Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 90, Issue 1, pp 293–324 | Cite as

Defining the acceptable level of risk for civil protection purposes: a behavioral perspective on the decision process

  • Daniela Di Bucci
  • Lucia Savadori
Original Paper
  • 205 Downloads

Abstract

This work analyzes how acceptable risk levels are determined in political decisions and related policies in the field of civil protection, i.e., regarding disaster risks and their reduction at the national and supranational level. We examined why establishing the acceptable level of risk is a political decision, and why this decision is not an easy task. Some behavioral elements which can de facto impede such a decision were recognized. Among these, the anomalies inherent in intertemporal choices, availability heuristic and mental accounting play a primary role, because they interfere with preferences for selfish versus others’ interests and with the evaluation of individual versus community gains and losses. Due to these processes, the political decision-maker, unless she is a statesperson, will easily prefer not to decide. Political decision-making, however, could be induced by a change of mind in the voters’ community. This reorientation of the society’s values and interests can be stimulated taking advance from research on social norms, which underlines the role played by some people that drive innovation in a community, e.g., the trendsetters. The scientific, technical and professional communities have the knowledge needed, are aware of the work to be done on the disaster risk reduction and can establish a direct relationship with single trendsetters and statespersons to promote decision-making on disaster risk reduction. Within this relationship, they can build trust, give advice and participate in in-depth discussions. In this interaction and collaboration, behavioral sciences can provide a valuable support for a better reciprocal understanding.

Keywords

Risk Disaster risk reduction Political decision-making Risk perception Intertemporal choices Social norms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been carried out in the frame of a collaboration between the National School of Administration (Italy) and the LUISS University School of European Political Economy on the application of the behavioral sciences in the public administration. Fabrizio Cafaggi, Mauro Dolce and Giacomo Sillari are kindly acknowledged for their precious insights and fruitful discussions. The contents of this paper represent the authors’ ideas and do not necessarily correspond to the official opinion and policies of the Italian Department of Civil Protection.

