public perceptions of risks to biodiversity

Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH,

UK

Public perceptions of risks to biodiversity

Anke FischerSocio-Economics Group

Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

Anke Fischer • Socio-Economics Group • Macaulay Land Use Research Institute • UK

Structure Understanding public perceptions of risk:

approaches in social sciences

Three studies: public attitudes and perceptions of risk related to biodiversity

biodiversity management in the Cairngorms (Young & Fischer)

invasive plants versus breeding seabirds (Fischer & Van der Wal)

biodiversity conservation in developing countries (Menzel)


‘Risk’ in the social sciences risk: “potential negative impacts on

something positive”? economics (Knight 1921)

risk: probabilities known

uncertainty: probabilities unknown

social scientific approaches: qualitative (exploring) vs quantitative (measuring) expectancy-value approach: severity *

probability ( H&S ) often used in quantitative psychology


part of ALTER-Net RA5: “Public attitudes to

biodiversity and its conservation”

previous studies: scientific concepts as the

yardstick to measure public awareness and

knowledge

qualitative research: public understandings of

and attitudes towards biodiversity issues

Public understandings of and attitudes towards biodiversity

Example #1


What does ‘biodiversity’ mean to members of the

general public? How do they perceive certain species

or habitats?

What do people value about biodiversity?

What do members of the public perceive as relevant

issues? What do they see as consequences of

biodiversity loss/changes?

What are their attitudes towards related measures?

Which factors influence individuals’ perceptions,

values and attitudes?

Research questionsExample #1


Study sitesExample #1


Qualitative research aim: gather information on individuals’

concepts and attitudes exploratory: focus-group discussions

combined with drawing exercises discussion guide wide range of members of the public:

visitors and residents of NP and adjacent areas, mountaineers, young farmers, birdwatchers, foresters, …

sample size: n= 44 (8 groups)

The Cairngorms case: methodsExample #1

Fischer & Young


respondents underestimate their own knowledge often vague expressions when directly asked but: conceptually rich insights revealed indirectly (‘foodwebs’, ‘balance’) biodiversity is part of a complex mental construct

Concepts of biodiversity

“connected”“contained in the same environment”

“no hierarchy”“landscape feeding into it”

“wildlife”“water at the centre”“only plant I know the name of: club moss”“reindeer – metaphor – shouldn’t be there”

Biodiversity drawingsScotland

Example #1


Perceptions of risks

threats to biodiversity

Example #1

recreation and tourism (main threat ?!!) invasive alien species (mink, rhododendron, …) intensive agricultural practices (grazing) hunting pollution climate change: mentioned only twice

threats to humans resulting from biodiversity change


Threats to biodiversity: recreation

I think myself an awful lot of the problem, beside the shooting thing, is the number of feet on the hill (local resident)

People’s feet seem to do as much damage than anything else in these sort of places (forester)

Lichens grow over thousands of years, you know? And someone goes [he claps] and it’s gone. (birdwatcher)

Example #1


Threats to humans from biodiversity change

vague feeling of loss

Example #1

knock-on effects

land use implications

loss of basis of human life As I see it if you lose you biodiversity then you lose …

You’ve lost all things, forget it! (birdwatchers)

But without it we aren’t here either… (tourist)

I think very superficially, no, it doesn’t have a great impact but when you start to appreciate what is going on there and what has been there, just a matter of a few years ago, a few decades ago and you see what is there now, that is a concern (mountaineer)

I think rather than the sheer numbers it is the variety that I would regret the loss of. I don’t understand, I don’t have enough technical knowledge to know the fine detail of numbers of individual species, but it is the whole variety of turning it into a monoculture with planting of forestry or turning it over to agricultural land. I think that is a loss to our landscape (mountaineer)

You could lose species that can help your natural predators. Ladybirds or something like that that kill aphids (young farmer) I’m sure if you lose one small animal it is going to have a knock on effect on the rest of the animals that are feeding off them. It would break a certain part of the food chain and more and more things would disappear (mountaineer)

We’d probably lose aspects of tourism. The people that come out here to look at certain species, if they were to become extinct. (young farmer)


Conclusions concepts of biodiversity:

people underestimate their own knowledge

but: conceptually rich insights are revealed indirectly

most people seem familiar with the concept of food-webs and links between elements of a system (‘balance’)

major risk in the Cairngorms: recreation, accessibility

consequences of biodiversity change for humans: references to food webs and imbalance of systems

considered as threatening, but vague

Example #1


The ‘tree mallow’ case Fischer & Van der Wal

Craigleith island

Atlantic puffinFratercula arctica

Tree mallowLavatera arborea

Example #2


Survey: public attitudes How do people perceive the two species

in this situation? What do they value about the species

and the habitat? What are their attitudes towards

management options? Are perceptions and values indeed

linked to their attitudes?

