Veronica Galea
People take risks everyday. Even crossing the street on the way to the grocery store or driving to work involves an element of risk. People consider these risks worth taking. They are part of daily routines.
"Environmental risks" are the naturally occurring and artificial elements, organisms, and products that impact the current environment. Where there is environmental risk, there is often a broad base of stakeholders. For example, suppose a soap manufacturing plant gives off the chemical nitrogen into the atmosphere. Large amounts of nitrogen released into the air from the plant's smokestacks pose a health hazard to those living in the vicinity, including animals and plants. The stakeholders in this scenario would include the manufacturing plant administration and employers, community residents, consumers, legislators for the area where the plant is located, and suppliers of the ingredients. This fact sheet examines the perceptions different stakeholders have in a situation involving environmental risks.
People in groups often act in ways determined by the nature of those groups. Certain conditions, however, may affect the way an individual perceives a situation. These conditions may include an individual having little understanding of a situation concerning environmental risks, the conditions of the risks are unfamiliar, or the risks are proposed by someone else.
When interested groups are aware of their biases, they are in a better position to assess a situation. Before making decisions about environmental risks, groups should consider three important factors: 1) who is creating the message, 2) the individual stakeholder's needs, and 3) the message itself.
People who create messages usually have a product or idea to sell. A reporter might sensationalize an environmental news story, an industry spokesperson might omit certain facts to make a good impression, or an environmentalist might further his or her own agenda - each messenger and, in turn, each message is inherently biased.
For example, suppose an industry spokesperson encourages a community to cooperate with plans to build a waste incineration plant in the vicinity by stressing that the plant will generate employment. Alternately, an environmentalist emphasizes the negative effects the smokestack fumes will have on the same community, saying they will increase the incidence of cancer. Clearly, different people with different standpoints can and do influence the way in which other people perceive a situation.
Data also affects the way an individual perceives a risk situation. The use or misuse of technical jargon is a common pitfall. For example, not many people are familiar with the technical measure parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). When technicians or news broadcasters talk of so many parts per million or billion of a toxic gas in the air, people are alarmed by the idea of vast numbers of particles. Without a more concrete way of understanding these numbers, people may misperceive the risks.
To continue with the previous example of technical jargon, one part per million is represented by the fraction 1/1,000,000. One ppm also could be expressed as $0.10 in $100,000 or 1 pint in 125,000 gallons. Without clarification, numbers can seem worrisome.
For example, suppose the concentration of chemical 'X' in drinking water is two parts per billion (2 ppb). The amount of chemical 'X' an individual is exposed to can be compared to 2 seconds in 32 years. Daily exposure to 25 ppm of chemical 'X' over 20 years could cause cancer, while a single dose exposure of 250 ppm could cause death in 10 days - and the probability of being exposed to chemical 'X' is the same as the likelihood of being killed by a tornado. Of how much concern to public safety, then, is chemical 'X'? The variation of language, tone, or use of scientific terms can create fear, or cause apathy.
Subtle influences also may complicate matters, and perceptions, further. For example, suppose a developer aims to build an industrial park close to a residential area. The residents of that area reject the development before they study the industrialist's proposals. Their response is defensive. They see the proposal as a threat because of a preconceived or stereotypical view of the developer as the 'exploiter.' Of course, this does not happen in all situations, but it is useful to understand the extent to which stereotypes can affect people's perceptions. Both the residents' and the developers' actions become defensive, resulting in a situation which hinders cooperation and harbors conflict. The residents' mistrust and the perceived threat stifles communication and the chances of either party reaching a resolution is reduced, if not impossible.
The above is an example of the use of control in a given situation. Individuals perceive a risk to be critical if they do not have control over the risk, or if the impact of the risk is close by. For example, when local authorities allow a company to set up an electrical power plant at the edge of a small town, the townspeople may react against the decision because they were not consulted, or they were not the ones to initiate interest in the project. The proximity of the proposed site also threatens the residents. However, if the plant is built, the community would gain from an improved electricity supply and an increase in work opportunities. In this example, the community has chosen to focus on the disadvantages of the proposed site and ignore its positive aspects.
Environmental risk is often a complex and technical issue. Before making judgments, people should consul/different sources of information to ensure that they understand a variety of views, the possible risks, and the reliability of the information. Next, they should ask: "Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?" When the stakes are high--that is, when environmental risks can affect the physical or economic health of a whole community - it pays to consider personal biases.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status.
Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Adm. and Director, OSU Extension.
TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868