‘Public concern’, a ubiquitous notion used in descriptive and explanatory modes by policy makers, academics and the media, is often presented as axiomatic. However, the variability with which it is deployed in different contexts, for example, as justification for policy attention or having equivalence with what is considered ‘newsworthy’, belies this status. This article presents an empirical analysis of emails and phone calls from the UK public to UK government agencies, reporting suspected cases of ash dieback disease – a tree health issue which attracted intense media and policy attention in the United Kingdom in 2012. We challenge the view that public attentiveness is necessarily indicative of public concern, or that media attention can be taken as its proxy. Examination of concern at macro and micro levels reveals heterogeneous processes with multiple dimensions. Understanding the nature of public concern is crucial in enabling more effective policy development and operational responses to risk-related issues.
AasenM (2017) The polarization of public concern about climate change in Norway. Climate Policy17: 213–230.
2.
Al ShalabiLShaabanZKasasbehB (2006) Data mining: A preprocessing engine. Journal of Computer Science2: 735–739.
3.
ArgentN (2013) Reinterpreting core and periphery in Australia’s mineral and energy resources boom: An Innisian perspective on the Pilbara. Australian Geographer44: 323–340.
4.
BarnettJBurninghamKWalkerGCassN (2012) Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Understanding of Science21: 36–50.
5.
BarnhurstKG (2011) The new ‘media affect’ and the crisis of representation for political communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics16: 573–593.
6.
BerenbaumHThompsonRJPomerantzEM (2007) The relation between worrying and concerns: The importance of perceived probability and cost. Behaviour Research and Therapy45: 301–311.
BrookerPBarnettJCribbinT (2016) Doing social media analytics. Big Data & Society. Epub ahead of print 8 July. DOI: 10.1177/2053951716658060.
9.
CallonMLascoumesPBartheY (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CalvertC (2012) Defining public concern after Snyder v. Phelps: A pliable standard mingles with news media complicity. Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal19: 39.
11.
ConversePE (2006) The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review18: 1–74.
12.
CottonMDevine-WrightP (2012) Making electricity networks ‘visible’: Industry actor representations of ‘publics’ and public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Understanding of Science21: 17–35.
13.
CouldryNLivingstoneSMarkhamT (2016) Media Consumption and Public Engagement: Beyond the Presumption of Attention. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
DeweyJRogersML (2012) The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
15.
FellenorJBarnettJPotterCUrquhartJMumfordJDQuineCP (2017) The social amplification of risk on Twitter: The case of ash dieback disease in the United Kingdom. Journal of Risk Research. Epub ahead of print 27 January. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1281339.
16.
FellenorJBarnettJPotterCUrquhartJMumfordJQuineC. (2018a) Ash dieback and other tree pests and pathogens: Dispersed risk events and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework. Journal of Risk Research.
17.
FellenorJBarnettJPotterCUrquhartJMumfordJQuineC. (2018b) ‘Real without being concrete’: The ontology of public concern and its significance for the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). Journal of Risk Research.
18.
FloydMRLangFMcCordRSKeenerM. (2005) Patients with worry: Presentation of concerns and expectations for response. Patient Education and Counseling57: 211–216.
19.
GaskellGHohlKGerberMM (2017) Do closed survey questions overestimate public perceptions of food risks?Journal of Risk Research20: 1038–1052.
20.
GillNSingletonVWatertonC (2017) The Politics of Policy Practices. London: SAGE.
21.
GivenLM (2008) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
HoyerJGlosterATHerzbergPY (2009) Is worry different from rumination? Yes, it is more predictive of psychopathology!Psycho-Social Medicine6: Doc06.
23.
KingdonJ (2013). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
24.
KimYM (2009) Issue publics in the new information environment: Selectivity, domain specificity, and extremity. Communication Research36: 254–284.
25.
KobbeltvedTBrunWJohnsenBHEidJ (2005) Risk as feelings or risk and feelings? A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Risk Research8: 417–437.
