Literature DB >> 15093288

Perception of risks.

Ortwin Renn1.   

Abstract

Health and environmental scientists, professional risk managers and the general public strongly disagree about the seriousness of many risks. Most members of the public are concerned about long-term effects of risks, equity and fairness issues, lack of personal control, and the pace of technological diffusion into their cultural environment, whereas professional toxicologists and risk managers focus on the task to minimize the probability of adverse effects caused by a potentially hazardous agent or activity. To bridge the gap between the professional mandate and the public perception of risk, two-way communication has to be initiated between scientists, risk managers, interest groups, and representatives of the affected public. This dialogue should serve three major functions:to facilitate understanding of different risk perspectives among scientists, regulators and stakeholders as well as groups of the public; to enlighten all these constituencies about different rationales for dealing with toxicological risks; to develop appropriate procedures for conflict resolution. A prerequisite for a successful communication is the willingness of each group to respect the perspective of all the other participating groups and to include their concerns into the decision making process. The conference paper reviews the literature on the three main functions of risk communication: message recognition, mutual understanding and respect as a prerequisite for trust building and resolution of risk-related conflicts. The paper discusses the structure of the communication process from a descriptive and a normative point of view and draws on empirical studies about risk perception and communication. The argument will be made that risk cannot be understood as a monolithic concept that penetrates different research disciplines and risk management camps. Risk should rather be seen as a mental instrument that allows prediction of future hazards and facilitates risk reduction measures. Due to the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of conceptualizing risk, different concepts of risk compete with each other and rely on different rationales. The main goal of risk communication is, therefore, integration of different concepts of risks, in particular with respect to setting priorities in risk reduction and mitigation. The author will introduce a recent initiative by the OECD Chemical Risk Group to accomplish this goal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15093288     DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Lett        ISSN: 0378-4274            Impact factor:   4.372


  21 in total

1.  Risk in public health and clinical work.

Authors:  M Ortendahl
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  A web search on environmental topics: what is the role of ranking?

Authors:  Loredana Covolo; Barbara Filisetti; Silvia Mascaretti; Rosa Maria Limina; Umberto Gelatti
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.536

3.  Communicating the risks, and the benefits, of nanotechnology.

Authors:  Walter W Piegorsch; Emmanuelle Schuler
Journal:  Int J Risk Assess Manag       Date:  2008-01-01

4.  Gender, Ethnicity and Environmental Risk Perception Revisited: The Importance of Residential Location.

Authors:  M Barton Laws; Yating Yeh; Ellin Reisner; Kevin Stone; Tina Wang; Doug Brugge
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2015-10

5.  Do expert assessments converge? An exploratory case study of evaluating and managing a blood supply risk.

Authors:  John Eyles; Nancy Heddle; Kathryn Webert; Emmy Arnold; Bronwen McCurdy
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 6.  A community participatory study of cardiovascular health and exposure to near-highway air pollution: study design and methods.

Authors:  Christina H Fuller; Allison P Patton; Kevin Lane; M Barton Laws; Aaron Marden; Edna Carrasco; John Spengler; Mkaya Mwamburi; Wig Zamore; John L Durant; Doug Brugge
Journal:  Rev Environ Health       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.458

7.  Perception of risk for Domoic Acid related health problems: A Cross-cultural study.

Authors:  Sparkle M Roberts; Lynn M Grattan; Alexandra C Toben; Christina Ausherman; Vera Trainer; Kate Tracy; J Glenn Morris
Journal:  Harmful Algae       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.273

8.  Perceptions and experiences of environmental health risks among new mothers: a qualitative study in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  E J Crighton; C Brown; J Baxter; L Lemyre; J R Masuda; F Ursitti
Journal:  Health Risk Soc       Date:  2013-06-10

9.  The early psychological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Florida and Alabama communities.

Authors:  Lynn M Grattan; Sparkle Roberts; William T Mahan; Patrick K McLaughlin; W Steven Otwell; J Glenn Morris
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Subjective risk assessment and perception in the Greek and English bakery industries.

Authors:  Evangelos C Alexopoulos; Zafira Kavadi; Giorgos Bakoyannis; Sotiris Papantonopoulos
Journal:  J Environ Public Health       Date:  2009-10-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.