Dutch Risk and Responsibility programme. Some research into citizens’ views on a proportionate handling of risks and incidents

The Dutch Risk and Responsibility programme has been studying and discussing the ‘risk regulation reflex’ since 2010. As the Dutch government aims at playing a smaller and more realistic part in dealing with risks, it is critical to know how citizens would view such a change. Or do they really demand the government to provide 100% safety, as often seems to be assumed by journalists, politicians and policy-makers? This article describes two studies into the attitudes of citizens towards safety risks and how the programme takes those insights on board. Research in the course of a year, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, found that the majority of respondents appeared to have a down-to-earth and rational attitude towards risks they voluntarily and even involuntarily face. These attitudes do however need to be addressed specifically. And when considering a policy response to a serious incident, the government does not necessarily have to take the strong initial emotion as a starting point. Instead, it can quite plausibly tune in to the public’s down-to-earth attitude. A second study deals with the various perspectives citizens use when accepting risks. The general public tend to follow a broad scope of moral values when deciding on the acceptability of risks, whereas government tends to limit itself purely to risk reduction. When analysing citizens’ perceptions of risk it is more important to question whether a risk is morally acceptable rather than focusing on the exact size of the risk. Technocratic argumentation only strengthens the moral need to reduce risks, as it disconnects risks from the moral reasons why we perhaps ought to take them. And, only the latter contains the key to achieve risk acceptance by the public.