References

  1. Andreoni J (1988) Why free ride? strategies and learning in public goods experiments. J Public Econ 37:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berns GS, Laibson D, Loewenstein G (2007) Intertemporal choice—toward an integrative framework. Trends Cognit Sci 11(11):482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicchieri C (2005) The grammar of society. The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bretton R (2014) The role of science within the rule of law. “Science, uncertainty and decision making in the mitigation of natural risks”. Workshop of cost action IS1304 “Expert judgment network: bridging the gap between scientific uncertainty and evidence-based decision making”. Rome, 8-9-10 Oct 2014. Oral presentationGoogle Scholar
  5. Crescimbene M (2008) Un test sulla percezione del rischio vulcanico. Quaderni di Geofisica: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/4678
  6. Crescimbene M, La Longa F, Camassi R, Pino NA, Peruzza L (2014) What’s the seismic risk perception in Italy?. Engineering geology for society and territory, vol 7. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–75Google Scholar
  7. Dolce M (2012) The Italian national seismic prevention program. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering Lisbon (Portugal), pp 24. http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/~mlopes/conteudos/SISMOS/DOLCE.pdf
  8. Dolce M, Di Bucci D (2012) Probabilità e protezione civile. Ambiente Rischio Comunicazione, quadrimestrale di analisi e monitoraggio ambientale. ‘Decidere nell’Incertezza’, 4/2012:34–39. ISSN 2240-1520Google Scholar
  9. Dolce M, Di Bucci D (2014) Risk management: roles and responsibilities in the decision-making process. In: Wyss M, Peppoloni S (eds) Geoethics: ethical challenges and case studies in earth science, chapter 18. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 211–221Google Scholar
  10. Dolce M, Di Bucci D (2015) Civil protection achievements and critical issues in seismology and earthquake engineering research. In: Ansal A (ed) Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2000) Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Document 52000DC0001. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001andfrom=EN
  12. Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2002) Why social preferences matter—the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. Econ J 112:C1–C33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev 90(4):980–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fewtrell L, Bartram J (eds) (2001) Water quality: guidelines, standards and health. IWA Publishing for World Health Organization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Figner B, Knoch D, Johnson EJ, Krosch AR, Lisanby SH, Fehr E, Weber EU (2010) Lateral prefrontal cortex and self-control in intertemporal choice. Nat Neurosci 13(5):538–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischhoff B (1985) Managing risk perceptions. Issues Sci Technol 2:83–96Google Scholar
  17. Fischhoff B (1994) Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Risk 5:p1. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/fischhoff/AcceptableRiskConceptProp.pdf
  18. Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17(2):123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2004) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. In: Camerer CF, Loewenstein G, Rabin M (eds) Advances in behavioral economics, vol 6. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 162–222Google Scholar
  20. Gigerenzer G (2006) Out of the frying pan into the fire: behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks. Risk Anal 26:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, The ABC Research Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 416Google Scholar
  22. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardin R (2013) The free rider problem. In: EN Zalta (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/free-rider/
  25. Healy A, Malhorta N (2009) Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. Am Polit Sci Rev 103:387–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heimann LCF (1997) Acceptable risks. Politics, policy and risky technologies. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, p 188Google Scholar
  27. Hertwig R, Erev I (2009) The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends Cognit Sci 13:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci 15:534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgement and choice. Am Psychol 58:697–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, Basingstoke pp 499. ISBN 978-1-4299-6935-2Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, p 555Google Scholar
  33. Langford ZD, Schevernels H, Boehler NC (2016) Motivational context for response inhibition influences proactive involvement of attention. Sci Rep 6:35122. doi: 10.1038/srep35122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leroi E (2010) Landslide risk assessment and decision making. Lectio magistralis. In: 85th National congress of the Italian geological society, Pisa (Italy), 6–8 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  35. Loewenstein G, Thaler RH (1989) Anomalies: intertemporal choice. J Econ Perspect 3(4):181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowrance WF (1976) Of acceptable risk: science and the determination of safety. William Kaufman Inc, Los AltosGoogle Scholar
  37. Manuele FA (2010) Acceptable risk. Time for SH and E professionals to adopt the concept. Prof Saf 55:30–38Google Scholar
  38. Marzocchi W (2013) Seismic hazard and public safety. Eos 94(27):240–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mechler R, Hochrainer-Stigler S (2016) Climate risks and extreme events. (IIASA/WU/Univ. Graz) CCCA Pre-Conference Day. Graz, 6. April 2016 https://www.ccca.ac.at/fileadmin/00_DokumenteHauptmenue/03_Aktivitaeten/Klimatag/Klimatag2016/Vortr%C3%A4ge_6._April/Mechler_climate_riscs.pdf
  40. Mischel W, Ebbesen EB, Zeiss AR (1972) Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. J Personal Soc Psychol 21(2):204–218. doi:10.1037/h0032198. ISSN 0022-3514. PMID 5010404Google Scholar
  41. Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez ML (1989) Delay of gratification in children. Science 244:933–938. doi: 10.1126/science.2658056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morcellini M (2015) Il terremoto della comunicazione. In: Amato A, Cerase A, Galadini F (eds) Terremoti, comunicazione, diritto. Franco Angeli Editore, Milan, pp 119–131Google Scholar
  43. O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2004) Doing it now or later. In: Camerer CF, Loewenstein G, Rabin M (eds) Advances in behavioral economics, vol 7. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 222–251Google Scholar
  44. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pitilakis K, Dolce M, Fardis M, Gasparini P, Giardini D, Khazai B, Pinto A, Taucer F, Wenzel H, Wenzel F, Zshau J (2014) Vision paper for horizon 2020. In: Earthquake risk reduction and resilience improvement. Personal communication, p 12Google Scholar
  46. Pittore M, Wieland M, Fleming K (2016) Perspectives on global dynamic exposure modelling for geo-risk assessment. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2437-3. Published online: 25 June 2016
  47. Polman E (2012) Self–other decision making and loss aversion. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 119:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prelec D, Loewenstein G (1991) Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach. Manag Sci 37(7):770–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Renn O (2006) Risk governance: the importance of the IRGC framework for natural hazard management. International disaster reduction conference. Davos, August 29, 2006. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233083319_Risk_Governance
  50. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, pp 455. ISBN 978-1-84407-291-0Google Scholar
  51. Savadori L, Mittone L (2015) Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p-bets compared to $-bets. J Econ Psychol 46:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SFDRR (2015) The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework
  53. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1984) Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 56(1–3):183–203Google Scholar
  54. Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations (known as The Wealth of Nations). In: Strahan W, Cadell T (eds) London, p 510Google Scholar
  55. Stanovich KE, West RF (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. J Exp Psychol Gen 127:161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Starcke K, Brand M (2016) Effects of stress on decisions under uncertainty: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 142(9):909–933. doi: 10.1037/bul0000060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Readings in risk. Science 165(3899):1232–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sunstein CR (2014a) Choosing not to choose. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 240. ISBN: 9780190231699Google Scholar
  59. Sunstein CR (2014b) The limits of quantification. Calif Law Rev 102(6):1369–1422Google Scholar
  60. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 293Google Scholar
  61. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognit Psychol 5:207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sci New Ser 185(4157):1124–1131Google Scholar
  63. UN-GA (2016) Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. United Nations General Assembly A/71/644 Distr.: General—1 December 2016. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/50683_oiewgreportenglish.pdf
  64. UNISDR—United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2009) Terminology (http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology)
  65. Vrijling JK, Wessels LFM, van Hengels W, Houben RJ (1993) What is acceptable risk? TU Delft, Faculteit der Civiele Techniek, AW-PRO-1791Google Scholar
  66. Woo G (2011) Earthquake decision making/Processo decisionale in caso di terremoto. Ambiente Rischio Comunicazione 1:7–10. ISSN 2240-1520Google Scholar
  67. Yates JF, Stone ER (1992) The risk construct. In: Yates JF (ed) Risk-taking behavior. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  68. Yuhas D (2012) Psychology reveals the comforts of the apocalypse. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychology-reveals-the-comforts-of-the-apocalypse/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific Advisory Unit, National Department of Civil ProtectionPresidency of the Council of MinistersRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Economia e ManagementUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations