IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/63823.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Confluence and contours: reflexive management of environmental risk

Author

Listed:
  • Soane, Emma
  • Schubert, Iljana
  • Pollard, Simon
  • Rocks, Sophie
  • Black, Edgar

Abstract

Government institutions have responsibilities to distribute risk management funds meaningfully and to be accountable for their choices. We took a macro-level sociological approach to understanding the role of government in managing environmental risks, and insights from micro-level psychology to examine individual-level risk-related perceptions and beliefs. Survey data from 2179 UK citizens showed that lay people's funding preferences were associated positively with beliefs about responsibility and trust, yet associations with perception varied depending on risk type. Moreover, there were risk-specific differences in the funding preferences of the lay sample and 29 policy makers. A laboratory based study of 109 participants examined funding allocation in more detail through iterative presentation of expert information. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed a meso-level framework comprising three types of decision makers who varied in their willingness to change funding allocation preferences following expert information: adaptors, responders and resistors. This research highlights the relevance of integrated theoretical approaches to understanding the policy process, and the benefits of reflexive dialogue to managing environmental risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Soane, Emma & Schubert, Iljana & Pollard, Simon & Rocks, Sophie & Black, Edgar, 2016. "Confluence and contours: reflexive management of environmental risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63823, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:63823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63823/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham, 2006. "(How) Can we value health, safety and the environment?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 713-736, December.
    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. Sophie A. Rocks & Iljana Schubert & Emma Soane & Edgar Black & Rachel Muckle & Judith Petts & George Prpich & Simon J. Pollard, 2017. "Engaging with Comparative Risk Appraisals: Public Views on Policy Priorities for Environmental Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(9), pages 1683-1692, September.

    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. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Tinch, Dugald, 2010. "Differences between Decision and Experienced Utility: An Investigation using the Choice Experiment method," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2010-13, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    2. Butler, David & Loomes, Graham, 2011. "Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 511-522.
    3. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    4. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    5. Vlaev, Ivo, 2012. "How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 963-972.
    6. Elvik, Rune, 2013. "Paradoxes of rationality in road safety policy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 62-70.
    7. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    8. Tobias Börger & Anna Maccagnan & Mathew P. White & Lewis R. Elliott & Tim Taylor, 2023. "Was the trip worth it? Consistency between decision and experienced utility assessments of recreational nature visits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(2), pages 525-545, March.
    9. Graham Loomes & Judith Mehta, 2007. "The sensitivity of subjective probability to time and elicitation method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 201-216, June.
    10. Emma Soane & Iljana Schubert & Simon Pollard & Sophie Rocks & Edgar Black, 2016. "Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1090-1107, June.
    11. Aldred, Jonathan, 2013. "Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-140.
    12. Raul Brey & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2017. "Age effects in mortality risk valuation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(7), pages 921-932, September.
    13. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    14. Shepherd, Dean A. & Kuskova, Valya & Patzelt, Holger, 2009. "Measuring the values that underlie sustainable development: The development of a valid scale," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 246-256, April.
    15. Samuel Shillcutt & Damian Walker & Catherine Goodman & Anne Mills, 2009. "Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(11), pages 903-917, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agency; decision making; environmental risk; government funding; policy; FP0101; EP/G022682/1;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:63823. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.