical study that leverages expert’s views on the dominance and interrelationships between failure factors within PRINCE2® project stages using an Interpretive Ranking Process. Our findings establish how the concept of dominance between individual failure factors can necessitate senior management to make key informed and timely decisions that could potentially influence project outcomes based on an empirical derived, interpretive predictive framework.     

In Search of Perfect Foresight? Policy Bias,Management of Unknowns,and What Has Changed in Science Policy Since the Tohoku Disaster

The failure to foresee the catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and nuclear accident of 2011 has been perceived by many in Japan as a fundamental shortcoming of modern disaster risk science. Hampered by a variety of cognitive and institutional biases, the conventional disaster risk management planning based on the “known risks” led to the cascading failures of the interlinked disaster risk management (DRM) apparatus. This realization led to a major rethinking in the use of science for policy and the incorporations of lessons learned in the country's new DRM policy. This study reviews publicly available documents on expert committee discussions and scientific articles to identify what continuities and changes have been made in the use of scientific knowledge in Japanese risk management. In general, the prior influence of cognitive bias (e.g., overreliance on documented hazard risks) has been largely recognized, and increased attention is now being paid to the incorporation of less documented but known risks. This has led to upward adjustments in estimated damages from future risks and recognition of the need for further strengthening of DRM policy. At the same time, there remains significant continuity in the way scientific knowledge is perceived to provide sufficient and justifiable grounds for the development and implementation of DRM policy. The emphasis on “evidence‐based policy” in earthquake and tsunami risk reduction measures continues, despite the critical reflections of a group of scientists who advocate for a major rethinking of the country's science‐policy institution respecting the limitations of the current state science.     

Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs,Attitudes, and Intentions

We test here the risk communication proposition that explicit expert acknowledgment of uncertainty in risk estimates can enhance trust and other reactions. We manipulated such a scientific uncertainty message, accompanied by probabilities (20%, 70%, implicit [“will occur”] 100%) and time periods (10 or 30 years) in major (≥magnitude 8) earthquake risk estimates to test potential effects on residents potentially affected by seismic activity on the San Andreas fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (n = 750). The uncertainty acknowledgment increased belief that these specific experts were more honest and open, and led to statistically (but not substantively) significant increases in trust in seismic experts generally only for the 20% probability (vs. certainty) and shorter versus longer time period. The acknowledgment did not change judged risk, preparedness intentions, or mitigation policy support. Probability effects independent of the explicit admission of expert uncertainty were also insignificant except for judged risk, which rose or fell slightly depending upon the measure of judged risk used. Overall, both qualitative expressions of uncertainty and quantitative probabilities had limited effects on public reaction. These results imply that both theoretical arguments for positive effects, and practitioners’ potential concerns for negative effects, of uncertainty expression may have been overblown. There may be good reasons to still acknowledge experts’ uncertainties, but those merit separate justification and their own empirical tests.     

Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-Communication Approach

Potential health risks from exposure to power-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) have become an issue of significant public concern. This study evaluates a brochure designed to communicate EMF health risks from a scientific perspective. The study utilized a pretest-posttest design in which respondents judged various sources of EMF (and other) health and safety risks, both before reading the brochure and after. Respondents assessed risks on dimensions similar to those utilized in previous studies of risk perception. In addition, detailed ratings were made that probed respondents' beliefs about the possible causal effects of EMF exposure. The findings suggest that naive beliefs about the potential of EMF exposure to cause harm were highly influenced by specific content elements of the brochure. The implications for using risk-communication approaches based on communicating scientific uncertainty are discussed.     

Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks

Perceptions of risks associated with mobile phones, base stations, and other sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) were examined. Data from a telephone survey conducted in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland are presented (N = 1,015). Participants assessed both risks and benefits associated with nine different sources of EMF. Trust in the authorities regulating these hazards was assessed as well. In addition, participants answered a set of questions related to attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations. According to respondents' assessments, high-voltage transmission lines are the most risky source of EMF. Mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Results showed that trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks. People who use their mobile phones frequently perceived lower risks and higher benefits than people who use their mobile phones infrequently. People who believed they lived close to a base station did not significantly differ in their level of risks associated with mobile phone base stations from people who did not believe they lived close to a base station. Regarding risk regulation, a majority of participants were in favor of fixing limiting values based on the worst-case scenario. Correlations suggest that belief in paranormal phenomena is related to level of perceived risks associated with EMF. Furthermore, people who believed that most chemical substances cause cancer also worried more about EMF than people who did not believe that chemical substances are that harmful. Practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice

