PERCEIVED RISK AND THE SITING OF A CONTROVERSIAL ...

with culture being considered a “super variable” affecting both social amplification and
attenuation of risk perception (Kasperson et al., 1988).
SARF (Social Amplification of Risk Framework) is not considered a theoretical
model by its developers; they consider it an interdisciplinary framework with two parts
that, “aims to examine broadly, and in social and historical context, how risk and risk
events interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways
that amplify or attenuate risk perceptions and concerns, and thereby shape risk behavior,
influence institutional processes, and affect risk consequences” (Pidgeon, Kasperson, &
Slovic, 2003, p. 2).
The first part (Stage 1) is analogous to the process an electrical signal travels that
once activated passes through “stations” which act on the current, either amplifying or
attenuating it. Some of the recognized stations are: filters that only allow partial
information to reach the receiver; ones that decode, sort, and interpret the signal and
others that affect the characteristics of the signal. When the signal leaves the stations, not
only has its form been modified, it produces secondary effects. The SARF model terms
these effects, Stage 2. Stage 2 may include economic effects, institutional changes,
social changes and political actions. Perceptions are changed, opinions are challenged,
laws are passed, conflicts arise, and settlements take place.
I found the framework provided an excellent structural model for examining
perceived risk with a significant limitation; the framework does not “address the basic
political, sociological, or psychological processes which might underlie amplification or
22