Perceptions and Communication of Risks from Dioxins Professor Judith Petts

Transcription

1 Perceptions and Communication of Risks from Dioxins Professor Judith Petts

2 Dioxins as a problem Scientific uncertainty and different scientific viewpoints easy to find an alternative viewpoint Dioxins form a good target for challenge they are part of a bigger picture of opposition Headline material one of the most carcinogenic substances known to man Doesn t matter that November 5 th generates more than one incinerator in its lifetime not a relevant comparison Doesn t matter that limit values are very conservative and dioxins from incinerators highly controlled Have to understand the context in which dioxins are an issue in order to communicate is an issue of involvement in decisions not just communication

3 Factors Important in Risk Perception Reversibility Voluntariness Dread Familiarity Catastrophy potential Personal control Effects on children Equity Effects on future generations Media attention Cause Accident history Uncertainty Benefits Misunderstanding Trust

4 Concerns Emissions - long-term health effects potential genetic efffects Accidents & exposure to chemicals on site & during transport Public Concern about Incineration (Evidence from 1992) Nature of Concern Management of wastes No local benefit Threat to children Unseen / Unknown hazard Lack of expert agreement on hazards Apparent evidence of adverse health effects No opportunity for public control Lack of trust in operators Lack of trust in regulatory agencies Transport accidents in residential areas Concern about being a dumping ground Concern about generation of 'toxic' wastes Waste management industry seen as lacking professionalism Waste less well handled than products Adverse impact on quality of life Concern over property values No compensation. An imposed hazard Concern over loss of local amenity

5 Risk Surrogacy There is evidence that in waste controversies people may focus on risk assessment uncertainties and expert knowledge of dioxins as these are easier to deal with in a technocratic process than social concerns such as fear, stress, concern about regulatory control etc It doesn t matter that incinerators are a minor contributor of health risks from dioxins these can become an easy surrogate for other concerns It is rare that people understand that dioxins are a possible issue usually raised by action and interest groups first Once raised it becomes evident that there are diverse understandings of dioxin risks

6 Public Role for Risk Assessment To provide evidence that experts had considered the risks To provide means by which underlying assumptions or value judgements of experts could be reviewed: quality assurance mechanism

7 Acquiring Information & Knowledge Personal Knowledge Exposure to Experts Experience Exposure to Other Information

8 Knowledge Needs Physical impacts of all the waste management options Public health risks of all the options Technology status Management experience Regulatory controls Long-term policy impacts Costs including relative costs

9 Expertise and Credibility Large range of perceived experts Evidence of intuitive scepticism about risk messages Independence of expertise - more impact on credibility than competence Credibility damaged when expectations and observation do not coincide Evident expert information gaps easily identified by alert public

10 Public Engagement in Incineration Decision-Making Key questions are usually: (I) Need? (ii) Risks? Need to set up decision-making structures that allow for strategic and site-specific public engagement there is experience of this already People need to be able to not just be presented with health risk information to discuss but to have opportunities to examine the information and check expert assumptions Deliberation Expert challenge and claims checking Transparency and openness Public input needs to be seen to make a difference to the decision

11 Analytic -Deliberative Process Analysis - ways of building understanding by systematically applying specific theories & methods that have been developed within communities of expertise Deliberative - discussion, reflection & persuasion to communicate, raise & collectively consider issues, increase understanding & arrive at substantive decisions

12 Stakeholder / Public engagement Stakeholder / Public engagement Stakeholder / Public engagement What are the issues? Values / interests What info / data do we need? Who holds or should collect the data? What should be done about uncertainty? data / knowledge Assessment / Oversight model development & analysis Evaluation information dissemination / comments Implementation

13

14 Institutional Problems Regulatory fragmentation - waste disposal authorities, waste planning authorities, Environment Agency Fragmentory decision process - strategies, plans, siting, licensing, but each inherently linked to the former Identifying need and options fundamentally separated from siting - time delays; different interested parties Institutional paternalism we know best

15 Site Selection Isolation Often site selection and even definition of siting criteria viewed as a technical process - rarely has public been involved, yet vital central element between options appraisal and site-specific proposals Definition of site criteria has significant scope for public engagement - need to involve people in the complexity and difficulty of the process

16 Expert Culture Traditional peer review processes challenged by sharing information in popular mode Individual expert witness challenged by demands for debate and discussion Experts who are benign actors with a flexible approach to knowledge are demanded by public but are rarely trained in this mode of operation

17 Which Expert? Example - who is an expert on health risk assessment and health risks? Environment Agency - public perception that in licensing a facility they should understand health risks But - health risks viewed by Environment Agency as Department of Health responsibility Therefore Agency can appear non-expert in public Role of US alternative experts there is always someone who can provide the counter argument

18 Involvement in Assessments Direct evidence that public need to be able to challenge input scenarios, assumptions, baseline data collection, acceptability criteria Public in deliberative processes bring valuable local knowledge to the assessment process Completely able to challenge technical assumptions if given time often do this through access to internet information and alternative scientific views More interested in process of assessment than output

19 Dealing with Uncertainty Waste management planning and siting - uncertainty, ignorance and indeterminacy are endemic Health risks common uncertainties and ignorance: background conditions and prevailing exposure; focus on hypothetical exposure assumptions Focus on the Maximally Exposed Individual to deal with uncertainty in deterministic assessments - tends to conservative estimates

20 Improving the Expert/Public Relationship Look at the decision-making processes Enhance analytic-deliberative opportunities Focus on discussing the process of assessment not the output deaths brought forward; increased cancers per million are not the issue Engage with the alternative science Focus on uncertainty