Page - 206 - in Freshwater Microplastics - Emerging Environmental Contaminants?

greater potential for immediate disastrous outcome to the individual such as a nuclear power plantmeltdown are often perceived asworse than those that inflict slow and gradual damage. A fifth driver is the severity of the risk (driver 5: severity), measured in terms of howmany people it might affect, as there seems tobeacorrelationbetweennumberofpeoplepotentiallyaffectedandtheperceived risk.The sixthdriver (driver6:benefit) for riskperception is thedegreeofbenefits that are associated with the risk. People are more likely to accept risks if they believe that taking the risks is associated with high degree of benefit. Driving in citieswithintensetrafficisanexample,wheretheriskofendingupinacaraccident is perceived acceptable due to the benefit of transportation in a car. The seventh driver is the novelty of the risk (driver 7: novelty). Risks associated with new technologies and novel entities are generally perceived as more dangerous than older andmore familiar risks, even if the statistical risks are comparable or even lower for thenovel risk.Theeighthandfinaldriver relates tohowtangible the risk is (driver 8: tangibility). It is important to distinguish between risks that by the individual are perceived as tangible and risks that are perceived as abstract and elusive. Abstract and elusive risks, such as those posed by climate change, are typically far more difficult to mobilize political action against, and therefore political actionwill only take place when the risk has become visible and acute, and by then, it will often be too late to take political action [8]. Giddens himself refers to this phenomenonas the “Giddens paradox” [8]. Beforeaddressing riskperceptionofplasticpollution in respect to thesedrivers, it is feasible to explore twohistorical cases of other yet somewhat related types of risk – i.e., those of hazardous chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 2.1 RiskPerceptionofHazardousChemicals andGMOs In2009theEuropeanCommissionpublishedastudyonEuropeans’ riskperception of potential hazardous chemicals in household products [9]. The results are inter- esting in the light of the abovementioned framework for “risk” perception, biases, anddrivers.Thegroupofchemicals thatwereassociatedwith thehighestperceived risk were pesticides and herbicides used for home use. Of the respondents that answered,70%said that thisgroupofchemicalsposedarisk in theirperception.At the other endof the scalewere toothpaste (7%) andhair shampoo (11%). The report concludes that people generallyviewpersonal risks lower than risks to the general public. This could be due to a perception of the personal risk being easier to control [9]. The report concludes that if a product is known to be risky, citizens could translate this knowledge into taking precautionarymeasures,which would again lower the perceived risk. This is in linewith the theories about risk perception, i.e., the levelofvoluntariness aswell as the levelof control of the risk. Another important aspect for riskperceptionofhouseholdchemicals is thepotency of the chemicals [9]. Chemical with high hazardous potential was generally 206 K.Syberg et al.