Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhile individual perceptions of risk are central to many behavioral theories of hazard response and are of considerable interest in both conceptual and applied work surrounding risk, hazards, and decision making, there is currently no consensus on how perceived risk should best be measured. Several recent efforts have laid the groundwork for a conceptual model outlining four key factors that make up risk perception: exposure, susceptibility, severity, and affective response. In this article, we use an extensive scale‐development process to develop empirically supported 3–4 item subscales to measure each of those four dimensions. Using cognitive interviewing techniques and several quantitative psychometric methods including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and item‐response theory analyses, we reduce a large set of potential items to the highest‐quality items to assess each subscale. These subscales can be used to make comparisons across perceived risk in different hazard contexts and populations.

AbstractDecades of research identify risk perception as a largely intuitive and affective construct, in contrast to the more deliberative assessments of probability and consequences that form the foundation of risk assessment. However, a review of the literature reveals that many of the risk perception measures employed in survey research with human subjects are either generic in nature, not capturing any particular affective, probabilistic, or consequential dimension of risk; or focused solely on judgments of probability. The goal of this research was to assess a multidimensional measure of risk perception across multiple hazards to identify a measure that will be broadly useful for assessing perceived risk moving forward. Our results support the idea of risk perception being multidimensional, but largely a function of individual affective reactions to the hazard. We also find that our measure of risk perception holds across multiple types of hazards, ranging from those that are behavioral in nature (e.g., health and safety behaviors), to those that are technological (e.g., pollution), or natural (e.g., extreme weather). We suggest that a general, unidimensional measure of risk may accurately capture one's perception of the severity of the consequences, and the discrete emotions that are felt in response to those potential consequences. However, such a measure is not likely to capture the perceived probability of experiencing the outcomes, nor will it be as useful at understanding one's motivation to take mitigation action.

Abstract
In the eastern Corn Belt of the United States, climate change is projected to bring warmer and wetter conditions, with more variability in the seasonal timing of rainfall, creating a multitude of challenges for agricultural production. While there are multiple adaptations to reduce the vulnerability of production to a changing climate, these adaptations have varying implications for other ecosystem services such as soil health, carbon sequestration, and water quality. We explore how beliefs about and experiences with climate change might influence adaptations that vary in their provisioning of a variety of ecosystem services, and how these adaptations may vary by characteristics of the farm and farmer. Survey data were collected from 908 respondents from August through October 2019. We find only one proposed adaptation, additional tile drainage, is associated with self-reported prior negative experiences with climate change and concern about future impacts. The other proposed adaptations (i.e., cover crops, filter strips, additional fertilizer) are associated with farmer identity. The type of farmer who is likely to adapt is generally reminiscent of the type who engage in conservation practices: younger, more educated, with off-farm income and larger farms. Our results indicate that many proposed adaptations are not perceived as effective ways to mitigate specific climate-driven impacts. However, increasing tile drainage is perceived as such, and there may be a need to offset the potential negative impacts to water quality of this likely adaptation through the promotion of edge-of-field filtration practices.

Significance Statement
The purpose of this study is to better understand how beliefs about and experiences with climate change may influence adaptations that vary in their provisioning of a suite of ecosystem services. We find that those who are adapting directly to the most severe and frequent climate-exacerbated impact, heavy rain at the wrong time of year, are likely to adapt in ways that may benefit production (e.g., increasing drainage tile to ensure fields are not inundated by spring rains) but have negative feedback to society in terms of water quality. Most proposed adaptations are not perceived as effective means of increasing resilience to experienced impacts but rather as practices that are the norm among conservation-minded farmers with larger operations.

Findings from previous studies of individual decision‐making behavior predict that losses will loom larger than gains. It is less clear, however, if this loss aversion applies to the way in which individuals attribute value to the gains and losses of others, or if it is robust across a broad spectrum of policy and management decision contexts. Consistent with previous work, the results from a series of experiments reported here revealed that subjects exhibited loss aversion when evaluating their own financial gains and losses. The presence of loss aversion was also confirmed for the way in which individuals attribute value to the financial gains and losses of others. However, similar evaluations within social and environmental contexts did not exhibit loss aversion. In addition, research subjects expected that individuals who were unknown to them would significantly undervalue the subjects' own losses across all contexts. The implications of these findings for risk‐based policy and management are many. Specifically, they warrant caution when relying upon loss aversion to explain or predict the reaction of affected individuals to risk‐based decisions that involve moral or protected values. The findings also suggest that motivational biases may lead decisionmakers to assume that their attitudes and beliefs are common among those affected by a decision, while those affected may expect unfamiliar others to be unable to identify and act in accordance with shared values.

Managing wildfire events to achieve multiple management objectives involves a high degree of decision complexity and uncertainty, increasing the likelihood that decisions will be informed by experience‐based heuristics triggered by available cues at the time of the decision. The research reported here tests the prevalence of three risk‐based biases among 206 individuals in the USDA Forest Service with authority to choose how to manage a wildfire event (i.e., line officers and incident command personnel). The results indicate that the subjects exhibited loss aversion, choosing the safe option more often when the consequences of the choice were framed as potential gains, but this tendency was less pronounced among those with risk seeking attitudes. The subjects also exhibited discounting, choosing to minimize short‐term over long‐term risk due to a belief that future risk could be controlled, but this tendency was less pronounced among those with more experience. Finally, the subjects, in particular those with more experience, demonstrated a status quo bias, choosing suppression more often when their reported status quo was suppression. The results of this study point to a need to carefully construct the decision process to ensure that the uncertainty and conflicting objectives inherent in wildfire management do not result in the overuse of common heuristics. Individual attitudes toward risk or an agency culture of risk aversion may counterbalance such heuristics, whereas increased experience may lead to overconfident intuitive judgments and a failure to incorporate new and relevant information into the decision.