Aggregate, disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions

Risk Analysis

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 405-428

  Willis, Henry H ^a   DeKay, Michael L ^b,c   Fischhoff, Baruch ^b,c   Morgan, M Granger ^b  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecological risk; Factor analysis; Level of analysis; Psychometric paradigm; Risk attributes; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; AGGREGATES; DATA REDUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

AESTHETIC IMPACTS; ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS; FACTOR ANALYSIS; PSYCHOMETRIC DATA;

ECOLOGY;

PERCEPTION; RISK PERCEPTION;

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH HAZARD; OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOMETRY; PUBLIC OPINION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 18644369252     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00599.x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Arabie, P., & Maschmeyer, C. (1988). Some current models for the perception and judgment of risk. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 300-329.
2. Barnett, J., & Breakwell, G. M. (2001). Risk perception and experience: Hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Analysis, 21, 171-177.
3. Baron, J., Hershey, J. C., & Kunreuther, H. (2000). Determinants of priority for risk reductions: The role of worry. Risk Analysis, 20, 413-427.
4. Bronfman, N. C., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2003). Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 23, 1271-1285.
5. Bronfman, N. C., Cifuentes, L. A., DeKay, M. L., & Willis, H. H. (2004), Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: Aggregate and Disaggregate Analyses. Unpublished manuscript, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
6. Costanza, R. (1995). Ecological and economic system health and social decision making. In D. J. Rapport, C. L. Gaudet, & P. Calow (Eds.), Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems (pp. 103-125). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
7. DeKay, M. L., Florig, H. K., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Morgan, K. M., Fischhoff, B., & Jenni, K. E. (2001). The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development. In P. S. Fischbeck & R. S. Farrow (Eds.), Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety (pp. 208-230). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
8. DeKay, M. L., & McClelland, G. H. (1996). Probability and utility components of endangered species preservation programs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 60-83.
9. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 8, 127-152.
10. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. R., & Hope, C. (1984). Defining risk. Policy Sciences, 17, 123-139.
11. Florig, H. K., Morgan, M. G., Morgan, K. M., Jenni, K. E., Fischhoff, B., Fischbeck, P. S., & DeKay, M. L. (2001). A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis, 21, 913-921.
12. Gardner, G. T., & Gould, L. C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9, 225-242.
13. Gardner, G. T., Tiemann, A. R., Gould, L. R., DeLuca, D. R., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1982). Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 179-197.
14. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (Republished, 1986, Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.)
15. Harding, C. M., & Eiser, J. R. (1984). Characterizing the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4, 131-141.
16. Heinz, H. John III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (Heinz Center). (1999). Designing a Report on the State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Selected Measurements for Croplands, Forests, and Coasts & Oceans. Washington, DC: Author.
17. Heinz, H. John III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (Heinz Center). (2002). The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters and Living Resources of the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process. (1998). Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Jenni, K. E. (1997). Attributes for Risk Evaluation. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
20. Jones, K., & Klien, H. (1999). Lessons from 12 years of comparative risk projects. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 159-172.
21. Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study of the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 5-38.
22. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York: Praeger. (Republished, 1989. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich's.)
23. Kraus, N. N., & Slovic, P. (1988). Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk Analysis, 8, 435-455.
24. Langford, I. H., Marris, C., McDonald, A.-L., Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., & O'Riordan, T. (1999). Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling. Risk Analysis, 19, 675-683.
25. Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C., & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20, 179-193.
26. Marris, C., Langford, I. H., & O'Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18, 635-647.
27. Marris, C., Langford, I., Saunderson, T., & O'Riordan, T. (1997). Exploring the "psychometric paradigm": Comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis, 17, 303-312.
28. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S., & Slovic, P. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17, 341-352.
29. McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L. J., & Slovic, P. (1995). Characterizing perception of ecological risk. Risk Analysis, 15, 575-588.
30. McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L. J., & Slovic, P. (1996). Perceived ecological risks of global change: A psychometric comparison of causes and consequences. Global Environmental Change, 6, 159-171.
31. Minard, R. A., Jr. (1996). CRA and the states: History, politics, and results. In J. C. Davies (Ed.), Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities (pp. 23-61). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
32. Morgan, K. M. (1999). Development and Evaluation of a Method for Risk Ranking. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
33. Morgan, K. M., DeKay, M. L., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Florig, H. K. (2001). A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis, 21, 923-937.
34. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L., & Fischbeck, P. (1996). A proposal for ranking risks within federal agencies. In J. C. Davies (Ed.), Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities (pp. 111-147). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
35. National Research Council. (2000). Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. Sjöberg, L. (1996). A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68(3/4), 219-225.
37. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1-11.
38. Sjöberg, L. (2002). Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Analysis, 22, 665-669.
39. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
40. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21(3), 14-20, 36-39.
41. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology (pp. 91-125). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
42. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study of risk perception. In V. T. Covello, J. Menkes, & J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk Evaluation and Management (pp. 3-24). New York: Praeger.
43. Spellerberg, I. F. (1992). Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation. New York: Chapman & Hall. (Republished, 1994. New York: Kluwer.)
44. Trumbo, C. W. (1996). Examining psychometrics and polarization in a single-risk case study. Risk Analysis, 16, 429-438.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1987). Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Analysis.
46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1990). Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board.
47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1993). Guidebook to Comparing Risks and Setting Environmental Priorities. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2000). Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board, Integrated Risk Project Steering Committee.
49. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (1996). The OSHA Priority Planning Process. Available at http://131.158.51.236/osha_cd/osha/ oshinfo/PRIORI~1/INDEX~1.HTM.
50. Vlek, C., & Stallen, P.-J. (1981). Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 235-271.
51. Wagenaar, W. A., Keren, G., & Pleit-Kuiper, A. (1984). The multiple objectives of gamblers. Acta Psychologica, 56, 167-178.
52. Willis, H. H. (2002). Ecological Risk Perception and Ranking: Towards a Method for Improving the Quality of Public Participation in Environmental Policy. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
53. Willis, H. H., & DeKay, M. L. (2004). The Roles of Group Membership and Worldview in Ecological Risk Perceptions. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
54. Willis, H. H., DeKay, M. L., Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2004). Ecological risk ranking: Development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis, 24, 363-378.