Dimensione economica e sociale della gestione della fascia costiera.

Studies carried out in the field of environmental risk perception have shown that people’s reaction to hazard and risk does not depend on the scientifically assessed level of hazard, but rather on the perceived one (Alexander 1993). The existing literature also shows that such perception is influenced by multiple factors including culture, religion, socio-economic development, political organization, and available technology (Perry and Quarantelli 2005, Marincioni 2001, Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982). Furthermore, the level of acceptability of risk often depends on the advantages and disadvantages of a specific activity as evaluated from different perspectives (De Marchi, Pellizzoni and Ungaro 2001). Slovic, Fishhoff, and Lichtenstein (1985) explained that people make decisions about risk-acceptability according to: a) perceived characteristics of different hazards (for example voluntariness, dread, knowledge, observability controllability), b) the benefits deriving from living with certain hazards, and c) the fatalities associated with them. In the cognitive map developed by Slovic and his colleagues in 1985, the more dreaded and unknown is a hazard, the higher is its perceived risk and the greater is people’s demand for corrective actions to reduce the threat. For example, marine pollution from oil spills or heavy metal pollutants, are dreaded hazards perceived with potentially catastrophic consequences and with uncontrollable and uneven distribution of costs and benefits, by the people living nearby coastal refinery or industrial plants. Indeed risk perception is strongly tied with risk communication. According to Watzlawick, Helmick Beavin and Jackson (1967), the communication of environmental issues involves the exchange of information between four specific categories: experts, citizens, public and private institutions. Paul Slovic’s (2000) concept of "trust in the communicator" retains that the degree of information actually transferred is proportional to the level of trust credited by users to the information sources. If the trusting in those communicating the risk is high, even little or poorly substantiated information will come into view as convincing; conversely, lack of trust in the communicator will cause partial acceptance or complete rejection of the information supplied. Very important in any public discourse about environmental issues, is also the creation of “Environmental Observatories” or institutional forums, where the various stakeholders can discuss and confront each other’s viewpoint and decide adaptive measures. For example, define which activities should be allowed in a marine protected area. The available literature confirm that the greater the care taken by these forums to inform and consult the various stakeholders, including the local population, the smoother the disputes and the better the public discourse. Indeed, the earlier establishment of these Environmental Observatories the more influential they will be on the process of public-consensus-building and the formation of a personal viewpoint on a specific environmental management project. In the end, providing impartial information on any environmental issue and facilitating the public discourse about it, should be a central commitment of any eco-governance process willing to build a solid democratic consensus for sustainable environmental management.