1. ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK COMMUNICATION Addressing the Challenges of Environmental Risk Communication William Rish, Ph.D. Hull Risk Analysis Center

2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  Tim Bingman – Dupont  Granger Morgan – Carnegie-Mellon University  Paul Slovic – Decision Research  Peter Sandman – former Rutgers University – now consulting

3. RISK COMMUNICATION IS....  Meaningful interactions in which knowledge, experience, perceptions, values, and concerns about risks are exchanged among different stakeholders,  So they can put the risk in perspective and make more informed choices and decisions.

4. RISK COMMUNICATION IS NOT...  Trying to get people to understand “the facts” in order to get them to behave “rationally,”  An expert standing in front of the public and "teaching" them about risks.

5. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK – Derivation  Derivation of the word “risk”:  From the early Italian risicare, which means “to dare”  Risk was seen as a choice rather than a fate  Taking action in the face of uncertainty  Outcome could be good or bad  But “Watch Out!” and “Stop worrying” were probably the first phrases used in the language of risk, and assume:  The source of the warning/reassurance knows more about the risk than the audience  The source is concerned about the best interest of the audience  The warnings/information are based on actual information rather than just values, ulterior motives, or preferences

6. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK – What is risk? It depends on your perspective.  Technical perspective – risk is a measurable probability of harm:  Probability x Consequence  “10 -6 increase in probability of cancer over a lifetime”  Under this view, the necessary conditions for risk are:  Presence of a source of risk,  A way to be exposed to the source of risk,  A mechanism by which the exposure can cause harm (causality)  Some take the position that this technical description of risk ought to be the authoritative basis for risk management decision making

7. SOME PRESENT RISK AS A SIGNIFICANT STATISTICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN A HAZARD AND AN OBSERVED HARM

8. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK – What is risk? Alternative views  Society for Risk Analysis definition:  Risk is uncertainty about the consequences of an activity with respect to something valued  Risks are real to a person when they have sufficient reason to suspect the presence of a cause that may result in harm to something that they value  Common problem – the quantitative risk measure alone does not reflect values

9. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK – Impact of description of risk  Further – how quantitative risk is described can affect perception:  Chemicals of concern are below detection limits  Chemicals of concern are below standards  The risk doubled  Excess lifetime cancer risk is 10 -6  The risk is less than that of being struck by lightning  Based on the risk assessment, chemicals of concern may cause 10 cancers in the population of 100,000 people near the site

10. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK Wikipedia contributors. "California Proposition 65 (1986)." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 29 Jan. 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2016. We warned you – now you decide.

11. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK Source: Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992; Government of Canada; “Marine Pollutant Mark” UNCLEAR Source: NOAA UNCERTAINTY Source: USGS VERY CLEAR

12. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK Source: Sharepoint TOO LATE? Source: Creative Commons License CLEAR Source: ClipArt PUBLIC MEETING AHEAD

13. BIOLOGICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF RISK PERCEPTION AND ACCEPTANCE  Risk communication will fail if it doesn’t take into account the biological, psychological, and social basis for people’s perception and acceptance of risk  Facts can be helpless when up against perception  The model of scientific expert standing in front of the public and "teaching" them about risks has been regularly demonstrated to fail and lead to frustration by all stakeholders

14. THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF “IRRATIONAL” RISK PERCEPTION  It’s in our DNA – survive and reproduce  Only organisms that can recognize and respond to danger survive  We have a brain that is biologically constructed to fear first, and think second

15. WE ARE HARDWIRED FOR FEAR We are hardwired for fear The Amygdala: Modulates all of our reactions to events that are very important for our survival Processes input to warn us of imminent danger, the presence of food, sexual partners, rivals, children in distress, and so on

16. SURVIVAL IS A POWERFUL GENETIC IMPERATIVE  We have developed to be able to recognize and respond to danger, very quickly, in order to protect ourselves  Using whatever tools we have, in order to survive, is absolutely rational behavior

17. PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK PERCEPTION RISK = function technically assessed risk and risk perception factors Risk=function{technically assessed risk and risk perception factors} RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS = OUTRAGE FACTORS = HOT BUTTONS WELL-STUDIED AND DOCUMENTED IN PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE

18. RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS (NOT ALL INCLUSIVE) LESS RISKY/MORE ACCEPTED: Voluntary Natural Not dreaded Constant Knowable/Familiar Individually controlled Fair Trustworthy sources Impacts Adults Low media attention MORE RISKY/LESS ACCEPTED: Involuntary Industrial Dreaded Catastrophic Uncertain/Complex Controlled by others Unfair Untrustworthy sources Impacts Children High media attention “HOT BUTTONS”

19. EXAMPLE – UNCERTAINTY Easy to Understandvs.Complicated/Scientist Disagree “Safer” vs. “Riskier” Genetically modified foods are perceived as riskier than living downstream of a dam.

