The following analyses demonstrate the capacity and versatility of the risk perceptions analysis framework (Fig. 1). By following an iterative analysis process, based on the ideas of Merriam (1998), indicative words and phrases within all the students’ responses were identified. Each of the specific attributes of the four Cultural Types had unique identifying words and phrases. These were then used to classify responses as belonging to one of the four groups within the risk analysis framework. The indicative words and phrases are identified and discussed in the following sections.
To illustrate the capacity of the risk perceptions analysis framework, Fig. 2 demonstrates that the framework can be used to provide an individual analysis of a student’s response to the risk issue. This example provides a detailed analysis of one of the five images within the questionnaire. Within the figure, the left-hand side displays the five common characteristics from the risk analysis framework (Fig. 1) and the centre column displays the specific attributes of the Cultural Type Nature Ephemeral. The right-hand column displays this student’s questionnaire and interview responses.
Figure 2 presents the analysis of Student R11’s response, which is characteristic of those students holding the Nature Ephemeral Cultural Type who display an egalitarian rationality of communality and are risk averse. Following the polythetic approach (Douglas 1997), this student described their risk ideas about 1080 using three attributes within this Cultural Type. The indicative words and phrases used are displayed in different colours representing each of the attributes and are italicised in the following analysis. Student R11 expressed their emotional response to the 1080 poster image in their description of this chemical’s effects on the environment, when identifying their View of nature. Their use of the word “dangerous” implies their belief that nature is a precarious and fragile system that has the potential to become unbalanced by any change because “more than just the pests are being killed” in the ecosystem, which may not recover. Using the word “dangerous” at the beginning and the end of their response, emphasises these ideas.
The second attribute Student R11 described was also emotional and fervent, when they expressed their view of equal rights and unfair death, or equality of outcomes related to their Perception of environmental risk of using 1080. Although Student R11 acknowledged that New Zealand has a pest problem and wrote “pests should be culled” in their questionnaire response, they did not agree with the use of 1080 to solve this pest problem. Rather, they believed that instead of using 1080 where the risk is high and that animals would have a horrible death, these pest species should be carefully removed from the forest, but not killed. It is possible that Student R11 may have witnessed culling and this experience has been used to illustrate a way of removing pest species without harming them, so they would not in their view be “forced” into “pain”-filled and “drawn out deaths.” Student R11 passionately believed that animals should be treated compassionately, deserving to live their lives unharmed, ensuring equality of outcomes for all. This is illustrated in their use of the word “innocent” when describing their ideas about the types of deaths, resulting from pest species’ ingestion of 1080.
The third attribute Student R11 described was their view of Risk management. This student seemed to demonstrate their aversion to risk by repeating the terms “cruelty” and “cruel” four times within the questionnaire response and during the interview. The repetitive use of this emotional term suggested Student R11’s belief that 1080 is a merciless method of pest control. Their risk aversion to 1080 was also conveyed by their belief that the poison should not be “put down”, demonstrating their view that 1080 should not be used as a method of pest control at all, and displayed a strong egalitarian rationality. During their interview, Student R11 continued to express their concern and risk aversion to using 1080. They commented that any dogs near the 1080 distribution area may be harmed or killed, saying if dogs either ate bait directly or any carcasses poisoned by 1080 (secondary poisoning), “that is it for them.”
The versatility of the framework
As well as providing an analysis of individual students’ responses, the risk perceptions analysis framework can also be used to demonstrate the range of views expressed when students respond to the same image but display different Cultural Types. For simplicity, one common characteristic (Perceptions of environmental risk) is used to illustrate the individual attributes of four different students when responding to the image of the possum and are displayed in Fig. 3. As with the first example, indicative words are coloured in each response.
In the first example, Student U09 exhibits a Nature Tolerant hierarchist rationality with a belief in responsibility and order when they wrote “They are harm [sic] to our natives.” Their explanation shows they believe it is acceptable to remove possums from the New Zealand forest and that their removal outweighed the risks involved. Student U09 also displays some measure of acceptance of the risks involved in some type of regulation, supporting their Myth of Nature view of the need for a controlled environment. They described how possums are “pests” and rationalised 1080 use as a suitable method to control the spread of possums and so protect the native species against these pests by writing, “Reason for using 1080.” When interviewed, U09 re-read their questionnaire response and chose not to change or elaborate on it, saying “Yeah”, reiterating their earlier response. In addition, this student’s use of words such as “our” and “native” that denote ownership of the pest problem in New Zealand shows their sense of belonging to a group. Their use is characteristic of a Nature Tolerant Cultural Type and reinforces Douglas’s (1997) ideas about people holding this risk perception exhibiting strong group affiliations.