The dynamics of organizational risk communication is an understudied topic in risk research. This article investigates how public officials at six government agencies in Sweden understand and relate to risk communication and its uses in the context of agency organizational work on policy and regulation. Qualitative interviews were used to explore the practitioners’ views on some key topics in the academic literature on risk communication. A main finding is that there is little consensus on what the goals of risk communication are; if, and how, uncertainty should be communicated; and what role is to be played by transparency in risk communication. However, the practitioners agree that dissemination (top down) to the public of robust scientific and expert knowledge is a crucial element. Dialogue and participation is used mainly with other agencies and elite stakeholders with whom agencies collaborate to implement policy goals. Dialogue with the public on issues of risk is very limited. Some implications of the findings for the practice of risk communication by government agencies are suggested.     

The Power of Perception: Health Risk Attributed to Air Pollution in an Urban Industrial Neighbourhood

This paper describes a multi-stakeholder process designed to assess the potential health risks associated with adverse air quality in an urban industrial neighborhood. The paper briefly describes the quantitative health risk assessment conducted by scientific experts, with input by a grassroots community group concerned about the impacts of adverse air quality on their health and quality of life. In this case, rather than accept the views of the scientific experts, the community used their powers of perception to advantage by successfully advocating for a professionally conducted community health survey. This survey was designed to document, systematically and rigorously, the health risk perceptions community members associated with exposure to adverse air quality in their neighborhood. This paper describes the institutional and community contexts within which the research is situated as well as the design, administration, analysis, and results of the community health survey administered to 402 households living in an urban industrial neighborhood in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. These survey results served to legitimate the community's concerns about air quality and to help broaden operational definitions of health. In addition, the results of both health risk assessment exercises served to keep issues of air quality on the local political agenda. Implications of these findings for our understanding of the environmental justice process as well as the ability of communities to influence environmental health policy are discussed.     

Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk

Government institutions have responsibilities to distribute risk management funds meaningfully and to be accountable for their choices. We took a macro‐level sociological approach to understanding the role of government in managing environmental risks, and insights from micro‐level psychology to examine individual‐level risk‐related perceptions and beliefs. Survey data from 2,068 U.K. citizens showed that lay people's funding preferences were associated positively with beliefs about responsibility and trust, yet associations with perception varied depending on risk type. Moreover, there were risk‐specific differences in the funding preferences of the lay sample and 29 policymakers. A laboratory‐based study of 109 participants examined funding allocation in more detail through iterative presentation of expert information. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed a meso‐level framework comprising three types of decisionmakers who varied in their willingness to change funding allocation preferences following expert information: adaptors, responders, and resistors. This research highlights the relevance of integrated theoretical approaches to understanding the policy process, and the benefits of reflexive dialogue to managing environmental risks.     

Explosion Probability of Unexploded Ordnance: Expert Beliefs

This article reports on a study to quantify expert beliefs about the explosion probability of unexploded ordnance (UXO). Some 1,976 sites at closed military bases in the United States are contaminated with UXO and are slated for cleanup, at an estimated cost of $15–140 billion. Because no available technology can guarantee 100% removal of UXO, information about explosion probability is needed to assess the residual risks of civilian reuse of closed military bases and to make decisions about how much to invest in cleanup. This study elicited probability distributions for the chance of UXO explosion from 25 experts in explosive ordnance disposal, all of whom have had field experience in UXO identification and deactivation. The study considered six different scenarios: three different types of UXO handled in two different ways (one involving children and the other involving construction workers). We also asked the experts to rank by sensitivity to explosion 20 different kinds of UXO found at a case study site at Fort Ord, California. We found that the experts do not agree about the probability of UXO explosion, with significant differences among experts in their mean estimates of explosion probabilities and in the amount of uncertainty that they express in their estimates. In three of the six scenarios, the divergence was so great that the average of all the expert probability distributions was statistically indistinguishable from a uniform (0, 1) distribution—suggesting that the sum of expert opinion provides no information at all about the explosion risk. The experts' opinions on the relative sensitivity to explosion of the 20 UXO items also diverged. The average correlation between rankings of any pair of experts was 0.41, which, statistically, is barely significant (p= 0.049) at the 95% confidence level. Thus, one expert's rankings provide little predictive information about another's rankings. The lack of consensus among experts suggests that empirical studies are needed to better understand the explosion risks of UXO.     

