1.1. Understanding Perception in Risk

They generally have 2 way of conventional risk management; disaster risk management, they are very directive, they are saying that okay in order to reduce the risk, you should do that you have some specific goals and you have some specific actions to perform and while doing it, they are also very reactive, they think that this is the only way to solve the problem.

Conventional risk management approaches typically focus on specific, directive methods for reducing risks. This means there are particular goals set and specific actions that need to be taken. These methods are often reactive, meaning they wait until a problem occurs before addressing it, believing this is the only way to effectively manage risks.

Imagine a fire drill in a school. The educators prepare clear instructions on what students should do when a fire alarm rings. They practice these instructions to ensure everyone knows what to do. This is directive and reactive; they respond to the alarm (the risk) by following set rules to manage it.

Some other perspective of risk, they are saying that it is not that external stimulus that determines people's risk perceptions but it is the socio-cultural context or individual characteristics that define the way people perceive risk.

This chunk highlights the idea that people's perceptions of risk are shaped more by their socio-cultural context and personal characteristics rather than just external events. This implies that the way individuals or groups perceive risks can vary significantly depending on their cultural background, experiences, and individual beliefs.

Consider how different cultures react to natural disasters. In some cultures, a flood might be seen as a warning from a higher power, while in others it could be viewed purely as an environmental issue. The cultural perspective influences how they understand and react to the risk.

Here, we are talking from the cultural perspective of risk. For the cultural perspective of risk, individuals are active information seeker, they are not the passive recipient of information but they also collect informations to develop their own perception.

From a cultural perspective, individuals are viewed as proactive in seeking information about risks. Rather than passively receiving information, they actively gather data and experiences to shape their understanding and opinions about what risks they should be concerned about.

Think of someone preparing for a hurricane. Instead of just listening to the news, they might also talk to friends who lived through a previous hurricane, read personal blogs, or consult weather apps. They are actively engaged in gathering information to understand the risk better.

So, how you are looking at it from which angle, from which perspective, it matters.

Individuals' perspectives play a crucial role in determining how risks are perceived. The same situation can be viewed differently by different people, leading to varied interpretations of the same risk depending on their viewpoints and experiences.

Imagine a group of friends looking at a cloudy sky. One friend might be worried about an imminent storm, while another thinks it’s just typical weather. Their individual perspectives (based on past experiences) influence how they view the risk posed by the clouds.

There was an outstanding work by Purity and Danger, 1966 considered to be modern classic of anthropology, so Mary Douglas in her book in 1966, Purity and Danger is talking about the cultural importance of risk.

Mary Douglas's work 'Purity and Danger' explores how cultural values shape perceptions of risk, arguing that culture significantly influences what is considered dangerous or risky. Understanding these cultural dimensions is essential for effective risk management.

For example, consider how some cultures may see certain foods as taboo, impacting their choices and risk perceptions regarding health and safety. In many cultures, eating insects is seen as normal, while in others it is viewed as unclean or risky.

Mary Douglas was curious why Israeli people are restricted not to have pork, why they cannot eat pork, what is the reason, why they seen it is a kind of risky pollutions.

Mary Douglas questioned why certain foods, like pork in Jewish dietary laws, are considered off-limits. She noted that the cultural perception around foods can often be linked to deeper sociocultural meanings rather than just health concerns.

For instance, in some cultures, certain meats are avoided not only due to health reasons but also because they are associated with specific animals considered sacred. For example, cows hold a sacred status in Hindu culture, influencing dietary practices accordingly.

--