Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases

Julie Urquhart,Clive Potter,Julie Barnett,John Fellenor,John Mumford,Christopher P Quine

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.020

Abstract

The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is often used as a conceptual tool for studying diverse risk perceptions associated with environmental hazards. While widely applied, it has been criticised for implying that it is possible to define a benchmark ‘real’ risk that is determined by experts and around which public risk perceptions can subsequently become amplified. It has been argued that this objectification of risk is particularly problematic when there are high levels of scientific uncertainty and a lack of expert consensus about the nature of a risk and its impacts. In order to explore this further, this paper examines how ‘experts’ – defined in this case as scientists, policy makers, outbreak managers and key stakeholders – construct and assemble their understanding of the risks associated with two invasive tree pest and disease outbreaks in the UK, ash dieback and oak processionary moth. Through semi-structured interviews with experts in each of the case study outbreaks, the paper aims to better understand the nature of information sources drawn on to construct perceptions of tree health risks, especially when uncertainty is prevalent. A key conclusion is that risk assessment is a socially-mediated, relational and incremental process with experts drawing on a range of official, anecdotal and experiential sources of information, as well as reference to past events in order to assemble the risk case. Aligned with this, experts make attributions about public concern, especially when the evidence base is incomplete and there is a need to justify policy and management actions and safeguard reputation.

Highlights

In recent decades there has been a dramatic increase in new tree pest and disease epidemics, a development closely linked to globalization, trade in plant material and wood packaging and human-induced climate change (Potter and Urquhart, 2017)
In order to explore this further, this paper examines how ‘experts’ – defined in this case as scientists, policy makers, outbreak managers and key stakeholders – construct and assemble their understanding of the risks associated with two invasive tree pest and disease outbreaks in the UK, ash dieback and oak processionary moth
The two tree health case studies presented in this paper illustrate the extent to which expert risk perceptions are influenced by a range of socio-political, affective and cultural filters

Summary

Introduction

In recent decades there has been a dramatic increase in new tree pest and disease epidemics, a development closely linked to globalization, trade in plant material and wood packaging and human-induced climate change (Potter and Urquhart, 2017). The technical process of identifying the risks associated with new and emerging tree and plant pests – a Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) – is used to determine appropriate phytosanitary measures and assess the likely biological, economic and social impacts of the outbreak (FAO, 2013). These assessments often have to deal with large degrees of uncertainty, when scientific evidence is lacking, inconclusive or emerges piecemeal as outbreaks unfold (DEFRA, 2014; Barnett and Weyman, 2015). There is an assumption, grounded in early risk research, that expert perceptions of risk are objectively based on technical risk estimates, in contrast to lay perceptions which are more complex and reflect a number of qualitative characteristics such as ‘dread’ or ‘familiarity’ (Slovic et al, 1979; Fischhoff et al, 1978; Sjöberg, 2002; Renn, 2004)

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion