Who is expert at interpreting environmental hazards A commentary on the disabling effects of an expert/layperson dichotomy
- Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, Seattle, WA (United States)
Risk managers and technical specialists, by casting members of the general public as inexpert'' and excluding them from risk management decisions, undermine the public interests they purport to serve. Managers regard specialists as value-neutral detectives in the quest to discern the true state of nature, while they discount public judgments of environmental hazards as ill-informed or politically motivated. This Commentary argues that an expert/layperson'' dichotomy exaggerates differences in approaches to evaluating environmental hazards and their social significance. Such a dichotomy: (1) downplays the role of judgment in structuring risk management problem-solving, and (2) underemphasizes the experience base of nonspecialists, gained through long-standing exposure to a series of subcritical events, which lends authority to lay judgments about both the potentially dangerous technology and the agency responsible for managing this technology. By effectively disqualifying potentially affected communities from taking a meaningful part in the search for ways to reduce the risk of environmental hazards, a lack of trust in the risk management agency and a felt lack of control over the risk's source are engendered, elevating rather than diminishing the judgments of risk associated with proposed hazard-reduction measures.
- OSTI ID:
- 7205821
- Journal Information:
- Environmental Professional; (United States), Journal Name: Environmental Professional; (United States) Vol. 15:3; ISSN EPROD9; ISSN 0191-5398
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Multiattribute utility analysis as a framework for public participation in siting a hazardous waste management facility
Who controls low-level radioactive wastes