Literature DB >> 22563823

Deliberative disjunction: expert and public understanding of outcome uncertainty.

Robin Gregory1, Nathan Dieckmann, Ellen Peters, Lee Failing, Graham Long, Martin Tusler.   

Abstract

Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision-making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web-based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk- and environmental-management processes.
© 2012 Society for Risk Analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22563823     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01825.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  2 in total

1.  Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices.

Authors:  Robin Gregory; Terre Satterfield; Ariel Hasell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes.

Authors:  Adam Capon; James Gillespie; Margaret Rolfe; Wayne Smith
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 3.295

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.