The Baltic Region

2021 Vol. 13 №1

Back to the list Download an article

Cultural types and the perception of current environmental risks by local communities of the Baltic Sea region

DOI
10.5922/2079-8555-2021-1-5
Pages
89-107

Abstract

This work presents findings from research into the relationship between the structural organisation and cultural attitudes of local communities in the Baltic Sea region and the way they perceive environmental risks. The response of the Kaliningrad community to the development of a local potassium and magnesium salt mine is used as an illustration. The article deals with how local communities perceive the image of risks formed and reproduced via various communication channels. The structural context and the context of communication are taken into account. Another focus is on how this perception is affected by the type of community members’ cultural attitudes (according to Mary Douglas’s grid/group model). The space of categorical variables obtained through multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) aids in clustering the cases (respondents) as well as in testing theoretical assumptions for compliance with the findings. The communicative practices characteristic of all the clusters (classes of cases) are examined; the relationship between the structural organisation of groups, their cultural attitudes, their perception of environmental risks, and the performance of environmental agencies are explored. An evaluation of the comparative efficiency of different ways and means of risk communication with the identified groups is made. It is concluded that the proposed model is methodologically promising and there is a need for differentiated risk-communication strategies.

Reference

1. Smit, B., Hovelsrud, G., Wandel, J. 2008, CAVIAR: Community Adaptation and Vulnerability in Arctic Regions, University of Guelph, Department of Geography, Occasional Paper, no. 28.

2. Budzyte, A.; Balzekiene, A. 2018, Public perceptions of institutional responsibility in climate change risk in Baltic Nordic countries, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 675—684. doi: https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.4 (5).

3. Balzekiene, A., Telesiene, A. 2016, Vulnerable and insecure? Environmental and technological risk perception in Europe. In: Telesiene, A., Gross, M. (eds) Green European: environmental behaviour and attitudes in Europe in a historical and cross-cultural comparative perspective, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY, Routledge.

4. Keskitalo, E., Dannevig, H., Hovelsrud, G., West, J., Swartling, A. G. 2011, Adaptive capacity determinants in developed states: examples from the Nordic countries and Russia, Regional Environmental Change, no. 11, p. 579—592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0182-9.

5. Jacobsen, K. H. 2003, Regional energy consumption and income differences in Denmark, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 269—283. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908032000154197.

6. Hovelsrud, G., Karlsson, M., Olsen, J. 2018, Prepared and flexible: Local adaptation strategies for avalanche risk, Cogent Social Sciences, no. 4, 1460899. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1460899.

7. Rasanen, P., Hawdon, J., Nasi, M., Oksanen, A. 2014, Social Solidarity and the Fear of Risk: Examining Worries about the Recurrence of a Mass Tragedy in a Small Community, Sociological Spectrum, no. 34, p. 338—353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2014.917248.

8. Taarup-Esbensen, J. 2018, Managing communities — Mining MNEs’ community risk management practices, Copenhagen, Doctoral School of Business and Management.

9. Norrman, J., Söderqvist, T., Volchko, Y. 2018, Enriching social and economic aspects in sustainability assessments of remediation strategies — Methods and implementation, Science of the Total Environment, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136021.

10. Vilhunen, T., Kojo, M., Litmanen, T., Behnam, T. 2019, Perceptions of justice influencing community acceptance of spent nuclear fuel disposal. A case study in two Finnish nuclear communities, Journal of Risk Research, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569094.

11. Telesiene, A., Balzekiene, A. 2015, The Influence of Biographical Situational Factors upon Environmental Activist Behaviour: Empirical Evidence from CEE Countries, Sociální studia. Department of Sociology FSS MU, no. 3, p. 159—178.

12. Balzekiene, A. 2018, International comparative surveys in risk perception research: Data sets, construction of questionnaires and analytical dimensions. In: Olofsson, A., Zinn J. (eds) Researching Risk and Uncertainty — Methodologies, Methods and Research Strategies, London, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 233—263.

13. Boholm, A. 1996, Risk perception and Social Anthropology: Critique of Cultural Theory, Ethos, vol. 61, no. 1—2, p. 65—84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.1996.9981528.

14. Boholm, A. 1998, Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 135—163.

15. Rippl, S. 2002, Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 147—165.

16. Sjöberg, L. 2003, Risk perception is not what it seems: The psychometric paradigm revisited. In: Andersson, K. (ed), VALDOR Conference 2003, Stockholm, V ALDOR, p. 14—29.

17. Sjöberg, L., Moen, B. E., Rundmo, T. 2004, Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research, Rotunde, no. 84.

