Risk Perception Frames in Environmental Decision Making

In environmental decision making, local community residents and activists frequently make claims about risk and its management that run counter to expert knowledge. Environmental practitioners who dismiss these claims as irrational or emotional become ill-equipped to cope with them. How might we better understand risk perceptions, and what are their implications for environmental professional practice? This article examines how these differences emerge as a result of frames, or interpretive lenses. As described in this article, lay perceptions are often based on extreme outcomes rather than expected value, built upon experiential rather than analytic models, focus on social rather than physical risk systems, and seek zero risk rather than relative risk reduction. Divergent perceptions of risks not only alter preferences for specific decisions but also aggravate disparities in identity and characterization frames. These disparities further decrease trust and inhibit communication, which in turn further widens divergences between risk frames held by experts and lay publics. Certain strategies may facilitate more effective communication and decision making when risk perception frames diverge. These include promoting more active listening, more carefully assessing frames within which risks are perceived and evaluated, and disentangling characterization and identity frames from risk frames.