Microplastics in food and drink: Predictors of public risk perceptions and support for plastic-reducing policies based on a climate change framework

IF 7 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Environmental Psychology Pub Date : 2025-03-29 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102583
Leonie Fian , Ulrike Felt , Thilo Hofmann , Mathew P. White , Sabine Pahl
{"title":"Microplastics in food and drink: Predictors of public risk perceptions and support for plastic-reducing policies based on a climate change framework","authors":"Leonie Fian ,&nbsp;Ulrike Felt ,&nbsp;Thilo Hofmann ,&nbsp;Mathew P. White ,&nbsp;Sabine Pahl","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The world is confronted with a Triple Planetary Crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Human behaviours are key drivers of these crises and thus solutions need to focus on understanding the factors influencing people's levels of risk perception and willingness to support system level actions (e.g., effective regulatory measures). The current research adapts a conceptual framework that has proven useful in understanding these issues in the context of climate change (the Climate Change Risk Perception Model, CCRPM; van der Linden, 2015) to one of the most widely discussed areas of environmental pollution, i.e., plastics, and microplastics in food and drink specifically. Drawing on data from a quasi-representative survey in Austria (<em>N</em> = 741), we found relatively high risk perception concerning microplastics in food/drink, and higher support for “pull” (e.g., incentive) than “push” (e.g., fines) plastic-reducing policies. Higher risk perception was predicted most by socio-cultural and experiential factors (i.e., higher biospheric values, negative affect, indirect exposure through talking to others about the issue). The pattern of predictors for policy support differed between “push” and “pull” measures (e.g., higher perceived scientific consensus and trust in science predicted higher support for “pull” but not “push” measures). Moreover, exploratory path analyses suggested that experiential factors were related to policy support indirectly through risk perception. Our findings suggest that frameworks such as the CCRPM can be usefully adapted to other contexts of environmental and/or health concern. By identifying the psychological drivers of public risk perception of microplastics in food and drink and support for different types of policies, these findings can inform the development of effective measures and communication strategies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"103 ","pages":"Article 102583"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494425000660","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The world is confronted with a Triple Planetary Crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Human behaviours are key drivers of these crises and thus solutions need to focus on understanding the factors influencing people's levels of risk perception and willingness to support system level actions (e.g., effective regulatory measures). The current research adapts a conceptual framework that has proven useful in understanding these issues in the context of climate change (the Climate Change Risk Perception Model, CCRPM; van der Linden, 2015) to one of the most widely discussed areas of environmental pollution, i.e., plastics, and microplastics in food and drink specifically. Drawing on data from a quasi-representative survey in Austria (N = 741), we found relatively high risk perception concerning microplastics in food/drink, and higher support for “pull” (e.g., incentive) than “push” (e.g., fines) plastic-reducing policies. Higher risk perception was predicted most by socio-cultural and experiential factors (i.e., higher biospheric values, negative affect, indirect exposure through talking to others about the issue). The pattern of predictors for policy support differed between “push” and “pull” measures (e.g., higher perceived scientific consensus and trust in science predicted higher support for “pull” but not “push” measures). Moreover, exploratory path analyses suggested that experiential factors were related to policy support indirectly through risk perception. Our findings suggest that frameworks such as the CCRPM can be usefully adapted to other contexts of environmental and/or health concern. By identifying the psychological drivers of public risk perception of microplastics in food and drink and support for different types of policies, these findings can inform the development of effective measures and communication strategies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食品和饮料中的微塑料:基于气候变化框架的公众风险认知的预测因素和对减少塑料政策的支持
世界正面临着气候变化、生物多样性丧失和污染的三重危机。人类行为是这些危机的关键驱动因素,因此解决方案需要侧重于了解影响人们风险感知水平和支持系统级行动意愿的因素(例如,有效的监管措施)。目前的研究采用了一个概念性框架,该框架已被证明有助于在气候变化背景下理解这些问题(气候变化风险感知模型,CCRPM;van der Linden, 2015)到最广泛讨论的环境污染领域之一,即塑料,特别是食品和饮料中的微塑料。根据奥地利一项准代表性调查(N = 741)的数据,我们发现人们对食品/饮料中微塑料的风险认知相对较高,对“拉动”(如激励)比“推动”(如罚款)减少塑料政策的支持程度更高。较高的风险感知主要由社会文化和经验因素(即,较高的生物圈值、负面影响、通过与他人谈论该问题而间接暴露)预测。政策支持的预测因子模式在“推”和“拉”措施之间存在差异(例如,更高的科学共识和对科学的信任预测了对“拉”措施的更高支持,而不是“推”措施)。此外,探索性路径分析表明,经验因素通过风险感知与政策支持间接相关。我们的研究结果表明,像CCRPM这样的框架可以有效地适应环境和/或健康问题的其他背景。通过确定公众对食品和饮料中微塑料风险认知的心理驱动因素以及对不同类型政策的支持,这些发现可以为制定有效措施和沟通策略提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
期刊最新文献
Bringing friendship home: Home interactions as a predictor of closer interpersonal relationships Eye-tracking research on climate change communication: A systematic review Greater perceived fossil fuel reliance predicts lower support for systemic climate policies Testing the BIO-WELL scale in situ: measuring human wellbeing responses to biodiversity within forests The role of information source in climate beliefs, behavioral commitments, and policy preferences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1