Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Environmental Uncertainty on Lay Perceptions of Risk and Safety

  • Chapter
Book cover Scientific Uncertainty and Its Influence on the Public Communication Process

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((ASID,volume 86))

Abstract

This research investigated how variations in range and likelihood of uncertainty influenced perceptions of risk and willingness to invest in safety measures to protect the environment and human health. A hypothetical risk assessment describing possible health effects resulting from a contaminated water resource was presented to 170 university students. Sixteen versions of the survey, consisting of four different frames with two levels, varied uncertainty (high versus low); endowment (past versus present environmental resource); payment method (individual versus government); and source (expert versus computer). Respondents indicated their preferred degree of safety by selecting the level of monetary resources they were willing to invest in environmental remediation methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1994) Inevitable Illusions, Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973) On the psychology of prediction, Psychological Review 80, 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Slovic et al. (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Einhorn and Hogarth. (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rosenman, R., Fort, R., and Budd, W. (1988) Perceptions, fear, and economic loss: An application of prospect theory to environmental decision making, Policy Sciences 21, no. 4, 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Finkel, A.M. (1990) Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management: A Guide for Decision-Makers. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  7. McKone, T.E. and Bogen, K.T. (1991) Predicting the uncertainties in risk assessment, Environmental Science and Technology 25, no. 10, 1674–1681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carnegie Commission. (1993) Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decision Making, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  9. National Research Council. (1994) Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Graham, J.D., Green, L.C., and Roberts, M.J. (1988) In Search of Safety: Chemicals and Cancer Risks, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1985) Regulation of risk: A psychological perspective, in R.G. Noll (ed.), Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bell, D.E., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A. (eds.) (1988) Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Thaler, R.H. (1991) Quasi Rational Economics, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman and Tresorky. (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Simon. (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Gregory, R. (1982) Valuing non-market goods: An analysis of alternative approaches, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knetsch, J. (1983) Property Rights and Compensation, Butterworths, Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Smith, K.V. and Desvousges, W.H. (1986) Asymmetries in the valuation of risk and the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities, AEA Papers and Proceedings 76, no, 2, 291–294.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kartez, J.D. (1989) Rational arguments and irrational audiences: Psychology, planning, and public judgement, A.P.A. Journal, 116–156.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zeiss, C. (1991) Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11, 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nordenstam, B.J. (1994) When communities say NIMBY to their LULUS: Factors influencing perceptions of environmental social impact, paper presented at the International Association of Impact Assessment, Quebec, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology choice, Science 211, 453–458.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ellsberg, D. (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Becker, S.W. and Bronson, F.O. (1964) What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision-making, Journal of Political Economy 72, 62–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Curley, S.P., Yates, J.F., and Abrams, R.A. (1986) Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38, 230–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Curley, S.P., Eraker, S.A., and Yates, J.F. (1984) An investigation of patients’ reactions to therapeutic uncertainty, Medical Decision Making 4, 501–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1985) Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference, Psychological Review 92, no. 4, 433–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Curley, S.P. and Yates, J.F. (1985) The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. National Research Council. (1968) Water and Choice in the Colorado Basin: An Example of Alternatives in Water Management, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Reckhow, K.H. (1979) The use of a simple model and uncertainty analysis in lake management, Water Resources Bulletin 15, no. 3, 601–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Reckhow, K.H. and Simpson, J.T. (1980) A procedure using modeling and en-or analysis for the prediction of lake phosphorus concentration from land use information, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37, no. 9, 1439–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Canale, R.P. and Effler, S.W. (1989) Stochastic phosphorus model for Onondaga Lake, Water Research 23 (g), 1009–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Griffin, C. (1994) Effectiveness and Feasibility of Best Management Practices in Reducing Urban Nonpoint Sources of Nitrogen: Uncertainty and Policy Analysis, Dissertation, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dakens, M.E., Toll, J.E., and Small, M.J. (1995) Risk-based environmental remediation: Decision framework and role of uncertainty (submitted).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Beck, M.B. (1987) Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty, Water Resource Res. 23, 1394–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Office of Technological Assessment. (1982) Use of Models for Water Resources Management, Planning, and Policy, G.P.O., Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  39. DeCoursey, D.G. (1988) A critical assessment of hydrologic modeling, in Modeling Agricultural, Forestry, and Rangeland Hydrology. Proceedings of the 1988 International Symposium, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nordenstam, B.J. (1995) Psycho-social factors influencing the perception of environmental uncertainty and risk (submitted).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibrekk, H. and Morgan, M.G. (1987) Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to non-technical people, Risk Analysis 7, no. 4, 519–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gigerenzer, G. (1993) The bounded rationality of probabilistic mental models, in K.I. Manktelow and D.E. Over (eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives, Routledge, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Simon, RA. (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (1994) Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty, Cognition (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Soderbaum, P. (1987) Environmental management: A nontraditional approach, Journal of Economic Issues (March), 223–256.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Douglas, M. (1985) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lopes, L. (1981) Notes, comments, and new findings: Decision-making in the short run, Journal of Experimental Psychology 7, 377–385.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Luhmann. (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames, American Psychologist 39, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Keynes, J.M. (1921) A Treatise on Probability, MacMillan, London.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Krimsky, S. and Plough, A. (1988) Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risk as a Social Process, Auburn House, Dover, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nordenstam, B.J. and DiMento, J.F. (1990) Right-to-know: Implications of risk in risk communication research for regulatory policy, University of California Davis Law Review 23, no. 2, 333–374.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Raiffa, H. (1985) Back from prospect theory to utility theory, in Plural Rationality and Interactive Decision Processes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, FRG.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Slovic, P., Layman, M., and Lichtenstein, S. (1982) Rating the risks: The structure of expert and lay perceptions, in C. Hohenemser and JX. Kasperson (eds.), Risk in the Technological Society, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 141–166.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Smith, K.V. and Desvousges, W.H. (1988) The valuation of environmental risks and hazardous waste policy, Land Economics 64, 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Soderbaum, P. (1988) Economics in relation to environment, agriculture and rural development: A non-traditional approach to project evaluation, Report 31, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science 185, 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Environmental Science & Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, New York, USA

    B. J. Nordenstam

Authors
  1. B. J. Nordenstam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sublet & Associates, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    Virginia H. Sublet

  2. University of Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

    Virginia H. Sublet

  3. Center for Risk Communication, Columbia University New York, New York, USA

    Vincent T. Covello

  4. University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

    Vincent T. Covello

  5. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, USA

    Tim L. Tinker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nordenstam, B.J. (1996). The Influence of Environmental Uncertainty on Lay Perceptions of Risk and Safety. In: Sublet, V.H., Covello, V.T., Tinker, T.L. (eds) Scientific Uncertainty and Its Influence on the Public Communication Process. NATO ASI Series, vol 86. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8619-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8619-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4737-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8619-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation