.

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

Environmental Risk: A Philosophical Analysis

2. Keywords

Risk; hazard; objective risk; subjective or perceived risk; social construction of risk.

3. Introduction

Are technical estimates of risk ‘real’ representations of hazards, that can and will affect people and environments in the way predicted by their statistical calculations? Or do the beliefs and convictions of those conducting the assessments affect their calculations? Are these technical estimates really just social constructions that do not hold any validity outside the expert’s own logical framework or worldview? (after Renn 1998).

The mainstream view is that risk experts can ascertain an objective view of risk. The public’s perception of risk, if it deviates from this, is considered in the mainstream view to be distorted by irrational factors, such as fear, dread and level of trust. However, this distinction between ‘perceived’ (or ‘subjective’) and ‘objective’ risk is being challenged by those who hold that all views or calculations of risk reflect our worldviews. People who have faith in science tend to support the former objective/subjective view or risk, while those who are much more sceptical of science tend to argue that all views of risk are socially constructed and that risk cannot be measured objectively. Academics who write about risk will tend to hold one view or the other and this influences the way they discuss risk. This TLR aims to encourage students to discern the underlying philosophy on science and risk held by different authors.

4. Aim

The aim of this TLR is to generate among students an appreciation that risk can be viewed (and is written about) from different underlying philosophical perspectives. It encourages students to identify and examine such underlying perspectives, through reading and discussing theoretical pieces. It further presents the opportunity for students to think more critically about how authors’ underlying views influence the way in which they discuss risk.

5. Learning outcomes

After using this TLR students should:

• Be able to identify (1) perspectives which make a distinction between risk perception and objective risk assessment ; and (2) those which regard all risk to be socially constructed.
• Have an understanding about the commensurability of the differing perspectives.
• Appreciate how such different underlying philosophies lead to different claims being made about specific cases of risk.
• Be able to articulate their own views on the degree to which they consider risk is either socially constructed or amenable to objective assessment.
• Be able to discuss the practical and policy implications of the objective/subjective and social constructionist views.

6. Pre-requisites

There are no formal pre-requisites for this TLR but familiarity with ideas on the social construction of environmental knowledge and critiques of science will be useful for completing the TLR.

7. How to use TLR

This TLR is split into three stages:

• the provision (and reading) of academic literature (stage 1)
• a lecture (or handout) outlining the two different philosophies on risk (stage 2)
• discussion of the underlying philosophies of the articles (stage 3)

These are discussed in more depth below.

Stage 1

Students should be provided with a selection from the references listed under ‘Stimulus material’. Articles in section a) portray the objective/subjective view of risk, while articles in section b) adopt the social constructionist perspective. Students should be instructed to read at least one article from each section.

It can be explained to the students at this stage that after reading the papers they will be analysing their philosophical underpinnings, based on information they are provided with in a subsequent session. Thus they can be asked to consider, while reading, how the various authors view the experts’ capacity to measure risk and the layperson’s ability to comprehend risk differently.

Stage 2

When students and tutor next meet, the tutor should outline, using Annex A as a guide (either one hour lecture or handout) the different ways of viewing risk.

Stage 3

Students should be split into small groups to discuss the following questions (60-90 minutes):

1. Do the mainstream and constructivist positions differ in terms of whether they ‘privilege’ the claims of some groups and dismiss others (e.g. scientists, local people, politicians, industry)?
2. For the mainstream and constructivist positions in turn, suggest whether they hold an underlying faith that science can determine the nature of reality (epistemological realism); or whether they consider that science is only one way of looking at the world, and that there are other equally valid ways (epistemological relativism)?
3. How do the different philosophical positions lead the authors to adopt different analytical approaches or methodologies (do they examine different things)?
4. Are these methodologies mutually incompatible?
5. Adherents to the mainstream and the constructivist positions both now seem to acknowledge that the public’s views should be reflected in policy making. Is this indicative of a deeper philosophical convergence? What other reasons could be offered?
6. If risks are socially constructed:

• What contribution, if any, should risk scientists make to policy formation?
• What contribution should the public make, and how can their views be known?
• Do risks only exist when people think they do? (And does this mean, for example, that ozone depletion only began when people recognised the existence of a hole in the ozone layer?)

10. What are the overall merits and problems of the two perspectives in terms of their policy and practical implications?

Finally the whole class should come together to review the group analyses. Each group should lead the class discussion of one question (or more), with the last reserved for all to contribute (30-60 minutes).

