Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management
[This document refers, in a number of instances, to the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). The text of this document has not been updated since the transfer of environmental protection functions to Defra.]
Chapter 3
The social aspects of risk
3.1 Background
Economic, political, legal and social concerns play important roles throughout the assessment, evaluation and decision-making stages of risk management. Ensuring dialogue between interested parties at all stages requires an understanding of the social aspects of risk along with an appreciation of the mechanisms by which stakeholders can be actively engaged in the process.
The evaluation of risk entails a judgement about how significant the risk is to the receiving environment and to those concerned with, or affected by, the decision. It is, therefore, a process which necessarily involves the question of risk acceptability. In conjunction with formal scientific input, this requires the examination of public and political judgements about risks alongside the measurable costs and benefits of the activity in question. The precise knowledge required for an objective evaluation is often lacking for environmental risk assessment and an element of judgement is often needed. Furthermore, environmental quality involves both scientific elements and social elements. There is, therefore, a need to consider carefully the social dimensions of a risk as a part of the decision-making process.
The sections below highlight some of the factors that should be considered when evaluating risks and making decisions about environmental protection. These include some of the key elements which shape individual and social responses to risk.
3.2 Why consider the social dimensions of risk?
Society is increasingly conscious of the harm that its activities can cause to the environment, and the harm to people or the loss of quality of life that can result from environmental degradation. Recent experiences such as the BSE crisis and the Brent Spar controversy have led to a decline in public confidence in conventional risk assessment and management processes. Decisions about environmental risks should take account of social issues because:
- general awareness of environmental risks has increased and this is often associated with heightened levels of concern;
- recent experience has shown how essential it is to have in place a framework which ensures transparency in decision-making and which forms a justifiable basis for policies on environmental protection;
- calls have been made for a greater degree of public involvement in decision-making processes for environmental protection; and
- there is increasing pressure on those who create and regulate risk to inform the public about the risks to which they and their environment are exposed.
In conjunction with the assessment of a risk, the decision-maker should ask whether the risk is likely to be acceptable to those concerned with, or affected by, the risk or consequent management decision. Evaluating the social significance of a risk can guide decision-making and help towards communicating about the risk to interested parties. It is, therefore, essential that the decision-maker considers social dimensions as part of the processes to identify, assess, evaluate and manage risks to the environment. Key objectives of doing so are to:
- engage all stakeholders in issues that affect them and their communities to ensure that policies reflect the values of the society to which they are directed;
- ensure that decisions about the acceptability of environmental risks recognise that environmental protection is part of the wider context of sustainable development - this includes objectives of economic growth, social progress and prudent resource management as well as environmental protection and enhancement;
- help to identify difficult cases in advance by highlighting what types of risk are likely to be seen as unacceptable; and
- aid the communication of risk messages to encourage desired actions and behaviour, or to meet statutory requirements.
It is now well-established that lay reactions to risk can differ considerably from judgements that are based on scientific probability estimates. Since the 1960s, a large body of research on reactions to risk has developed. Much of this work has demonstrated that differences between lay and expert judgements on risk can be attributed to the complex concepts of risk that lay people and scientists apply.
Counter to traditionally held views, these reactions can often be predictable, and are frequently rational. It is, therefore, important to understand how and why particular reactions to risk arise.
Perceived risk is driven by a complex mixture of factors, including individual attitudes and beliefs as well as wider social and cultural values. Risk perceptions may be based on accurate or inaccurate information, and the existence of uncertainties in the evaluation of hazards can also be important. Thus, risk judgements not only depend on the physical characteristics of the hazard itself but are also determined by broader psychological and sociological considerations.
Questions about the role and credibility of institutions charged with the management and communication of risk also constitute a significant factor in shaping perceptions. Furthermore, the perception of risk is multi-dimensional, with particular hazards meaning different things to different people depending on underlying values and the context of the risk.
Consideration of what factors may cause (or fail to cause) anxiety and alarm about a particular risk at an individual level is important. This can help the decision-maker to identify (in advance) the types of risk that are likely to cause general concern. Risk perception research has also explored the cultural dimensions that shape individual and group responses to risk. Beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviour can all affect perceptions of hazard and risk. Risks that pose a threat to social group values are likely to lead to heightened risk perceptions.
Important factors (sometimes termed fright or outrage factors) which may cause a risk to create anxiety or be less acceptable are summarised in Box 3.1.
Box 3.1 Factors which can influence risk perceptions
| Risks which are involuntarily imposed (eg pollution from
an incinerator) tend to be seen as less acceptable than voluntary
ones (eg driving a car or undertaking dangerous sports).