The second example, Student R08’s response, displays a Nature Benign rationality when explaining their Perception of environmental risk response. Responses within this Cultural Type commonly included factual accounts and demonstrated a low sense of risk around the issue of 1080 use. They often included personal experiences and, as in this example, used words like “me” or “my.” In their response, Student R08 describes an encounter of “Going possum shooting at my sisters [sic] place”. This description demonstrates an individualistic and market-driven rationality, because they believed that possums are an exploitable resource and that it is acceptable to “shoot possums.” Also, Student R08 describes how they experienced their “sisters[sic]husband” collecting “the possum fur to sell afterwards”, which is a further expression of a market-driven Nature Benign rationale. Student R08’s Perception of environmental risk supports the view of equal opportunity for all users of the forest and a Nature Benign view of living with risk, with a belief that these activities were acceptable. Additionally, they justified using the possum fur for profit, possibly because they were aware of the additional income to be made through such sales where the possum fibre is often mixed with merino wool to make clothing (Hutching 2015). In New Zealand, possum hunting by shooting or trapping is a common rural recreational activity in which anyone can participate. Hunting and shooting pests for profit were common themes displayed within this Cultural Type, and students often employed procedural accounts in their descriptions. Consequently, this group believes that the risks involved with having a possum population were compensated by viewing it as a resource they could harvest.
Students displaying the Nature Ephemeral Cultural Type rationalise an equality of outcomes for all living things. In this example, Student U14’s view about the use of 1080 to control pest species demonstrates that they have a Nature Ephemeral view towards Environmental risk and are risk averse. During the interview, U14’s Nature Ephemeral views became even clearer when they expressed their belief that all animals deserve to live without the danger of 1080 poison and should not be killed by people’s deliberate actions saying, “Yeah, it doesn’t deserve it.” This response demonstrates that U14’s views of the environmental risk that possums cause must be tolerated in society because they display a viewpoint that includes equality of outcomes for all. It represents a Myth of Nature that focusses on the precarious situation in which they believe the possums to be. Additionally, their questionnaire response showed that they felt concern for the animal’s wellbeing by writing, “Is it around 1080?” Moreover, they expressed an anthropomorphic view by naming the possum “he” and described it in its habitat by saying, “he looks like he may be in a forest.” By expressing this anthropomorphic view, U14 has given the possum the same status as humans, not viewing the possum as a pest to be eliminated, further demonstrating an egalitarian rationality.
Finally, Student U18’s response is an example of a student displaying a Nature Capricious Cultural Type with a perception of having to cope with and absorb risky situations that are always present. This student wrote, “I don’t know. Ugly.” Typically, the Nature Capricious responses were limited, making their analysis difficult. Douglas opined that people in society holding Nature Capricious views were the ones who responded by saying little, were unsure, or didn’t respond at all. She argued that the response “Don’t know, is very instructive” (2003b, p.1357) as it reveals the strength of the preference of a fatalistic outlook where there is little hope of human control over the environment and situations are just left to fate.
Common consciousness within each rationality revealed
This risk framework can also reveal the differences between Cultural Types when focusing on one common characteristic. Figure 4 displays the analysis of students’ responses to an image of the risks involved of a helicopter spreading 1080. This helicopter image is displayed on the left, outside the figure. The four Cultural Types are displayed, each with their specific attributes for the common characteristic of Risk management. The students’ responses are located on the right and indicative words are colour-coded differently for each Cultural Type.
Figure 4 shows how students within each of the four Cultural Types demonstrate their common consciousness by using a similar language to reveal their perceptions of risk when discussing their risk management views. Two analysed examples are provided for each Cultural Type to illustrate this phenomenon. Supporters of the Nature Tolerant Cultural Type exhibited a hierarchist rationality by justifying their risk management strategy of being risk accepting, with an understanding of the risks involved in the use of 1080. This rationality is displayed in Student U08’s response when they described the application of 1080 by helicopter being the “best option” while recognizing that there is some risk in its use, by saying “even though it is dropping poison.” Similarly, Student R16 described that the aerial application was “used in hard to reach zones.” Their justification is also based on their acknowledgment that risks can be controlled if rules are followed, reflecting their Myth of Nature belief in an ecosystem that could be managed. Both their responses also suggest a belief in the usefulness of the control method in protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity and support of a Nature Tolerant rationality.
The examples of the Nature Benign Cultural Type demonstrate the rationality of being aware and unconcerned about living with risk which is displayed in their dispassionate explanation that 1080 is simply “dropped” or “thrown” into a forest with no additional discussion about the benefits or harm to the forest, or the wider ecosystem. This reflects their Myth of Nature rationality of low risk to the ecosystem and is demonstrated in both students’ responses as they have described the image of the helicopter and the spreading of 1080 either procedurally, or in terms of how it impacts on them individually. Both responses demonstrate a minimal sense of belonging to a group and an individualistic rationality.
