IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i6p1689-1705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception

Author

Listed:
  • Michael W. Slimak
  • Thomas Dietz

Abstract

A mail survey on ecological risk perception was administered in the summer of 2002 to a randomized sample of the lay public and to selected risk professionals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The ranking of 24 ecological risk items, from global climate change to commercial fishing, reveals that the lay public is more concerned about low‐probability, high‐consequence risks whereas the risk professionals are more concerned about risks that pose long‐term, ecosystem‐level impacts. To test the explanatory power of the value‐belief‐norm (VBN) theory for risk perception, respondents were questioned about their personal values, spiritual beliefs, and worldviews. The most consistent predictors of the risk rankings are belief in the new ecological paradigm (NEP) and Schwartz's altruism. The NEP and Schwartz's altruism explain from 19% to 46% of the variance in the risk rankings. Religious beliefs account for less than 6% of the variance and do not show a consistent pattern in predicting risk perception although religious fundamentalists are generally less concerned about the risk items. While not exerting as strong an impact, social‐structural variables do have some influence on risk perception. Ethnicities show no effect on the risk scales but the more educated and financially well‐off are less concerned about the risk items. Political leanings have no direct influence on risk rankings, but indirectly affect rankings through the NEP. These results reveal that the VBN theory is a plausible explanation for the differences measured in the respondents' perception of ecological risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1689-1705
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.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. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    2. Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    3. Paul Slovic & Torbjörn Malmfors & Daniel Krewski & C. K. Mertz & Nancy Neil & Sheryl Bartlett, 1995. "Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 661-675, December.
    4. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    6. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    9. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 643-648, December.
    10. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    11. Thomas Dietz & Linda Kalof & Paul C. Stern, 2002. "Gender, Values, and Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 353-364, March.
    12. 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)

    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. 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.
    2. George Wright & Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2002. "An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1107-1122, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrea R. Beyer & Barbara Fasolo & Lawrence D. Phillips & Pieter A. de Graeff & Hans L. Hillege, 2013. "Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 579-592, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    9. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    13. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    14. Zhihua Xu & Jingzhu Shan, 2018. "The effect of risk perception on willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by particulate matter 2.5: A case study of Beijing, China," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(8), pages 1319-1337, December.
    15. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    16. Terre A. Satterfield & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 115-129, February.
    17. Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Richard P. Barke, 2007. "Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 755-773, June.
    18. Joanna Burger & Jessica Sanchez & J. Whitfield Gibbons & Michael Gochfeld, 1997. "Risk Perception, Federal Spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of Hunters and Fishermen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 313-320, June.
    19. Richard C. Stedman, 2004. "Risk and Climate Change: Perceptions of Key Policy Actors in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1395-1406, October.
    20. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.

    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:6:p:1689-1705. 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.