Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty

Robin Gregory, Nathan Dieckmann, Ellen Peters, Lee Failing, Graham Long, Martin Tusler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision-making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web-based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk- and environmental-management processes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2071-2083
Number of pages13
JournalRisk Analysis
Volume32
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Uncertainty
Environmental management
Risk Management
Risk management
Labels
Decision Making
Decision making
Research

Keywords

  • Deliberation
  • Environment
  • Experts
  • Risk management
  • Uncertainty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology (medical)
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

Cite this

Deliberative Disjunction : Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty. / Gregory, Robin; Dieckmann, Nathan; Peters, Ellen; Failing, Lee; Long, Graham; Tusler, Martin.

In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 12, 12.2012, p. 2071-2083.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gregory, Robin ; Dieckmann, Nathan ; Peters, Ellen ; Failing, Lee ; Long, Graham ; Tusler, Martin. / Deliberative Disjunction : Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty. In: Risk Analysis. 2012 ; Vol. 32, No. 12. pp. 2071-2083.
@article{f4adaff7897e4959bc382589cad0a973,
title = "Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty",
abstract = "Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision-making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web-based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk- and environmental-management processes.",
keywords = "Deliberation, Environment, Experts, Risk management, Uncertainty",
author = "Robin Gregory and Nathan Dieckmann and Ellen Peters and Lee Failing and Graham Long and Martin Tusler",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01825.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "2071--2083",
journal = "Risk Analysis",
issn = "0272-4332",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deliberative Disjunction

T2 - Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty

AU - Gregory, Robin

AU - Dieckmann, Nathan

AU - Peters, Ellen

AU - Failing, Lee

AU - Long, Graham

AU - Tusler, Martin

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision-making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web-based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk- and environmental-management processes.

AB - Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision-making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web-based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk- and environmental-management processes.

KW - Deliberation

KW - Environment

KW - Experts

KW - Risk management

KW - Uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871167316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871167316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01825.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01825.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22563823

AN - SCOPUS:84871167316

VL - 32

SP - 2071

EP - 2083

JO - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

SN - 0272-4332

IS - 12

ER -