Public Reaction to Mandated Language for U.S. Drinking Water Quality Reports

The author discusses results of a survey evaluating the mandated language for United States drinking water quality reports

Comparing Bottled Water and Tap Water: Experiments in Risk Communication

The author discusses results of experiments in risk communication comparing bottled water and tap water

Risk Comparisons in a Democratic Society: What People Say They Do and Do Not Want

Using an exploratory focus group, Dr. Johnson examines citizen responses to common risk message techniques

Utility Customers\u27 Views of the Consumer Confidence Report of Drinking Water Quality

The author evaluates consumer understanding of water quality reports provided to them by their drinking water utility under the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996

Advancing Understanding of Knowledge\u27s Role in Lay Risk Perception

Emphasizing how knowledge affects lay Risk perception, summarizing studies and suggesting further research, the author differentiates between knowledge production, knowledge dissemination and information processing as affected by, e.g., heuristics and Risk aversion. He also suggests that better understanding of lay knowledge can also illuminate experts\u27 hazard knowledge

Public Participation in Hazard Management: The Use of Citizen Panels in the U.S.

After discussing the need for citizen participation in Risk management and a method of facilitating such participation as developed in Germany, the authors discuss and analyze its subsequent modification and use in a sewage sludge management project in New Jersey

Testing the Role of Technical Information in Public Risk Perception

It is widely believed that more detail about health effects and likely exposure routes is apt to reduce citizens\u27 concerns about low-probability Risks. The authors\u27 study suggests that providing such detail may not be as useful as, e.g., addressing public concerns and keeping citizens current on officials\u27 actions

Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/122430/1/risa12532.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/122430/2/risa12532_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/122430/3/risa12532-sup-0001-SupMat.pd

Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?

30 page PDFExpert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the U.S. public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains (climate change, crime, economics, environment, health, politics, terrorism). People with low education, or with low self-reported knowledge of the topic, were most likely to attribute expert disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. We highlight several important implications of these results for scientists and risk managers and argue for further research on how people perceive and grapple with expert disputes.We would like to acknowledge the generous support of the National Science Foundation: This material is based upon work supported by NSF under Grant Nos. #1231231 (Robin Gregory, PI; Nathan Dieckmann co-PI) and #0925008 (Nathan Dieckmann, PI) to Decision Research. All views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone

Public participation in hazard management : the use of citizen panels in the U.S.

Americans increasingly question decisions of professional risk managers. This trend is most apparent in the areas of nuclear, hazardous chemical and solid waste management. Professionals and the general public strongly disagree about the seriousness of many risks. The professionals use the expected losses per time unit as the major yardstick to evaluate risks. The public is more concerned about long term effects, inequitable siting, lack of personal control, and the pace of technological diffusion into their cultural environment. Citizens also distrust the ability to monitor and control unintended consequences. Decision making should assure that risk management is both efficient and sensitive to public concerns. This paper discusses a novel way to meet both needs. The model was developed in West Germany and, after some alterations, was first applied in the U.S. in a sludge disposal question in New Jersey