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 , Ulrike Felt , Thilo Hofmann , Mathew P. White , 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.
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