Metaphoric description of risks and their perception: are they useful or just “wordplays”?
Oct 2nd, 2014
Metaphoric description of risks and their perception
A couple decades ago, German researchers in the field of theoretical risk management developed a series of metaphors to describe public perception of risks. They are summarized below, with examples:
The Sword of Damocles an allusion to imminent and ever-present peril existing.
Sword of Damocles has a very high disaster potential, although the probability that this potential manifests itself is theoretically extremely low. Nuclear power plants (Fukushima), large-scale chemical facilities (Bophal, Seveso), hydro-dams and meteorite impacts are typical examples.
Cyclops it is only possible to ascertain either the probability of occurrence or the extent of damage while the other side remains uncertain. In the risk class Cyclops the probability of occurrence is largely uncertain whereas the maximum damage can be estimated. A number of natural events such as volcanic eruptions (Vesuvius), earthquakes (various “large one” like San Francisco, Tokyo, etc.) and floods belong in this category.
Pythias includes risks associated with the possibility of sudden non-linear climatic changes, such as the risk of self-reinforcing global warming or of the instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with far more disastrous consequences than those of gradual climate change. The extent of damage is unknown and the probability of occurrence also cannot be ascertained with any accuracy.
Pandora’s Box is characterized by both uncertainty in the probability of occurrence and extent of damage (only presumptions) coupled with high persistency. Beside persistent organic pollutants and biosystem changing endocrine disruptors can be quoted as examples.
Cassandra is characterized by a relatively lengthy delay between the triggering event (for example nuclear radiation exposure below a certain critical threshold) and the occurrence of damage. This case is naturally only of interest if both the probability and magnitude of damage are relatively high. If the time interval were shorter, the regulatory authorities would certainly intervene because the risks would be clearly located in the intolerable area. However, the distance in time between trigger and consequence creates the fallacious impression of safety.
Medusa refers to the potential for public mobilization. This criterion expresses the extent of individual aversion to risk and the political protest potential fueled by this aversion, both of which are triggered among the lay public when certain risks are taken. This risk class is only of interest if there is a particularly large gap between lay risk perceptions and expert risk analysis findings. Some innovations are rejected although they are hardly assessed scientifically as threat (cell phones, high voltage lines, etc.).
Below is a summary table where we have attempted to relate “knowledge level”, “degree of incertitude”, “main criteria” and finally the German metaphor name.
||Degree of uncertainty
||Probability of occurrence and extent of damage are highly unknown to science
||Probability of occurrence or extent of damage or both are uncertain (because of natural variations or genuine stochastic relationships)
||Known distribution of probabilities and corresponding damages
||Probability of occurrence and extent of damage are known
Now, in our societies we oftentimes see different accident types, with identical or very similar single-accident direct consequences, but very different global impacts, generate surprisingly different public reactions.
Would the metaphores help explaining why?
Tagged with: accident types, Cassandra, Cyclops, Degree of uncertainty, Medusa, Pandora’s Box, public perception, Pythias, Risk Management, Sword of Damocles
Category: Consequences, Hazard, Probabilities, Risk analysis, Risk management, Tolerance/Acceptability, Uncategorized
This article was well written and brings forth some interesting comparisons in which baselines may be drawn from situation o situation availing the reader to have a much more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Keep articles and blogs like this coming!
Throughout the great design of things you’ll receive an A+ for effort. Where exactly you actually lost us was first in all the details. You know, people say, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be much more accurate in this article. Having said that, allow me say to you just what exactly did deliver the results. Your writing is actually pretty convincing and that is probably why I am making the effort in order to opine. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Second, whilst I can certainly see a leaps in reasoning you come up with, I am not convinced of just how you appear to connect the points that make your conclusion. For now I will yield to your issue but trust in the foreseeable future you connect your dots much better.
What’s up,I check your blog named “Metaphoric description of risks and their perception: are they useful or just “wordplays”? – Riskope” regularly.Your writing style is witty, keep up the good work! And you can look our website about free anonymous proxies.