Perceived ecological risks of global change: A psychometric comparison of causes and consequences

Global Environmental Change

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 159-171

  McDaniels, Timothy ^a   Axelrod, Lawrence J ^a   Slovic, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ECOLOGICAL RISK; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; GLOBAL CHANGE; OZONE DEPLETION; PERCEPTION;

EID: 0030153452     PISSN: 09593780     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0959-3780(96)00006-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Strategies for Environmental Protection, Washington, DC, 1990
2. N Stehr and H von Storch, The social construct of climate and climate change', Max-Plank-lnstitut fur meteorologie, Report No 137, Hamburg, 1994
3. A Bostrom, B Fischhoff and M J Quadrel, 'Risk perception and communication', Annual Review of Public Health, Vol 14, 1993, pp 183-203
4. W Kempton, 'Lay perspectives on global climate change', Global Environmental Change, Vol 1, June 1991, pp 183-208
5. R Lofstedt, 'Climate change perceptions and energy-use decisions in northern Sweden', Global Environmental Change, Vol 1, 1991, pp 321-324
6. A Hedges, Attitudes to Energy Conservation in the Home - Report on a Qualitative Study, HMSO, London, 1991
7. P Stern, 'Psychological dimensions of global environmental change', Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 43, 1992, pp 99-119
8. W Kempton, 'Will public environmental concern lead to action on global warming?' Annual Review of Energy and Environment, Vol 18, 1993, pp 217-245;
9. J S Boster, J Hartley and W Kempton, Environmental Values in American Culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
10. For example see EOS, Environmental Opinion Study, June 1991, Washington, DC, F Steeper, Market Strategies, Inc. and G Schneider, Frederick/Schneiders, Inc., 1992;
11. R Minard, 'Hard choices: states use risk to refine environmental priorities', NCCR Issue Paper No, 1, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VI, 1991
12. A Bostrom, M G Morgan, B Fischhoff and D Read, 'What do people know about global climate change?' 1: Mental models. Risk Analysis, Vol 14, 1994, pp. 959-970,
13. and D Read, A Bostrom, M G Morgan, B Fischhoff and T Smuts, 'What do people know about global climate change? 2. Survey studies of educated lay people' Risk Analysis Vol 14, 1994, pp. 971-982
14. P Slovic, 'Perception of risk', Science Vol 123, 1987, pp 280-285;
15. P Slovic, 'Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm', in S Krimsky and D Golding (eds), Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, New York, 1992, pp 89-107
16. P Slovic, T McDaniels and L J Axelrod, 'Perceptions of risk to humans and nature: a research plan', in R T DiGiulo and E Moroson (eds) Interconnections Between Human and Ecosystem Health, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1994
17. T McDaniels, L J Axelrod and P Slovic, 'Characterizing perception of ecological risk', Risk Analysis, Vol 15, 1995 pp. 575-588
18. W Kempton, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 4;
19. A Bostrom et al, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 10
20. P Slovic, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 11
21. T McDaniels et al, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 13
22. P Slovic, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 11. Note that all subjects were asked to provide ratings on each scale; an answer of 'don't know' was not allowed. These forced responses are useful in providing insight into common perceptions across a range of groups in the population. They are not intended as tests of scientific knowledge, but as an indication of commonly held views
23. The results in Table 1 show the relative contribution of each factor in explaining the variation in the data set. We caution that the relative amount of variation explained by each factor should not be taken as any measure of relative 'importance' in explaining patterns of ecological risk perception. The proportion of variation explained is due, in large measure, to the number and choice of scales in the survey instrument. Nevertheless, the nature of the factors identified, and how the scales are grouped together in the factors, are important in understanding ecological risk perception
24. T McDaniels et al, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 13
25. T McDaniels et al, Risk Analysis, Ibid
26. US EPA, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 1
27. P Slovic, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 11
28. Another obvious question is why these similarities occur, given the well-known differences in lay and expert perceptions of health risk. The nature of the data for this study, which examines perceptions rather than levels of scientific understanding, do not provide an answer. The data provides no evidence from which to judge the extent of agreement in viewpoints, nor the basis of the viewpoints. We speculate that one impetus for lay perception of high risk from global change is the growing media coverage of global warming and ozone depletion. Personal familiarity with recent high summer temperatures and UV indices also likely plays a role
29. W Kempton, Risk Analysis, op cit, Ref 4;
30. A Bostrom et al, Risk Analysis, Ibid
31. A Bostrom et al, Risk Analysis, Ibid
32. P M Vitousek, 'Beyond global warming, ecology and global change', Ecology, Vol 75, No 7, 1994, pp 1861-1876
33. A Alhakami and P Slovic, 'A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit', Risk Analysis, Vol 13, 1993, pp 259-264
34. E O Wilson (ed). Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988
35. P M Vitousek, Biodiversity, op cit, Ref 27
36. W Kempton, Biodiversity, op cit, Ref 4; Bostrom et al
37. E Aronson, The return of the repressed: dissonance theory makes a comeback', Psychological Inquiry, Vol 3, 1992, pp 303-311
38. R W Hahn, A Primer On Environmental Policy Design, Harwood Academic: New York, 1994
39. C Atman and A Bostrom, 'Unconfounding content and structure in the mental models approach to risk communication', Society for Risk Analysis Annual Conference, unpublished, Baltimore, MD, 1994
40. For a discussion of 'no regrets' policies in climate change, see S H Schneider, The changing climate', Scientific American, Vol 261, No 3, 1989, pp 70-79.
41. For a discussion of precautionary approaches to species preservation see, T McDaniels, 'Precautionary preservation investment: a policy norm for biodiversity preservation' 1995, under editorial review, available from author