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

  • B. J. Nordenstam
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (ASID, volume 86)


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.


Safety Level Prospect Theory Risk Averse Environmental Risk Assessment Monetary Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1994) Inevitable Illusions, Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973) On the psychology of prediction, Psychological Review 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slovic et al. (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Einhorn and Hogarth. (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finkel, A.M. (1990) Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management: A Guide for Decision-Makers. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKone, T.E. and Bogen, K.T. (1991) Predicting the uncertainties in risk assessment, Environmental Science and Technology 25, no. 10, 1674–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carnegie Commission. (1993) Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decision Making, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Research Council. (1994) Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thaler, R.H. (1991) Quasi Rational Economics, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahneman and Tresorky. (1974)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simon. (1957)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica 47, 263–291.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Knetsch, J. (1983) Property Rights and Compensation, Butterworths, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  20. 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. 21.
    Kartez, J.D. (1989) Rational arguments and irrational audiences: Psychology, planning, and public judgement, A.P.A. Journal, 116–156.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeiss, C. (1991) Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11, 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 24.
    Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology choice, Science 211, 453–458.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ellsberg, D. (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1985) Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference, Psychological Review 92, no. 4, 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Canale, R.P. and Effler, S.W. (1989) Stochastic phosphorus model for Onondaga Lake, Water Research 23 (g), 1009–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 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. 37.
    Beck, M.B. (1987) Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty, Water Resource Res. 23, 1394–1442.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Office of Technological Assessment. (1982) Use of Models for Water Resources Management, Planning, and Policy, G.P.O., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. 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. 40.
    Nordenstam, B.J. (1995) Psycho-social factors influencing the perception of environmental uncertainty and risk (submitted).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibrekk, H. and Morgan, M.G. (1987) Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to non-technical people, Risk Analysis 7, no. 4, 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. 43.
    Simon, RA. (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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. 45.
    Soderbaum, P. (1987) Environmental management: A nontraditional approach, Journal of Economic Issues (March), 223–256.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Douglas, M. (1985) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  47. 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. 48.
    Luhmann. (1993)Google Scholar
  49. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames, American Psychologist 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keynes, J.M. (1921) A Treatise on Probability, MacMillan, London.zbMATHGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. J. Nordenstam
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Environmental Science & ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations