Fishing a Superfund Site: Dissonance and Risk Perception of Environmental Hazards by Fishermen in Puerto Rico

Abstract

Risk perception studies show that individuals tend to underestimate significant risks, overestimate negligible ones, and distrust authorities. They also rely on a variety of strategies or heuristics to reach decisions regarding their risk-taking behavior. We report on a survey of fishermen and crabbers engaged in recreational and substance fishing in a Puerto Rican estuary (near Humacao), which has been declared a "Superfund site" because of suspected contamination by mercury, and at ecologically similar control sites. Nearly everyone interviewed at the Humacao site was aware of the mercury contamination, but either denied its importance, believed the contamination was restricted to a distant part of the estuary, or assumed that the estuary would be closed by the authorities if the threat was real. All site-users consumed the fish and crabs they caught. At Humacao, the average catch was 7 fish per fishermen (mostly tilapia, Tilapia mossambica, and tarpon, Megalops atlantica) and 13 crabs per crabber (all blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus). On average, the site-users returned to the lagoons about 3-4 times per month. At control sites, fewer fish were eaten. The worst case consumption of tarpon, a species which concentrated mercury at Eastern Puerto Rico, provided an exposure exceeding the EPA reference dose, whereas consumption of one tarpon per week did not entail excess exposure. Fortunately, few individuals caught tarpon exclusively. Unlike counterparts in the northeastern United States, they trusted authorities and indicated that they would have heeded warnings of mercury contamination posted where they fished.

Mercury contamination in Southern New England coastal fisheries and dietary habits of recreational anglers and their families: Implications to human health and issuance of consumption advisories

“…Rates of fish consumption did not statistically differ as a function of the participant’s state of residency or ethnicity and race (Table 7). The latter contradicts previous findings that recreational and subsistence anglers of certain ethnic and racial groups have exceedingly high fish consumption rates, including Hispanics (Burger and Gochfeld, 1991; Burger et al, 1992), African Americans (Burger et al, 1999a; 1999b), American Indians (Burger, 1999), and Asians (Burger et al, 1999a). The absence of an ethnic-race effect on fish consumption patterns in this study is likely the result of low samples sizes for the minority groupings, thereby precluding robust statistical analyses.…”

Fish consumption advisories: knowledge, compliance and why people fish in an urban estuary

“…Public officials and risk assessors often view eating fish as posing a more serious hazard than does the general public, resulting in a gap in risk perception between the fish-consuming public and agencies issuing advisories (Belton et al, 1986;Fiore et al, 1989;EPA, 1989;Reinert et al, 1991Reinert et al, , 1996Ebert, 1996). Despite the advisories, people continue to consume fish from contaminated waters (Reinert et al, 1991;Burger and Gochfeld, 1991;Burger et al, 1992, 1993, 1999a, 1999b, May and Burger, 1996. Thus it is of public health policy interest to understand how and why people fish, what they eat, and what they know about the advisories.…”

Assessing the State of Arctic Ecosystem Health: Bridging Inuit Viewpoints and Biological Endpoints on Fish Health

“…Finally, the research process provided some understanding of how lay evaluations of risk might call upon a number of heuristics that tend to generate "cognitive dissonance" between risks perceived by the general population and dangers identified by the experts. Heuristics related to envi-ronmental degradation have already been described in numerous contexts other than Native communities (Lave & Dowlatabadi 1993;Cary 1993), with regard to factors that are taken into account when fishermen make choices to eat or avoid their catches when they come from polluted waters (Burger et al 1993;Burger & Gochfeld 1991;Dewailly et al 1997b, Diana 1989Knuth 1988;Knuth et al 1993;LaRue et al 1997). While it is clear that the knowledge of Inuit fishermen gained through their practical experience helps them determine the acceptability of risk situations and the measures that need to be taken (e.g., avoidance of consumption or adoption of preventive measures), it quickly became evident that the fishermen focus less specifically on personal hazards in this particular risk situation (i.e., health risk of ingesting parasites) but rather seek to understand the source of the risk (i.e., the reason for parasitism).…”