文化世界观和对澳大利亚自然灾害风险的认知

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions Pub Date : 2022-04-04 DOI:10.1080/17477891.2022.2050668
M. Parsons, A. Lykins
{"title":"文化世界观和对澳大利亚自然灾害风险的认知","authors":"M. Parsons, A. Lykins","doi":"10.1080/17477891.2022.2050668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n The cultural theory of risk proposes that risk perception is biased by sociality and the maintenance of four ways or life, or cultural worldviews: hierarchism, egalitarianism, individualism or communitarianism. This study examined whether cultural worldviews influenced the perception of the risk of bushfire, flood, storm and earthquake in Australia. A sample of 503 participants completed two questionnaires: cultural worldviews and natural hazard risk perception. Only 30% of respondents held strongly hierarchical, egalitarian, individualist or communitarian worldviews. Several aspects of natural hazard risk perception were predicted by cultural worldviews, but associations were weak. Individualists perceived greater risk of, and responsibility for, natural hazards possibly because they perceive them to be a disruptive threat that limits freedom. Egalitarians perceived greater risk from bushfire or storm, possibly because they understand the potential for social impacts from these events and favour collective response. Notions of control and mitigation of natural hazards were associated with hierarchism. Communitarianism was not a predictor of natural hazard risk perception. However, most people don’t view natural hazards as a threat to their sociality and way of life. Single heuristics, such as the cultural theory of risk, are unlikely to capture the complexity of natural hazard risk perception in Australia.","PeriodicalId":47335,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions","volume":"11 1","pages":"29 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural worldviews and the perception of natural hazard risk in Australia\",\"authors\":\"M. Parsons, A. Lykins\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17477891.2022.2050668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n The cultural theory of risk proposes that risk perception is biased by sociality and the maintenance of four ways or life, or cultural worldviews: hierarchism, egalitarianism, individualism or communitarianism. This study examined whether cultural worldviews influenced the perception of the risk of bushfire, flood, storm and earthquake in Australia. A sample of 503 participants completed two questionnaires: cultural worldviews and natural hazard risk perception. Only 30% of respondents held strongly hierarchical, egalitarian, individualist or communitarian worldviews. Several aspects of natural hazard risk perception were predicted by cultural worldviews, but associations were weak. Individualists perceived greater risk of, and responsibility for, natural hazards possibly because they perceive them to be a disruptive threat that limits freedom. Egalitarians perceived greater risk from bushfire or storm, possibly because they understand the potential for social impacts from these events and favour collective response. Notions of control and mitigation of natural hazards were associated with hierarchism. Communitarianism was not a predictor of natural hazard risk perception. However, most people don’t view natural hazards as a threat to their sociality and way of life. Single heuristics, such as the cultural theory of risk, are unlikely to capture the complexity of natural hazard risk perception in Australia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"29 - 50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2022.2050668\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2022.2050668","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

风险文化理论认为,风险感知是由社会性和四种生活方式或文化世界观所决定的:等级主义、平等主义、个人主义或社群主义。这项研究考察了文化世界观是否会影响澳大利亚人对森林大火、洪水、风暴和地震风险的认知。503名参与者完成了两份调查问卷:文化世界观和自然灾害风险认知。只有30%的受访者持有强烈的等级制、平等主义、个人主义或社群主义世界观。文化世界观可以预测自然灾害风险感知的几个方面,但关联性较弱。个人主义者认为自然灾害的风险和责任更大,可能是因为他们认为自然灾害是一种限制自由的破坏性威胁。平等主义者认为森林大火或风暴带来的风险更大,可能是因为他们了解这些事件对社会的潜在影响,并倾向于集体应对。控制和减轻自然灾害的概念与等级制度有关。社群主义不是自然灾害风险感知的预测因子。然而,大多数人并不认为自然灾害对他们的社交和生活方式构成威胁。单一的启发式,如风险文化理论,不太可能捕捉到澳大利亚自然灾害风险感知的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cultural worldviews and the perception of natural hazard risk in Australia
ABSTRACT The cultural theory of risk proposes that risk perception is biased by sociality and the maintenance of four ways or life, or cultural worldviews: hierarchism, egalitarianism, individualism or communitarianism. This study examined whether cultural worldviews influenced the perception of the risk of bushfire, flood, storm and earthquake in Australia. A sample of 503 participants completed two questionnaires: cultural worldviews and natural hazard risk perception. Only 30% of respondents held strongly hierarchical, egalitarian, individualist or communitarian worldviews. Several aspects of natural hazard risk perception were predicted by cultural worldviews, but associations were weak. Individualists perceived greater risk of, and responsibility for, natural hazards possibly because they perceive them to be a disruptive threat that limits freedom. Egalitarians perceived greater risk from bushfire or storm, possibly because they understand the potential for social impacts from these events and favour collective response. Notions of control and mitigation of natural hazards were associated with hierarchism. Communitarianism was not a predictor of natural hazard risk perception. However, most people don’t view natural hazards as a threat to their sociality and way of life. Single heuristics, such as the cultural theory of risk, are unlikely to capture the complexity of natural hazard risk perception in Australia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is an innovative, interdisciplinary and international research journal addressing the human and policy dimensions of hazards. The journal addresses the full range of hazardous events from extreme geological, hydrological, atmospheric and biological events, such as earthquakes, floods, storms and epidemics, to technological failures and malfunctions, such as industrial explosions, fires and toxic material releases. Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is the source of the new ideas in hazards and risk research.
期刊最新文献
The impact of sinkholes on crop choices in water-scarce regions Trends and future research in climate migration: a bibliometric analysis of forty years Multi-directional communication between decision makers and environmental health researchers: a qualitative inquiry Method for prioritising buildings for seismic reinforcement based on prediction of earthquake-induced building collapse and evacuation routes Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?
×
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:481959085
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