A closer look at risk perception
and risk governance
Piet Sellke
Dialogik and University of Stuttgart
ICPS
5th Annual Regulatory Affairs International Symposium
March 11th, 2013
London, March 11th 2013
Outline
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Risk Perception and Risk Assessment
• Part III: Risk Governance: An Integrated
Concept
• Part IV: Conclusions
2
London, March 11th 2013
PART I: INTRODUCTION
3
London, March 11th 2013
Lack of Trust
Framing
Paralysis by
Analysis
Accountability
Deficits in Risk
Governance
Scope
Scarcity of data
Inequity
Transparency
4
London, March 11th 2013
Policy Dilemma in Risk Management
• Follow perceptions of the public?
• Follow advice of professional experts?
5
London, March 11th 2013
Challenge of Risk Governance
 Integration of factual, technical knowledge
and socio-cultural knowledge into one
framework
• Factual dimension
– Physically measurable outcomes
– Risk discussed as a combination of consequences
and their probability of occurence
• Socio-cultural dimension
– How risks are viewed if values and emotions come
into play
6
London, March 11th 2013
PART II: RISK PERCEPTION AND RISK
ASSESSMENT
7
London, March 11th 2013
Risk perception (I/II)
• Human behavior depends on perception, not
on facts!
• Qualitative Risk Characteristics:
– Risk-related patterns
• Perceived dread
• Familiarity with the risk
• Sensual perceptibility
– Situation-related patterns
•
•
•
•
8
Personal controllability
Voluntariness
Trust in risk management
Fair distribution of gains and losses
London, March 11th 2013
Risk perception (II/II)
• Semantic risk patterns
– Risks posing an immediate threat (large dams,
nuclear energy)
– Risks dealt with as a blow of fate (natural disasters)
– Risk as challenge to one‘s own strenght (sports)
– Risk as a gamble (lotteries, stock exchange)
– Risks as an early indication of insidious danger (food
additives, viruses)
• Stigmatisation of Risk
• Social amplification of Risk
9
London, March 11th 2013
Challenges of Risk Assessment
• Quality of explanatory power depends on the
accuracy and validity of (real) predictions
• Problems in validating risk assessment results
– Prove of correctly assigned probabilities to a specific
outcome difficult
– Risks with difficult to discern cause-effect
relationships
– Risks with rare effects
– Risks with effects difficult to interpret
– Variations in both causes and effects obscuring the
results
10
London, March 11th 2013
Integration of Risk Assessment and Risk
Perception
• Option 1 (only science):
– Only scientific concepts of risk can claim intersubjective
validity
and applicability
Loss
of Public
Support
– (Erroneous) risk perceptions have to be corrected
via communication and education
• Option 2 (only people):
– No overarching universally applicable quality
criterion available in order to evaluate the
Loss of Scientific
appropriatness
and validtyExpertise
of risk concepts
– Scientific concepts should compete with concepts of
stakeholders and public groups
11
London, March 11th 2013
Integration of Risk Assessment and
Risk Percpetion
• Option 3 (science + people):
– In identifying aspects of concern and worry, all
groups of society have the same right to raise them
and to bring them to the negotiation table
– Question of the degree to which these concerns /
worries are violated by the risk-bearing activity /
events should be primarily answered by experts
Integrated Approach
12
London, March 11th 2013
PART II: RISK GOVERNANCE:
AN INTEGRATED CONCEPT
13
London, March 11th 2013
CONVENTIONAL RISK
MANAGEMENT
Who needs to
Deciding
know
what,
when?
Management
The knowledge
Understanding
needed for
judgements and
decisions
Communication
Appraisal
Who needs to
do what,
when?
Most risk management processes do not go beyond these steps
14
London, March 11th 2013
IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE
FRAMEWORK
Deciding a broad
Getting
picture of the
risk
Who needs to do
what, when?
Management
Is the risk tolerable,
acceptable or
unacceptable?
15
Pre-Assessment
Communication
Communication
Risk
Understanding
assessment
PLUS
Concern
assessment
Appraisal
Who needs to
know what, when?
Characterisation
and Evaluation
Is the risk simple,
complex, uncertain
or ambiguous?
Categorising
the
knowledge
about the risk
London, March 11th 2013
Phase 1
Getting a
broad picture
of the risk
Management
Pre-Assessment
Communication
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
16
London, March 11th 2013
Importance of Framing
Looks like a high risk from the outside
17
London, March 11th 2013
Importance of Framing
But consider this…
18
London, March 11th 2013
Importance of Framing
Or this…
19
London, March 11th 2013
NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION: THE
IMPACT OF FRAMING ON THE RISKHANDLING OF GMOs
Comparing USA and Europe:
Different framing
Different regulatory approach
20
London, March 11th 2013
IMPORTANCE OF FRAMING
– Frames represent social and cultural perspectives
• Challenge or problem
• Opportunity or risk
• Innovation or intervention
– Frames determine boundaries of what is included and
excluded
•
•
•
•
•
•
21
Time and duration (future generations, sustainability)
Location and space (the universe, all nation, Norway, Stavanger)
Social class and stratus (vulnerable groups, poor, immigrants)
Types of adverse effects (physical, mental, social, cultural)
Primary or secondary impacts (ripple effects)
Criteria taken into account (risk reduction, cost, benefit, equity,
environmental justice, value violations…)
London, March 11th 2013
Phase 2
Pre-Assessment
Management
Communication
Characterisation
and Evaluation
22
Appraisal
Is the risk simple,
complex, uncertain
or ambiguous?
Categorising
the
knowledge
about the risk
London, March 11th 2013
Components of Risk Knowledge
• Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships
• Uncertainty
–
–
–
–
variation among individual targets
measurement and inferential errors
genuine stochastic relationships
system boundaries and ignorance
• Ambiguity
– Interpretative ambiguity (What does it mean?)
– Normative ambiguity (Is it tolerable?)
23
London, March 11th 2013
RISK APPRAISAL
• Risk Assessment
– Hazard identification and estimation
– Exposure assessment
– Risk estimation
• Concern Assessment
– Socio-economic impacts
– Economic benefits
– Public concerns (stakeholders and individuals)
24
London, March 11th 2013
BRENT SPAR – UNDERESTIMATING
STAKHOLDER CONCERN
Greenpeace’s campaign included occupation of the platform but did
not include calling for a consumer boycott. Nonetheless, Shell is
estimated to have lost between £60-100 million, mostly from lost sales
across northern Europe; petrol stations were fire-bombed in Germany.
25
London, March 11th 2013
Phase 3
Pre-Assessment
Management
Is the risk tolerable,
acceptable or
unacceptable?
26
Communication
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
London, March 11th 2013
Characterization and Evaluation
•
What are the broader, value-based questions to consider?
► Characterization:

