ID Number		1224
Study Type		Engineering & Physics
Model		Comparative evaluation of risk perceptions regarding the potential health effects of RF and ELF
Details		General public and scientific experts were evaluated for their risk perception of RF and ELF exposures using three empirical methodologies: a mental models approach with in-depth interviews of individuals (Phase 1); a comparative study of wider risks areas using deliberative group sessions (Phase 2) and; a questionnaire-based verification survey (Phase 3). Two case study hazard domains were examined, radon and overhead powerlines, focusing particularly on the contextualisation of public risk perceptions and relative preferences for mitigation. Representations and acceptability of dangerousness or safety may be shaped by both social experience and cognition (understanding), while learned associations may give rise to "attitudinal certainties" generalised across related issues and which might only be revealed through research addressing both qualitative risk characteristics (such as involuntariness, dread, or lack of knowledge by those exposed) and quantitative considerations (such as proximity to natural sources of radon or overhead powerlines). Furthermore, rather than considering just an aggregated 'public', we seek to examine the differences in risk perceptions between individuals and groups, analysed within specific social and institutional contexts. The mental models analysis seeks to identify (a) areas of appropriate lay knowledge, (b) misunderstandings and (c) gaps in lay knowledge, being sensitive to other social and contextual issues and barriers to the uptake of safety information which might be driving misunderstanding and gaps in knowledge. It also examines the relationship between the personal levels of risk (actual or perceived) and the publics knowledge and understanding of the science about the hazards. The design of the comparative study builds on the mental models phase, to identify public preferences for risk mitigation measures for a range of EMF, IR and other hazards. The group exercises aim to identify the qualitative reasons for priority ranking of the risks and the impacts of scientific information about the hazards on preferences and deliberation. The evaluation of the mental models and comparative phases will be verified in a targeted and broad scale postal survey of public risk priority ranking and mitigation preferences, with the aid of exploratory techniques in spatial analysis using a GIS approach. The project will provide recommendations for risk regulation practice and risk communication policy in the hazard areas being studied, as well as recommendations for DH safety policy prioritisation through achieving a better understanding of the contextual nature of public risk perceptions and public preferences for risk mitigation.
Findings		Not Applicable to Bioeffects
Status		Ongoing
Start Date
End Date
Principal Investigator		University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK - N.Pidgeon@uea.ac.uk
Funding Agency		DOH, UK
Country		UNITED KINGDOM
References
Comments