26.
KowalskiT (2006) Chalara fraxinea sp. nov. associated with dieback of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in Poland. Forest Pathology36: 264–270.
27.
LandisJRKochGG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33: 159–174.
28.
LevySGuttmanL (1985) Worry, fear, and concern differentiated. Issues in Mental Health Nursing7: 251–264.
29.
LindgrenSPalmF (2011) Textometrica: Service Package for Text Analysis. Umeå: HUMlab.
30.
LockeK (2010) Abduction. In: MillsAJDureposGWiebeE (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. London: SAGE, pp. 1–3.
31.
McdermontM (2013) Acts of translation: UK advice agencies and the creation of matters-of-public-concern. Critical Social Policy33: 218–242.
32.
McGrathJ (1995) The gatekeeping process. In: MaibachEWParrottR (eds) Designing Health Messages: Approaches from Communication Theory and Public Health Practice pp. 199–216. London: SAGE.
33.
McNairB (2017) Fake News: Falsehood, Fabrication and Fantasy in Journalism. Abingdon: Routledge.
34.
NeedhamJMerowCButtNMalhiYMarthewsTRMorecroftMet al. (2016) Forest community response to invasive pathogens: The case of ash dieback in a British woodland. Journal of Ecology104: 315–330.
35.
NewmanJClarkeJ (2009) Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services. London: SAGE.
36.
NovikauA (2017) What is ‘Chernobyl syndrome?’ The use of radiophobia in nuclear communications. Environmental Communication11: 800–809.
37.
OostveenA-M (2010) Citizens and activists: Analysing the reasons, impact, and benefits of civic emails directed at a grassroots campaign. Information, Communication & Society13: 793–819.
PettsJHorlick-JonesTMurdockG (2001) Social amplification of risk: The media and the public. Health and Safety Executive Contract Research Report 329/2001. Sudbury: HSE Books.
40.
PietersonWVan DijkJ (2007) Channel choice determinants: An exploration of the factors that determine the choice of a service channel in citizen initiated contacts. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on digital government research: Bridging disciplines & domains. Philadelphia, PA, 20–23 May, pp. 173–182. Los Angeles, CA: Digital Government Society of North America.
41.
PotterCUrquhartJ (2016) Tree disease and pest epidemics in the anthropocene: A review of the drivers, impacts and policy responses in the UK. Forest Policy and Economics79: 61–68.
42.
QuelozVGrünigCRBerndtRKowalskiTSieberTNHoldenriederO (2011) Cryptic speciation in Hymenoscyphus albidus. Forest Pathology41: 133–142.
43.
ReddickCG (2005) Citizen-initiated contacts with government: Comparing phones and websites. Journal of E-Government2: 27–53.
44.
ReedMS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation141: 2417–2431.
45.
RickardLNMcComasKAClarkeCEStedmanRCDeckerDJ (2013) Exploring risk attenuation and crisis communication after a plague death in Grand Canyon. Journal of Risk Research16: 145–167.
46.
SchultzPW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology21: 327–339.
47.
ShoemakerPJEichholzMKimEWrigleyB (2001) Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78: 233–246.
48.
SjöbergL (1998) Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis18: 85–93.
49.
ThomasDTwymanC (2004) Good or bad rangeland? Hybrid knowledge, science, and local understandings of vegetation dynamics in the Kalahari. Land Degradation & Development15: 215–231.
50.
TomlinsonI (2016) The discovery of ash dieback in the UK: The making of a focusing event. Environmental Politics25: 709–728.
51.
WalkerGCassNBurninghamKBarnettJ (2010) Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: Imagined subjectivities of ‘the public’ and their implications. Environment and Planning A42: 931–947.
52.
WardmanJKLöfstedtR (2018) Anticipating or accommodating to public concern? Risk amplification and the politics of precaution reexamined. Risk Analysis38: 1802–1819.
WynneB (2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Understanding of Science23: 60–70.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
