Perception of risk

This emphasis on probabilities by experts, and costs by lay people, applies to gains as well as losses. One of the authors experienced a possible 

This SAGE ebook is copyright and i supplied by NetLibrary. Unauthorised distribution forbidden. 

There is most probably another factor influencing risk assessment. In general, the costs of an accident are relatively easy to assess. The assessment of the probability of the accident occurring is, however, more problematic. As will be seen, biases, caused by the way in which we process information, may mislead us into over-estimating or under-estimating probabilities. These biases are produced by what are known as heuristics. 

Crime statistics, especially official police figures, are notoriously unreliable for two main reasons. First, many crimes are not reported, presumably because the victims are not motivated to do so. Secondly, the pressure on the police is to reduce reported crime. Given that this is so, there is a temptation for the police, where possible, to under-report. There are 

---

Examples ofTypical QRA Objectives Types of Eacility Resotirces/Personnel Classical Limitations of QRA Example of Mortality Statistics Issues Affecting Perception of Risk Typical Pitfalls in Using QRA... 

Hendershot, D. C. (1991b). The Use of Ouantitative Risk Assessment in the Continuing Risk Management of a Chlorine Handling Facility. The Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk, ed. B. J. Garrick, and W. C. Gekler, 555-65. New York Plenum Press. 

Another approach to public perception of risk is to simply ask the public. This was the approach of Fischoff ct al., 1977 in which a survey of the League of Women Voters in Eugene, Oregon was taken. Later studies covered 40 college students at the University of Oregon, 25 Eugene businessmen and 15 national experts in risk analysis. 

Thomas, K., 1981, Comparative Risk Perception How the Public Perceives the Risks and Benefits of Energy Systems in The Assessment and Perception of Risk, Royal Society, Gordon pp 35-50. 

Risk Homeostasis The theory that an operator will attempt to maintain a stable perception of risk following the implementation of new technology that increases the safety of a human-machine system. The theory predicts that operators will take greater risks where more safety devices are incorporated into the system. 

Section 13.2 Qualitative Risk Scenarios Section 13.3 Quantitative Risk Non-carcinogens Section 13.4 Quantitative Risk Carcinogens Section 13.5 Risk Uncertainties/Liinitations Section 13.6 Risk-Based Decision Making Section 13.7 Public Perception of Risk... 

These outrage factors arc not distortions in the public s perception of risk. They are inborn parts of what is interpreted as risk. They are explanations of why the public fears pollutants in the air and water more tlum tliey do geological radon. The problem is that many risk experts resist tlie use of the public s "irrational fear" in their risk management. 

A problem exists in the perception of risk because the experts and lay people s views differ. The experts usually base their assessment on mortality rates, while the lay people s fears are based on "outrage" factors. In order to help solve tliis problem, in tlie future, risk nimuigcrs must work to make truly serious hazards more outrageous. One example is tlie ongoing concern for tlie risk involved in cigarette smoke. Another effort must be made to decrease tlie public s concern with low to modest hazards, i.e., risk managers must diminish "outrage" in these areas. In addition, people must be treated fairly and honestly. 

The media provides information regarding the nature and extend of risks. Every day risks, ue underestimated by the public, because much attention is directed to largely publicized risks. The perception of a given risk is amplified by "outrage factors Inch can make people feel even small risks are unacceptable. Experts view the perception of risk differently tlian lay people as a result a serious hazard may be underestimated. 

Section 18.2 Risk Cliaracterization Section 18.3 Cause-Consequence Analysis Section 18.4 Qualitative Hazard Risk Analysis Section 18.5 Quantitative Hazard Risk Analysis Section 18.6 Uncertainties/Limihitions Section 18.7 Public Perception of Risk Section 18.8 Risk Communication... 

Loss of reputation (public perception of risk, public aversion to accidents involving serious injury or fatality)... 

While potential attacks on all modes of transportation are of concern, the Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation believes that the U.S. air transportation system continues to have a high priority for counterterrorism resources, both because of its economic importance and because of the intensified public perception of risk following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The air transportation system can also serve as a testbed for the development of defensive technologies and strategies that can subsequently be applied to other transportation modes. 

