ENVIRONMENTAL RISK PERCEPTION
Risk is said to be an activity, event or situation that has the probability of
bringing
about adverse outcomes which are uncertain in nature. Environmental risks
are characterized by high complexity and uncertainty,
entailing intricate causal relationships and various outcomes. Environmental
risks often arise from the accumulated behaviors of individuals
(e.g. use of fossil fuels) rather than from a specific activity. Environmental
risks raise ethical issues. The consequences of environmental hazards are
often temporally delayed and geographically distant. People who play a role
in contributing to risks (e.g., industrial countries) may not be the ones
suffering the consequences (e.g., developing countries, future generations).
Risk perception refers to an individual’s specific judgment about the
dangers associated with some activity, event or technology. Research has
developed numerous techniques to evaluate subjective risk judgments.
1. Respondents are asked to give an overall judgment either by rating or
ranking various hazards according to their overall dangerousness.
2. Ask individuals the amount of money they would be ‘willing to pay’ (WTP)
to alleviate a risk or how much they would be ‘willing to accept’ (WTA) to
stand a certain risk.
3. Have respondents guess the subjective probability of a given
consequence (e.g. the probability of dying from lung cancer when exposed to
asbestos). Heuristics and biases in risk judgements.
Traditionally, heuristics have been studied in subjective probability
estimates. Though Heuristics often brings valid results, it can lead to biased
risk
assessments. People’s tendency to overestimate small frequencies and to
underestimate larger ones while judging the frequency of various dangers is
an
important example.
The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic is referred to the fact that
people
while making estimates, start out from a reference point that is salient in the
situation
(the anchor) and then adjust the first estimate to reach the final judgment.
Framing
effects refer to the finding that different descriptions of otherwise identical
problems
which can alter people’s decisions. It powerfully shapes assessments in the
framing
of a problem. One common description for framing effects is called loss
aversion,
which states that a loss is subjectively experienced as more devastating as
compared to the gratifying experience of an equivalent gain.
Temporal discounting of environmental risks
Temporal discounting is the psychological phenomenon stating that
outcomes in
the far future subjectively does not hold as much of significance than the
ones in the
immediate present. Upon applying the perception of environmental risk, this
predisposition implies that environmental risks should be alleged as less
severe
when the occurrence of the consequences is delayed.
The psychometric paradigm
The psychometric paradigm aims is to identify the ‘cognitive map’ of diverse
hazards,
activities or technologies and its fundamental psychological dimensions that
lead
an individual’s perception of the risk level of an event. Dread risk refers to
the degree to which a danger is perceived as dreadful,
having severe, catastrophic consequences or being uncontrollable and
involuntary. Unknown risk refers to the level to which the risk is experienced
as new,
unfamiliar, unobservable or having delayed effects.
Risk, Values and Morality
A central view in environmental ethics maintains that some aspects of the
environment
(e.g., rare species, landscapes) have an intrinsic value, rendering to which
the
non-human world should be valued and respected ‘for its own sake’,
regardless
of subjective opinions. For example, many consider sacrificing nature or
endangered
species for monetary benefits as being morally wrong.
Morality and ethics
Ethical or moral contemplations also play a crucial role in risk evaluation.
They
basically, imply adherence to principles regarding which behaviors are
morally
right or wrong. Moral philosophy usually divulges consequentialist and
deontological
principles (morally mandated actions or prohibitions).
Emotional Reactions to Environmental Risks
Emotions influence the way one views risk. Different emotions can have a
different
impact on the perception of risk. For example, fear increases, and anger
reduces
risk perception, even though both are negative emotions. Fear is
associated with assessing situations as uncertain and uncontrollable, leading
individuals to observe events as more dangerous. Emotions not only affect
risk
perception; they also result as reactions to apparent risks. When individuals
focus
their attention on the consequences of a hazard, they experience
consequence-
based emotions. Ethics based, other directed emotions (e.g. outrage) are
experienced when responsibility can be credited more clearly to an agent
(e.g.
chemical dumps).