Suchergebnisse

Long-term public support may encourage the diffusion of emerging technologies by coordinating the generation of knowledge and providing patient funding, but unexpected policy changes may hinder private investment and even lead to situations of technology lockout. Leveraging archival data; insights from 45 interviews across academia, industry, and government; and 75 hours of participant observations, we develop insights about why institutional instability in Portugal affected the adoption of Polymer Additive Manufacturing (PAM) and Metal Additive Manufacturing (MAM) differently. In both cases, Portugal invested in the technology relatively early. While PAM has been widely adopted, including increasingly in high-tech applications, MAM adoption has been modest despite MAM's potential to greatly improve the performance and competitiveness of metal molds. From the comparison between PAM and MAM, we generate theory about technological and contextual factors that affect 'technological forgiveness', defined as the resilience of a new technology's adoption to institutional instability.

An unusual questionnaire was used to explore what risks concern laypeople. It asked respondents to list, in their own words, as many risks of personal concern as they could. They then selected the five risks of greatest concern and answered a set of specific questions about each. A coding scheme was developed for categorizing these responses and was shown to have good reliability. The questionnaire was administered to a heterogeneous convenience sample of subjects. They reported a very broad range of risks of concern, which differed in plausible ways as a function of their gender and age. Females and student‐age subjects were generally more concerned about the environment, whereas males and older subjects were more likely to mention health and safety risks. Both the extent of the risk‐reduction actions that they reported and their expressed willingness to pay for future risk reductions were greater for risk that presented a direct personal threat (e.g., health risks) than for risks that posed a diffuse threat to the environment or to people in general (e.g., pollution). Respondents perceived themselves as bearing primary responsibility for managing threats to their own health, but generally saw government as bearing a heavier responsibility for managing environmental risks (especially for pollutants) and war. The questionnaire instrument and coding structure developed for this work are well‐suited to a variety of future research applications. They provide a way to identify the risks that concern lay groups, as well as to track the evolution of those concerns over time.

Expert judgments expressed as subjective probability distributions provide an appropriate means of incorporating technical uncertainty in some quantitative policy studies. Judgments and distributions obtained from several experts allow one to explore the extent to which the conclusions reached in such a study depend on which expert one talks to. For the case of sulfur air pollution from coal‐fired power plants, estimates of sulfur mass balance as a function of plume flight time are shown to vary little across the range of opinions of leading atmospheric scientists while estimates of possible health impacts are shown to vary widely across the range of opinions of leading scientists in air pollution health effects.

This article reports an extension of the Carnegie Mellon risk‐ranking method to incorporate ecological risks and their attributes. On the basis of earlier risk‐perception studies, we identified a set of 20 relevant attributes for describing health, safety, and environmental hazards in standardized risk summary sheets. In a series of three ranking sessions, 23 laypeople ranked 10 such hazards in a fictional Midwestern U.S. county using both holistic and multiattribute ranking procedures. Results were consistent with those from previous studies involving only health and safety hazards, providing additional evidence for the validity of the method and the replicability of the resulting rankings. Holistic and multiattribute risk rankings were reasonably consistent both for individuals and for groups. Participants reported that they were satisfied with the procedures and results, and indicated their support for using the method to advise real‐world risk‐management decisions. Agreement among participants increased over the course of the exercise, perhaps because the materials and deliberations helped participants to correct their misconceptions and clarify their values. Overall, health and safety attributes were judged more important than environmental attributes. However, the overlap between the importance rankings of these two sets of attributes suggests that some information about environmental impacts is important to participants' judgments in comparative risk‐assessment tasks.

A deliberative method for ranking risks was evaluated in a study involving 218 risk managers. Both holistic and multiattribute procedures were used to assess individual and group rankings of health and safety risks facing students at a fictitious middle school. Consistency between the rankings that emerged from these two procedures was reasonably high for individuals and for groups, suggesting that these procedures capture an underlying construct of riskiness. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their groups' decision‐making processes and the resulting rankings, and these reports were corroborated by regression analyses. Risk rankings were similar across individuals and groups, even though individuals and groups did not always agree on the relative importance of risk attributes. Lower consistency between the risk rankings from the holistic and multiattribute procedures and lower agreement among individuals and groups regarding these rankings were observed for a set of high‐variance risks. Nonetheless, the generally high levels of consistency, satisfaction, and agreement suggest that this deliberative method is capable of producing risk rankings that can serve as informative inputs to public risk‐management decision making.

The perception of the potential risk arising from human exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields was studied with a quasi‐random sample of 116 well‐educated, opinion leaders using the risk perception framework previously developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein. These individuals rated exposure to fields from transmission lines and electric blankets on a variety of scales that have been found useful in characterizing people's risk attitudes and perceptions. These judgments allowed us to conjecture about the likely desire for regulation of these potential hazards and the likely response to a publicized problem (e.g., an accident or ominous research finding) involving these two sources of exposure. Various forms of detailed information about 50/60 Hz fields were supplied to respondents. The provision of information produced modest, but statistically significant, changes in perceptions in the direction of greater concern about the risks. In response to questions of public policy, participants desired modest regulatory control of field exposure from transmission lines and little or no control of field exposure from appliances like electric blankets.

Risk ranking offers a potentially powerful means for gathering public input to help set risk‐management priorities. In most rankings conducted to date, the categories and attributes used to describe the risks have varied widely, the materials and procedures have not been designed to facilitate comparisons among risks on all important attributes, and the validity and reproducibility of the resulting rankings have not been assessed. To address these needs, a risk‐ranking method was developed in which risk experts define and categorize the risks to be ranked, identify the relevant risk attributes, and characterize the risks in a set of standardized risk summary sheets, which are then used by lay or other groups in structured ranking exercises. To evaluate this method, a test bed involving 22 health and safety risks in a fictitious middle school was created. This article provides an overview of the risk‐ranking method and describes the challenges faced in designing the middle school test bed. A companion article in this issue reports on the validity of the ranking procedures and the level of agreement among risk managers regarding ranking of risks and attributes.