Open AccessOn the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media
Author(s) -
Völker Carolin,
Kramm Johanna,
Wagner Martin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
global challenges
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2056-6646
DOI - 10.1002/gch2.201900010
Subject(s) - microplastics , risk perception , framing (construction) , newspaper , risk communication , perception , risk assessment , science communication , uncertainty , media coverage , scientific evidence , precautionary principle , public relations , psychology , business , risk analysis (engineering) , sociology , political science , geography , computer science , advertising , epistemology , biology , ecology , philosophy , computer security , mathematics , science education , statistics , mathematics education , neuroscience , media studies , archaeology
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.