slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response : Foundations for Effective Risk Communicat PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response : Foundations for Effective Risk Communicat

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response : Foundations for Effective Risk Communicat - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response : Foundations for Effective Risk Communication Dr. Amy Delgado April 2, 2014. * Any views expressed in this presentation represent the views of the author and not the views of USDA. Presentation Outline.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response : Foundations for Effective Risk Communicat' - amity


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response:

Foundations for Effective Risk Communication

Dr. Amy Delgado

April 2, 2014

* Any views expressed in this presentation represent the views of the author and not the views of USDA.

presentation outline
Presentation Outline
  • Risk Perception – Theory and drivers
  • Risk Perception and Producer Cooperation
  • Risk Perception and Texas Cattle Producers
risk perception
Risk Perception
  • Risk as analysis, and risk as feelings (Slovic et al., 2004)
  • Two fundamental ways in which people comprehend risk
    • Analytic system
    • Experiential system

Garry Trudeau

risk perception the risk game
Risk Perception – The Risk Game
  • Risk assessment
    • Risk = likelihood and consequence
    • Based on theoretical models whose structure is subjective and assumption-laden, whose inputs depend on judgements
  • Lay people have their own models, assumptions, and subjective assessment techniques
  • All risk is inherently subjective
risk perception1
Risk Perception
  • People use a variety of psychological mechanisms to judge risks (such as “mental short-cuts” called heuristics and risk images)
    • Constantly modified by media reports and peer influences
  • Knowledge, experience, values, attitudes, and emotions - influence judgment about the seriousness and acceptability of risks
construction of risk
Construction of Risk

“There is no such thing as real risk, as attributed to experts, only real danger.”

- Slovic

Dobbie and Brown, Risk AnalysisVolume 34, Issue 2, pages 294-308, 5 AUG 2013 DOI: 10.1111/risa.12100http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12100/full#risa12100-fig-0001

slide8

FMD

Cultural Identity

Subj Norms

Social Identity

Values

Group Membership

Knowledge, Attitudes,Trust,

Fairness, Perceived Control

Information

Processing

Risk Perception

Livelihood, animal health,

profitability, reputation

Dobbie and Brown, Risk AnalysisVolume 34, Issue 2, pages 294-308, 5 AUG 2013 DOI: 10.1111/risa.12100http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12100/full#risa12100-fig-0001

from perception to action
From Perception to Action
  • Connection between risk perception, willingness to act, and risk preparedness is still unclear
    • Intervening factors:
      • Risk factors: likelihood and magnitude of a disaster are of little importance
      • Informational factors: most important in the absence of direct experience, trust in informational sources is important
      • Personal factors: no consistent understanding of importance
      • Direct Experience: strong but mixed effect on risk perception
      • Trust: trust in authorities and confidence in protective measures

Wachinger et al., 2013.

the effect of trust
The Effect of Trust
  • Second most important factor affecting risk perception
  • Trust: “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.”
  • Trust vs confidence (calculative trust)
    • Trust is resilient
    • Confidence is fragile

Wachinger et al., 2013.

how much does it matter
How much does it matter?
  • CSF reporting in the Netherlands:
    • farmers´ negative opinions of disease control measures, negative emotions associated with going through the reporting process such as guilt or shame, and a lack of trust in government bodies (Elbers et al., 2010)
how much does it matter1
How much does it matter?
  • Australian sheep farmers:
    • found that farmers´ decisions regarding reporting and biosecurity measures were often based on the perceived risk to their operation, and that trust in others contributed significantly to perceived risk (Palmer et al., 2009)
how much does it matter2
How much does it matter?
  • UK cattle and sheep farmers´ attitudes and beliefs regarding biosecurity and current/proposed disease prevention and control legislation:
    • <50% of the farmers indicated that the recommended biosecurity measures were desirable (Heffernan et al., 2008)
      • the distrust of government bodies led farmers to perceive government-derived messages as untrustworthy or lacking in credibility
      • dismissive of biosecurity measures, in part because they felt the blame for foreign diseases was largely related to ineffective regulations and inadequate border control, rather than to farm management practices they could actually influence
predicting producer behavior
Predicting Producer Behavior
  • The Social Context of FMD control in Texas
    • Qualitative phase: Delgado, et al., 2012.
    • Quantitative phase:
      • Mail out survey: two separate, disproportionate, stratified random samples of approximately 2000 cow-calf producers were selected based on herd size and NASS district
      • Analysis of survey results using ordinal logistic regression models to determine factors with the greatest influence on behavior
producer behaviors examined
Producer Behaviors Examined
  • Reporting cattle with clinical signs consistent with FMD prior to an outbreak
  • Reporting cattle with clinical signs consistent with FMD during an outbreak
  • Movement ban compliance
  • Gather and hold compliance
risk perception and behavior

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intention to

Behave

Behavior

Perceived Behavioral Control

Risk Perception and Behavior

Theory of Planned Behavior

risk perception and behavior1

Trust

Risk Perception

Moral Norms

Risk Perception and Behavior

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intention to

Behave

Perceived Behavioral Control

reporting absence of outbreak
Reporting (Absence of outbreak)
  • It has come to your attention that many of the cattle in your herd appear depressed and seem reluctant to move. Several of the animals are noticeably lame. Some of the depressed animals appear to be drooling.

