Capacidades financieras claves

Risk perception is an important determinant of behaviour, and so it is necessary to un- derstand how people may weigh up the risk of storm damage in their forest manage- ment planning. Decision-makers are often characterised as risk-averse, risk-neutral or risk-taking with reference to their sensitivity to risk. Decision-makers (who could in- clude forest owners, managers, government officials etc.) can be influenced by the lev- el of calculated risk (assuming it can be accurately estimated and the degree of uncer- tainty specified), their attitude to risk (often shaped by past experience of the damaging agent), and the context provided by a host of other factors (including scope of respon- sibility, objectives of management, method of valuation losses, scale of enterprise, and risk to human life). However, it is difficult to translate scientific risk estimates and cal- culations of probability into how risk is understood by people.

There is a wealth of literature that suggests decision-making about risk in the context of uncertainty is governed by social, cultural, political and economic factors. Risk percep- tion is not fixed but dynamic and open to change over time. It is also personal to an indi- vidual with hazards and risk meaning different things to different people. Thus, how an individual evaluates what is or is not risky or the seriousness of a risk depends on a range of factors and background knowledge. These include social relationships and networks, trust in institutions and experts, experience, voluntariness or perceived control and famili- arity with the hazard. The role of these factors in risk perception has been comprehensive- ly deliberated in the literature and provides insights that are a useful starting point for un- derstanding how individuals and communities may think about storm damage in forests.

Risk communication plays a part in risk perception, but is not simply about informa- tion provision or availability. What is important to highlight here is that risk messages may be judged not only by what they say but also whether the source of the information

is trusted. Trust is a crucial component of risk perception, particularly where people do not possess detailed knowledge of the risk and thus rely on experts and other sources. For example, many private forest owners in Sweden trusted forestry consultants to pro- vide expert advice on risk management augmented by a general acceptance and trust in the Swedish forestry culture. However, less than half of 390 private owners who took part in a survey in 2004 had actually been advised on wind damage risk. Consultancies were found to be largely providing the same management advice, based on forestry tra- ditions of collective or national risk assessment, irrespective of local conditions, and in- dividual owners were not invited to bring their own perspectives to bear on the issue.

Recent psychological studies of risk have highlighted that instinct or emotional re- sponses play an important role in risk perception. Emotion or experiential-based respons- es involves an individual’s intuitive and automatic response to a stimulus experienced as a good feeling or bad. This reaction often informs information processing, decision- making and evaluation of an action. In other words, people may base their judgement not only on what they think about a hazard and actions to mitigate against it but also how they feel about it.

How people think and feel about a hazard is also influenced by their level of volun- tariness; that is the extent to which they have control over the hazard itself or exposure to the hazard. Hazards that are seen as involuntary, uncontrollable or that have delayed effects can induce fear and dread and increase the perceived risk. Conversely, familiari- ty with a particular hazard has been said to reduce perceptions of risk. Other strategies to deal with the inherent uncertainty associated with a natural hazard involve risk deni- al such as thinking “it won’t happen to me”, or taking the position that a hazard event is unlikely to occur more than once. A study of non-industrial private owners in Swe- den found that they were less likely to manage forests to mitigate against storm dam- age as it is seen as a ‘natural hazard’ or an ‘Act of God’ and therefore less avoidable than a risk that depends on forest management. This may explain why only about one third of the forest owners have taken action to reduce the risk of wind damage even though individuals believe the risk of wind damage to be high and likely to get worse due to cli- mate change. Similarly, another study on residents’ perceptions of flood risk in Germa- ny found that people were less supportive of mitigation measures that required a per- sonal level of involvement and responsibility.

Evidence suggests that social networks influence whether and how individuals seek risk-related information and also how they process it. Social networks can include a mul- titude of relationships including family, friends, neighbours, social media, workplace, associations and community. Perceived impacts of natural hazards can be identified at an individual but also a community level, particularly where forests play a key economic or social role contributing to jobs, local identity and quality of life. A study on commu- nity attitudes and reactions towards a public health hazard reveals that at the communi- ty level it is possible for one overall perception of risk to occur through which individu- al or group risk perceptions are filtered. Thus risk perception often emerges from social interaction. It is through mechanisms such as this that social amplification of risk can occur. The perceived risk thus becomes magnified compared to the assessed risk and may trigger significant responses.

Risk communication is a complex process that is not simply about informa-