IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i2p455-470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Loss of Agro‐Biodiversity, Uncertainty, and Perceived Control: A Comparative Risk Perception Study in Austria and China

Author

Listed:
  • Markus R. Schmidt
  • Wei Wei

Abstract

The biogeographical centers of origin of important food crops—called Vavilov centers—are considered to be crucial sources of genetic diversity for present and future crop‐breeding programs and thus for human food safety worldwide. Global environmental change and more intensified modes of crop production may cause genetic erosion (loss of traditional crop varieties and loss of crop wild relatives), especially in Vavilov centers. The present study focused on how the risk of genetic erosion (or loss of agro‐biodiversity) is perceived in comparison to 16 other risk topics by experts and lay people in Austria and China. The most striking result was that genetic erosion was perceived to be an exceptionally unknown and uncertain risk topic, given that only genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were perceived as being even more uncertain. As a consequence of the high uncertainty, the idea of applying the precautionary principle to further prevent genetic erosion is discussed. An unprecedented finding—one that differs from Austrian participants—is that the Chinese have a higher perceived control over all risk topics. The increased perception of controllability in China is discussed in light of the theory of reflexive modernization. This theory strives to explain the increased critical attitude in Western countries such as Austria toward scientific innovations and toward the idea that everything can be calculated and mastered at will. By revealing different notions of risk perception, this research also provides additional scientific input to risk communication efforts for public education.

Suggested Citation

  • Markus R. Schmidt & Wei Wei, 2006. "Loss of Agro‐Biodiversity, Uncertainty, and Perceived Control: A Comparative Risk Perception Study in Austria and China," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 455-470, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:2:p:455-470
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00744.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00744.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00744.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian Chuk‐ling Lai & Julia Tao, 2003. "Perception of Environmental Hazards in Hong Kong Chinese," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 669-684, August.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2003. "Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 739-749, August.
    3. Timothy L. McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Nigel S. Cavanagh & Paul Slovic, 1997. "Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 341-352, June.
    4. Swanson, Timothy, 1996. "The reliance of northern economies on southern biodiversity: biodiversity as information," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8, April.
    5. Felix Neto & Etienne Mullet, 2001. "Societal risks as seen by Chinese students living in Macao," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 63-73, January.
    6. Charles F. Keown, 1989. "Risk Perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 401-405, September.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    8. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cuihua Liu & Dong Jiang & Yunjiang Cheng & Xiuxin Deng & Feng Chen & Liu Fang & Zhaocheng Ma & Juan Xu, 2013. "Chemotaxonomic Study of Citrus, Poncirus and Fortunella Genotypes Based on Peel Oil Volatile Compounds - Deciphering the Genetic Origin of Mangshanyegan (Citrus nobilis Lauriro)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-9, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    2. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    4. Sandra Cortés & Soledad Burgos & Héctor Adaros & Boris Lucero & Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, 2021. "Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Bonita L. McFarlane & David O. T. Witson, 2008. "Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 203-212, February.
    6. Juan Ignacio Aragonés & César Tapia-Fonllem & Lucía Poggio & Blanca Fraijo-Sing, 2017. "Perception on the Risk of the Sonora River Pollution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-11, February.
    7. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Mohammed Amin Almaiah & Adi Alsyouf & Hussin Mostafa Arafa & Yasser Soliman & Ibrahim A. Elshaer, 2023. "A Novel Framework of Public Risk Assessment Using an Integrated Approach Based on AHP and Psychometric Paradigm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Yongbao Zhang & Jianwu Chen & Xingfei Wei & Xiang Wu, 2022. "Development and Validation of the Haze Risk Perception Scale and Influencing Factor Scale—A Study Based on College Students in Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-21, April.
    9. Lonzozou Kpanake & Bruno Chauvin & Etienne Mullet, 2008. "Societal Risk Perception Among African Villagers Without Access to the Media," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 193-202, February.
    10. Ellen Van Kleef & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Moin Khan & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 1002-1015, June.
    11. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    12. Yi‐Wen Kung & Sue‐Huei Chen, 2012. "Perception of Earthquake Risk in Taiwan: Effects of Gender and Past Earthquake Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1535-1546, September.
    13. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Sundus Alyatama & Ibrahim A. Elshaer & Mohammed Amin Almaiah, 2022. "Perception of Occupational and Environmental Risks and Hazards among Mineworkers: A Psychometric Paradigm Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    14. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    15. Elaine Gierlach & Bradley E. Belsher & Larry E. Beutler, 2010. "Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perceptions of Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1539-1549, October.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    17. Mary E. Thomson & Dilek Önkal & Ali Avcioğlu & Paul Goodwin, 2004. "Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1585-1595, December.
    18. Bonita L. McFarlane, 2005. "Public Perceptions of Risk to Forest Biodiversity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 543-553, June.
    19. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    20. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:2:p:455-470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.