Engaging with Comparative Risk Appraisals: Public Views on Policy Priorities for Environmental Risk Governance.

Sophie A Rocks,Iljana Schubert,Emma Soane,George Prpich,Simon J Pollard,Judith Petts,Rachel Muckle,Edgar Black

doi:10.1111/risa.12735

Abstract

Communicating the rationale for allocating resources to manage policy priorities and their risks is challenging. Here, we demonstrate that environmental risks have diverse attributes and locales in their effects that may drive disproportionate responses among citizens. When 2,065 survey participants deployed summary information and their own understanding to assess 12 policy‐level environmental risks singularly, their assessment differed from a prior expert assessment. However, participants provided rankings similar to those of experts when these same 12 risks were considered as a group, allowing comparison between the different risks. Following this, when individuals were shown the prior expert assessment of this portfolio, they expressed a moderate level of confidence with the combined expert analysis. These are important findings for the comprehension of policy risks that may be subject to augmentation by climate change, their representation alongside other threats within national risk assessments, and interpretations of agency for public risk management by citizens and others.

Highlights

In England, environmental risks such as flooding and animal disease that adversely affect public goods have policies set for their management by government
Twelve risks from Defra’s policy portfolio at the time of the study (2012) were selected that had previously been characterized in autumn 2011 for 12–18 months forward in time:(2,7) poor air quality; the risk of an avian influenza (AI) incursion; the accelerated spread of bovine tuberculosis (BTb); risks from coastal erosion; the risk of regional-scale flooding; the risk of a foot and mouth disease (FMD) incursion exposure to genetically modified organisms (GMOs); loss of marine biodiversity; exposures to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs); human health effects from pesticides; the risk of a derogation of water quality; and the risk of a loss of wildlife biodiversity
Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test ( Supporting Information A) indicated the most commonly experienced risks were those that expressed adverse impacts on air quality (20.3%) and through flooding (13.1%); the least being those associated with ENMs; Personal experience (%) Mean perceived knowledge score

Summary

Introduction

In England, environmental risks such as flooding and animal disease that adversely affect public goods have policies set for their management by government. The transparent allocation of resources for portfolio risk management is difficult, especially in a climate when public finances are constrained, as difficult choices must be made. Under these conditions, there is a continual possibility that lesser risks that are high in the public consciousness, political, or media spotlight may be prioritized above those with more severe or lasting impacts. There is a continual possibility that lesser risks that are high in the public consciousness, political, or media spotlight may be prioritized above those with more severe or lasting impacts Such a mismatch between severity and funding provision may be a response to political or reputational damage but may be due to the lack of impact such funding will make, in situations where effective management measures are not possible. It is appropriate that we analyze the tensions between expert and lay audience interpretations of comparative risk so that we are aware of potential anisotropies in understanding and can improve the

Methods

Results

Conclusion