piet sellke
DESCRIPTION
A closer look at risk perception and risk governance. Piet Sellke. Dialogik and University of Stuttgart ICPS 5th Annual Regulatory Affairs International Symposium March 11th, 2013. Outline. Part I: Introduction Part II: Risk Perception and Risk Assessment - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
London, March 11th 2013
Piet Sellke
A closer look at risk perception and risk governance
Dialogik and University of Stuttgart
ICPS5th Annual Regulatory Affairs International Symposium
March 11th, 2013
2 London, March 11th 2013
Outline
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Risk Perception and Risk Assessment
• Part III: Risk Governance: An Integrated Concept
• Part IV: Conclusions
3 London, March 11th 2013
PART I: INTRODUCTION
4 London, March 11th 2013
Deficits in Risk Governance
Framing
Scope
Scarcity of data
Transparency
Inequity
Accountability
Paralysis by Analysis
Lack of Trust
5 London, March 11th 2013
Policy Dilemma in Risk Management
• Follow perceptions of the public?
• Follow advice of professional experts?
6 London, March 11th 2013
Challenge of Risk Governance
Integration of factual, technical knowledge and socio-cultural knowledge into one framework
• Factual dimension– Physically measurable outcomes– Risk discussed as a combination of consequences
and their probability of occurence
• Socio-cultural dimension– How risks are viewed if values and emotions come
into play
7 London, March 11th 2013
PART II: RISK PERCEPTION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
8 London, March 11th 2013
Risk perception (I/II)
• Human behavior depends on perception, not on facts!
• Qualitative Risk Characteristics:– Risk-related patterns
• Perceived dread• Familiarity with the risk• Sensual perceptibility
– Situation-related patterns• Personal controllability• Voluntariness• Trust in risk management• Fair distribution of gains and losses
9 London, March 11th 2013
Risk perception (II/II)
• Semantic risk patterns– Risks posing an immediate threat (large dams,
nuclear energy)– Risks dealt with as a blow of fate (natural disasters)– Risk as challenge to one‘s own strenght (sports)– Risk as a gamble (lotteries, stock exchange)– Risks as an early indication of insidious danger (food
additives, viruses)
• Stigmatisation of Risk• Social amplification of Risk
10 London, March 11th 2013
Challenges of Risk Assessment
• Quality of explanatory power depends on the accuracy and validity of (real) predictions
• Problems in validating risk assessment results– Prove of correctly assigned probabilities to a specific
outcome difficult– Risks with difficult to discern cause-effect
relationships– Risks with rare effects– Risks with effects difficult to interpret– Variations in both causes and effects obscuring the
results
11 London, March 11th 2013
Integration of Risk Assessment and Risk Perception• Option 1 (only science):
– Only scientific concepts of risk can claim inter-subjective validity and applicability
– (Erroneous) risk perceptions have to be corrected via communication and education
• Option 2 (only people): – No overarching universally applicable quality
criterion available in order to evaluate the appropriatness and validty of risk concepts
– Scientific concepts should compete with concepts of stakeholders and public groups
Loss of Public Support
Loss of Scientific Expertise
12 London, March 11th 2013
Integration of Risk Assessment and Risk Percpetion
• Option 3 (science + people):– In identifying aspects of concern and worry, all
groups of society have the same right to raise them and to bring them to the negotiation table
– Question of the degree to which these concerns / worries are violated by the risk-bearing activity / events should be primarily answered by experts
Integrated Approach
13 London, March 11th 2013
PART II: RISK GOVERNANCE: AN INTEGRATED CONCEPT
14 London, March 11th 2013
CONVENTIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT
UnderstandingDeciding
Management Communication Appraisal
Who needs to do what, when?
Who needs to know what,
when?
The knowledge needed for
judgements and decisions
Most risk management processes do not go beyond these steps
15 London, March 11th 2013
IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Communication
Pre-Assessment
Characterisationand Evaluation
AppraisalManagement
Categorising the
knowledgeabout the
risk
UnderstandingDecidingGetting a broad picture of the
risk
Risk assessment
PLUS Concern
assessment
Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?
Is the risk simple, complex, uncertain
or ambiguous?
Who needs to do what, when? Communication
Who needs to know what, when?