18. Renn, O., Benighaus, C. 2013, Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 16, no. 3—4, p. 293—313.

19. Brown, P. 2013, Social Theories of Risk. In: Elliott, A. (ed) The Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory, London, Routledge, p. 157—174.

20. Burgess, A. 2006, The making of the risk-centred society and the limits of social risk research, Health, Risk & Society, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 329—342.

21. Burgess, A. 2015, The Social Construction of Risk. In: Cho, H., Reimer, T., McComas, K. A. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, SAGE Publications, Inc, p. 121—139.

22. Oltedal, S., Moen, B.-E., Klempe, H., Rundmo, T. 2004, Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of cultural theory, Rotunde, no. 85.

23. Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S., Marris, C. 1998, Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France, Risk Analysis, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 729—739.

24. Docter, S., Street, J., Braunack-Mayer, A. 2011, Public perceptions of pandemic influenza resource allocation: A deliberative forum using Grid/Group analysis, Journal of Public Health Policy, no. 32, p. 350—366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2010.49.

25. Pedde, V., Figueiredo, J., Tundisi, J., Lenz, C. 2014, The environmental risk as a culture in the Sinos Valley, Brazil, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, vol. 86, no. 4, p. 2145—2156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201420130122.

26. Rizzolo, J., Gore, M., Ratsimbazafy, J., Rajaonson, A. 2017, Cultural influences on attitudes about the causes and consequences of wildlife poaching, Crime Law and Social Change, vol. 67, no. 4, p. 415—437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9665-z.

27. McEvoy, J., Gilbertz, S., Anderson, M., Ormerod, K., Bergmann, N. 2017, Cultural Theory of Risk as a Heuristic for Understanding Perceptions of Oil and Gas Development in Eastern Montana, USA, The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 852—859. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.10.004.

28. Xue, W., Hine, D., Loi, N., Thorsteinsson E., Phillips, W. 2014, Cultural Worldviews and Environmental Risk Perceptions: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Environmental Psychology, no. 40, p. 249—258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.002.

29. Lyytimaki, J., Assmuth, T. 2014, Down with the flow: public debates shaping the risk framing of artificial groundwater recharge, GeoJournal, vol. 80, no. 1, p. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9540-3.

30. Olsen, M. S., Osmundsen, T. C. 2017, Media framing of aquaculture, Marine Policy, no. 76, p. 19—27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.013.

31. Douglas, M. 1970, Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology, Barrie & Rockliff the Cresset Press, London.

32. Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A. B. 1982, Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley.

33. Dake, K. 1990, Technology on trial: Orienting dispositions toward environmental and health hazards. Doctoral dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.

34. Dake, K. 1991, Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Special Issue on Risk and Culture, no. 22, p. 61—82.

35. Gastil, J., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. 1995, Analysis of cultural bias survey items, Institute for Public Policy, University of New Mexico.

36. Marris, C., Langford, I., O’Riordan, T. 1998, A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparisons with the psychometric paradigm, Risk Analysis, vol. 18, no. 5, p. 635—48.

37. Johnson, B. B., Swedlow, B. 2019, Cultural Theory’s Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research, Risk Analysis. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13299.

38. Kahan, D. M. 2012, Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Petersen, M. (eds) Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer, p. 725—759.

39. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K. 2007, Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 465—505.

40. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. 2009, Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of Nanotechnology, Nature nanotechnology, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 87—91.

41. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Monahan, J., Callahan, L., Peters, E. 2010, Cultural cognition and public policy: the case of outpatient commitment laws, Law and Human Behavior, no. 34, p. 118—140.

42. Croasmun, J. T., Ostrom, L. 2011, Using Likert-Type Scales in the Social Sciences, Journal of Adult Education, vol. 40, no. 1, p. 19—22.

43. Le Roux, B., Rouanet, H. 2010, Multiple correspondence analysis, SAGE, Series Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, CA, Thousand Oaks Paris.

44. Ohman, S., Olofsson, A. 2018, Quantitative Analysis of Risk Positions: An Exploratory Approach. In: Olofsson, A., Zinn, J. (eds) Researching Risk and Uncertainty — Methodologies, Methods and Research Strategies, London, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 265—286.

45. Benzécri, J.-P. 1992, Correspondence analysis handbook, New York, Dekker.

46. Fidrya, E., Fidrya О. 2020, Resilience of cultural attitudes of local communities to risks: the «group / grid» model, Vestnik Baltijskogo Federal’nogo Universiteta imeni Immanuila Kanta. Seriya: gumanitarniye i obschestvenniye nauki [Vestnik IKBFU. Humanities and social science], no. 2, p.106—117 (in Russ.).