Example #2


Tree mallow management options

No intervention

Cutting tree mallow

Introduce neutered rabbits

Spraying with herbicides

Example #2


Methods quantitative approach structured, face-to-face interviews:

questionnaire introductory part: information random sampling of local population

and visitors n=244

Example #2


Which one of these management options do you favour most? Which one do you favour least? Please use 1 to indicate the option that you find most desirable, 2 to indicate the second most desirable etc., and 4 to indicate the least favourable option.

Option Rank

Cutting tree mallow

Introduce neutered rabbits

Spray tree mallow

No intervention

Methods: ranking of options

1

2

3

4

Example #2


Attitudes towards management

Attitude indices for tree mallow management options.grey boxes: quartilesthick vertical lines: medianwhiskers: percentiles 5 and 95

0 5 10 15 20 25

Cutting

Introduction of rabbits

Herbicides

No intervention

Management options

Attitude index scores

Example #2


Management options: Why?Reasons mentioned:

Total(n=215)

Cutting first

(n=119)

Rabbits first

(n=55)

Herbicides first

(n=24)

No inter-vention

(n=17)

Least risk, fewer side-effects, most control

37.9 57.1 27.3 16.7 17.6

Most natural 18.4 12.6 45.5 0 52.9

Most effective 18.3 15.1 9.1 58.3 17.6

Least intrusive 14.4 20.1 12.7 8.3 11.8

Allows local involvement, raises public awareness

8.0 16.8 0 0 0

Leads to state of balance 6.0 3.4 7.2 8.3 17.6

Fair to rabbits and/or puffins (animal welfare)

4.4 7.6 0 4.2 0

Restores former state 4.0 0.8 14.5 4.2 0

Cost-effective 3.6 1.6 5.4 16.7 0

Most responsible, ethical 2.4 2.5 0 4.2 11.8

Example #2


Methods: attitude scale

When tree mallow is cut by hand, To me, that there are nopeople have more control than with undesirable side-effects is… other management options, and fewer undesirable side-effects will occur.

I strongly disagre

e1

I disagre

e

2

I am indif-ferent

3

I agree

4

I strongly

agree5

very un-importan

t

1

un-importan

t

2

I am indif-

ferent 3

important

4

very importan

t

5

11 item pairs in expectancy-value format: belief * importance

Theory of Planned Behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen) 3 pairs: risks associated to management

Example #2


Using pesticides is very risky in this situation. To me, that no risk is being run with regard to the use of pesticides is…

Example #2

The introduction of neutered rabbits is risky, To me, that people have full because people have little control control over the impacts is…over the impacts.

I strongly disagre

e1

I disagre

e

2

I am indif-ferent

3

I agree

4

I strongly

agree5

very un-importan

t

1

un-importan

t

2

I am indif-

ferent 3

important

4

very importan

t

5

I strongly disagre

e1

I disagre

e

2

I am indif-ferent

3

I agree

4

I strongly

agree5

very un-importan

t

1

un-importan

t

2

I am indif-

ferent 3

important

4

very importan

t

5

Methods: attitude scale


Results: risk perceptionsExample #2

Mean SD

Belief: cut risks (rec) 2.27 .9

Belief: rabbits risks 3.50 1.02

Belief: pesticide risk 3.74 1.03

Importance: cut risk 4.27 .6

Importance: rabbits risk 3.89 .7

Importance: pesticide risk 4.30 .6

b*i cut (rec) 9.54 3.7

b*i rabbits 13.7 5.1

b*i pest 16.2 5.6

n=233, beliefs: 1 disagree, 5 agree; importance: 1 low, 5 highall b and i different (p<0.01) except icut and ipest

Multinom regression: pseudo r2=0.47 (C&S)


Results: summary

perceptions of risk: not only related directly to biodiversity changes, but also relevant with regard to biodiversity management options

perceived risks of intervention are determinants of choices

Example #2


Biodiversity protection in developing countries Menzel 2004

Willingness to pay (WTP) of German citizens for biodiversity conservation in developing countries

Does the Protection Motivation Theory help to explain WTP?

Example #3


Methods

contingent valuation: WTP PMT: framework for explanatory

variables n=1,017 telephone survey: questionnaire


Protection Motivation Theory Rogers 1975

Threat appraisal

Coping appraisal

Behavioural intention


Protection Motivation Theory Rogers 1975

Coping appraisal

Behavioural intention

Perceived severity

Perceived probability

Threat appraisal


Threat appraisal as a determinant of WTP

Coping appraisal

Behavioural intention(here: WTP)

Perceived severity

Perceived probability

Threat appraisal

r=0.2**

Responsibilitypseudo r2=0.33


Conclusions qualitative and quantitative approaches #1 Cairngorms:

main threat recreation? consequences for humans systemic thinking, but

vague

#2 tree mallow: risks due to management of invasives! perceived risk of options – determinant of preferences

#3 WTP: threat appraisal – determinant of behavioural intention


Thank you.

public perceptions of risks to biodiversity

Documents