The social amplification of risk framework: New perspectives.

Several decades have elapsed since the introduction in 1988 of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) by researchers from Clark University and Decision Research. SARF was offered as an umbrella under which social, psychological, and cultural theories of risk could be integrated and thereby supplement technical risk analyses. Some critics suggest that SARF cannot be tested thus, the framework is useful, at most, as a post hoc analysis of some kinds of risks. Others counter that predictability is not required for a framework to be useful and that SARF is an effective tool in organizing data related to public perceptions, values, and behaviors. It can also be used to design more effective risk communication and public engagement strategies. SARF also suggests how to conceptually view the dynamics of social media channels, despite the fact that SARF was developed before the explosion of global digital platforms. The papers in this special issue consider developments, refinements, critiques, contributions, extensions of the approach to new risk issues, as well as the findings and hypotheses that have grown out of what is now close to three decades of empirical research. This introductory paper provides background on SARF, presents a literature review since 2003, introduces the contributions to this issue, and highlights several areas for future research.

Social amplification of risks and the clean energy transformation: Elaborating on the four attributes of information.

The social amplification of risk framework (SARF) was developed to help comprehend how emerging contributions about the psychological, social, and cultural dimensions of risk could work in unison to impact decision making about risk. The framework proposed that risks are amplified or attenuated by interested parties employing different rhetorical strategies to give information about risk a certain "spin." The original literature identified four "attributes of information." However, despite the longevity of the framework, these have not been explicated in detail. Here we add depth and clarity by examining how amplification stations send risk signals that amplify or attenuate risk by emphasizing these different attributes of information. Drawing on a wealth of qualitative data from two case studies of offshore wind turbine siting off the coasts of Maryland and Delaware and guided by an extensive literature review, we reveal the strategies interested parties are using to influence siting decisions and risk management. The paper explores the usefulness of SARF in organizing qualitative information and sharpening insights on participatory risk governance and the nuances of public responses to a relatively new low-carbon technology. The authors conclude that the framework is valuable for analyzing stakeholder information while also recognizing limitations that may be addressed with some targeted future research.