The risk game

Abstract

In the context of health, safety, and environmental decisions, the concept of risk involves value judgments that reflect much more than just the probability and consequences of the occurrence of an event. This article conceptualizes the act of defining and assessing risk as a game in which the rules must be socially negotiated within the context of a specific problem. This contextualist view of risk provides insight into why technical approaches to risk management often fail with problems such as those involving radiation and chemicals, where scientific experts and the public disagree on the nature of the risks. It also highlights the need for allowing the interested and affected parties to define and play the game, thus emphasizing the importance of institutional, procedural, and societal processes in risk management decisions.

Introduction

The practice of risk assessment has steadily increased in prominence during the past several decades as risk managers in government and industry have sought to develop more effective ways to meet public demands for a safer and healthier environment. Dozens of scientific disciplines have been mobilized to provide technical information about risk, and billions of dollars have been expended to create this information and distill it in the context of risk assessments.

Ironically, as our society and other industrialized nations have expended this great effort to make life safer and healthier, many in the public have become more, rather than less, concerned about risk. These individuals see themselves as exposed to more serious risks than were faced by people in the past, and they believe that this situation is getting worse rather than better. Nuclear and chemical technologies (except for medicines) have been stigmatized by being perceived as entailing unnaturally great risks [1]. As a result, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to find host sites for disposing of high-level or low-level radioactive wastes, or for incinerators, landfills, and other chemical facilities.

Public perceptions of risk have been found to play an important role in determining the priorities and legislative agendas of regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), much to the distress of agency technical experts who argue that other hazards deserve higher priority. The bulk of EPA’s budget in recent years has gone to hazardous waste primarily because the public believes that the cleanup of Superfund sites is the most serious environmental threat that the country faces. Hazards such as indoor air pollution are considered more serious health risks by experts but are not perceived that way by the public [2].

Great disparities in monetary expenditures, designed to prolong life, may also be traced to public perceptions of risk. As noteworthy as the large sums of money devoted to preventing a statistical fatality from exposure to radiation and chemical toxins are the relatively small sums expended to prevent a fatality from mundane hazards such as automobile accidents. Other studies have shown that serious risks from national disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes generate relatively little public concern and demand for protection [3], [4].

Such discrepancies are seen as irrational by many harsh critics of public perceptions. These critics draw a sharp dichotomy between the experts and the public. Experts are seen as purveying risk assessments, characterized as objective, analytic, wise, and rational — based upon the real risks. In contrast, the public is seen to rely upon perceptions of risk that are subjective, often hypothetical, emotional, foolish, and irrational (see, e.g. [5], [6]). Weiner [7] defends the dichotomy arguing that “This separation of reality and perception is pervasive in a technically sophisticated society, and serves to achieve a necessary emotional distance …” (p. 495).

In sum, polarized views, controversy, and overt conflict have become pervasive within risk assessment and risk management. Frustrated scientists and industrialists castigate the public for behaviors they judge to be based on irrationality or ignorance. Members of the public feel similarly antagonistic toward industry and government. A desperate search for salvation through risk-communication efforts began in the mid-1980s — yet, despite some localized successes, this effort has not stemmed the major conflicts or reduced much of the dissatisfaction with risk management. This dissatisfaction can be traced, in part, to a failure to appreciate the complex and socially determined nature of the concept “risk”. In the remainder of this paper I shall illustrate this complexity and point toward the need for new definitions of risk and new approaches to risk management.