We Describe Environmental Risk in Ways That Don’t Match How People Think
- JD Solomon
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
Environmental decisions fail because people hear the same risk described in completely different ways and walk away with entirely different understandings of what’s at stake. Before we ever get to the data, the conversation is already shaped by how risk is framed, who is doing the framing, and what the audience brings to the table. To address these issues, we first need to examine how we describe risk—and explore what we can do to fix it.
The Problem: We Describe Risk in Ways That Don’t Match How People Think
Risk is typically expressed in technical terms as the likelihood multiplied by the consequence. It’s clean, rational, and mathematically simple (usually too simple). In human health, risk is often expressed in more nuanced ways — through exposure pathways, dose–response relationships, uncertainty factors, and the vulnerability of specific populations.
People don’t respond to risk based on probability curves. They respond based on trust, control, fairness, and personal relevance. When our communication doesn’t account for that, even the best science falls flat.
Through hundreds of projects, I’ve seen five dominant ways we describe environmental risk. Each has strengths, weaknesses, and predictable human reactions.
1. Scientific Risk
Foundation: Probabilities, exceedances, recurrence intervals, and dose–response curves.
Strength: Accurate and comparable.
Weakness: Emotionally meaningless to most stakeholders.
Typical reaction: Underestimation of slow-moving risks and overreaction to visible ones.
2. Regulatory Risk
Foundation: Thresholds, standards, attainment, impairment.
Strength: Clear compliance boundaries.
Weakness: Creates a false binary: “below the limit = safe.”
Typical reaction: Complacency or confusion when standards change.
3. Economic Risk
Foundation: Costs, avoided costs, ROI, lifecycle impacts.
Strength: Resonates with decision-makers.
Weakness: Can appear cold or disconnected from community values.
Typical reaction: Acceptance from executives, skepticism from the public.
4. Social or Perceived Risk
Foundation: Fairness, equity, control, and community identity.
Strength: Captures what people actually care about.
Weakness: Often dismissed as “emotional” or “non-technical.”
Typical reaction: Strong engagement — or strong resistance.
5. Narrative or Emotional Risk
Foundation: “This threatens our way of life.”
Strength: Mobilizes action.
Weakness: Easily misused or politicized.
Typical reaction: Rapid alignment or rapid polarization.
Environmental decisions are consistently hindered when the five risk lenses diverge. Without alignment, progress stalls and conflict grows, making decisions unnecessarily difficult and divisive.
The FINESSE Perspective
The FINESSE framework emphasizes clarity, transparency, and trust. Applied to environmental risk, it pushes us to do a handful of things exceptionally well.
Frame the issue clearly.
Stakeholders need to know what the risk actually is — not just the metric used to measure or express it.
What does it affect? Who feels it first? What changes if we act or don’t act?
Acknowledge uncertainty honestly.
Uncertainty isn’t a weakness. It’s a reality. Trust increases when we name uncertainty, quantify it, and explain what we’re doing about it.
Simplify without distorting.
The goal isn’t to “dumb down” the science. It’s to make the science useful.
Engage stakeholders early.
People support what they help shape. Risk communication is not a broadcast; it’s a dialogue.
Show the tradeoffs.
Every environmental decision has winners, losers, and timing implications. Transparency about tradeoffs builds credibility.
Explain the path forward.
Risk without action is noise. Risk with a plan is leadership.
So, Is Risk in the Eye of the Beholder?
When we describe risk only through technical lenses, we lose the audience.
When we describe risk only through emotional lenses, we lose the rigor.
Our job is to bridge the two. The sweet spot — the FINESSE sweet spot — is where clarity, honesty, and relevance meet.
Environmental risk is not only to be measured—it must be communicated effectively and meaningfully, especially across human concerns. Bridging communication is the overlooked step where sound decisions start.
JD Solomon Inc. provides solutions for program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Visit our Environmental page for more information.
JD Solomon writes and speaks on decision-making, reliability, risk, and communication for leaders and technical professionals. His work connects technical disciplines with human understanding to help people make better decisions and build stronger systems. Learn more at www.jdsolomonsolutions.com and www.communicatingwithfinesse.com.
Comments