16 London, March 11th 2013
Phase 1
Pre-Assessment
Characterisationand Evaluation
AppraisalManagement Communication
Getting a broad picture
of the risk
17 London, March 11th 2013
Importance of Framing
Looks like a high risk from the outside
18 London, March 11th 2013
Importance of Framing
But consider this…
19 London, March 11th 2013
Importance of Framing
Or this…
20 London, March 11th 2013
NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION: THE IMPACT OF FRAMING ON THE RISK-HANDLING OF GMOs
Comparing USA and Europe:
Different framing
Different regulatory approach
21 London, March 11th 2013
IMPORTANCE OF FRAMING
– Frames represent social and cultural perspectives• Challenge or problem• Opportunity or risk• Innovation or intervention
– Frames determine boundaries of what is included and excluded• Time and duration (future generations, sustainability)• Location and space (the universe, all nation, Norway, Stavanger)• Social class and stratus (vulnerable groups, poor, immigrants)• Types of adverse effects (physical, mental, social, cultural)• Primary or secondary impacts (ripple effects)• Criteria taken into account (risk reduction, cost, benefit, equity,
environmental justice, value violations…)
22 London, March 11th 2013
Phase 2
Pre-Assessment
Characterisationand Evaluation
AppraisalManagement Communication
Categorising the
knowledgeabout the
risk
Is the risk simple, complex, uncertain
or ambiguous?
23 London, March 11th 2013
Components of Risk Knowledge
• Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships
• Uncertainty– variation among individual targets– measurement and inferential errors– genuine stochastic relationships– system boundaries and ignorance
• Ambiguity – Interpretative ambiguity (What does it mean?)– Normative ambiguity (Is it tolerable?)
24 London, March 11th 2013
RISK APPRAISAL
• Risk Assessment– Hazard identification and estimation– Exposure assessment– Risk estimation
• Concern Assessment– Socio-economic impacts– Economic benefits– Public concerns (stakeholders and individuals)
25 London, March 11th 2013
BRENT SPAR – UNDERESTIMATING STAKHOLDER CONCERN
Greenpeace’s campaign included occupation of the platform but did not include calling for a consumer boycott. Nonetheless, Shell is estimated to have lost between £60-100 million, mostly from lost sales across northern Europe; petrol stations were fire-bombed in Germany.
26 London, March 11th 2013
Phase 3
Pre-Assessment
Characterisationand
Evaluation
Appraisal
Management
Communication
Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?
27 London, March 11th 2013
Characterization and Evaluation
• What are the broader, value-based questions to consider?► Characterization:
What are the societal and economic benefits and risks? Are there impacts on individual or social quality of life? Are there ethical issues to consider? Is there a possibility of substitution?
► Evaluation: What are possible options for risk compensation or reduction? How can we assign trade-offs between different risk categories
and between risks and benefits (or opportunities)? What are the societal values and norms for making judgements
about tolerability and acceptability? Do any stakeholders have commitments or other reasons for
desiring a particular outcome of the risk governance process?
28 London, March 11th 2013
Evaluation and Characterisation
The scientific evidence from the risk assessment is “simple” – civil aviation emits significant pollutants into the atmosphere. Grounding the fleet would stop those emissions.Modern values – particularly economic and societal – are such that no decision has been or is likely to be made to ban civil aviation.In this instance, the policy judgement is therefore to give greater weight to the values than the scientific evidence.
29 London, March 11th 2013
Phase 4
Pre-Assessment
Characterisationand Evaluation
AppraisalManagement Communication
Who needs to do what, when?
