14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
100<br />
substantially higher predictive power 3, 41 . In the United States,<br />
distrust in repository management was mainly linked to<br />
opposition to the proposed siting of the Yucca mountain<br />
radioactive waste repository, because of the perceived<br />
<strong>risk</strong> of the waste site 42 . Other studies show that trust is<br />
significant across a range of hazards and <strong>risk</strong>s 43 , although the<br />
precise underlying reasons for trust and distrust may vary<br />
in different <strong>risk</strong> cases and contexts. In the case of GM crops,<br />
for example, it was the ambiguity of <strong>risk</strong>s (see Chapter 4)<br />
alongside concern about the activities of large multinational<br />
corporations imposing <strong>risk</strong>s on people without their<br />
consent; for foot and mouth disease, it was the insensitivity<br />
to local impacts of the central management strategies.<br />
In conceptual terms, trust cuts across all of the main<br />
approaches to <strong>risk</strong> perceptions described above, while<br />
a number of recent <strong>risk</strong> controversies — including BSE<br />
and GM crops — have made policymakers aware that the<br />
public have become key players in many controversial <strong>risk</strong><br />
issues, and that (dis)trust may be a core component of<br />
this 39, 44 . Trust is often conceptualized as a set of cognitive<br />
judgements along discrete dimensions that are primarily<br />
related to the (presumed) behaviour of <strong>risk</strong> managers,<br />
particularly around their care, competence and vested<br />
interest 43, 45 . We trust people, experts and institutions if they<br />
act in a caring way towards us, are knowledgeable about<br />
the domain at hand, and are demonstrably free from any<br />
self-serving interest or partisan bias (and ideally those who<br />
simultaneously exhibit all three!). These three dimensions<br />
help to explain why ‘independent scientists’ remain some of<br />
the most trusted social actors in relation to communicating<br />
about controversial <strong>risk</strong> issues. Other more recent work<br />
suggests that social trust and cooperation can also be built<br />
on the identity-based concepts of value similarity. That is, we<br />
tend to trust people who share our values or are members<br />
of our own social group, especially when information about<br />
a <strong>risk</strong> is either uncertain or sparse 46 .<br />
Walls et al 47 point out that these different components<br />
of trust can exist in tension, with social trust likely to<br />
emerge as multidimensional and fragmented, as a product<br />
of a reconciliation of competing ideas, knowledge and<br />
impressions. They introduce the important concept of ‘critical<br />
trust’ as an organising principle, something which lies on<br />
‘Independent scientists’<br />
remain some of the<br />
most trusted social<br />
actors in relation to<br />
communicating about<br />
controversial <strong>risk</strong> issues.<br />
It is entirely rational not<br />
to wish to place complete<br />
blind faith on any<br />
organization or individual<br />
who holds the power of<br />
life or death over us or<br />
over the environment.<br />
a continuum between outright scepticism (rejection) and<br />
uncritical emotional acceptance. Such a concept attempts<br />
to reconcile a situation in which people actually rely on<br />
<strong>risk</strong> <strong>managing</strong> institutions while simultaneously possessing<br />
a critical attitude toward the effectiveness, motivations or<br />
independence of the agency in question 43,48 . Again, from<br />
a policy perspective it is entirely rational not to wish to<br />
place complete blind faith on any organization or individual<br />
who holds the power of life or death over us or over the<br />
environment. And although for many policymakers the<br />
‘reclamation of trust’ has become an explicit objective, this<br />
suggests that <strong>risk</strong> communication efforts that are aimed<br />
at directly increasing trust may not be universally effective<br />
in solving <strong>risk</strong> controversies 49 . Such policies could well be<br />
counterproductive where they are based on the incorrect<br />
assumption that trust can be simply manipulated in order<br />
to increase the acceptance of a controversial <strong>risk</strong>. If Beck<br />
and Giddens are right about the emergence of a <strong>risk</strong> society,<br />
<strong>risk</strong> communicators will have to find new ways of working<br />
under conditions of permanently eroded trust. Accordingly,<br />
policy advice today tends to stress the importance of<br />
analytic-deliberative engagement and dialogue as the<br />
means for exploring the values and perceptions underlying<br />
<strong>risk</strong> controversies and for exploring routes to better<br />
<strong>risk</strong> communication and conflict resolution 50, 51 (see also<br />
Chapter 5 and Chapter 9). Although such methods have<br />
an established empirical track-record when used to resolve<br />
local site-based facility siting and other controversies, scaling<br />
up to national-level questions such as national energy<br />
strategies or policies to tackle global environmental <strong>risk</strong>s<br />
set a range of very difficult conceptual and methodological<br />
challenges 52 . Pidgeon and Fischhoff 8 argue, in the context<br />
of climate change <strong>risk</strong>s, that all of this points to the need<br />
in the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, to develop novel<br />
strategic capacity and skills in <strong>risk</strong> communication and<br />
public engagement with science. This requires us to bring<br />
together expertise from fundamental domain sciences such<br />
as radiation protection, climate change, or biosciences, with<br />
the appropriate social sciences of decision analysis and <strong>risk</strong><br />
communication.