1. William Rish, Ph.D. Hull Risk Analysis Center ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK COMMUNICATION

2. TODAY’S AGENDA  The Language of Risk: How Risk is Described  Biological, Psychological, and Social Aspects of Risk Perception and Acceptance  Improving Risk Communication

3. BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT  Involves assessing and managing environmental risks  Involves the community  Involves communicating about risk to the public

4. 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.

5. 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

6. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK  “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 opinions or ulterior motives

7. THE LANGUAGE OF RISK - What is risk? It depends on your perspective  Technical perspective - risks 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.

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 measures alone do 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. We warned you – now you decide

11. UNCLEAR Warning: Happy Dead Fish SCARY Powerful Water Fountain May Blow Off Head UNLIKELY Run If You Feel Radiation or See a Skull

12. OBVIOUS Do Not Put Child in Dumpster SILLY Banana Peel Zone COMPLICATED Run If It Is Raining and There Is a Landslide

13. BIOLOGICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF RISK PERCEPTION AND ACCEPTANCE  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.  Facts can be helpless when up against perception  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

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. 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. The Amygdala We are hardwired for fear

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 PERCEPTION FACTORS = OUTRAGE FACTORS = HOT BUTTONS WELL-STUDIED AND DOCUMENTED IN PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE

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

19. 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 VAP perception issue Risks are being imposed involuntarily, so whoever caused the risk should eliminate it entirely (zero risk) But - Volunteer was not polluter And - Risk was unmanaged until voluntary action

20. 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. VAP perception issue CP is making decisions about what is acceptable to me Public meetings may be perceived as after decisions have been made

21. EXAMPLE – FAIRNESS Fair vs. Unfair “More Accepted” “Less Accepted” “We have to bear the risks while someone else gets the benefits” “We have an unfair share of the risks.” VAP perception issue Environmental Justice sites

22. 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 managed without regard to cost” Hot Button?

23. 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?

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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 followup  Discuss risk management options and how these may address their concerns

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