Page - 218 - in Freshwater Microplastics - Emerging Environmental Contaminants?

theyaremostconcernedwith,andbyinvolvinglocalcitizens, theygethighersense ofcontrolover the risk (driver2).Thecitizensalsogenerateabetterunderstanding of the consequences of the plastic pollution for the environment (driver 4). Any local conflictswhere pollutionwith plastic is in favor of some citizens or organi- zations (e.g., cosmeticsproducers)andnototherscanfurtherbe illuminated insuch aprocess (driver6), enablingadialogueaboutpositive andnegativeconsequences of the different behaviors. Finally, the bottom-up citizen science approach has the potential to make the problem even more explicit to the citizens and thereby enhancing the risk perception by reducing the “Giddens paradox” (driver 8). The risk perception of plastic pollution has thus developed markedly over the last decades, due to increased scientific understanding and greater involvement of citizens in collection scientificdata. Acknowledgement Thiswork is supported by theVillumFoundation. References 1.Sjøberg L, Moen BE, Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research.Rotundepublikasjoner,Rotundeno. 84 2.SybergK,HansenSF (2016)Environmental risk assessment of chemicals and nanomaterials —thebest foundation for regulatory decision-making?SciTotalEnviron541:784–794 3.BeckU(1986)Risk society: towards anewmodernity. Sage,London 4.Silvertown J (2009)Anewdawn for citizen science.TrendsEcolEvol 24:467–471 5.KrammJ,V€olkerC (2017)Understanding the risks ofmicroplastics.A social-ecological risk perspective. In:WagnerM,LambertS (eds)Freshwatermicroplastics: emergingenvironmen- tal contaminants?Springer,Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_11 (in this volume) 6. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1981) Facts and fears: societal perception of risk. NA-AdvConsumRes8:497–502 7.StarrC (1969)Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165:1232–1238 8.GiddensA (2011)Thepolitics of climate change. PolityPress,Cambridge 9.EC (2009) Europeans’ attitudes toward chemicals in consumer products: risk perception of potential health hazards. European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication (“Research andPoliticalAnalysis”Unit),Bruxelles,Belgium 10.TorgersenH (2004) The real and perceived risks of geneticallymodified organisms. EMBO Rep5:17–21 11.SchmidtCW(2008)Theyuckfactorwhendisgustmeetsdiscovery.EnvironHealthPersp116: A524–A527 12.KenyonKW,KridlerE(1969)Laysanalbatross swallowindigestiblematter.Auk86:339–343 13.ChenxiW,KaiZ,XiongX(2017)MicroplasticpollutionininlandwatersfocusingonAsia. In: WagnerM,LambertS(eds)Freshwatermicroplastics:emergingenvironmentalcontaminants? Springer,Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_5 (in this volume) 14.Khan FR, Mayoma BS, Biginagwa FJ, Syberg K (2017) Microplastics in inland African waters: presence, sources and fate. In:WagnerM,Lambert S (eds)Freshwatermicroplastics: emerging environmental contaminants?Springer,Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61615- 5_6 (in this volume) 15.DrisR,Gasperi J,TassinB(2017)Sourcesandfateofmicroplastics inurbanareas:a focuson Paris megacity. In: Wagner M, Lambert S (eds) Freshwater microplastics: emerging 218 K.Syberg et al.