Risk Frames

A major source of contention in environmental disputes centers around the various ways in which parties evaluate the type and level of risk involved with a particular approach to handling an environmental hazard. One's training, expertise, level of exposure, direct experience with the hazard, or the level of emotion involved can have varying degrees of influence on the perceived risk of the particular policy option. 

Risk frames are frameworks through which individuals and groups come to evaluate and respond to the potential risks associated with a particular policy decision. These frames influence whether they will accept or critique the decision and, to a large extent, the level of engagement that they will display when supporting or fighting the decision. 

Because each individual will have different perceptions of risk, and because laypeople and experts often conflict on the level and extent of risk involved with an environmental hazard, different groups may respond to the same risk assessments differently. 

Regardless of the scientific assessment of particular risk factors, people tend to judge risks more harshly when they appear to be:

Voluntary (living adjacent to a chemical plant)
Inequitable (a cluster of toxic materials facilities in a particular region)
Potentially Catastrophic (nuclear power accident), or
Not Well-Understood (exposure to pesticides through consuming fruits and vegetables).

For example, tests of water quality on a potentially polluted river may indicate that the water is well within safe levels for swimming and drinking. However, people actually drinking or swimming in the water may report skin rashes, allergic reactions, a dry or burning throat, or various other indicators that the water is indeed unsafe. In this case, different parties will have different framing of the potential risks, based on their position (EPA test official) or their direct experience (living and interacting with the water source). Whereas local politicians may turn to EPA tests and quality assessments to support their assertion that the water is free of significant risk, others in the neighborhood may respond quite differently and push for further investigations into the source of contamination.

Additional Resources:

Lewicki, Roy J., Barbara Gray, and Michael Elliott. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Island Press, 2003.

Davis, Craig B. and Roy J. Lewicki. "Environmental Conflict Resolution: Framing and Intractability- An Introduction." Environmental Practice. Vol. 5, No. 3. September, 2003.

Michael Elliott. "Risk Perception Frames in Environmental Decision Making." Environmental Practice. Vol. 5, No. 3. September, 2003.