Photos courtesy of Nathan Bauer, USDA-FSIS

risk perception4
Risk Perception

Economically devastating for my operation.

Economically devastating for

the US cattle industry.

Risk to the US is great

Risk to my operation is great

US likely to experience in next 5 years

My operation likely to experience in the next 5 years

trust competency1
Trust – Competency

Texas Dept. of Agriculture

TAHC

USDA

US Department of Homeland Security

US Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

US Department of Health and Human Services

gather and hold cattle
Gather and Hold Cattle
  • You are contacted by state and federal authorities and asked to gather and hold your cattle for inspection and testing at a date and time designated by the authorities.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7928423@N07/5307146851/sizes/m/in/photostream/

gather and hold cattle1
Gather and Hold Cattle

a. Behavioral beliefs included: beliefs about reducing the economic impact on the producer

and the US cattle industry, stopping the spread of disease among the producer’s cattle and

the US cattle industry, knowing if the producer’s herd is infected, and feeling better about

how the producer manages his or her cattle.

b.Control beliefs included: facilities, manpower, and financial resources necessary to gather and hold,

lived close enough to cattle, cattle were tame enough to gather and hold

risk perception5
Risk Perception

Economically devastating for my operation.

Economically devastating for the US cattle industry.

Risk to the US is great

Risk to my operation is great

US likely to experience in next 5 years

My operation likely to experience in the next 5 years

animal movement restrictions
Animal Movement Restrictions
  • Once foot-and-mouth disease is identified in Texas, producers will be told to restrict the movement of anything that could spread the disease. These movement restrictions may last for many weeks.

Photos courtesy of Nathan Bauer, USDA-FSIS

risk perception6
Risk Perception

economically devastating for my operation.

economically devastating for the

US cattle industry.

Risk to the US is great

Risk to my operation is great

US likely to experience in next 5 years

My operation likely to experience in the next 5 years

conclusions related to r isk perception
Conclusions Related to Risk Perception
  • Increasing producers’ perception of the risk of FMD may not always lead to enhanced cooperation
    • Producers who view economic devastation as a potential outcome of an outbreak of FMD are more likely to report clinically suspect cattle.
    • However, if economic devastation is seen as a certainty, producers are less likely to report. Once an outbreak has been identified, increased risk perception related to overall risk, probability, and consequences, leads to increased reporting.
    • Increase risk perception results in decreased cooperation with requests to gather and hold cattle as well as movement restrictions.
conclusions related to r isk perception1
Conclusions Related to Risk Perception

“While fear may be the emotion most conducive to action, hopelessness can lead to inaction.”

– Peter Sandman

references
References
  • Slovic et al., 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis 24:2, 311-322.
  • Dobbie and Brown, 2014. A framework for understanding risk perception, explored from the perspective of the water practitioner. Risk Analysis 34:2, 294-308.
  • Wachinger et al., 2013. The risk perception paradox – Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis 33:6, 1049-1065.
  • Elbers et al., 2010. A socio-psychological investigation into limitations and incentives concerning reporting a clinically suspect situation aimed at improving early detection of classical swine fever outbreaks. Vet Microbiol142, 108-118.
  • Palmer et al., 2009. The Effect of Trust on West Australian Farmers' Responses to Infectious Livestock Diseases. SociolRuralis49, 360-374.
  • Heffernan et al., 2008. An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet Med87, 358-372.
  • Delgado et al., 2012. Utilizing qualitative methods in survey design: examining Texas cattle producers’ intent to participate in foot-and-mouth disease control. Prev Vet Med 103:120-135.
questions
Questions?

Acknowledgements

  • Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the USDA - Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service (CSREES). Award number: (2007-55204-17755)
  • Research Team: Bo Norby, H. Morgan Scott, Alex McIntosh, Wesley Dean, Jenny Davis
  • Study Participants
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Improving Reporting of Suspect Cases of FMD
    • Tailor risk communication messages and strategies to the specific situation.
    • Address beliefs about the consequences of reporting.
    • Raise awareness of the community consequences of FMD and the effects of disease outbreaks on “the average operation” in order to augment perceived pressure from the surrounding community and other producers for reporting of suspect cases of FMD.
    • Plan for and communicate plans for business continuity during an outbreak. Make information about compensation for herds widely available in order to reduce the perception that an outbreak is economically devastating for an operation.
conclusions1
Conclusions
  • Improving gathering and holding of cattle
    • Devote time and resources to communicating about the consequences (positive and negative) of gathering and holding cattle during an outbreak of FMD.
    • Openly acknowledge and sympathize with the negative consequences of gathering and holding cattle
    • Plan for and communicate the availability of resources to help with shortages of manpower, financial resources, and facilities to gather cattle.
    • Plan for and communicate plans for business continuity during an outbreak in order to inform producers´ perception of the risk. Make information about compensation widely available in order to reduce the perception that an outbreak is economically devastating for an operation.
    • On a local level, ask that high-trust, unbiased partners help to foster and maintain communication among the agricultural community.
conclusions2
Conclusions
  • Improving movement ban compliance
    • Help producers prepare for the consequences of movement restrictions in the early stages of an outbreak.
    • On a local level, ask that high-trust, unbiased partners help to foster and maintain communication among the agricultural community.
    • Plan for and communicate plans to help distribute feeds, maintain the availability of basic veterinary care, and allow for the movement of animals due to crowding or feed shortages, while avoiding the spread of the disease.