Although there is a growing body of research examining public perceptions of global climate change, little work has focused on the role of place and proximity in shaping these perceptions. This study extends previous conceptual models explaining risk perception associated with global climate change by adding a spatial dimension. Specifically, Geographic Information Systems and spatial analytical techniques are used to map and measure survey respondents' physical risk associated with expected climate change. Using existing spatial data, multiple measures of climate change vulnerability are analyzed along with demographic, attitudinal, and social contextual variables derived from a representative national survey to predict variation in risk perception. Bivariate correlation and multivariate regression analyses are used to identify and explain the most important indicators shaping individual risk perception. Analysis of the data suggests that the relationship between actual and perceived risk is driven by specific types of physical conditions and experiences.
Barkan, S.E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism model. Social Science Quarterly , 85, 913-937.
2.
Bell, A. (1994a). Climate of opinion: Public and media discourse on the global environment. Discourse & Society, 5(1), 33-64.
3.
Bell, A. (1994b). Media (mis)communication of the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 259-275.
4.
Blake, D.E. (2001). Contextual effects on environmental attitudes and behavior, Environment and Behavior, 33, 708-725.
5.
Bord, R.J., & O'Connor, R.E. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830-840.
6.
Bord, R.J., Fisher, A., & O'Connor, R.E. (1998). Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives. Climate Research, 11, 75-84.
7.
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models, Risk Analysis, 14(6), 959-970.
8.
Brechin, S.R. (1999). Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: Evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 793-809.
9.
Brody, S.D. (2003). Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning and Education Research, 22(4), 107-119. Brody, S.D., Godschalk, D., & Burby, R.J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan-making: Six strategic choices. Journal of American Planning Association, 69(3), 245-265.
10.
Brody, S.D., Highfield, W., & Alston, L. (2004). Does location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 229-250.
11.
Brody, S.D., Peck, M., & Highfield, W. (2004). Examining localized patterns of air quality perceptions in Texas: A spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Analysis , 24(6), 1561-1574.
12.
Burby, R.J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of American Planning Association , 69, 1, 33-49.
13.
Correia, F.N., Fordham, M., Saraiva, M.G., & Bernardo, F. (1998). Flood hazard assessment and management: Interface with the public. Water ResourcesManagement, 12, 209-227.
14.
Diekmann, A., & Preisendorfer, P. (1998). Environmental behavior—Discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Rationality and Society, 10, 79-102.
15.
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., & Guagnano, G.A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450-471.
16.
Drori, I., & Yuchtman-Yar, E. (2002). Environmental vulnerability in public perceptions and attitudes: The case of Israel's urban centers. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 53-63.
17.
Dunlap, R.E. (1998). Lay perceptions of global risk: Public views of global warming in cross-national context. International Sociology , 13, 473- 498.
18.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-42.
19.
Elliott, S.J., Cole, D.C., Krueger, P., Voorberg, N., & Wakefield, S. (1999). The power of perception: Health risk attributed to air pollution in an urban industrial neighborhood. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 621-634.
20.
Farley, J.E., Barlow, H., Finkelstein, M., & Riley, L. (1993). Earthquake hysteria before and after: A survey and follow-up on public response to the browning forecast. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11, 305-322.
21.
Finucane, M.L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., & Flynn, J. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk, and Society,2(2), 159-172.
22.
Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S.L., & Keeney, R.L. (1981). Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C.K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
24.
Foster, R.H., & McBeth, M.K. (1994). Urban-rural influences in U.S. environmental and economic development policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(4), 387-397.
25.
Garvin, T. (2001). Analytical paradigms: The epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Analysis , 21(3), 443-455.
26.
Henry, A.D. (2000). Public perceptions of global warming. Human Ecology Review,7(1), 25-30.
27.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81, 1197-1216.
28.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1991). Discussant effects on vote choice: Intimacy, structure, and interdependence. Journal of Politics, 53(1), 122-58.
29.
Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science & Politics, 28, 57-72.
30.
Jaeger, C., Durrenberger, G., Kastenholz, H., & Truffer, B. (1993). Determinants of environmental action with regard to climatic change. Climatic Change, 23, 193-211.
31.
Jasanoff, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decision making. In: S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change: Volume 1. The societal framework. Columbus, OH: Batelle.
32.
Johnson E.J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.
33.
Jones, R.E., & Dunlap, R.E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have there been any changes?Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28-47.
34.
Kempton, W. (1991). Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change, 1(3), 183-208.
35.
Kempton, W. (1993). Will public environmental concern lead to action on global warming?Annual Review of Energy and the Environment , 18, 117-145.
36.
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12(2), 215-232.
37.
Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1988). Environmental hazards: Communicating risk as a social process. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
38.
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551-578.
39.
Lindell, Michael K. (1994). Perceived characteristics of environmental hazards . International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters , 12, 303-326.
40.
Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
41.
Marshall, B.K. (2004). Gender, race, and perceived environmental risk: The “white male” effect in cancer alley, L.A. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 453-478.
42.
McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L., & Slovic, P. (1996). Perceived ecological risks of global change: A comparison of causes and consequences. Global Environmental Change, 6(2), 159-171.
43.
O'Connor, R.E., Bord, R.J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19, 461-471.
44.
O'Connor, R.E., Bord, R.J., Yarnal, B., & Wiefek, N. (2002). Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?Social Science Quarterly, 83, 1-17.
45.
Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.
46.
Peacock, W.G., Brody, S.D., & Highfield, W. (2005). Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, 120-135.
47.
Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1427-1453.
48.
Powell, D., & Leiss, W. (1997). Mad cows and mother's milk: The perils of poor risk communication. Montreal, Quebec, and Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen's University Press.
49.
Raudsepp, M. (2001). Some socio-demographic and socio-psychological predictors of environmentalism. Trames, 5(3), 355-367.
50.
Ross, T., & Lott, N. (2003). A Climatology of 1980-2003 Extreme Weather and Climate Events, Technical Report 2003-01. Asheville, NC : U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA/ NESDIS, National Climatic Data Center.
51.
Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 313-420.
52.
Scheraga, J.D., & Grambsch, A.E. (1998). Risks, opportunities, and adaptation to climate change. Climate Research, 10, 85-95.
53.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S. (1991). Risk and Rationality. Los Angeles : University of California Press.
54.
Slaymaker, O. (1999). Natural hazards in British Columbia: An interdisciplinary and inter-institutional challenge. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 88, 317-324.
55.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
56.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.
57.
Slovic, P. (2000). Rational actors and rational fools: The influence of affect on judgment and decision making. Roger Williams UniversityLaw Review, 6(1), 163-212.
58.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 1-12.
59.
Sterman, J.D., & Sweeney, L.B. (2002). Cloudy skies: Assessing public understanding of global warming. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 207-240.
60.
Tierney, K., Lindell, M.K., & Perry, R.W. (2001). Facing the Unexpected. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.
61.
Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., & Moss, R.H. (1997). The regional impacts of climate change: An assessment of vulnerability. A Special Report of IPCC Working Group II. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
62.
Wilson, K.M. (2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters' knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 1-13.
63.
Wood, D., Gooch, T.C., Pronovost, P.M., & Noonan, D.C. (1985). Development of a flood management plan. Journal of Water ResourcesManagement, 111(4), 417- 433.
64.
Zahran, S., Brody, S.D., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2005). Physical vulnerability to climate change, risk perception and policy support in the United States. Washington, DC: Association for Public Policy and Management.
65.
Zelezny, L., Poh-Pheng Chua, C., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism . Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-57.
