IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i1p65-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Ian G. J. Dawson
  • Johnnie E. V. Johnson

Abstract

The global human population now exceeds 7 billion and is projected to reach 10 billion around 2060. While population growth has been associated with certain benefits (e.g., economies of scale, technological advancements), theoretical models, probabilistic projections, and empirical evidence also indicate that this growth could increase the likelihood of many adverse events (e.g., climate change, resource shortages) and the impact of these events, as more people are exposed to the outcomes. While concerns about these issues are well‐documented in the academic literature, there is little evidence concerning the public's perceptions of the risks associated with global population growth (GPG) and how these perceptions are likely to influence related decisions. To address these issues, we conducted a U.K.‐based study that examined respondents’ risk perceptions of GPG, their willingness to embrace mitigation/precautionary behaviors, and reasons for variations in these two factors. We found that GPG is perceived as a moderate‐to‐high risk, with concerns about the increased likelihood of resource shortages, ecological damage, and violent conflict being foremost. Respondents believed that the worst effects of GPG would arrive around 2050 and would be experienced by the world's poorest people. Respondents who perceived greater levels of risk from GPG were generally those who indicated a greater willingness to embrace mitigation behaviors (e.g., reduce resource consumption) and preventative actions (e.g., support political action to limit growth). We discuss how our findings might be utilized to better manage the potential challenges associated with GPG and we suggest several directions for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:65-81
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12576
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12576?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. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    2. Simone Dohle & Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Examining the Relationship Between Affect and Implicit Associations: Implications for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1116-1128, July.
    3. Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2005. "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1433-1442, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Gerd Gigerenzer, 2006. "Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Behavioral Reactions to Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 347-351, April.
    6. Kibirige, Joachim S., 1997. "Population growth, poverty and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 247-259, July.
    7. Cassen, Robert H., 1976. "Population and development: A survey," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 4(10-11), pages 785-830.
    8. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Are trivial risks the greatest risks of all?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 281-288, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Carmen Keller & Vivianne Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 464-477, March.
    11. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner, 2014. "Keeping Surveys Valid, Reliable, and Useful: A Tutorial," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1362-1375, August.
    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. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    2. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2014. "Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1378-1390, August.
    3. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    4. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & Kazuhisa Nagaya, 2016. "The Effects of the Passage of Time from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake on the Public’s Anxiety about a Variety of Hazards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, August.
    7. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Andrea Taylor & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Suraje Dessai, 2014. "Climate Change Beliefs and Perceptions of Weather‐Related Changes in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1995-2004, November.
    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. Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "Thinking Concretely Increases the Perceived Likelihood of Risks: The Effect of Construal Level on Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 623-637, March.
    11. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    14. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    15. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Nicole Betz & John D. Coley, 2022. "Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-28, August.
    20. Yuling Fu & Jiaxin Shi & Dan Su & Fumin Deng, 2024. "Face it and shoulder it jointly: from personal experience to mitigation behavior of climate change," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17319-17333, July.

    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:37:y:2017:i:1:p:65-81. 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.