8. Instructions to students

As directed by tutor: based on ‘How to use TLR’ and ‘Stimulus material’.

9. Stimulus material

The stimulus material includes the articles to be read by students and Annex A (to be ‘delivered’ as a lecture or handout).

a) Subjective/objective risk

McDaniels, T.L., Axelrod, L.J. Cavanagh, N.S. and Slovic, P. (1997) Perception of ecological risk to water environments, Risk Analysis, 17 (3), 341-352

This is a fairly short and comprehensible article. Students need not concern themselves too much with the statistical methods in this paper. Rather, they should concentrate upon understanding the objectives, discussion and conclusion.

Wiegman, O. and Gutteling, J.M. (1995) Risk appraisal and risk communication: some empirical data from the Netherlands reviewed, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16 (1&2), 227-249

This is a much more detailed article, providing a comprehensive review of the literature on risk perception. Students could be required, in addition to answering the questions for this TLR, to list the factors affecting risk perception.

Cross, F.B. (1998) Facts and values in risk assessment, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 27-40

The position taken by the author of this paper is very clear. He discusses problems of factual inaccuracy as a influence in public risk perception. He argues, quite forcefully, that science should form a stronger basis for government policy than public risk perception in issues of environmental risk.

b) The social construction of risk

Litmanen, T. (1996) Environmental conflict as a social construction: nuclear waste conflicts in Finland, Society and Natural Resources, 9, 523-535

This is another fairly short and comprehensible article. A considerable amount of information is given about NIMBYism, which is useful if students will also be using the related TLR Risk Perception and NIMBYism. However, it detracts a little from the main argument about social constructionism. Students should therefore be encouraged to concentrate on page 526 onwards.

Dietz, T. Stern, P.C. and Rycroft, R.W. (1989) Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: the case of environmental risk, Sociological Forum, 1, 47-70

Jasanoff, S. (1998) The political science of risk perception, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 27-40

This article provides a good defence of the social constructionist perspective, rather than employing it in the analysis of a case study. If this source is not readily available, a similar article has been published by the same author:

Jasanoff, S. (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis, Risk Analysis, 13 (2), 123-129

Supplementary reading (see Recommended reading) will also be beneficial to students.

10. Degree stage

This exercise is most appropriate at Level 3.

11. Resource requirements

• Teaching accommodation appropriate for discussion groups.
• OHP to facilitate conveyance of background material (if necessary).
• Write-on OHPs/whiteboard to record key points from groups.

12. Preparation

Tutors need to ensure that the Stimulus materials are available to students (some may need to be ordered by inter-library loan). Discussion questions could be distributed simultaneously with the stimulus materials.

An excellent overview of this topic is provided by Renn (1998), and listed in the Recommended reading below, which tutors may find very beneficial to read.

13. Links with other TLRs

TLRs which deal specifically with scientific uncertainty and lay understandings of the environment are particularly relevant to this TLR. These include:

• Guidelines for ‘Investigative’ Environmental Research
• Classifying Knowledge Claims
• Evaluating the Credibility of Knowledge Claims
• Environmental Risk and the Precautionary Principle

More generally, the aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic clusters':

• Contested science
• Environmental risk

14. Follow-up activities

This exercise could be repeated with other examples of social constructionism vs. objective/subjective assessments of the environment (nature) or environmental problems. In particular, analysis of the philosophical contexts of academic writings could be applied to work examining the portrayal of nature.

The following are examples of papers that could be analysed in such a way:

Bird, E. (1987) The social construction of nature: theoretical approaches to the history of environmental problems, Environmental Review, 11, 255-264

Harrison, C. M. and Burgess, J. (1994) Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 19, 291-310

Macnaghten, P. (1993) Discourses of nature: argumentation and power. Chapter 4 in Burman E and Parker, I. (eds) Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action, Routledge

Olwig, K. (1996) Environmental history and the construction of nature and landscape, Environment and History 2, 15-38

Sioh, M. (1998) Authorising the Malaysian rainforest: configuring space, contesting claims and conquering imaginaries, Ecumene, 5 (2), 143-166

15. Recommended reading

Adams, J. (1995) Risk, UCL Press

Margolis, H. (1996) Dealing with Risk, University of Chicago Press

Royal Society (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, Royal Society

Renn, O. (1998) The role of risk perception for risk management, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59 (1), 49-62