Institute of Social Sciences Department of Sociology with Focus on Risk and Technology Research
Theories of Risk Perception Risk Governance Instructor: Johanny Perez Sierra, M.Sc. April 16th, 2018
Today‘s objectives
1. Understand the concept of Risk Governance and its importance 2. Comprehension of the different Risk characteristics 3. Learn on the holistic and multi-actor Risk Governance structure and approaches
4. Identify potential deficits in Risk Governance
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
2
Risk Governance
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/20183
Risk Governance Introduction (1/3) • Essential when dealing with risks to human health and the environment
• Two requirements (key elements of risk analysis) – Based on Renn and Klinke, 2015:
1. Good knowledge about potential impacts and plausible effects of management options for regulating risks 2. Background information to assess the tolerability of risks’ effects in a certain community (values) Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
4
Risk Governance Introduction (2/3) • Common problems (challenges): ‾ complex and uncertain outcomes
‾ conflicted and arguable values (ambiguous)
Social conflicts
• Some attempts to solve this issue: integrating expert groups, promoting multi-stakeholders participation, having direct democracy or rejecting statistical information as a whole
• Renn and Klinke, 2015 suggest: ‾ Risk management institutions require appropriate governance mechanisms (structures and procedures) to: (i) assimilate systematic knowledge
(ii) integrate competent political legitimacy (iii) handle risks efficiently (iv) incorporate the public’s values and preferences Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
5
Risk Governance Introduction (3/3) • Risk Governance (Renn et al. 2011): “denotes both the institutional structure and the policy process that guide and restrain collective activities of a group, society or international community to regulate, reduce or control risk problems.” • Focus on resilience: “ability and capacity of systems to endure shocks and recover from damaging events”. Important: • Organizational learning • Institutional readiness • Aspects of resilience - capability for: (i) adaptive management, (ii) coping, and (iii) participation • International Risk Governance Council (IRGC 2005): resilience is a normative aim for risk assessment systems Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
6
Characteristics of Risk Knowledge
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/20187
Risk Governance Characteristics of Risk Knowledge (1/3) as in Renn and Klinke, 2015 Complexity • Dilemma to distinguish a cause-effect relationship in a risk issue: not obvious, not observable • Probabilistic risk valuation is essential • If linear correlations exist, statistical models suit to assess harm potential
• If high uncertainty prevails (e.g., access to only scarce data, random effects) complex models assist to understand the risk nature and scope • Kind of complications, due to: • Types of associations (synergism and antagonisms), positive and negative feedback loops • Retarded response between risk agent and effects • Divergence among parameters and mediating variables Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
8
Risk Governance Characteristics of Risk Knowledge (2/3) as in Renn and Klinke, 2015 Scientific uncertainty • Limited understanding (scientific background) about risky consequences of an activity • Arises from partial “reality” representations in models about cause-effects relationships • Human knowledge is subject to “changeable assumptions, assertions and predictions” (“incomplete and selective”) Renn and Klinke, 2015 • Features of uncertainty: 1. Variability: different responses to similar drivers 2. Inferential effects: errors in statistical analysis 3. Indeterminacy: random events
Statistically quantifiable uncertainty
4. System boundaries: limitations in models’ structures 5. Ignorance: insufficient knowledge on risk activity/event Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
9
Risk Governance Characteristics of Risk Knowledge (3/3), as in Renn and Klinke, 2015 Socio-Political Ambiguity • Case of diverging opinions and elucidation on a single risk event • Types of ambiguities: (i) interpretative and (ii) normative, based on opposite thoughts on the justification, seriousness or meaning of a threat • Interpretative ambiguity
‾ Various interpretations (legitimate) from identical data or risk information ‾ Experts and lay people differ between and within themselves • Normative ambiguity ‾ Hints to what can be tolerable (ethics, quality of life, allocation of risks and profits, etc.) ‾ Incertitude on suitable values, priorities, assumptions or limits to consider when assessing potential consequences Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
10
Stages of Risk Governance
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/201811
Risk Governance Structure and processes (1/7) from IRGC, 2017 IRGC Risk Governance Schema. Source: IRGC, 2017.
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
12
Risk Governance Structure and processes (2/7) from IRGC, 2017 Main Questions in Pre-Assessment Early warning and framing − What are the risks and opportunities that we are addressing? − Do we have indications about any problem? Need to act? − What are the various dimensions of the risk?
− How are the boundaries of the evaluation defined, in terms of scope, scale or time horizon? − Who are the stakeholders? How do their views affect the definition and framing of the problem? What are the organizational issues and power relations between them? − What are current legal/regulatory systems and how do they potentially affect the problem? Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
13
Risk Governance Structure and processes (3/7) from IRGC, 2017 Main Questions in Appraisal Evaluation of scientific and subjective aspects of risk Scientific assessment ‾ What are the potential damages or adverse effects associated with the risk? How ubiquitous could the damage be? How persistent? Can it be reversed? ‾ What scientific, technical and analytical approaches, knowledge and expertise should be used to better assess these impacts? Concern assessment ‾ What are different stakeholders’ opinions, values and concerns about the risk? What is their level of involvement, accountability or responsibility?
