Today, as far as we know, the Environment shows significant risks that make us question ourselves about our behaviors, especially from an ecological point of view. Whether it is of industrial or natural origin, the risk is almost everywhere and it’s illusory to believe in a society where the “zero risk” exists. The different issues linked to climate change leads us to consider how individuals perceive an environmental risk, in order to be able to understand the factors affecting this perception and thus, modify the behaviors and attitudes adopted by individuals facing these risks, particularly when they live nearby a risk area.
In Economics Sciences, basically, the risk perception is defined as the result of the equation between the probability of a hazard occurrence and the importance of his consequences (Bradfort, 2012; Kron, 2002). However, if Economics Sciences are based on statistical models allowing to give objective estimations, it is different for environmental risks perception, which carries a great part of subjectivity. This subjectivity involves many biases linked to contextual and personal factors. However, when we consider the evaluation of an environmental risk near people’s home, two biases seem to appear in a large population.
The first is the bias of comparative optimism, mentioned by Weinstein (1980, 1987). It can be defined as the tendency of an individual to estimate that a happy event is more likely to happen to them than to others. Also, that they are less likely to go through negative events than others. The second is the time and space biases, highlighted by Uzzell (2000). The author shows that on the one hand, the individuals consider that if the risk is likely to occur, it won’t appear right now. According to them, there is still time to think and act, but this is not always true. And, on the other hand, the individuals consider that even if the risk exists, it is more likely to happen in another place, who faces the same risk, than to their place.
So, this bias appears as a brake on behaviors and projects adapted to these risks. They must be taken into consideration from the moment we want to assess the motivation of the population to adopt new practices. In order to live better with environmental risks.
Bibliographie :
- Bradford, R., O’Sullivan, J., Craats, I., Krywkow, J., Rotko, P., Aaltonen, J., Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Waylen, K., & Schelfaut, K. (2012). Risk perception—Issues for flood management in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 2299‑2309. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2299-2012
- Kron, W., & Geo Risks Research Department, Munich Reinsurance Company, Munich, Germany. (2003). Flood Risk=Hazard×Exposure×Vulnerability. Journal of Lake Sciences, 15(Z1), 190‑204. https://doi.org/10.18307/2003.sup23
- Uzzell, D. L. (2000). THE PSYCHO-SPATIAL DIMENSION OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(4), 307‑318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0175
- Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(4), 441‑460. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00845372
- Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems : Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10(5), 481‑500. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00846146