Risk perception mechanisms
Contents
Cultural perception and communication of risk
Introduction
Social risk perception has long since been acknowledged as a significant component in integrated risk assessment. Hence, it also forms an essential part of comprehensive security information for consideration in urban planning. Results from urban planning decisions can influence citizen risk perception including the distraction of risk perception for more objective risk levels; and vice versa, citizens’ risk perception can result in societal demands on urban planning.
Felt and factual risks/security
Risk researchers have long been acknowledging risk perception to be seriously influenced from various subjective factors and to deviate from objective risks. Factors that affect citizens perception of risk have been largely identified.[1]
We well know that citizens always assess risks, threats and uncertainties on a subjective and individual basis. To a certain extent, gaps between felt and factual risks/security are normal phenomena; more important, therefore, than a mere gap analysis is an analysis of the distribution of gaps between felt and factual security across society. Risk research, independent of the subject matter in question, sees citizens’ assessment of risks and threats considerably dependent on knowledge of precedents, frequency and extent of risk experience as well as perceived immediate effects on themselves.[2]
Felt security has also been found to depend on personal control/efficacy beliefs: People usually accept considerably higher risk if they feel themselves in a position to decide about it; they are less prone to accept unconditional collective risk, e.g. as communicated by public authorities. At the same time, psychological analyses have found the effect of “overconfidence” (optimistic self-overestimation)[3]. This effect describes a systematic cognitive error in assessing risks (namely assessing them too low) that are amenable to people’s own influence, such as car driving, mountaineering but also walking alone in the dark, a typical (street) crime-related public opinion poll indicator of felt security. When risky contexts, that are not amenable to human change, the risk tends to be ignored, as risk ignorance in earthquake-prone areas has shown from ancient Pompeii in the Roman Empire to Los Angeles and San Francisco. In the case of natural risks, or risks that citizens perceive as out of their ability to change, we can expect citizens to discount or even discharge risk by compensating social contexts, leading to a gap between felt and factual security.[4]
Risk perception mechanisms
Mechanisms of citizens’ risk perception thus are variable and rather complex.[5] Traditionally, statistically high rated threats to life and health (car accidents, food poisoning, cancer and others) are not particularly feared, however, spectacular hazards, even at low vulnerabilities are unproportionally perceived to be high risks. More specifically, fear-related and knowledge related factors can be distinguished. For factors that affect the individual and social perception of risk see Risk and Perception of risk and affecting factors and checklist for factors affecting citizens' perception of risk.
- Risks causing pain and death are generally feared (e.g. shark attack vs. heart attack);
- Controllable risks tend to be feared less than uncontrollable risks (such as air trips, urban criminality, terrorism, food contamination);
- Disasters with global impacts are feared more than those with regional impacts (nuclear war vs. conventional war);
- Lethal risks are feared more (air crashes vs. car accidents);
- Risks equal to all population groups are feared less than risks effecting particular sub-groups (especially children);
- Collective risks are feared more than individual risks;
- Risks exceeding life spans are more alarming;
- Risks that are hard to prevent cause greater fear;
- Decreasing risks (e.g. due to mitigation) are feared less;
- Involuntary risks are feared more;
- Direct affection (e.g. 9/11) raises fear of risk;
- Avoidable risks cause less fear (e.g. due to medical progress such as AIDS)
- Invisible Risks (smoke vs. genetic engineering);
- Risks with unknown degree of exposure;
- Risks having delayed effects;
- New/unknown risks;
- Scientifically implausible risks.
Risk communication
Effective risk communication and sensitization and adequate risk management can help to correct negative effects from public risk (mis-)perception and hazard over- and underestimation, which is also essential for the legitimacy of urban planning. Risk management by authorities has to be coherent with societal risk perception and views.[6] This makes the issue a cultural factor. Effects of changing risk characteristics to societal reactions must be comprehended, and approaches and perspectives should be understood to be influenced by changes in social and political systems. Risk management must react to such phenomena. Urban planning thus can be seen to form a part of the risk and crises management cycle.
Footnotes and references
- ↑ Cf. H. Sterr et al.: Risikomanagement im Küstenschutz in Norddeutschland. In: C. Felgentreff/T. Glade: Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp. 345-346; M. Zwick/O. Renn: Risikokonzepte jenseits von Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit und Schadenserwartung. In: C. Felgentreff/T. Glade: Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp. 85-95; D. Proske: Katalog Risiken. Risiken und ihre Darstellung. 1. Auflage. Eigenverlag: Dresden, 2004, pp. 167-174. Online: http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/71/1218786958574-1736.pdf.; OECD: OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies. Future Global Shocks. Improving Risk Governance. Preliminary Version. OECD Publishing, 2011, pp. 54-56. Online: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/36/48256382.pdf.; V.T. Covello et al.: Risk Communication, the West Nile Virus Epidemic, and Bioterrorism: Responding to the Communication Challenges Posed by the Intentional or Unintentional Release of a Pathogen in an Urban Setting. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Volume 78, No. 2, 2001, pp. 382-391.; P. Slovic et al.: Facts and Fears: Societal Perception of Risk. In: K. B. Monroe/A. Abor (eds): Advances In Consumer Research, Volume 08, Association For Consumer Research, 1981, pp. 497-502. Online: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=5844.
- ↑ D. Proske: Katalog Risiken. Risiken und ihre Darstellung. 1. Auflage. Eigenverlag: Dresden, 2004, Online: http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/71/1218786958574-1736.pdf.
- ↑ Cf. S. Oskamp: Overconfidence in Case-study Judgements. In: The Journal of Consulting Psychology (American Psychological Association), Vol. 2, 1965, pp. 261-265. Reprinted in D. Kahneman et al.: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, 1982, 287-293.
- ↑ M. Parfit: Living with Natural Hazards. In: National Geographic, Vol. 194, 1998, pp. 2-39.
- ↑ D. P. Coppola: Introduction to International Disaster Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007, p. 162.
- ↑ OECD: OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies. Future Global Shocks. Improving Risk Governance. Preliminary Version. OECD Publishing, 2011. Online: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/36/48256382.pdf.
MAP
<websiteFrame>
height=1023
width=100%
border=0
scroll=auto
align=middle
</websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