30 London, March 11th 2013
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (I/II)
Knowledge Characterisation
Management Strategy
Appropriate Instruments Stakeholder Participation
1 ‘Simple’ risk problems
Routine-based:(tolerability /acceptabilityjudgement)
Applying ‘traditional’ decision-making Risk-benefit analysis Risk-risk trade-offs
Instrumental discourse
(risk reduction) Trial and error Technical standards Economic incentives Education, labelling, information Voluntary agreements
2 Complexity-induced risk problems
Risk-informed:(risk agent and causal chain)
Characterising available evidence Expert consensus seeking tools, such as
Delphi or consensus conferencing, meta analysis, scenario construction
Results fed into routine operation
Epistemological discourse
Robustness-focussed:(risk absorbing system)
Improving buffer capacity of risk target via: Additional safety factors Redundancy and diversity in designing
safety devices Improving coping capacity Establishing high reliability organisations
31 London, March 11th 2013
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (II/II)
Knowledge Characterisation
Management Strategy
Appropriate Instruments Stakeholder Participation
3 Uncertainty-induced risk problems
Precaution-based: (risk agent)
Using hazard characteristics such as persistence, ubiquity etc. as proxies for risk estimates
Tools include: Containment, ALARA, BACT
Reflective discourse
Resilience-focussed: (risk absorbing system)
Improving capability to cope with surprises Diversity of means to accomplish desired
benefits Avoiding high vulnerability Allowing for flexible responses Preparedness for adaptation
4 Ambiguity-induced risk problems
Discourse-based:
Application of conflict resolution methods for reaching consensus or tolerance for risk evaluation results and management option selection
Integration of stakeholder involvement in reaching closure
Emphasis on communication and social discourse
Participative discourse
32 London, March 11th 2013
Complementary Phase
Pre-Assessment
Characterisationand
Evaluation
Appraisal
Management
Communication
Who needs to know what, when?
33 London, March 11th 2013
Objectives of Risk- Communication• Enlightenment: Making people able to understand risks
and benefits (and their interactions)
• Behavioral changes: Making people aware of potential risks and benefits help them to make the right choices
• Trust building: Assisting risk management agencies to generate and sustain trust
• Conflict resolution: Assisting risk managers to involve major stakeholders and affected parties to take part in the risk-benefit evaluation
34 London, March 11th 2013
Risk Communication – Essential throughout the process
► Pre-assessment► Informing other agencies and assessing who is affected and who is
mandated to take responsibility► Inviting views of affected stakeholders
► Appraisal► Requesting and receiving appropriate scientific advice on the risk► Requesting and receiving scientific advice on people’s concerns
► Evaluation► Communication of appraisal findings (if they are clear)► Involving all affected agencies and stakeholders if risk appraisal findings are
uncertain or ambiguous► Deliberations concerning values / perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs
► Management► Inclusion of appropriate stakeholders in the decision making process► Communication of the decision / regulation / advice
35 London, March 11th 2013
Complexity
Epistemic
Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk
Uncertainty
Reflective
Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward
Ambiguity
Participative
Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences
Simple
Instrumental
Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable
Agency Staff
Dominant risk characteristic
Type of participation
Actors
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff
Scientists/ Researchers
Affected stakeholders
« Civil society »
Scientists/ Researchers
Scientists/ Researchers
Affected stakeholders
36 London, March 11th 2013
PART V: CONCLUSIONS
37 London, March 11th 2013
CONCLUSIONS I• Problems in handling risks:
– Plural values and knowledge claims– Expert dissent on risk and benefits– Transboundary nature of risks– Social amplification and attenuation via perception and
social mobilization– Emergence of systemic risk that cross national and
sectoral boundaries (ripple effects)
• Need for integration of risk analysis and perception
• Communication must be tailored to the risk class
Part V: Conclusions
38 London, March 11th 2013
CONCLUSIONS II
Four risk management regimes should be used to deal with these new risk challenges:– simple risk management: standard risk assessments– risk-informed management: expanded risk
assessments; seeking expert consensus and epistemological clarification
– precaution-/resilience-based management: negotiated safety level under uncertainty; seeking stakeholder consensus and relying on containment and resilience
– discourse-based management: value-based orientation; seeking more public input and stakeholder involvement for interpretative variability and normative controversy
40 London, March 11th 2013
RISK GOVERNANCE GOES MUCH FURTHER
Core Risk Governance Process• pre-assessment• risk appraisal
-- risk assessment-- concern assessment
• evaluation: tolerability / acceptability judgement
• risk management• communicationOrganisational Capacity• assets• skills• capabilitiesActor Network• politicians• regulators• industry/business• NGOs• media• public at largeSocial Climate• trust in regulatory institutions• perceived authority of science• degree of civil society involvementPolitical & Regulatory Culture® different regulatory styles
41 London, March 11th 2013
• Adequate structure of working groups?• Local structures, leading structure?• Who is initiating a process as this?• What partners does one need?
42 London, March 11th 2013
New Challenge: Systemic Risks
• Emergence of systemic risks that are...– transboundary– socially amplified via perception and social
mobilisation– subject to expert dissent regarding risks and
benefits– unmanageable by single organizations– difficult to communicate