PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION OF RISK
G. Rowe
Institute of Food Research, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK

The way in which the public perceives risks can have a major impact upon the practical management of those risks, irrespective of their scientifically evaluated level. As a case in point, there is currently a debate in progress in the UK concerning the extent of risks posed by genetic modification of foods and crops. Though a recent science review has indicated that the associated risks are minimal, it is likely that negative public sentiment may make the growing of GM crops and the sale of GM food uneconomic. Therefore, it is important to understand how the public perceives risks, and what psychological and social mechanisms underlie those perceptions.

Much research has attempted to ascertain quantitative and qualitative trends in public perceptions of risk. What is clear is that individual levels of risk perception vary according to demographic and socio-economic factors, such as gender, age, ethnicity, education, and wealth. It is also apparent that 'risk' is perceived in a complex, multi-dimensional manner not related to the straightforward assessments of likelihood of harm calculated by risk assessors. Factors such as the degree of public/scientific uncertainty, potential harm to future generations, and the perceived 'unnaturalness' of interventions, have been shown to correlate with the perceived riskiness of activities and technologies.

Differences between public views and scientific pronouncements on risks seem to imply a need to develop effective 'risk communication' strategies, through which risks may be presented in a manner that assuages public concerns and enables risk management to take place according to scientific rationales. Research into such strategies has, however, had only variable success. Indeed, a major underlying rationale behind this approach - the so-called 'deficit model', that assumes the public is essentially ignorant and only needs the correct presentation of facts to accept the information - has been subject to considerable criticism. It has been argued, for example, that in many cases a high degree of uncertainty underlies risk pronouncements, in which case value judgments are present in supposedly neutral assessments, and these are the values of an unelected scientific elite with its own vested interests that may not parallel the interests of the wider public. This implicates a role for 'public engagement' (or participation or involvement) in risk management, in which public values are ascertained and incorporated into decisions. It also raises the issue of 'trust' in scientists, regulators, and policy setters as a significant factor to consider in regarding public responses to risk communication pronouncements and subsequent public perception and behaviour.