A framework for understanding risk perception, explored from the perspective of the water practitioner

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 294-308

  Dobbie, Meredith Frances ^a   Brown, Rebekah Ruth ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Framework; Relational theory of risk; Risk perception; Urban water management; Water practitioners

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CITY; FRAMEWORK; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; RELATIONAL THEORY OF RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER PRACTITIONERS; WATER SUPPLY;

FRAMEWORK; RELATIONAL THEORY OF RISK; RISK PERCEPTION; URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER PRACTITIONERS;

CITIES; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84894257699     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12100     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Sjöberg L. The allegedly simple structure of experts' risk perception: An urban legend in risk research. Science, Technology and Human Values, 2002; 27(4):443-459.
2. Brown R, Farrelly M, Keath N. Practitioner perceptions of social and institutional barriers to advancing a diverse water source approach in Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2009; 25(1):15-28.
3. Farrelly M, Brown R. Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 2011; 21(2):721-732.
4. Pollard SJT, Strutt JE, Macgillivray BH, Hamilton PD, Hrudey SE. Risk analysis and management in the water utility sector: A review of drivers, tools and techniques. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2004; 82(6):453-462.
5. Anon. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2004. National Water Quality Management Strategy Document No. 6. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh34_adwg_11_06.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2010.
6. Long J, Fischhoff B. Setting risk priorities: A formal model. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(3):339-352.
7. Renn O. The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1998; 59(1):49-62.
8. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 1978; 9(2):127-152.
9. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 1982; 2(2):83-93.
10. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologica, 1984; 56(1-3):183-203.
11. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. American Statistician, 1982; 36(3):240-255.
12. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. Pp. 181-216 in Schwing RC, Albers WA (eds). Societal Risk Assessment. How Safe Is Safe Enough? New York, London: Plenum Press, 1980.
13. Slovic P. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Pp. 117-152 in Krimsky S, Golding D (eds). Social Theories of Risk. Westport, London: Praeger, 1992.
14. Kraus NN, Slovic P. Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk Analysis, 1988; 8(3):435-455.
15. Jasanoff S. The political science of risk perception. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1998; 59(1):91-99.
16. Bickerstaff K. Risk perception research: Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International, 2004; 30(6):827-840.
17. Sjöberg L, Moet B-E, Rundmo T. Explaining Risk Perception. An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception Research. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Report Number 84, 2004.
18. Willis HH, DeKay ML. The roles of group membership, beliefs, and norms in ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27(5):1365-1380.
19. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(4):689-701.
20. Renn O. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London, Sterling: Earthscan, 2008.
21. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Pp. 17-43 in Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds). Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
22. Simon HA. Models of Man. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1957.
23. Simon HA. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 1956; 63(2):129-138.
24. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Pp. 1-16 in Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds). Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
25. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative respresentation of uncertainty. Pp. 44-65 in Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds). Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
26. Derry C, Booth S, Attwater R. A risk management approach to sustainable water reuse. Environmental Health, 2003; 3(1):78-86.
27. Baggett S, Jeffrey P, Jefferson B. Risk perception in participatory planning for water reuse. Desalination, 2006; 187(1-3):149-158.
28. Salgot M, Huertas E, Weber S, Dott W, Hollender J. Wastewater reuse and risk: Definition of key objectives. Desalination, 2006; 187(1-3):29-40.
29. Fane SA, Ashbolt NJ, White SB. Decentralised urban water reuse: The implications of system scale for cost and pathogen risk. Water Science & Technology, 2002; 46(6/7):281-288.
30. Fane S, Willetts J, Abeysuriya K, Mitchell C, Etnier C, Johnstone S. Decentralised wastewater systems: An asset management approach. Water Asset Management International, 2005; 1(3):5-9.
31. Schäfer AI, Beder S. Relevance of the precautionary principle in water recycling. Desalination, 2006; 187(1-3):241-252.