Unfamiliar risks (eg genetically modified organisms) tend to cause greater concern, particularly if they are considered to be poorly understood by science. Activities which pose a threat of a dreaded form of death, injury or illness (eg cancer) are viewed with alarm and are less acceptable. Man-made or 'technological risks' (eg pesticides, nuclear power stations) are less acceptable than natural ones (eg floods and radon). A risk which may cause a single large-scale consequence (eg civil aviation accident) causes more concern than risks which result in numerous small-scale consequences (eg car accidents). Alarm may be caused by risks when the consequences of exposure are delayed and cause hidden or irreversible damage (eg exposure to ionising radiation). Inequitable distribution of risks and benefits as a result of a particular activity is likely to make a risk less acceptable. Activities which pose a risk to certain groups such as children and future generations are generally more worrying. Risks which are the subject of controversy and contradictory information generally cause concern. |
Adapted from Department of Health (1998) and summarising key findings from risk perception research
Whether a risk is acceptable or not depends on broad societal issues and scientific assessments. At a general level, the issues raised above can help to guide decision-making by highlighting likely responses to different types of risks. The main issues are summarised below.
- While risk perceptions sometimes differ considerably from scientific probability estimates, individual and social responses to risk often represent rational and defensible judgements. While decisions about environmental risks should have a sound scientific basis it is also important to give explicit consideration to social dimensions.
- Risk is multi-dimensional and context-driven and it is over-simplistic to represent risk as a single-scale concept such as probability estimates.
- Fright factors may highlight the types of risk that are likely to cause concern. They may also be used to identify particular cases where the risk is perceived to be lower than suggested by probability estimates, and may explain why such patterns exist.
- Risk perceptions and responses are linked to wider attitudes, beliefs and behaviour and, therefore, have a strong social as well as individual dimension.
- Perceptions can be distorted through social amplification. The role and likely reactions of the media therefore need to be anticipated.
3.4 Trust and credibility
Conflict and controversy have characterised some recent risk debates, and distrust in the risk assessment and management process plays a central role in these cases.
Trust and credibility are frequently identified as important determinants of risk perception. It is important to be open and accountable, and to take differing views into account rather than disregarding them as 'emotive' or 'irrational'. While such a climate may help to build confidence, it should be stressed that trust is eroded very easily and once lost is difficult to restore.
3.5 Equity
Inequity in the distribution of risks and benefits is an important factor influencing attitudes to risk. It can result, for example, in a particular community having to bear the disadvantages of a facility or development while not necessarily gaining the benefits. Examples may include the siting of a waste incineration plant or a disposal facility for low-level radioactive wastes or a major road transport route. The community perceives that it will suffer from the consequences of such activities through both environmental degradation and stigmatisation of the locality, which in turn may have broader economic impacts such as loss of tourism or lowering property prices. Although sometimes dismissed as expressions of self-interest (the Not In My Back Yard - NIMBY - response), recent challenges about the distribution of risk have raised not only questions of location and scale but also the fundamental issue of necessity.
3.6 Responses to risk and the role of the media
It is commonly held that 'the media' tend to portray environmental risks as more serious than estimated by scientific risk assessments, although in reality the role of the media in generating responses to risk is not clear-cut. Because it is likely that public and media interest reinforce each other (rather than the media generating initial interest), it is useful for the decision-maker to consider factors which may amplify media interest in a particular issue. This can help to identify environmental risks which may be controversial and may also help in developing a strategy for dealing with the media on a particular issue.
Factors which play a role in generating media interest have been summarised in the Department of Health's 1998 publication Communicating About Risks to Public Health and are listed below:
- the risk is characterised by fright factors described above (Box 3.1);
- the risk or management decision is associated with questions of blame, trust or credibility;
- conflict and uncertainty exist between scientists and regulators;
- human interest, particularly with identifiable victims, is important;
- the risk or management decision may be viewed as a first sign of future problems;
- the presence of strong visual impact; and
- widespread exposure to risk, even if at low level.
3.7 Risk communication
Communication about environmental risks serves many important purposes. Communication can be used either as a tool to provide information, explain and warn, or to encourage collective partnership approaches to decision-making through greater public participation in the risk management process.
The various functions of risk communication are to:
- ensure compliance with statutory requirements to warn or inform individuals about certain risks - this may include requirements to inform the public of the correct behaviour to adopt in the event of a major industrial accident under the 'Seveso II' (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Directive, and requirements to inform the public of an intention to carry out a deliberate release of genetically modified organisms under the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
- encourage desired changes in knowledge, attitudes, opinions and/or behaviours;
- ensure that information aimed at encouraging desired risk reducing behaviour is available - this may include, for example, the provision of information about air quality and measures which may be taken to reduce certain polluting activities;
- create trust and confidence in risk decision-making processes and in risk management institutions;
- ensure that experts and regulators discuss all issues relevant to the decision-making process for a particular risk to the environment; and
- engage stakeholders in two-way communication, thereby ensuring that decision-making reflects broad social values.
