Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge

Recent research indicates that social trust of those who manage a hazard is strongly correlated to judgments about the hazard's risk and benefits. The present study investigates the more specific question of “For which hazards is this?” It was postulated that when an individual lacks knowledge about a hazard, social trust of authorities managing the hazard determines perceived risks and benefits. On the other hand, when an individual has personal knowledge about a hazard and therefore does not need to rely on managing authorities, social trust is unrelated to judged risks and benefits. Participants (N = 91) assessed risks, benefits, and trust in managing authorities and personal knowledge associated with 25 hazardous technologies and activities. As expected, strong correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were observed for hazards about which people did not possess much knowledge. No significant correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were found for hazards about which people were knowledgeable. Results suggest that the lay public relies on social trust when making judgments of risks and benefits when personal knowledge about a hazard is lacking. Replicating findings of other studies, the present study also found negative correlations between perceived risks and perceived benefits. When social trust was controlled for, correlations between perceived risks and benefits diminished. Implications of the results for risk management are discussed.     

A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship

Several recent studies have identified the significant role social trust in regulatory organizations plays in the public acceptance of various technologies and activities. In a cross‐cultural investigation, the current work explores empirically the relationship between social trust in management authorities and the degree of public acceptability of hazards for individuals residing in either developed or emerging Latin American economies using confirmatory rather than exploratory techniques. Undergraduates in Mexico, Brazil, and Chile and the United States and Spain assessed trust in regulatory authorities, public acceptance, personal knowledge, and the risks and benefits for 23 activities and technological hazards. Four findings were encountered. (i) In Latin American nations trust in regulatory entities was strongly and significantly (directly as well as indirectly) linked with the public's acceptance of any activity or technology. In developed countries trust and acceptability are essentially linked indirectly (through perceived risk and perceived benefit). (ii) Lack of knowledge strengthened the magnitude and statistical significance of the trust‐acceptability relationship in both developed and developing countries. (iii) For high levels of claimed knowledge, the impact on the trust‐acceptability relationship varied depending upon the origin of the sample. (iv) Confirmatory analysis revealed the relative importance of perceived benefit over perceived risk in meditating the trust‐acceptability causal chain.     

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.     

Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust

Perceived risk and related attitudes have been implicated as major factors in many of the difficult policy problems that face modern society (nuclear power, genetically modified food, etc). Experts often argue that no or very small risks are involved; people are still worried. Why? The standard answer is lack of trust. Data on trust and risk perception, however, point to only a weak relationship between the two (r approximately 0.3). It is suggested here that the reason for the surprisingly minor importance of trust is that people believe that there are clear limits to how much science and experts know. Results are presented from studies of risk perception of the public, experts, and politicians. Politicians and members of the public believe that there are many unknown effects of technology and such beliefs were strongly related to their perceived risk. Experts on nuclear waste, on the other hand, seemed to believe that little is unknown in their field of expertise. Regression analyses of risk perception showed the unknown‐effects factor to be a more important explanatory factor than trust for the public and politicians.     

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.     

Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions

Automated driving (AD) is one of the most significant technical advances in the transportation industry. Its safety, economic, and environmental benefits cannot be realized if it is not used. To explain, predict, and increase its acceptance, we need to understand how people perceive and why they accept or reject AD technology. Drawing upon the trust heuristic, we tested a psychological model to explain three acceptance measures of fully AD (FAD): general acceptance, willingness to pay (WTP), and behavioral intention (BI). This heuristic suggests that social trust can directly affect acceptance or indirectly affect acceptance through perceived benefits and risks. Using a survey (N = 441), we found that social trust retained a direct effect as well as an indirect effect on all FAD acceptance measures. The indirect effect of social trust was more prominent in forming general acceptance; the direct effect of social trust was more prominent in explaining WTP and BI. Compared to perceived risk, perceived benefit was a stronger predictor of all FAD acceptance measures and also a stronger mediator of the trust–acceptance relationship. Predictive ability of the proposed model for the three acceptance measures was confirmed. We discuss the implications of our results for theory and practice.     

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.     

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 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.     

Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear,Refinery, and Fracking Sites

Whether on grounds of perceived safety, aesthetics, or overall quality of life, residents may wish to be aware of nearby energy sites such as nuclear reactors, refineries, and fracking wells. Yet people are not always accurate in their impressions of proximity. Indeed, our data show that only 54% of Americans living within 25 miles of a nuclear site say they do, and even fewer fracking-proximal (30%) and refinery-proximal (24%) residents respond accurately. In this article, we analyze factors that could either help people form more accurate perceptions or distort their impressions of proximity. We evaluate these hypotheses using a large national survey sample and corresponding geographic information system (GIS) data. Results show that among those living in close proximity to energy sites, those who perceive greater risk are less likely to report living nearby. Conversely, social contact with employees of these industries increases perceived proximity regardless of actual distance. These relationships are consistent across each site type we examine. Other potential factors—such as local news use—may play a role in proximity perception on a case-by-case basis. Our findings are an important step toward a more generalizable understanding of how the public forms perceptions of proximity to risk sites, showing multiple potential mechanisms of bias.     

"Trust me, I''m a scientist (not a developer)": perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land

Previous authors have argued that trust may be based on the extent to which risk communicators are seen as good at discriminating safety from danger, are unbiased in their assessments, and share their audience's values. Residents of two English urban regions rated their trust in six potential sources of information about the risk of contaminated land in their neighborhood (independent scientists; local council property developers; residents' groups; friends and family; local media), and how expert, open, accurate, or biased these sources were and how much they had residents' interests at heart. Overall, scientists were trusted most and developers least, but this was only partly due to their greater perceived expertise. Resident groups and friends/family were also trusted, despite being seen as relatively inexpert, since they scored highly on openness and shared interests, these latter two attributes being more important predictors of trust in individual sources than perceived expertise. We conclude that, where a source is seen as motivated to withhold, distort, or misinterpret information, this will undermine public trust even in apparently knowledgeable sources, hence supporting the view that trust depends on a combination of perceived expertise and perceived motives as complementary processes.     

Improving fire risk communication between authorities and micro-entrepreneurs: A mental models study of Ghanaian central market fires

This study conceptualizes how fire management authorities can empower nonexpert public to participate in fire risk communication processes and increase their own responsibilities for managing fire preventive, protective and recovery processes effectively. Drawing narratives from 10 disaster management experts working at government institutions and nine micro-entrepreneurs operating self-sustaining businesses in different merchandized lines in Ghana, we analyzed the data thematically and explored new insights on mental models to generate a two-way fire risk communication model. The findings suggest that fire management authorities planned fire disasters at the strategic level, collaborated with multiple stakeholders, disseminated information through many risk communication methods, and utilized their capabilities to manage fire at the various stages of fire risk communication, but the outcomes were poor. The micro-entrepreneurs sought to improve fire management outcomes through attitude change, law enforcement actions, strengthened security and better public trust building. The study has implications for policymakers, governments, and risk communication authorities of developing countries to strengthen their fire disaster policies to minimize commercial fire incidents and address the damaging effects of fire on people's livelihoods, businesses, properties, and environments. Our proposed two-way fire risk communication model is a new theoretical lens for experts and the nonexpert public to assess each other's beliefs about risk information and manage fire risk communication effectively at all stages.     

Medical capacity investment for epidemic disease: The effects of policymaker's confidence and public trust

Due to the server bed shortage, which has raised ethical dilemmas in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, medical capacity investment has become a vital decision-making issue in the attempt to contain the epidemic. Furthermore, economic strength has failed to explain the significant performance difference across countries in combatting COVID-19. Unlike common diseases, epidemic diseases add substantial unpredictability, complexity, and uncertainty to decision-making. Knowledge miscalibration on epidemiological uncertainties by policymaker's over- and underconfidence can seriously impact policymaking. Ineffective risk communication may lead to conflicting and incoherent information transmission. As a result, public reactions and attitudes could be influenced by policymakers' confidence due to the level of public trust, which eventually affects the degree to which an epidemic spreads. To uncover the impacts of policymakers' confidence and public trust on the medical capacity investment, we establish epidemic diffusion models to characterize how transmission evolves with (and without) vaccination and frame the capacity investment problem as a newsvendor problem. Our results show that if the public fully trusts the public health experts, the policymaker's behavioral bias is always harmful, but its effect on cost increment is marginal. If a policymaker's behavior induces public reactions due to public trust, both the spread of the epidemic and the overall performance will be significantly affected, but such impacts are not always harmful. Decision bias may be beneficial when policymakers are pessimistic or highly overconfident. Having an opportunity to amend initially biased decisions can debias a particular topic but has a limited cost-saving effect.     

Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high-level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit-cost model and a risk-perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.     

When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?

While scientific studies may help conflicting stakeholders come to agreement on a best management option or policy, often they do not. We review the factors affecting trust in the efficacy and objectivity of scientific studies in an analytical‐deliberative process where conflict is present, and show how they may be incorporated in an extension to the traditional Bayesian decision model. The extended framework considers stakeholders who differ in their prior beliefs regarding the probability of possible outcomes (in particular, whether a proposed technology is hazardous), differ in their valuations of these outcomes, and differ in their assessment of the ability of a proposed study to resolve the uncertainty in the outcomes and their hazards—as measured by their perceived false positive and false negative rates for the study. The Bayesian model predicts stakeholder‐specific preposterior probabilities of consensus, as well as pathways for increasing these probabilities, providing important insights into the value of scientific information in an analytic‐deliberative decision process where agreement is sought. It also helps to identify the interactions among perceived risk and benefit allocations, scientific beliefs, and trust in proposed scientific studies when determining whether a consensus can be achieved. The article provides examples to illustrate the method, including an adaptation of a recent decision analysis for managing the health risks of electromagnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines.     

How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster

Major nuclear accidents, such as the recent accident in Fukushima, Japan, have been shown to decrease the public's acceptance of nuclear power. However, little is known about how a serious accident affects people's acceptance of nuclear power and the determinants of acceptance. We conducted a longitudinal study (N= 790) in Switzerland: one survey was done five months before and one directly after the accident in Fukushima. We assessed acceptance, perceived risks, perceived benefits, and trust related to nuclear power stations. In our model, we assumed that both benefit and risk perceptions determine acceptance of nuclear power. We further hypothesized that trust influences benefit and risk perceptions and that trust before a disaster relates to trust after a disaster. Results showed that the acceptance and perceptions of nuclear power as well as its trust were more negative after the accident. In our model, perceived benefits and risks determined the acceptance of nuclear power stations both before and after Fukushima. Trust had strong effects on perceived benefits and risks, at both times. People's trust before Fukushima strongly influenced their trust after the accident. In addition, perceived benefits before Fukushima correlated with perceived benefits after the accident. Thus, the nuclear accident did not seem to have changed the relations between the determinants of acceptance. Even after a severe accident, the public may still consider the benefits as relevant, and trust remains important for determining their risk and benefit perceptions. A discussion of the benefits of nuclear power seems most likely to affect the public's acceptance of nuclear power, even after a nuclear accident.     

The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust—or lack of trust—in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.     

Geographical Dimensions and Correlates of Trust

A sample of 323 residents of New Jersey stratified by neighborhood quality (excellent, good, fair, poor) was gathered to determine if trust in science and technology to protect public health and environment at the societal scale was associated with trust of the local officials, such as the mayor, health officer, developers, mass media, and legislators who are guardians of the local environment. Societal (trust of science and technology) and neighborhood (mayor, health officer) dimensions of trust were found. These societal and neighborhood trust dimensions were weakly correlated. Respondents were divided into four trust-of-authority groups: high societal–high neighborhood, low societal–low neighborhood, high societal–low neighborhood, and low societal–high neighborhood. High societal–high neighborhood trust respondents were older, had lived in the neighborhoods for many years, were not troubled much by neighborhood or societal environmental threats, and had a strong sense of control over their environment. In strong contrast, low societal–low neighborhood trust respondents were relatively young, typically had lived in their present neighborhood for a short time, were troubled by numerous neighborhood and societal environmental threats, did not practice many personal public health practices, and felt little control over their environment.     

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.