Suchergebnisse

To inform local and regional decisions about protecting short‐term and long‐term quality of life, the Consortium for Atlantic Regional Assessment (CARA) provides data and tools (for the northeastern United States) that can help decisionmakers understand how outcomes of their decisions could be affected by potential changes in both climate and land use. On an interactive, user‐friendly website, CARA has amassed data on climate (historical records and future projections for seven global climate models), land cover, and socioeconomic and environmental variables, along with tools to help decisionmakers tailor the data for their own decision types and locations. CARA Advisory Council stakeholders help identify what information and tools stakeholders would find most useful and how to present these; they also provide in‐depth feedback for subregion case studies. General lessons include: (1) decisionmakers want detailed local projections for periods short enough to account for extreme events, in contrast to the broader spatial and temporal observations and projections that are available or consistent at a regional level; (2) stakeholders will not use such a website unless it is visually appealing and easy to find the information they want; (3) some stakeholders need background while others want to go immediately to data, and some want maps while others want text or tables. This article also compares what has been learned across case studies of Cape May County, New Jersey, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Hampton Roads, Virginia, relating specifically to sea‐level rise. Lessons include: (1) groups can be affected differently by physical dangers compared with economic dangers; (2) decisions will differ according to decision makers' preferences about waiting and risk tolerance; (3) future scenarios and maps can help assess the impacts of dangers to emergency evacuation routes, homes, and infrastructure, and the natural environment; (4) residents' and decisionmakers' perceptions are affected by information about potential local impacts from global climate change.

A government agency commissioned a baseline study of how its customers view the agency's risk information. The 70% response rate to a mail survey allows analysis by subgroups representing customers'primary interests. Although this agency traditionally has been responsible for ensuring plant and animal health at the farm gate (or where imported), responses emphasized emerging customer concerns about the environment and human health. Customers think many risk communication activities are important, but that the agency is not especially effective in conducting those activities. Customers are moderately satisfied with much of the risk information they receive, although many have little contact from or interaction with the agency. Customers identified other sources they use, which suggest potentially effective channels for this agency's risk messages. The study provides a baseline for measuring change in the agency's risk communication effectiveness. It also can be a model when other organizations plan their own risk communication evaluations.

A recent comprehensive review of the literature identified a number of facts and principles governing risk communication. This paper evaluates several of these propositions using recent evidence from a field experiment in communicating the risks from radon in homes. At this point in the research, data relates primarily to the response of risk perceptions to different information treatments and different personal characteristics. The effect of various causal factors is sensitive to the particular test of risk perception applied. No information treatment was clearly superior for all tasks. An important implication of these findings is that risk communicators must determine what specific task or tasks the information program should enable people to do.

Few organizations have the courage to evaluate their own use of risk assessment (identifying hazards and estimating their probability and magnitude) and risk communication (interacting with internal and external stakeholder groups about risks). The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) wants to enhance its overall risk analysis process for managing a wide range of risks to animals, plants, and human health. We gathered survey data for a baseline of APHIS professionals' understanding and use of risk assessment and risk communication. APHIS professionals spend a surprisingly large share of their time communicating about risks. They perceive that risk estimates influence decisions, but that risk estimates should have more influence. Respondents reported little opposition to APHIS risk management decisions, and little use of channels such as USDA Extension Service for disseminating risk messages. Substantial variance across responses is explained mostly by differences in the roles of the 11 work units (now 10) within the agency. Location also contributes to the variance. Demographic variables seem less important.

This research examines and compares perceptions held by laypeople and ecologists about risks to ecosystems, particularly risk from global climate change (GCC). A survey elicited perceptions of 31 risk characteristics for 13 GCC and 12 non‐GCC risks to ecosystems. Factor analysis was used to examine the structure of layperson and expert risk perceptions. Both experts and laypeople tend to perceive GCC risks to ecosystems as less avoidable and more acceptable than risks from other causes. Compared to laypeople's perceptions, though, experts perceived GCC risks to have slightly lower impacts, be less avoidable, more acceptable, and less understandable than non‐GCC risks to ecosystems. These findings may help guide efforts to communicate with laypeople about ecological risks from climate change.

The research reported here examines the relationship between risk perceptions and willingness to address climate change. The data are a national sample of 1225 mail surveys that include measures of risk perceptions and knowledge tied to climate change, support for voluntary and government actions to address the problem, general environmental beliefs, and demographic variables. Risk perceptions matter in predicting behavioral intentions. Risk perceptions are not a surrogate for general environmental beliefs, but have their own power to account for behavioral intentions. There are four secondary conclusions. First, behavioral intentions regarding climate change are complex and intriguing. People are neither "nonbelievers" who will take no initiatives themselves and oppose all government efforts, nor are they "believers" who promise both to make personal efforts and to vote for every government proposal that promises to address climate change. Second, there are separate demographic sources for voluntary actions compared with voting intentions. Third, recognizing the causes of global warming is a powerful predictor of behavioral intentions independent from believing that climate change will happen and have bad consequences. Finally, the success of the risk perception variables to account for behavioral intentions should encourage greater attention to risk perceptions as independent variables. Risk perceptions and knowledge, however, share the stage with general environmental beliefs and demographic characteristics. Although related, risk perceptions, knowledge, and general environmental beliefs are somewhat independent predictors of behavioral intentions.

This research explores public judgments about the threat‐reducing potential of experts, individual behavior, and government spending. The data are responses of a national sample of 1225 to mail surveys that include measures of several dimensions of public judgments about violent crime, automobile accidents, hazardous chemical waste, air pollution, water pollution, global warming, AIDS, heart disease, and cancer. Beliefs about who can best mitigate threats are specific to classes of threats. In general, there is little faith that experts can do much about violent crime and automobile accidents, moderate faith in their ability to address problems of global warming, and greater expectations for expert solutions to the remaining threats. People judge individual behavior as effective in reducing the threats of violent crime, AIDS, heart disease, and automobile accidents but less so for the remaining threats. Faith in more government spending is highest for AIDS and the other two health items, lowest for the trio of violent crime, automobile accidents, and global warming, and moderate for the remaining threats. For most threats, people are not distributed at the extremes in judging mitigators. Strong attitudinal and demographic cleavages are also lacking, although some interesting relationships occur. This relative lack of sharp cleavages and the generally moderate opinion indicate ample opportunity for public education and risk communication.