On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media

Abstract The public is concerned about plastic pollution, while clear‐cut scientific evidence for an environmental risk of microplastics is absent. This contrast between incomplete scientific knowledge and public risk perception is an interesting case for investigating how “environmental risk” is tr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carolin Völker, Johanna Kramm, Martin Wagner
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-06-01
Series:Global Challenges
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900010
id doaj-7bcab5d3f6ef4b3e8ee3e5adf5b13f89
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7bcab5d3f6ef4b3e8ee3e5adf5b13f892021-05-02T18:06:54ZengWileyGlobal Challenges2056-66462020-06-0146n/an/a10.1002/gch2.201900010On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and MediaCarolin Völker0Johanna Kramm1Martin Wagner2ISOE−Institute for Social‐Ecological Research Hamburger Allee 45 D‐60486 Frankfurt am Main GermanyISOE−Institute for Social‐Ecological Research Hamburger Allee 45 D‐60486 Frankfurt am Main GermanyDepartment of Biology Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) NO‐7491 Trondheim NorwayAbstract The public is concerned about plastic pollution, while clear‐cut scientific evidence for an environmental risk of microplastics is absent. This contrast between incomplete scientific knowledge and public risk perception is an interesting case for investigating how “environmental risk” is transformed in science communication. This study examines how microplastics risks are framed in peer‐reviewed publications and online newspaper articles, respectively. It also analyzes if the contents conveyed by the frames used in science and the media are consistent. The results show that most scientific studies (67%) frame microplastics risks as hypothetical or uncertain, while 24% present them as established. In contrast, most media articles reporting on microplastic impacts (93%) imply that risks of microplastics exist and harmful consequences are highly probable. The creation of simple narratives (journalists) and the emphasis on potentially negative impacts (scientists) contribute to this inconsistency. The transformation of an uncertain risk into an actual risk is further caused by two inconsistent risk conceptions, namely risk being the probability of a negative outcome (environmental scientists) or being the uncertainty of a negative outcome itself (public). Although the latter differs from the risks identified “objectively” by scientific methods, it allows understanding the risk perception of the public and decision‐makers.https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900010environmental risk assessmenthuman healthplastic pollutionrisk communicationuncertainty
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Carolin Völker
Johanna Kramm
Martin Wagner
spellingShingle Carolin Völker
Johanna Kramm
Martin Wagner
On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
Global Challenges
environmental risk assessment
human health
plastic pollution
risk communication
uncertainty
author_facet Carolin Völker
Johanna Kramm
Martin Wagner
author_sort Carolin Völker
title On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
title_short On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
title_full On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
title_fullStr On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
title_full_unstemmed On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
title_sort on the creation of risk: framing of microplastics risks in science and media
publisher Wiley
series Global Challenges
issn 2056-6646
publishDate 2020-06-01
description Abstract The public is concerned about plastic pollution, while clear‐cut scientific evidence for an environmental risk of microplastics is absent. This contrast between incomplete scientific knowledge and public risk perception is an interesting case for investigating how “environmental risk” is transformed in science communication. This study examines how microplastics risks are framed in peer‐reviewed publications and online newspaper articles, respectively. It also analyzes if the contents conveyed by the frames used in science and the media are consistent. The results show that most scientific studies (67%) frame microplastics risks as hypothetical or uncertain, while 24% present them as established. In contrast, most media articles reporting on microplastic impacts (93%) imply that risks of microplastics exist and harmful consequences are highly probable. The creation of simple narratives (journalists) and the emphasis on potentially negative impacts (scientists) contribute to this inconsistency. The transformation of an uncertain risk into an actual risk is further caused by two inconsistent risk conceptions, namely risk being the probability of a negative outcome (environmental scientists) or being the uncertainty of a negative outcome itself (public). Although the latter differs from the risks identified “objectively” by scientific methods, it allows understanding the risk perception of the public and decision‐makers.
topic environmental risk assessment
human health
plastic pollution
risk communication
uncertainty
url https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900010
work_keys_str_mv AT carolinvolker onthecreationofriskframingofmicroplasticsrisksinscienceandmedia
AT johannakramm onthecreationofriskframingofmicroplasticsrisksinscienceandmedia
AT martinwagner onthecreationofriskframingofmicroplasticsrisksinscienceandmedia
_version_ 1721489124810031104