Risk communication can be implemented in many different ways. Successful risk communication is difficult to achieve and it will frequently be necessary to engage diverse audiences. These audiences may hold different values and have different levels of understanding, and the interpretation of a message can be dependent on a variety of social factors. Provided these complexities are borne in mind, and the objectives are clearly defined, communication can achieve its desired outcome.
Many of the points made earlier about risk perceptions are salient to the development of risk communication. Efforts simply aimed at the provision of quantitative risk estimates are likely to be of limited value because of the complex nature of risk judgements. Communication should be sensitive to a broad concept of risk, encompassing not only quantitative information, but also other dimensions such as individual attitudes and issues of trust and credibility.
Risk comparisons
Describing risk
Risk communication efforts have frequently used a wide range of hazards to place a particular risk in perspective. While this approach may help individuals to envisage very small or very large probabilities, their use as a more sophisticated communication tool requires caution. Individuals distinguish between hazards along a range of qualitative dimensions, and risk comparisons must take this into account wherever possible. For example, making a comparison between two activities that have similar statistical probabilities and similar outcomes but are not comparable with regard to whether they are taken voluntarily or not, is likely to be viewed with scepticism.
A common language
Recent efforts by the UK Department of Health have focused on the development of a common language for the communication of risks. For example, the use of comparisons based on familiar scenarios such as 'roughly one person in a small town' for '1 in 10,000' may help to give a feel for the magnitude of a particular risk.
A risk spectrum
A risk spectrum can provide a useful means for describing risk. This approach has been used in flood alert warnings, whereby the likely impact from flooding is communicated via a scale of:
- yellow (a warning of flooding to low-lying farmland and minor roads near rivers or the sea, but flooding of property is not expected);
- amber (flooding of isolated high risk properties, roads and large areas of farmland near rivers or the sea); and
- red (a warning of serious flooding to a significant number of residential and commercial properties, roads and large areas of farmland).
What is stakeholder participation?
An important objective of sustainable development is the adoption of collective partnership approaches to decision-making for environmental protection. Experience suggests that risk management decisions made in collaboration with stakeholders tend to be more effective and durable. Stakeholders are parties concerned about, or affected by, a risk management problem (Section 1.4). The use of participatory approaches in the development of risk management strategies is important for many reasons.
- Public involvement is an essential part of a sustainable development strategy (Section 1.5).
- Risk management is often implemented outside traditional government arenas, for example by individual citizens, industry and workers. This has led to calls for greater involvement in the decision-making process of those affected by risk problems.
- While decisions may largely be based on the best available scientific and technical information, their success is also dependent on sensitivity to a range of social, economic and political considerations.
- Environmental protection is a societal goal and there is a need to engage the public in issues which affect individuals and their communities.
- Participatory approaches provide a process by which expert and lay perspectives can inform each other. By clarifying the nature of disagreements about risk they may help to resolve conflicts over controversial issues (consensus building).
- Participation can help people to make a more informed decision and help to reduce resentment from individuals or groups who feel they are excluded from decisions which directly affect them.
Stakeholders may include a wide range of Government departments and other agencies, individuals, interest groups and other institutions who have an interest in the decision-making process. Since Government, the public, industry, environmental and consumer groups, etc., often have different views about what constitutes an acceptable risk, it is important to explore possibilities for engaging these stakeholder groups at all points in the risk management processes. At the same time it is necessary to recognise that the nature and extent of stakeholder involvement must reflect the scope and impact of the particular risk in question.
Identifying stakeholders
If a decision has been made to involve stakeholder participation in the decision-making process, it is important to identify at an early point which stakeholders should be involved. To aid this process the following questions may be asked:
- Who will potentially be affected by the risk and the consequences of any management decision?
- Which parties or individuals have knowledge and expertise which may be useful to inform any discussion or decision?
- Which parties or individuals have expressed an interest in this particular, or a similar type of, risk management problem?
- Which stakeholders will be prepared to listen, respect diverse viewpoints and be prepared to negotiate?
Participation can take many forms, including collaboration between Government, industry and interested parties to identify common goals and mutually acceptable solutions, stakeholder-based decision-making committees, focus groups, consensus building conferences (round-table process) and citizens' juries. In a publication entitled Consensus Building for Sustainable Development, the Environment Agency provides several case studies to illustrate the use of different participatory initiatives in environmental protection. The choice of approach should be guided by a number of key considerations, as highlighted in the following terms by the US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management:
- The decision-makers should make explicit the extent to which they are prepared to respond to stakeholder involvement.
- The aims of stakeholder participation must be clearly stated and stakeholders should be involved as early in the process as possible. If a decision is non-negotiable, stakeholder involvement should not be considered.
- The nature and extent of stakeholder involvement must reflect the scope and impact of the risk management decision.
