{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012167300380228136, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.95475113122172, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A case study demonstrates a democratic methodology for making risk-based decisions

Abstract Risk is a subjective notion allowing the boundaries between the role of a risk practitioner and a decision-maker to become blurred. A belief that the public misunderstands risk and the need to control the risk assessment process are two barriers to effective engagement. A lack of engagement and the ability to enable citizens to decide their own future can contribute to the controversy we see in important public debates. In our study, we surveyed four stakeholder groups in the New Zealand to determine how they each rated the risks and benefits of a case study on the three biophysical impacts of the economy, environment and human health. Our survey methodology incorporated a continuous scale along three axes and this design enabled costs and benefits to be traded-off between individuals, giving them a representative voice. We used these results to investigate whether or not it would be feasible to use such an approach to make decisions. Our results indicate that public decision-making is possible, which in this case broadly reflected agreement between the public and the official decision. Such an approach holds promise for expanding the role of public engagement and input into the risk assessment process.