IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2663-d160643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationships among Environmental Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Coping Behavior: A Case Study of Four Environmentally Sensitive Townships in Yunlin County, Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Yung-Jaan Lee

    (Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, Division of Taiwan Economy, Taipei 106, Taiwan)

Abstract

Climate change issues have attracted much attention in recent years. To date, the related research has focused mostly on the national and regional impacts of climate change. Taiwan, an island state, has relatively high vulnerability to the consequences of climate change, and its western coastal areas are particularly vulnerable. Yunlin County, with 13 townships that are all prone to flooding, will be highly affected by climate change. In this study, the 13 townships are grouped into four categories of synthesized vulnerability and ecological footprint (EF): “low synthesized vulnerability/low EF” (Linnei), “high synthesized vulnerability/low EF” (Sihu), “low synthesized vulnerability/high EF” (Mailiao), and “high synthesized vulnerability/high EF” (Huwei). Ecological footprint was used to measure the human demand for resources and ecological services, as well as a way to understand the relationships among human living habits, consumption patterns, and natural capital consumption. Then, the relationships among attitudes to climate change, risk perceptions, and coping behavioral intentions in these four categories were examined using structural equation models (SEM). A stratified random sampling method was used to collect 582 valid questionnaires. In addition to descriptive statistical analyses, the results of the SEMs for the four sensitivity categories indicate that different townships exhibit different causal relationships among attitudes to climate change, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. These findings can support appropriate strategies for governments, communities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for ensuring that areas of various sensitivities can cope. However, more vulnerable townships exhibit no significant positive relationship between attitudes to and knowledge of climate change, place attachment, and their adaptation behavioral intentions in the face of disaster risk perceptions. Therefore, in areas with high vulnerability, special attention should be paid to making the residents improve their adaptive behavioral intentions in the face of disaster risk perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Yung-Jaan Lee, 2018. "Relationships among Environmental Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Coping Behavior: A Case Study of Four Environmentally Sensitive Townships in Yunlin County, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-22, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2663-:d:160643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2663/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2663/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Iuliana Armaş, 2006. "Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1223-1234, October.
    3. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    4. Vitor Baccarin Zanetti & Wilson Cabral De Sousa Junior & Débora M. De Freitas, 2016. "A Climate Change Vulnerability Index and Case Study in a Brazilian Coastal City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    6. Joseph F. Hair & G. Tomas M. Hult & Christian M. Ringle & Marko Sarstedt & Kai Oliver Thiele, 2017. "Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 616-632, September.
    7. Ruud Raaijmakers & Jörg Krywkow & Anne Veen, 2008. "Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation," 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. 46(3), pages 307-322, September.
    8. Yung-Jaan Lee & Shih-Chien Lin & Chiao-Chi Chen, 2016. "Mapping Cross-Boundary Climate Change Vulnerability—Case Study of the Hualien and Taitung Area, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, January.
    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. Soyoung An & Jinkyung Choi & Thomas Eck & Huirang Yim, 2023. "Perceived Risk and Food Tourism: Pursuing Sustainable Food Tourism Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Angela Mallette & Timothy F. Smith & Carmen Elrick-Barr & Jessica Blythe & Ryan Plummer, 2021. "Understanding Preferences for Coastal Climate Change Adaptation: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Bo-Hyun Seong & Youngseok Choi & Hyojin Kim, 2021. "Influential Factors for Sustainable Intention to Visit a National Park during COVID-19: The Extended Theory of Planned Behavior with Perception of Risk and Coping Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Bo-Hyun Seong & Chang-Yu Hong, 2021. "Does Risk Awareness of COVID-19 Affect Visits to National Parks? Analyzing the Tourist Decision-Making Process Using the Theory of Planned Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Ryoko Nakano & Tomio Miwa & Takayuki Morikawa, 2019. "Factors Promoting Clean Energy in Japanese Cities: Nuclear Risks Versus Climate Change Risks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    2. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    3. Manika, Danae & Dickert, Stephan & Golden, Linda L., 2021. "Check (it) yourself before you wreck yourself: The benefits of online health information exposure on risk perception and intentions to protect oneself," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Chen, Xia & Miraz, Mahadi Hasan & Gazi, Md. Abu Issa & Rahaman, Md. Atikur & Habib, Md. Mamun & Hossain, Abu Ishaque, 2022. "Factors affecting cryptocurrency adoption in digital business transactions: The mediating role of customer satisfaction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    6. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. repec:thr:techub:10025:y:2021:i:1:p:496-514 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Imran Hossain & Maria Fekete-Farkas & Md. Nekmahmud, 2022. "Purchase Behavior of Energy-Efficient Appliances Contribute to Sustainable Energy Consumption in Developing Country: Moral Norms Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    10. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2017. "Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 65-81, January.
    11. Nagarajan Shanmugavel & Rema Rajendran, 2022. "Adoption of Rainwater Harvesting: a Dual-factor Approach by Integrating Theory of Planned Behaviour and Norm Activation Model," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(8), pages 2827-2845, June.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    13. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    14. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    15. Xuan Liu & Qiancheng Wang & Hsi-Hsien Wei & Hung-Lin Chi & Yaotian Ma & Izzy Yi Jian, 2020. "Psychological and Demographic Factors Affecting Household Energy-Saving Intentions: A TPB-Based Study in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, January.
    16. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    17. Kareem M. Selem & Muhammad Haroon Shoukat & Syed Asim Shah & Marianny Jessica Brito Silva, 2023. "The dual effect of digital communication reinforcement drivers on purchase intention in the social commerce environment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Francis Osei & Gertrude Agyemang & Collins Kankam-Kwarteng & Ofosu Amofah, 2021. "Customer use of online order for food delivery service: the application of UTAUT2 Model," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 25(1), pages 496-514, November.
    19. Jeuring, Jelmer & Becken, Susanne, 2013. "Tourists and severe weather – An exploration of the role of ‘Locus of Responsibility’ in protective behaviour decisions," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 193-202.
    20. Shanmugavel, Nagarajan & Balakrishnan, Janarthanan, 2023. "Influence of pro-environmental behaviour towards behavioural intention of electric vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    21. Zhiyong Yang & Ritesh Saini & Traci Freling, 2015. "How Anxiety Leads to Suboptimal Decisions Under Risky Choice Situations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1789-1800, October.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2663-:d:160643. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.