‾ What role do existing institutions, governance structures and the media play in defining and addressing public concerns? Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
14
Risk Governance Structure and processes (4/7) from IRGC, 2017 Main Questions in Characterization and Evaluation Conclusions on risk seriousness and need for management ‾ What is the political or strategic appreciation of the societal, economic and environmental benefits and risks? ‾ Are there impacts on quality of life? Are there ethical issues to consider? ‾ What are the societal values and norms for making judgments about tolerability and acceptability? Are these values and norms changing? ‾ Does a choice of a particular technology impact on the risk? How? ‾ What are the possible options for risk compensation, or reduction? ‾ Do any stakeholders have commitments or other reasons for wanting a particular outcome of the risk governance process? Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
15
Risk Governance Structure and processes (5/7) from IRGC, 2017 Main Questions in Management Resolution on type of management and execution ‾ Who are the actors and stakeholders that should be involved in the risk management process? What is their level of responsibility for decisions about the risk and its management? Have they accepted this responsibility? ‾ What management options should be chosen (e.g. technological, regulatory, institutional, educational, transfer, compensation, etc.)? ‾ What potential trade-offs between risks, benefits and risk-reduction measures may arise? ‾ What measures are needed to ensure effectiveness in the long term (compliance, enforcement, monitoring, etc.)? Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
16
Risk Governance Structure and processes (6/7) from IRGC, 2017 Main Questions in Communication Context based stakeholders’ engagement ‾ How can communication be facilitated between risk takers, risk affected parties, other stakeholders, the media and risk managers (external communication)?
‾ What is known about the risk and the hazard, by whom, and how can it be conveyed to the interested stakeholders and the public? ‾ Are there ambiguities and controversies about the risk within the public sphere?
‾ What are the demands, needs and purposes for information and communication among the different stakeholder groups, including members of the general public? Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
17
Risk Governance Structure and processes (7/7) from IRGC, 2017
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
18
Deficits in Risk Governance
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/201819
Deficits in Risk Governance (IRGC, 2017) (1/5) General challenges 1. Absence of effective methods for evaluating and handling risks 2. Reflection on risk-benefits and risk-risk consequences and distributions 3. Lack of awareness about secondary outcomes and interconnections among risks, benefits and aftermaths
4. Regulatory intervention under time pressure, uncertainty and lack of full information, influencing stakeholders differently 5. Inappropriate approaches to assess costs of intervention (policies, strategies or regulations)
6. Non diverse engagement of stakeholders, not consideration of the public opinion 7. Detriment of the public trust in decision makers, risk managers, industry, etc.
Deficits in Risk Governance (IRGC, 2017) (2/5) Challenges in Pre-Assessment • Warning: “complacency bias”, indicators of risks have not been perceived
• Scope: local understanding of risks, which impact could be much larger • Framing: varying interpretations of risks, conflicting opinions, especially on benefits • Black swans: unexpected extreme events, lacking awareness about them
Deficits in Risk Governance (IRGC, 2017) (3/5) Challenges in Risk Appraisal Risk assessment • Use of inefficient methodological approaches to evaluate eventual damages • Limited scientific data available about the risk (agent and impacted system) or regarding stakeholders and their perceptions • Non appropriate use of advanced data management, e.g., data analytics, artificial intelligence, social media Concern assessment • Misinterpretation on stakeholder’s biases
• Not reliability on model predictions • No consideration to stakeholder’s risk concerns and factors influencing their risk perceptions
Deficits in Risk Governance (IRGC, 2017) (4/5) Challenges in Risk Characterization & Evaluation • Narrow view on risk problem, ignoring societal concerns, potential environmental impacts, costs associated, etc. • No full integration of all relevant stakeholders and omission of their opinions in designing strategies for risk management • Indecisions on risk management • No transparency and responsibility on potential consequences, second intentions • Sustainability, if the decisions made are not resilient for a long term
Deficits in Risk Governance (IRGC, 2017) (5/5) Challenges in Risk Management Management • No accountability and responsibility in case of failures and consequences of actions • Short term decisions • Measures based on public pressure not on detailed assessment
• Non distribution of risks and benefits in the society
Implementation • Resolutions on handling risks are not put into practice
• No feedback or assessment of results for improvement • Rigidity of measures in light of new information on risks
References
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/201825
References IRGC, 2005. Risk Governance: Towards an integrative approach. White paper no. 1, Geneva: IRGC.
IRGC, 2017. Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, revised version. Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Renn, O., Klinke, A., 2015. Risk Governance and Resilience: New Approaches to Cope with Uncertainty and Ambiguity, in: Fra. Paleo, U. (Ed.), Risk Governance. The Articulation of Hazard, Politics and Ecology. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, s.l., pp. 19–41. Renn, O., Klinke, A., van Asselt, M., 2011. Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis. AMBIO 40 (2), 231–246. 10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0.
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
26
Reflection
Lessons learned and Q&A
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/201827
Lessons learned and Q&A • Three main lessons learned? • Questions? • Slides available in ILIAS! • Topic for next week:
Stakeholder’s Participation in Risk Governance
Seminar: Theories of Risk Perception, University of Stuttgart │ Instructor: Perez Sierra, J.
5/2/2018
28
Institute of Social Sciences Department of Sociology with Focus on Risk and Technology Research
Thank you! Questions and meeting arrangements: per email! Johanny Perez Sierra, M.Sc. e-mail j.perez-sierra@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de phone +49 (0) 711 685-81049 www. uni-stuttgart.de/soz/tu/index.html University of Stuttgart Institute of Social Sciences, Department SOWI V Room 3.015 Seidenstr. 36, 70174 Stuttgart