14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The impact of intuition on responses to local proposals<br />
for hazardous technologies can be seen in relation to more<br />
positive responses to nuclear facilities in different locations<br />
in the United States. These responses have been identified<br />
as corresponding with local experience of alternative energy<br />
sources (no direct contact with alternatives leads to higher<br />
tolerance), and even experience of related nuclear industries<br />
that bring economic advantage locally 10 .<br />
Finally, direct occupational experience of acute harm<br />
from chemical exposures has been seen to interrupt the<br />
potential for workers to understand less visible and more<br />
chronic <strong>risk</strong>s such as cancer. Furthermore, the learning that<br />
occurs between workers (particularly in small companies)<br />
tends to compound this bias in understanding. Such<br />
<strong>evidence</strong> confirms that notions of hazard and <strong>risk</strong> must be<br />
communicated more directly and personally in the specific<br />
work context rather than relying solely on generic safety<br />
information 11 .<br />
The Status Quo and Surrogacy<br />
A common feature of many cultures is our preference<br />
for the status quo, which is a strong support to intuitive<br />
responses. Keeping with what you know and are familiar<br />
with is generally the easier, less stressful option in life.<br />
Overriding the status quo requires commitment to change.<br />
Generally, change takes effort and may offer uncertain<br />
benefits 12 . Denial of potential <strong>risk</strong>s can serve to protect<br />
feelings of security and lower anxiety, both in low- and high<strong>risk</strong><br />
areas (for example, in relation to flooding 13 ).<br />
It is well known that ‘Not in My Back Yard’ (‘Nimby’)<br />
responses to potentially hazardous facilities and<br />
technologies are strongly driven by a preference for the<br />
status quo (such as preserving the same view from your<br />
window, the same level of background noise, the same visual<br />
amenity, protection of the value of your property, and so<br />
on). But this innate desire to protect the current and the<br />
personal can be a difficult argument to put or defend in<br />
contentious decision processes. Evidence from multiple<br />
cases in different locations in the United Kingdom of<br />
proposals for waste facilities suggests that arguments around<br />
statistically assessed <strong>risk</strong>s are sometimes used as a form<br />
of surrogate for very local and personal concerns about<br />
impact on amenity and the status quo, as well as concern<br />
about the robustness of the <strong>risk</strong> control institutions and<br />
regulation, and the extent to which public interests are<br />
protected. Subjective notions of distrust or locally-important<br />
ways of life and amenity can be more difficult to argue in<br />
expert-led decision processes. Therefore, local residents<br />
can find it easier to focus attention on scientific weakness<br />
and statistical uncertainties and assessments of <strong>risk</strong> to<br />
vulnerable populations <strong>14</strong> . Fundamentally, Nimby attitudes to<br />
siting and new technologies need to be more productively<br />
understood as reflecting public demands for greater<br />
involvement in decision-making, and not regarded as <strong>risk</strong><br />
battles between the public and experts that merely require<br />
better communication to correct perceived deficits of lay<br />
knowledge.<br />
Risk is so intricately embedded in its social context<br />
Notions of hazard and <strong>risk</strong><br />
must be communicated<br />
more directly and<br />
personally in the specific<br />
work context.<br />
that it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify it a priori.<br />
One intriguing example of the often unexpected power<br />
of context was the responses to multiple house fires in a<br />
small town in the French Jura. More than a dozen apparently<br />
spontaneous house fires occurred over the period<br />
November 1995 to January 1996, destroying property and<br />
killing two people. While eventually understood as arson, a<br />
form of psychological defence mechanism became evident<br />
amongst residents who sought to blame a buried highvoltage<br />
cable. Repressed and highly-localized concerns about<br />
this ‘technological installation’ were privileged as reasoning<br />
rather than the more likely but perhaps banal explanation<br />
of arson. This search for a surrogate — which might allow<br />
people to more readily attach blame to an institution —<br />
prompted detailed expert and official investigations, and<br />
became a major national media story 15 .<br />
Ideology and Values<br />
Risk responses are often attenuated by context, rather than<br />
amplified — people do not appear to be concerned about<br />
hazards that experts regard as significant. In seminal work,<br />
involving a large comparative consideration of 31 ‘hidden<br />
hazards’ including handguns, deforestation, pesticides and<br />
terrorism 16 , ideological and value-threatening reasons were<br />
identified as two explanations for the failure of hazards to<br />
raise political and social concern. Handguns are one example<br />
of an ideological hazard: despite the rising annual toll of<br />
death, being able to bear arms to defend oneself and one’s<br />
family has remained an inalienable American right. Contrast<br />
this with the opposite ideology in Britain.<br />
The same study also identified ideological impacts on<br />
<strong>risk</strong> regulation. At the time, there were differences in<br />
the approaches to protect public health compared with<br />
occupational health. Public health standards for airborne<br />
toxic substances were tighter than occupational protection<br />
in 13 industrialized countries; the same was true in socialist<br />
states, which ideologically tended to be less permissive of<br />
industry (see below).<br />
Responses to genetically modified (GM) crops illustrate<br />
the power of fear of threats to basic values. People respond<br />
negatively to GM crops not primarily because they fear the<br />
<strong>risk</strong>s, but because genetic modification drives to the heart<br />
of concerns about ‘mucking around with nature’. Media<br />
109