Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Abstract

Accordingly, the U. S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royslty-free licensa to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do OD, for 0 3 4 GF DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work spomored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal iiability or responsibility for the acamcy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights Refmnce herein to any specific commerdal product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, mamWtmr, or otherwise does not wcessanly constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses

“…Mostly these studies use data suggesting the presence of risk amplification, but Lewis and Tyshenko (2009) and Metz (1996) both found expected amplification not to be present, and so were primarily concerned with correlating the absence of risk amplification with specific circumstances. Some of the more ambitious studies of social risk amplification, attempting to develop a comprehensive view of the factors causing amplification, have had to use mixed methods.…”

“…These have revealed how the worldview of individuals affects their tendency to amplify risk, and how particular actors use the media to convey their view of the risk and influence opinion. Quantitative studies have occasionally used economic measures of risk responses, such as property values and business activity (Metz, 1996), and there has been some content analysis of the news media (Lewis and Tyshenko, 2009). But most quantitative work has been based on public surveys (for example Brenkert-Smith et al, 2013;Binder et al, 2011, Frewer et al, 2002.…”

“…It has been used in a wide variety of contexts, including wildfire risk (Brenkert-Smith et al, 2013), the siting of potentially hazardous installations (Binder et al, 2011), environmental risk from tunneling (Chung, 2011), disease outbreaks (Lewis and Tyshenko, 2009, Raude et al, 2004, Busby and Duckett, 2012, genetically modified foods (Frewer et al, 2002), the dismantling of hazardous installations (Bakir, 2005), chemical accidents (Porto and de Freitas, 1996), climate change (Renn, 2011), nuclear weapons facility accidents (Metz, 1996), inoculation risks (Petts and Niemeyer, 2004) and general levels of violence in society (Hill, 2001). In such situations, the framework has provided a way of describing how discrepancies between the risk beliefs of different groups, and between experts and lay communities especially, can arise.…”