Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases

The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is often used as a conceptual tool for studying diverse risk perceptions associated with environmental hazards. While widely applied, it has been criticised for implying that it is possible to define a benchmark ‘real’ risk that is determined by expe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Urquhart, Julie, Potter, Clive, Barnett, Julie, Fellenor, John, Mumford, John, Quine, Christopher P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5637881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29104513
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.020
_version_ 1783270667153571840
author Urquhart, Julie
Potter, Clive
Barnett, Julie
Fellenor, John
Mumford, John
Quine, Christopher P.
author_facet Urquhart, Julie
Potter, Clive
Barnett, Julie
Fellenor, John
Mumford, John
Quine, Christopher P.
author_sort Urquhart, Julie
collection PubMed
description The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is often used as a conceptual tool for studying diverse risk perceptions associated with environmental hazards. While widely applied, it has been criticised for implying that it is possible to define a benchmark ‘real’ risk that is determined by experts and around which public risk perceptions can subsequently become amplified. It has been argued that this objectification of risk is particularly problematic when there are high levels of scientific uncertainty and a lack of expert consensus about the nature of a risk and its impacts. In order to explore this further, this paper examines how ‘experts’ – defined in this case as scientists, policy makers, outbreak managers and key stakeholders – construct and assemble their understanding of the risks associated with two invasive tree pest and disease outbreaks in the UK, ash dieback and oak processionary moth. Through semi-structured interviews with experts in each of the case study outbreaks, the paper aims to better understand the nature of information sources drawn on to construct perceptions of tree health risks, especially when uncertainty is prevalent. A key conclusion is that risk assessment is a socially-mediated, relational and incremental process with experts drawing on a range of official, anecdotal and experiential sources of information, as well as reference to past events in order to assemble the risk case. Aligned with this, experts make attributions about public concern, especially when the evidence base is incomplete and there is a need to justify policy and management actions and safeguard reputation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5637881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56378812017-11-01 Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases Urquhart, Julie Potter, Clive Barnett, Julie Fellenor, John Mumford, John Quine, Christopher P. Environ Sci Policy Article The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is often used as a conceptual tool for studying diverse risk perceptions associated with environmental hazards. While widely applied, it has been criticised for implying that it is possible to define a benchmark ‘real’ risk that is determined by experts and around which public risk perceptions can subsequently become amplified. It has been argued that this objectification of risk is particularly problematic when there are high levels of scientific uncertainty and a lack of expert consensus about the nature of a risk and its impacts. In order to explore this further, this paper examines how ‘experts’ – defined in this case as scientists, policy makers, outbreak managers and key stakeholders – construct and assemble their understanding of the risks associated with two invasive tree pest and disease outbreaks in the UK, ash dieback and oak processionary moth. Through semi-structured interviews with experts in each of the case study outbreaks, the paper aims to better understand the nature of information sources drawn on to construct perceptions of tree health risks, especially when uncertainty is prevalent. A key conclusion is that risk assessment is a socially-mediated, relational and incremental process with experts drawing on a range of official, anecdotal and experiential sources of information, as well as reference to past events in order to assemble the risk case. Aligned with this, experts make attributions about public concern, especially when the evidence base is incomplete and there is a need to justify policy and management actions and safeguard reputation. Elsevier 2017-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5637881/ /pubmed/29104513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.020 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Urquhart, Julie
Potter, Clive
Barnett, Julie
Fellenor, John
Mumford, John
Quine, Christopher P.
Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
title Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
title_full Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
title_fullStr Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
title_full_unstemmed Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
title_short Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
title_sort expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: a case study in invasive tree pests and diseases
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5637881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29104513
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.020
work_keys_str_mv AT urquhartjulie expertriskperceptionsandthesocialamplificationofriskacasestudyininvasivetreepestsanddiseases
AT potterclive expertriskperceptionsandthesocialamplificationofriskacasestudyininvasivetreepestsanddiseases
AT barnettjulie expertriskperceptionsandthesocialamplificationofriskacasestudyininvasivetreepestsanddiseases
AT fellenorjohn expertriskperceptionsandthesocialamplificationofriskacasestudyininvasivetreepestsanddiseases
AT mumfordjohn expertriskperceptionsandthesocialamplificationofriskacasestudyininvasivetreepestsanddiseases
AT quinechristopherp expertriskperceptionsandthesocialamplificationofriskacasestudyininvasivetreepestsanddiseases