Geographic Distributions of Extreme Weather Risk Perceptions in the United States.

Weather and climate disasters pose an increasing risk to life and property in the United States. Managing this risk requires objective information about the nature of the threat and subjective information about how people perceive it. Meteorologists and climatologists have a relatively firm grasp of the historical objective risk. For example, we know which parts of the United States are most likely to experience drought, heat waves, flooding, snow or ice storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes. We know less about the geographic distribution of the perceived risks of meteorological events and trends. Do subjective perceptions align with exposure to weather risks? This question is difficult to answer because analysts have yet to develop a comprehensive and spatially consistent methodology for measuring risk perceptions across geographic areas in the United States. In this project, we propose a methodology that uses multilevel regression and poststratification to estimate extreme weather and climate risk perceptions by geographic area (i.e., region, state, forecast area, and county). Then we apply the methodology using data from three national surveys (n = 9,542). This enables us to measure, map, and compare perceptions of risk from multiple weather hazards in geographic areas across the country.

Tornado Damage Mitigation: Homeowner Support for Enhanced Building Codes in Oklahoma.

Tornadoes impose enormous costs on society. Relatively simple and inexpensive enhancements to building codes may reduce these costs by 30% or more, but only one city in the United States has adopted these codes. Why is this the case? This analysis addresses this question by examining homeowner support for more stringent building codes in Oklahoma, a conservative state that routinely experiences damaging tornadoes. Survey data show that support for mandatory mitigation policies like building codes is subject to countervailing forces. Push dynamics, including objective risk data, homeowners' risk perceptions, and damage experience, encourage support for mitigation. Pull dynamics, such as individualistic and conservative worldviews, and skepticism about climate change, generate opposition. At the margin, the pull dynamics appear to exert more force than push dynamics, creating only a weak basis of support that is not strong enough to overcome the status quo bias in a state that is cautious about regulatory measures. The concluding section offers suggestions for changing these dynamics.

False alarms and missed events: the impact and origins of perceived inaccuracy in tornado warning systems.

Theory and conventional wisdom suggest that errors undermine the credibility of tornado warning systems and thus decrease the probability that individuals will comply (i.e., engage in protective action) when future warnings are issued. Unfortunately, empirical research on the influence of warning system accuracy on public responses to tornado warnings is incomplete and inconclusive. This study adds to existing research by analyzing two sets of relationships. First, we assess the relationship between perceptions of accuracy, credibility, and warning response. Using data collected via a large regional survey, we find that trust in the National Weather Service (NWS; the agency responsible for issuing tornado warnings) increases the likelihood that an individual will opt for protective action when responding to a hypothetical warning. More importantly, we find that subjective perceptions of warning system accuracy are, as theory suggests, systematically related to trust in the NWS and (by extension) stated responses to future warnings. The second half of the study matches survey data against NWS warning and event archives to investigate a critical follow-up question--Why do some people perceive that their warning system is accurate, whereas others perceive that their system is error prone? We find that subjective perceptions are--in part-a function of objective experience, knowledge, and demographic characteristics. When considered in tandem, these findings support the proposition that errors influence perceptions about the accuracy of warning systems, which in turn impact the credibility that people assign to information provided by systems and, ultimately, public decisions about how to respond when warnings are issued.

The effects of light pollution on migratory animal behavior.

Light pollution is a global threat to biodiversity, especially migratory organisms, some of which traverse hemispheric scales. Research on light pollution has grown significantly over the past decades, but our review of migratory organisms demonstrates gaps in our understanding, particularly beyond migratory birds. Research across spatial scales reveals the multifaceted effects of artificial light on migratory species, ranging from local and regional to macroscale impacts. These threats extend beyond species that are active at night - broadening the scope of this threat. Emerging tools for measuring light pollution and its impacts, as well as ecological forecasting techniques, present new pathways for conservation, including transdisciplinary approaches.

Reversing nuclear opposition: evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility.

Nuclear facilities have long been seen as the top of the list of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs), with nuclear waste repositories generating the greatest opposition. Focusing on the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico, we test competing hypotheses concerning the sources of opposition and support for siting the facility, including demographics, proximity, political ideology, and partisanship, and the unfolding policy process over time. This study tracks the changes of risk perception and acceptance of WIPP over a decade, using measures taken from 35 statewide surveys of New Mexico citizens spanning an 11-year period from fall 1990 to summer 2001. This time span includes periods before and after WIPP became operational. We find that acceptance of WIPP is greater among those whose residences are closest to the WIPP facility. Surprisingly, and contrary to expectations drawn from the broader literature, acceptance is also greater among those who live closest to the nuclear waste transportation route. We also find that ideology, partisanship, government approval, and broader environmental concerns influence support for WIPP acceptance. Finally, the sequence of procedural steps taken toward formal approval of WIPP by government agencies proved to be important to gaining public acceptance, the most significant being the opening of the WIPP facility itself.

Beliefs about radiation: scientists, the public and public policy.

Human behavioral responses to potential hazards are mediated by the beliefs held about those hazards. This holds whether the "behavior" under consideration is the provision of advice about the hazard, statements of support for policies that address the hazard, or personal behaviors in response to the hazard. This paper focuses on beliefs about radiation and the implications of those beliefs for views about radiation protection by both scientists and members of the U.S. public. We use data from a large sample of scientists, collected in 2002, and a series of surveys of the U.S. public collected in 2007. Among scientists, we focus on how beliefs about radiation are related to policy prescriptions for radiation protection. Among members of the lay public the focus shifts to the relationship between beliefs about radiation risks and policy preferences for nuclear energy and nuclear waste policy options. The importance of the differences and similarities in the patterns of beliefs of scientists and the lay public are discussed.

Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: explaining preferred radiation protection standards.

Social scientists have argued about the role of political beliefs in highly charged policy debates among scientific experts. In debates about environmental hazards, the focus of contention is likely to rest on the appropriate scientific assumptions to inform safety standards. When scientific communities are polarized, one would expect to find systematic differences among combatants in the choice of appropriate assumptions, and variation in the application of "precaution" in standard setting. We test this proposition using an experiment applied in a mail survey format to groups of scientists from opposing sides of the nuclear policy debate. Questions were asked about the role of political, social, and epistemological beliefs in reaching scientific and policy judgments about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer incidence in human populations. We find that the precautionary tendency is pervasive regardless of whether the scientist is associated with a putatively pro- or anti-nuclear group. Using a multinomial logit model, we explain a modest percentage of the variation in the choice of preferred judgments about safety standards, but find that distinct sets of political and social values are significantly associated with policy positions among scientists. Implications for scientific advice to policymakers are discussed.