Dangerous News: Media Decision Making about Climate Change Risk

This article explores the role of broadcast news media decision makers in shaping public understanding and debate of climate change risks. It locates the media within a "tangled web" of communication and debate between sources, media, and publics. The article draws on new qualitative research in the British context. The main body of it focuses on media source strategies, on climate change storytelling in news, and the "myth of detachment" sustained by many news decision makers. The empirical evidence, gathered between 1997 and 2004, is derived primarily from recordings and notes drawn from a series of seminars that has brought together equal numbers of BBC news and television decision makers and environment/development specialists. The seminars have created a rare space for extended dialogue between media and specialist perspectives on the communication of complex climate change science and policy. While the article acknowledges the distinctive nature of the BBC as a public sector broadcaster, the evidence confirms and extends current understanding of the career of climate change within the media more broadly. The working group discussions have explored issues arising out of how stories are sourced and, in the context of competitive and time-pressured newsrooms, shaped and presented in short news pieces. Particularly significant is the disjuncture between ways of talking about uncertainty within science and policy discourse and media constructions of objectivity, truth, and balance. The article concludes with a summary of developments in media culture, technology, and practice that are creating opportunities for enhanced public understanding and debate of climate change risks. It also indicates the need for science and policy communities to be more active critics and sources of news.     

Assessing the Multidimensionality of Coastal Erosion Risks: Public Participation and Multicriteria Analysis in a Mediterranean Coastal System

The complex and multidimensional nature of coastal erosion risks makes it necessary to move away from single-perspective assessment and management methods that have conventionally predominated in coastal management. This article explores the suitability of participatory multicriteria analysis (MCA) for improving the integration of diverse expertises and values and enhancing the social-ecological robustness of the processes that lead to the definition of relevant policy options to deal with those risks. We test this approach in the Mediterranean coastal locality of Lido de Sète in France. Results show that the more adaptive alternatives such as "retreating the shoreline" were preferred by our selected stakeholders to those corresponding to "protecting the shoreline" and the business as usual proposals traditionally put forward by experts and policymakers on these matters. Participative MCA contributed to represent coastal multidimensionality, elicit and integrate different views and preferences, facilitated knowledge exchange, and allowed highlighting existing uncertainties.     

The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?

Good policy making should be based on available scientific knowledge. Sometimes this knowledge is well established through research, but often scientists must simply express their judgment, and this is particularly so in risk scenarios that are characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Usually in such cases, the opinions of several experts will be sought in order to pool knowledge and reduce error, raising the question of whether individual expert judgments should be given different weights. We argue—against the commonly advocated “classical method”—that no significant benefits are likely to accrue from unequal weighting in mathematical aggregation. Our argument hinges on the difficulty of constructing reliable and valid measures of substantive expertise upon which to base weights. Practical problems associated with attempts to evaluate experts are also addressed. While our discussion focuses on one specific weighting scheme that is currently gaining in popularity for expert knowledge elicitation, our general thesis applies to externally imposed unequal weighting schemes more generally.     

Flood Risk Management: US Army Corps of Engineers and Layperson Perceptions

Recent severe storm experiences in the U.S. Gulf Coast illustrate the importance of an integrated approach to flood preparedness planning that harmonizes stakeholder and agency efforts. Risk management decisions that are informed by and address decision maker and stakeholder risk perceptions and behavior are essential for effective risk management policy. A literature review and two expert models/mental models studies were undertaken to identify areas of importance in the flood risk management process for layperson, non‐USACE‐expert, and two USACE‐expert groups. In characterizing and mapping stakeholder beliefs about risks in the literature onto current risk management practice, recommendations for accommodating and changing stakeholder perceptions of flood risks and their management are identified. Needs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood preparedness and response program are discussed in the context of flood risk mental models.