Risk Dynamics Around Contested Issues: The Case of Dutch Livestock Farming: Understanding Differences in Risk Perspectives Across Stakeholders

The aim of the research presented in this thesis is to acquire insight into the perspectives held by various stakeholders regarding the health risks associated with intensive livestock farming, including the role of values related with these perspectives, as well as to identify the similarities and differences in perspectives. The key findings based on the studies are: 1. Multifaceted risks relate to multifaceted risk perspectives: a spectrum of other health-related issues prevails, including particulate matter, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the compromised quality of the living environment due to odour nuisance, as well as matters such as risks for animal welfare and the consequences of ILF on nature, particularly the loss of biodiversity. 2. Diverse perspectives on health risks of ILF are related to risk characteristics and individual and social factors: according to (in)voluntary exposure to emissions from livestock farms, (a lack of) personal control over the risks, and the observed potential for serious consequences for society, and (un)familiarity. Furthermore, variations in risk perspectives can be attributed to a variety of related individual and social factors. These factors encompass, interests, affect, trust, and value orientations. 3. Contrasting risk perspectives relate to contrasting visions for the future: the disparities in perspectives on health risks and the other concerns between experts, livestock farmers, local residents, and the general public result in contrasting visions for the future of ILF. 4. Proximity to hazards influences risk perceptions: People living in proximity to livestock farms and the broader public exhibit both similarities and distinctions in their perspectives and concerns. For example, local residents harbour greater concerns regarding odorous emissions and air quality, whereas the general public tends to express greater concern for the well-being of animals and the preservation of nature. 5. Similar values, yet biospheric values predict the negative attitude towards ILF in the general public but not in farmers: livestock farmers and local residents adhere to a consistent hierarchy of values, which, in descending order of importance, include hedonic, altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic values; however, the relationship of these values with perceived health risk towards ILF differs between the two groups. Local residents and the general public who identify strongly with biospheric values tend to demonstrate greater concern towards animals and nature and thus hold a general negative attitude and a higher risk perception towards ILF, a relationship not observed in livestock farmers. 6. Two lenses on a contested issue: Mental Models of health risks and conversation analysis: These two approaches can complement each other and provide a more comprehensive and profound understanding of the perspectives on the contentious issue. By becoming more aware of the differences in perspectives as well as practicing and reflecting on actual interactions the participating professionals moved from mostly top-down communication to a more two-way communication or dialogue.