What are the societal and economic benefits and risks?

Are there impacts on individual or social quality of life?

Are there ethical issues to consider?

Is there a possibility of substitution?
► Evaluation:

What are possible options for risk compensation or reduction?

How can we assign trade-offs between different risk categories
and between risks and benefits (or opportunities)?

What are the societal values and norms for making judgements
about tolerability and acceptability?

Do any stakeholders have commitments or other reasons for
desiring a particular outcome of the risk governance process?
27
London, March 11th 2013
Evaluation and Characterisation
The scientific evidence from the risk assessment is “simple” – civil aviation emits
significant pollutants into the atmosphere. Grounding the fleet would stop those
emissions.
Modern values – particularly economic and societal – are such that no decision
has been or is likely to be made to ban civil aviation.
In this instance, the policy judgement is therefore to give greater weight to the
values than the scientific evidence.
28
London, March 11th 2013
Phase 4
Pre-Assessment
Management
Communication
Appraisal
Who needs to do
what, when?
Characterisation
and Evaluation
29
London, March 11th 2013
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT (I/II)
Knowledge
Characterisation
Management
Strategy
Appropriate Instruments
Stakeholder
Participation
1 ‘Simple’ risk
problems
Routine-based:
(tolerability /
acceptability
judgement)
 Applying ‘traditional’ decision-making
 Risk-benefit analysis
 Risk-risk trade-offs
Instrumental
discourse
(risk reduction)





