From risk analysis to risk perception – a case study on systemic risks

1. From risk analysis to risk perception – a case study on systemic risks Maria Luísa Lima, ISCTE IST, 4th May 2004 S&T and the management of risk: implications for technology policy

2. Focus of the presentation • A case study on the management of risk associated to the construction of a waste incinerator. • A technological innovation in Portugal • A great deal of uncertainty around the consequences of the incinerator • The public debate was framed by a scientific debate

3. Structure of the presentation • The context of the decision and the follow-up study • The interface between risk analysis and risk perception during the process • The consequences for risk management

4. The context of the decision to construct the incinerator (1) • Enormous increase in waste production • Several municipalities in the North and some others in the South decided to joint to built two waste incinerators • Environmental groups contested this decision • Local movements emerged to fight against the incinerator (specially in Lisbon)

5. The context of the decision to construct the incinerator (2) • An Environmental Impact Assessment Study was conducted for each site • It was one of the first EIA processes in Portugal • It included a social-psychological part

6. Risk analysis and risk perception • Social Psychological part and Risk perception were only included in the EIA study because there was a great deal of media coverage of the protests • Risk perception was tolerated, but conceived as an erroneous approach to the risk • But there is no clear scientific evidence for the absence of effects to public health (Hu and Shy, 2001)

7. Objective features of the Environment • Noise • Air Pollution • Water pollution • Social Psychological Impacts • Stress • Anxiety • Depression • Moderating • variables • (meaning) • Local identity • Attitude toward LIPOR II • Distance to LIPORII • Sources of • Impact • Annoyance (noise) • Annoyance (smell & smog) • Perceived threat Theoretical Model of Social Psychological Impacts

8. % of residents against the incinerator

9. Prediction of attitudes (Explained variance =66%) Risk perception -.33 Attitude towards the incinerator .26 Expectations Adj R2=.66 Trust env. group -.17 .13 Distance to the site

10. Decision • To built the incinerator, but: • A follow up study was needed in order to ensure the correctness of the results of the EIA study. • A communication strategy was needed to ensure that the residents were informed about the incinerator and could control the process

11. Evaluating systemic risks

12. The follow-up study included • Environmental follow-up • Water resources (DG-UA) • Air quality (IDAD-UA) • Biology (water and surface) (DB-UA) • Noise (DAO-UA) • Public health follow-up (ISCBAS) • Social Psychological follow-up (CIS-ISCTE)

13. The procedure of the SPF-U x • Regular data collection by surveys • Localities close to the site: • 2Kms: 6 villages • 5 kms: 3 towns • 10 Kms: Oporto

14. Surveys assessed • Atitudes towards the incinerator (=.78) • Risk perception (perceived likelihood of negative consequences) (=.93) • Perceived environmental quality: annoyance due to daytime noise (=.85), nighttime noise (=.91), air pollution (=.89) • Psychological suffering: depression (=.67), anxiety (=.68) (HADS, Zigmond et al., 1983) and stress (=.69) (PSS-4, Cohen et al, 1983).

15. May 1997 743 May 1998 300 February 1999 271 July 1999 257 March 2000 315 February 2001 301 July 2001 301 February 2002 300 July 2002 300 February 2003 307 July 2003 300 February 2004 302 +/- 300 interviews in each wave 3997 interviews to 1020 different residents (drop outs <20%) 3 focus groups 12 waves by now

16. Communication strategy • Regular meetings with a Committee of residents • Information center and a phone line • An environmental education center • Contacts with schools and collectivities, open days • A newsletter, regularly delivered in the mail box • http://www.lipor.pt

17. Evolution of the attitudes(May 97- July 03) Attitudes became more positive in the group living closer to the incinerator

18. Evolution of risk perception(July 99- July 03) • Risk perception has significantly lowered in the group living closer to the site

19. Annoyance due to odours • A more salient problem during the summer • It is visible an increase after the incinerator started to work

20. Psychological suffering • Increases during the construction phase and when the incinerator started to work • The habituation process in slower in this case

21. Environmental predictors of psychological suffering (more distant sample) Annoyance due to air pollution 0,15 Psychological suffering 0,15 R2=0,07 Annoyance due to daytime noise

22. Environmental predictors of psychological suffering (closer sample) Annoyance due to air pollution 0,24 Psychological suffering 0,18 R2=0,18 Annoyance due to daytime noise 0,14 Perceived risk

23. Giving meaning to the environmental changes (from the focus groups) • “Now I notice that the plants are different (…) they get mildium, I don´t know, they become brown, with little brown spots. Potatoes appear to be deformed… Yes, I think that there has been a change in the plants” (W1). • “My mother has now some respiratory problems. She had never had bronchitis. Some years ago, she started to have bronchitis. I don´t know. It can be a consequence of her age. But the incinerator can also have aggravated it” (W2).

24. Hypothetical link Psychological suffering Environmental annoyance Interpretation as danger Risk perception

25. Is this level of psychological suffering higher than in other industrial areas? • study conducted with validated psychological instruments • comparison between residents near Lipor and those living in • Estarreja (industry, air pollution) • Santo Tirso (industy, water pollution) • Cacia (industry, odour problem) • Ermesinde (former odour problem) • demographic variables controlled

26. Psychological well being • It is one of the highest areas in well being

27. Depression (HADS) • Medium levels of depression

28. Anxiety (HADS) • Medium levels of anxiety

29. Coping - denial • The lowest level of denial

30. After 7 years of studies… • Some environmental problems have been detected and minimized (e.g. water pollution) • Some new problems occurred and were solved (e.g. changes in the noise legislation) • Residents became particularly aware of the risks (costs to well-being) • The communication strategy increased the sense of control • Comparatively, the levels of well being are good.

31. Risk perception • Was viewed as a bogus variable • Turned out to be a central one to understand the consequences of “living near the fire” to the quality of life of the residents

32. On the real costs of risk perception • This case study shows that the subjective evaluation of risk should be taken seriously • For those exposed to the risk, risk perception is associated to higher levels of psychological suffering. • This occurs because environmental changes are interpreted as dangerous

33. On the real consequences of these studies • The regular attention to the public was important because this is a new and controversial technology and their knowledge and experience should also be taken into consideration • The information strategy allowed a sense of control over the process

34. Risk management • It was carefully done, and lots of (scientific) information was gathered in order to describe and minimize the risks • Subjective risk was assessed, and it was proven to be a cause of a diminished sense of well being • Habituation was accompanied by an increased sense of control • The communication strategy was probably a fundamental instrument to this achievement