- Participation should aim to confront the key issues of a risk management problem rather than confronting individuals or stakeholder groups.
The selection of a particular participatory approach requires creative and constructive thinking about the various aims of the process and the decision options available. The techniques that may facilitate open discussion about contradictory objectives, responsibilities and interests in relation to the particular environmental risk in question must also be considered.
The concept of a participatory approach is primarily bottom-up, whereby stakeholders are engaged in the processes of problem formulation, appraising the preferred management options and proposing solutions to a particular risk problem. It relies on communication as a two-way process to exchange information and opinions between various institutions, groups and individuals.
Stakeholder involvement brings together diverse viewpoints and may help to resolve existing or potential problems by ensuring that stakeholders are involved in the development of the solutions. It can, therefore, bring long-term gains. However, it requires careful planning, large amounts of time and other resources, and cannot be expected to guarantee the resolution of conflict or controversy.
3.9 Further information
Key references
Baines J (1995) Beyond Compromise: Building Consensus in Environmental
Planning and Decision-making, London, UK, The Environment Council
A very helpful introduction to consensus building covering the
basic principles and providing illustrative case studies and sources for
further information and help.
Department of Health (1998) Communicating About Risks to Public
Health - Pointers to Good Practice, London, UK, TSO
This document offers insights from well-established material and
provides pointers to good practice for communicating effectively about
risks.
Environment Agency (1998) Consensus Building for Sustainable Development,
Bristol, UK, Environment Agency
This document sets out the Environment Agency's agenda for building
collective partnership approaches for decision-making as a contribution
to achieving sustainable development. It provides some useful and practical
illustrations of models for consensus building.
Environment Council (1995) Who's Who in the Environment - England,
London, UK, The Environment Council
A comprehensive directory of organisations in England which are
concerned with some aspect of the environment (natural and built). It
lists the areas of interest and services provided by each organisation
and may be helpful in identifying important stakeholders. Separate directories
exist for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A single and more up-to-date
directory is available in electronic format.
Health and Safety Executive (1992) The Tolerability of Risk from
Nuclear Power Stations, Sudbury, UK, HSE Books
Report produced following a recommendation from the report of the
Sizewell B Public Inquiry in 1986 that the HSE should formulate and publish
guidelines on the tolerable levels of individual and social risk to workers
and the public from nuclear power stations. The document discusses risk
and the tolerability of risk, the regulation of industrial risk and broad
principles of risk assessment, as well as specific topics concerning the
risks associated with the operation of nuclear installations.
Health and Safety Executive (1999) Reducing Risks, Protecting People,
Sudbury, UK, HSE Books
A discussion document on the framework of risk-based health and
safety regulation in the UK with a valuable review of recent developments
in risk-based decision-making.
ILGRA (1998) Risk Communication: A Guide to Regulatory Practice,
Sudbury, UK, HSE Books
Guidance, illustrations and assistance to regulators in developing
good practice on the principles of risk communication.
Lees N, Woolson H, O'Hara J & Wynne B (1997) Environmental
Information: A Guide to Sources (Second edition), London, UK, The
British Library Science Reference and Information Service
An easy-to-use and comprehensive directory of where to go for information
and help on environmental issues. It includes a useful compendium of organisations
which may be helpful in identifying important stakeholders.
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
Management (1997) Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management
(Final Report), Vol. 1, Washington DC, USA, Presidential/Congressional
Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
(1997) Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision Making
(Final Report), Vol. 2, Washington DC, USA, Presidential/Congressional
Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
A particularly useful reference in discussing the role and involvement
of stakeholders.
Royal Society (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management
(Second edition), London, UK, The Royal Society
Includes an introductory discussion on risk perception and provides
an overview of the different approaches to understanding the social aspects
of risk.
Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric
paradigm. In: Krimsky S & Golding D, eds, Social Theories of Risk,
London, UK, Praeger
A useful review by a key researcher in the field of psychometric
investigations into risk perceptions, highlighting key findings and implications
for the management and communication of risk.
SNIFFER et al. (1999) Communicating Understanding of Contaminated
Land Risks, Stirling, UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for
Environmental Research
This report provides a basic step-by-step guide to risk communication
and relationship building in the context of contaminated land management,
primarily aimed at regulatory officers.
Electronic information sources
Environment Council - Who's Who in the Environment: UK computer database
Green Channel internet site - www.greenchannel.com/main.cfm - a web-site which promotes positive environmental change through better communication of environmental information. It provides a forum for professional, public interest and commercial organisations.
Key periodicals
Journal of Risk Research
Risk Analysis
Risk: Health, Safety and Environment
Defra is not responsible for the contents or reliability of the linked web sites and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. Listing should not be taken as endorsement of any kind. We cannot guarantee that these links will work all of the time and we have no control over the availability of the linked pages.
Page published 2 August
2000;
Page last modified
19 September, 2002