20. EXAMPLE – VOLUNTARY VS. INVOLUNTARY Voluntary Involuntary “More acceptable” “Less acceptable” Ironically, voluntary risks such as smoking and poor diet are leading causes of health impacts Much higher risks than cleaned-up Brownfield sites

21. EXAMPLE – CONTROL Controlled by me Controlled by others “Safer” “Riskier” Most (85%) people believe that they are better than average drivers So long as I have some control, the risks are more acceptable

22. Could it be about control? LEADING RISK FACTORS (WHO 2009) 1 DALY = 1 lost year of healthy life

23. EXAMPLE – CHILDREN VS. ADULTS Impact Affects Adults vs. Impact Affects Children or Future Generations “Safer/More Acceptable” vs. “Riskier/Unacceptable” Natural to be protective of children Often used by special interest groups USEPA has focus on children’s risk Examples – vaccination; deep injection of hazardous waste Natural to be protective of children Often used by special interest groups USEPA has focus on children’s risk Examples – vaccination; deep injection of hazardous waste

24. EXAMPLE – TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE - trust is easier to destroy than to create - trust is created slowly but destroyed quickly Trustworthy Source vs. Untrustworthy Source “Safer” vs. “Riskier” Industry and regulatory agencies are in the bottom third of the “trust and credibility hierarchy.” Public health officials and medical doctors are in the top third. Trust has to be built in same way as any relationship.

25. EXAMPLE – FAIRNESS Fair vs. Unfair “More Accepted” vs. “Less Accepted” “We have to bear the risks while someone else gets the benefits.” “We have an unfair share of the risks.” Example: Pipelines and Environmental Justice sites

26. SOCIAL FACTORS IN RISK ACCEPTANCE  Social viewpoints can affect risk acceptance and concerns  Hierarchical – “Decisions about risk should be left to the experts.”  Egalitarian – “A risk to one is a risk to all.” “Risks should be managed without regard to cost.” Hot Button?

27. SOCIAL FACTORS IN RISK ACCEPTANCE  Social viewpoints can affect risk acceptance and concerns  Individualist – “I don’t need or want the government to decide what is acceptable risk for me.”  Fatalist – “If I am meant to get cancer then I will.” Hot Button?

28. SOME GENERAL FINDINGS  Science and public education are important but not adequate to resolving risk controversies  The public is not irrational  The public is influenced by biology, psychology, emotion, life experiences, worldviews, and values  So are regulated parties, scientists, and regulators

29. HOW CAN WE IMPROVE RISK COMMUNICATION? HOW CAN WE IMPROVE RISK COMMUNICATION? PARADIGM SHIFT Must change from “educating the public” with “the facts” to Dialogue in which knowledge, experience, perceptions, values, and concerns about risks are exchanged among different stakeholders. Dialogue involves good listening, mutual respect, and conversation – rather than presentation.

30. HOW CAN WE IMPROVE RISK COMMUNICATION?  Many have complained that their input is after key decisions have already been made  Often controversies over risk are surrogates for concern over trust in the process  People want to be included in the process of making risk management decisions that they feel affect what they value  The final decision about managing risk will always disappoint someone – but they may be able to accept the decision if their concerns and values were included in the evaluation process

31. GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES  Accept and include the public as a legitimate partner  Frame the risk problem, with public participation:  Determine how they see something they value is threatened  Make sure you understand their concerns and values  Be prepared – what they fear may not match technically assessed risks  Respect and never diminish their concerns and values  Make it a dialogue, not a lecture

32. GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES  Address psychological risk perception (hot button) factors directly  Avoid inappropriate comparisons (“less than lightning strike…”)  Be honest and compassionate  Explain how their input will be used – and follow-up  Discuss risk management options and how these may address their concerns

33. QUESTIONS William Rish, Ph.D. Principal Hull Risk Analysis Center wrish@hullinc.com 614.793.8777