Risk-informed:
(risk agent and
causal chain)
 Characterising available evidence
 Expert consensus seeking tools, such as
Delphi or consensus conferencing, meta
analysis, scenario construction
 Results fed into routine operation
Robustnessfocussed:
(risk absorbing
system)
 Improving buffer capacity of risk target via:
 Additional safety factors
 Redundancy and diversity in designing
safety devices
 Improving coping capacity
 Establishing high reliability organisations
2 Complexityinduced risk
problems
30
Trial and error
Technical standards
Economic incentives
Education, labelling, information
Voluntary agreements
Epistemological
discourse
London, March 11th 2013
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT (II/II)
Knowledge
Characterisation
Management
Strategy
Appropriate Instruments
Stakeholder
Participation
3 Uncertaintyinduced risk
problems
Precautionbased:
(risk agent)
 Using hazard characteristics such as
persistence, ubiquity etc. as proxies for risk
estimates
 Tools include: Containment, ALARA, BACT
Reflective
discourse
Resiliencefocussed:
(risk absorbing
system)
 Improving capability to cope with surprises
 Diversity of means to accomplish desired
benefits
 Avoiding high vulnerability
 Allowing for flexible responses
 Preparedness for adaptation
Discoursebased:
 Application of conflict resolution methods for
reaching consensus or tolerance for risk
evaluation results and management option
selection
 Integration of stakeholder involvement in
reaching closure
 Emphasis on communication and social
discourse
4 Ambiguityinduced risk
problems
31
Participative
discourse
London, March 11th 2013
Complementary Phase
Who needs to
know what, when?
Pre-Assessment
Management
Communication
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
32
London, March 11th 2013
Objectives of Risk- Communication
• Enlightenment: Making people able to understand risks
and benefits (and their interactions)
• Behavioral changes: Making people aware of potential
risks and benefits help them to make the right choices
• Trust building: Assisting risk management agencies to
generate and sustain trust
• Conflict resolution: Assisting risk managers to involve
major stakeholders and affected parties to take part in
the risk-benefit evaluation
33
London, March 11th 2013
Risk Communication – Essential throughout the
process
34
►
Pre-assessment
► Informing other agencies and assessing who is affected and who is
mandated to take responsibility
► Inviting views of affected stakeholders
►
Appraisal
► Requesting and receiving appropriate scientific advice on the risk
► Requesting and receiving scientific advice on people’s concerns
►
Evaluation
► Communication of appraisal findings (if they are clear)
► Involving all affected agencies and stakeholders if risk appraisal findings are
uncertain or ambiguous
► Deliberations concerning values / perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs
►
Management
► Inclusion of appropriate stakeholders in the decision making process
► Communication of the decision / regulation / advice
London, March 11th 2013
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
« Civil society »
Scientists/
Researchers
Affected
stakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers
Affected
stakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Instrumental
Epistemic
Reflective
Participative
Find the most
cost-effective
way to make
the risk
acceptable or
tolerable
Use experts to
find valid,
reliable and
relevant
knowledge
about the risk
Involve all
affected
stakeholders to
collectively
decide best
way forward
Include all
actors so as to
expose, accept,
discuss and
resolve
differences
Simple
Complexity
Uncertainty
Ambiguity
Actors
Type of
participation
Dominant risk
characteristic
35
London, March 11th 2013
PART V: CONCLUSIONS
36
London, March 11th 2013
Part V: Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS I
• Problems in handling risks:
–
–
–
–
Plural values and knowledge claims
Expert dissent on risk and benefits
Transboundary nature of risks
Social amplification and attenuation via perception and
social mobilization
– Emergence of systemic risk that cross national and
sectoral boundaries (ripple effects)
• Need for integration of risk analysis and perception
• Communication must be tailored to the risk class
37
London, March 11th 2013
CONCLUSIONS II
Four risk management regimes should be used
to deal with these new risk challenges:
– simple risk management: standard risk assessments
– risk-informed management: expanded risk
assessments; seeking expert consensus and
epistemological clarification
– precaution-/resilience-based management:
negotiated safety level under uncertainty; seeking
stakeholder consensus and relying on containment and
resilience
– discourse-based management: value-based
orientation; seeking more public input and stakeholder
involvement for interpretative variability and normative
controversy
38
London, March 11th 2013
Thank you!
[email protected]
39
London, March 11th 2013
RISK GOVERNANCE GOES MUCH
FURTHER
40
Core Risk Governance Process
• pre-assessment
• risk appraisal
-- risk assessment
-- concern assessment
• evaluation: tolerability /
acceptability judgement
• risk management
• communication
Organisational Capacity
• assets
• skills
• capabilities
Actor Network
• politicians
• regulators
• industry/business
• NGOs
• media
• public at large
Social Climate
• trust in regulatory institutions
• perceived authority of science
• degree of civil society involvement
Political & Regulatory Culture
th 2013
London,
March 11
 different
regulatory
styles
• Adequate structure of working groups?
• Local structures, leading structure?
• Who is initiating a process as this?
• What partners does one need?
41
London, March 11th 2013
New Challenge: Systemic Risks
• Emergence of systemic risks that are...
– transboundary
– socially amplified via perception and social
mobilisation
– subject to expert dissent regarding risks and
benefits
– unmanageable by single organizations
– difficult to communicate
42
London, March 11th 2013