32. Hurlimann A. Is recycled water use risky? An urban Australian community's perspective. Environmentalist, 2007; 27(1):83-94.
33. Dolnicar S, Schafer AI. Public Perception of Desalinated Versus Recycled Water in Australia. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, Report Number 138, 2006.
34. Toze S. Reuse of effluent water-benefits and risks. Agricultural Water Management, 2006; 80(1-3):147-159.
35. Po M, Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, Porter NB, Syme GJ, Kaercher JD. Predicting Community Behaviour in Relation to Wastewater Reuse. What Drives Decisions to Accept or Reject. Perth: CSIRO Land and Water, 2005.
36. Brown RR, Keath N, Wong THF. Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future regimes. Water Science &Technology, 2009; 59(5):847-855.
37. Wong THF, Brown RR. The water sensitive city: Principles for practice. Water Science & Technology, 2009; 60(3):673-682.
38. Althaus CE. A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(3):567-588.
39. Aven T, Renn O, Rosa EA. On the ontological status of the concept of risk. Safety Science, 2011; 49(8-9):1074-1079.
40. Thompson PB, Dean W. Competing conceptions of risk. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 1996; 7:361-384.
41. Nelkin D. Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception. Annual Review of Public Health, 1989; 10(1):95-113.
42. Rohrmann B. Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and crossnational comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1994; 46(3):150-163.
43. Bradbury JA. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1989; 14(4):380-399.
44. Slovic P. The risk game. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2001; 86(1-3):17-24.
45. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236(4799):280-285.
46. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HAL. A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1):211-222.
47. McDaniels TL, Axelrod LJ, Cavanagh NS, Slovic P. Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 1997; 17(3):341-352.
48. Sjöberg L. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 2000; 3(4):353-367.
49. Rowe G, Wright G. Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(2):341-356.
50. Boholm A, Corvellec H. A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 2011; 14(2):175-190.
51. Renn O, Rohrmann B. Cross-cultural risk perception: State and challenges. Pp. 213-233 in Renn O, Rohrmann B (eds). Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
52. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 2007; 22(7):959-972.
53. Sjöberg L. The methodology of risk perception research. Quality and Quantity, 2000; 34(4):407-418.
54. Alexander KS, Price JC, Browne AL, Leviston Z, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE. Community Perceptions of Risk, Trust and Fairness in Relation to the Indirect Potable Use of Purified Recycled Water in South East Queensland: A Scoping Report. City East: CSIRO, 2008.
55. Nancarrow BE, Porter NB, Leviston Z. Predicting community acceptability of alternative urban water supply systems: A decision making model. Urban Water Journal, 2010; 7(3):197-210.
56. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(5):713-720.
57. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2000; 20(3):353-362.
58. Ross V. The Determinants of Trust and Satisfaction with Drinking Water Quality. Perth: CSIRO, 2005.
59. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000; 13(1):1-17.
60. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D. The affect heuristic. Pp. 397-420 in Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intutitve Judgment. Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town: Cambridge Universtiy Press, 2002.
61. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(2):311-322.
62. Slovic P, Peters E. Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2006; 15(6):322-325.
63. Böhm G. Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2003; 23(2):199-212.
64. Böhm G, Pfister H-R. Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research, 2005; 8(6):461-479.
65. Kahan DM, Braman D. Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, 2006; 24(1):149-172.
66. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2007; 4(3):465-505.
67. Breakwell GM. Mental models and social representations of hazards: The significance of identity processes. Journal of Risk Research, 2001; 4(4):341-351.
68. Breakwell GM. The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
69. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127(2):267-286.
70. Corvellec H. Organizational risk as it derives from what managers value: A practice-based approach to risk assessment. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2010; 18(3):145-154.
71. Po M, Kaercher JD, Nancarrow BE. Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perception of Water Reuse. Perth: CSIRO Land and Water, 2003.
72. Russell S, Lux C. Getting over yuck: Moving from psychological to cultural and sociotechnical analyses of responses to water recycling. Water Policy, 2009; 11(1):21-35.
73. Boholm A. Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1998; 1(2):135-163.
74. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA. Gender, race, and perceived risk: The "white male" effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2000; 2:159-172.
75. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(6):1689-1705.
76. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Rating the risk. Pp. 104-120 in Slovic P (ed). The Perception of Risk. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2000.
77. Weible CM, Sabatier PA. Coalitions, science, and belief change: Comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 2009; 37(2):195-212.
78. McDaniels T, Lawrence JA, Slovic P. Characterizing perception of ecological risk. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15: 575-588.
79. Rouse WB, Morris NM. On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 1986; 100(3):349-363.
80. Morgan WG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Lave L, Atman C. Communicating risk to the public. First, learn what people know and believe. Environmental Science & Technology, 1992; 26(11):2048-2056.
81. Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF, DeVries NK. How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27(3):715-727.
82. Bier VM. On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001; 71(2):139-150.
83. Schoell R, Binder CR. System perspectives of experts and farmers regarding the role of livelihood assets in risk perception: Results from the structured mental model approach. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(2):205-222.
84. Wood MD, Bostrom A, Bridges T, Linkov I. Cognitive mapping tools: Review and risk management needs. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(8):1333-1348.
85. Chowdhury PD, Haque CE, Driedger SM. Public versus expert knowledge and perception of climate change-induced heat wave risk: A modified mental model approach. Journal of Risk Research, 2012; 15(2):149-168.
86. Stedman RC, Davidson DJ, Wellstead A. Erratum to "Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada, " by Richard C. Stedman, in Risk Analysis, 24(5), 2004. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1):225.
87. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 1992; 12(2):215-232.
88. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S. Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15(6):661-675.
89. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith HC. Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(4):425-439.
90. Stedman RC. Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(5):1395-1406.
91. Lynn FM. The interplay of science and values in assessing and regulating environmental risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1986; 11(2):40-50.
92. Browne AL, Leviston Z, Po Greenhill M, Nancarrow BE, Tucker DI, Porter NB. Structuring Dimensions of Risk: Technical and Community Perceptions of Risk in the Reuse of Wastewater for Irrigation and Indirect Potable Supply. Wembley, WA: CSIRO, 2007.
93. Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, Tucker D, Greenhill MP, Price J, Dzidic P. Community Acceptability of the Indirect Potable Use of Purified Recycled Water in South East Queensland and Preferences for Alternative Water Sources: A Baseline Measure. City East: CSIRO, 2007.
94. Hurlimann A, Hemphill E, McKay J, Geursen G. Establishing components of community satisfaction with recycled water use through a structural equation model. Journal of Environmental Management, 2008; 88(4):1221-1232.
95. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991; 50:179-211.
96. Weber EU, Blais A-R, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2002; 15(4):263-290.
97. Earle T, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. Pp. 1-49 in Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2007.
98. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research, 2001; 1:75-101.
99. Marks JS, Zadoroznyj M. Managing sustainable urban water reuse: Structural context and cultures of trust. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 2005; 18(6):557-572.
100. Syme GJ, Williams KD. The psychology of drinking water quality: An exploratory study. Water Resources Research, 1993; 9(12):4003-4010.
101. Doria MF, Pidgeon N, Hunter P. Perception of tap water risks and quality: A structural equation model approach. Water Science & Technology, 2005; 2(8):143-149.
102. Gardiner A, Skoien P, Gardner T. Decentralised water supplies: South-east Queensland householders' experience and attitudes. Water (Melbourne), 2008; 35(1):53-58.
103. Scherer CW, Cho H. A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(2):261-267.
104. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 1996; 28(3):302-339.
105. Wildavsky A, Dake K. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 1990; 119(4):41-60.
106. Douglas M. Risk and Blame. Essays in Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
107. Douglas M. The depoliticization of risk. Pp. 121-132 in Ellis RJ, Thompson M (eds). Culture Matters: Essays in Honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Boulder: Westview Press, 1997.
108. Sjöberg L. Distal factors in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 2003; 6(3):187-211.
109. Marris C, Langford IH, O'Riordan T. A quantiative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(5):635-647.
110. Sjöberg L. A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1996; 68(3/4):219-225.
111. Price J, Fielding K, Leviston Z. Supporters and opponents of potable recycled water: Culture and cognition in the Toowoomba referendum. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 2012; 25(10):980-995.