On the use of metrics for indicating safety, likelihood and consequence have a principal role and they form the two basic dimensions. When indicating risks, from historical facts and figures, simulations and knowledge, the likelihood and consequences can be established. The actual likelihood and consequence can never be derived exactly and they will always be based on perceptions of risks as discussed in Chapter 1. This perception of risks will in this Chapter be referred to as the perceived risks , which is the defined as the (perceived) likelihood and the perceived consequences of an event. The Sis attempt to indicate this perceived safety related risk in terms of the perceived likelihood and the perceived safety-related consequence of an event. For reasons of clarity the term risk will refer to the perceived safety related risk and consequences will refer to the perceived safety related consequences in the remainder of this Chapter. The consequences are always based on people s perception of how great the damage to people, environment, or assets might be. The likelihood of an event will sometimes be estimated (perceived). 

The focus on this chapter is in understanding the four segments in the center of the framework. Following this, various efforts related to precrisis preparations and postcrisis responses are described. Before doing so, it is important to understand how consumers form their basic perceptions of risk. 

It has been claimed that people s perceptions of risk and benefit associated with particular products and applications will determine acceptance (Frewer et al., 1998 Slovic, 1987, 1993). This is not the case the acceptance of a product is determined by a combination of both risk perceptions and risk attitudes. 

Although such tendencies are often viewed individually or by segments, it also appears that generalizations can even be made across some country segments. For instance, it appears that Germans are much more influenced by their attitudes toward risk than by their actual perceptions of risk. In a controlled scenario-based study involving consumers from Germany, The Netherlands, and the United States, these consumers were asked the extent to which they would consume beef under four different risk scenarios in... 

People s perceptions of risk and benefit associated with particular foods and applications will help determine their acceptance of the food.1... 

This is the low-risk aversion-high-risk perception segment. The concerned segment has the risk of most behaviors in perspective. Because they are not risk averse to begin with, their behavior is dictated primarily by their perception of risk. As their perception of the riskiness of an action increases, they will eventually get to a point where they will not participate in the action at all. 

Dake, K. 1991. Orientating dispositions in the perception of risk An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22, 61-82. 

The major influence behind this seems to have been the extent of coverage in the media, where problems with food rather than the successes tend to be reported. Scientific perception of risk is, not unexpectedly, rather different. Indeed scientists may not agree amongst themselves about where additives should be placed in any ranked list of chemicals in food. But most would probably agree that they should be near the bottom. My own ranking would be as follows, from greatest to least risk ... 

This chapter begins by discussing how consumer perceptions of risks associated with food additives compare to other food-related health risks. It then addresses the US government s system for monitoring adverse reactions from food additives. The bulk of the chapter focuses on additives that have been blamed for causing health problems and which have generated controversy in the US and other countries. Finally, there is a brief discussion of future trends and additional sources of information are provided. 

While it is clear that some people will not accept a definition of safety that is relative, it appears that most people feel safe when they are convinced that risks to their well-being are sufficiently low, even if not completely absent. (There are some dramatic and important qualifications on this conclusion, as we shall see in the later section concerning people s perceptions of risk. While for the most part people accept that the condition of safety is not equivalent to the condition of being completely risk-free, most people do not perceive risk as simply a matter of probability, as do the experts. This intriguing and well-documented fact complicates greatly the public dialogue on matters of risk.)... 

This inconsistency also applies to our perception of risk associated with medicinal products, even though most are remarkably safe. This is not the impression given by reports in the popular press and in television programmes which purport to provide the public with a factual view of medicine but which in fact emphasise the most sensational aspects and spread alarm. A useful review of safety and risk may be found in The BMA Guide to Living with Risk, which brings into perspective the dangers encountered in everyday life. 

Risk management is the process of deciding what to do to reduce a known or suspected risk. Risk management balances the various community demands with the scientific information generated from the risk assessment. Public perception of risk is also considered. Table 19.2 characterizes some of the factors that influence perception of risk. An individual s perception of risk is sometimes very different from a risk... 

---