In the examples displaying a Nature Ephemeral Cultural Type, both students exhibited an egalitarian rationality with a risk management strategy of being risk averse, reflecting their Myth of Nature belief of the constant perilous position of the ecosystem. Student R02’s response concentrates on the “controversy” they believed that 1080 causes because people disagree with its use, and that 1080 is an “unnatural” material whereas Student U17’s response focuses on the negative aspects of 1080, describing it as “poison” and “pesticide”. Their justification is based on an abhorrence of causing harm to all living things, by any means and a firm belief that 1080 causes harm.
The Nature Capricious Cultural Type risk management strategy is being a risk absorber. Supporters display a fatalistic rationality and a belief in inevitability which is reflected in their Myth of Nature view of an ecosystem where change could happen uncontrollably at any time. Followers describe a positive outcome to risk situations as just being lucky. The two examples within the figure potentially display this rationality as the first student (U18) describes the image passively and minimally, as an example of spraying using a helicopter and the second student (U22) did not respond at all. Douglas (2003a) designated people with this Cultural Type as believing that there was little they could do about anything in their lives and opined that these supporters may not respond at all, use minimal words in their response, or state they did not know.
These examples display how the framework has the capacity to identify a common consciousness to the same image, specific to their individual Cultural Type and corresponding rationality. Furthermore, the risk perceptions analysis framework can also demonstrate that a Cultural Type rationality can remain constant as shown in the following section.
Same response - differing images
Analysis using this new framework was able to provide data to substantiate the “stability hypothesis” proposed by Douglas who argued that when an individual exhibited a cultural bias, they remained within that Cultural Type (Steve Rayner, 1992, p. 107, italics in original). This hypothesis is illustrated in Fig. 5 and shows that R12’s responses to all five images demonstrated consistent attributes of the Cultural Type Nature Tolerant. The left-hand column of the figure displays the questionnaire images while the common characteristics and specific attributes of this Cultural Type are displayed across the top. Again, the indicative words are italicised and colour-coded consistent with each specific attribute.
Analysis of this student’s responses demonstrate a hierarchist rationality of striving to achieve order and structure and four different attributes were found within their responses. R12 described the process of aerial spreading of 1080 in forested areas within the helicopter image as an acceptable, “cost effective” method and an efficient technique as it could “cover more land,” as the helicopter could travel “to all locations quicker.” This displays a Nature Tolerant Perception about environmental risk of controllability and responsibility in their belief that the use of 1080 is the best way of poisoning pest animals in this situation. Their view was reiterated during the interview, describing how once they realised that the helicopter was spreading 1080 over “bushland,” their idea about the effectiveness of this method did not change but was deepened. This view may be the result of R12 living rurally, thus having previous knowledge about the method of spreading 1080 throughout inaccessible areas by DOC in New Zealand (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, 2017).
The possum image inspired three different Nature Tolerant response attributes. Firstly, R12 described possums as animals that “damage nature” illustrating a rationality of striving to regain the natural order within the New Zealand forest ecosystem by viewing nature as being vulnerable to the damage that possums cause. Secondly, they described Earth’s resources as scarce, but controllable, and possums as a “pest” being “targeted by 1080” to protect “nature” from being damaged. The third Nature Tolerant attribute was evident when R12 described their Perception of environmental risk, explaining that while possums were not a threat to people, they did pose a threat to the dairy industry by carrying bTB. Student R12 viewed this risk as “scary.” During their interview, the student provided additional information about the importance of the New Zealand dairy industry.
Student R12’s response to the deer image also displayed a Nature Tolerant rationality with a risk-accepting Management strategy, accepting that the deer died from secondary poisoning, writing it had been “accidently poisoned by 1080.” They also commented on the introduction of deer repellents to some baits to reduce such accidental poisonings and explained that “many unnecessary animals were dying until it was changed”. These views remained resolute during the interview, despite being more informed about the issue of secondary poisoning.
Two Nature Tolerant attributes were identified in R12’s response to the stoat image. Firstly, they described how they believed that stoats “prey on native bird nests,” demonstrating a hierarchical rationality of responsibility about Environmental risk. Secondly, R12 agreed that 1080 should be “targeted at them,” displaying their View of Earth’s resources, about how stoats need controlling. This response acknowledged the importance of achieving order within the forest ecosystem by removing these pest species, which was reinforced during their interview.
The final image to which R12 responded was the 1080 poster image. By using the words “warning” and “danger”, they displayed an Environmental risk perception demonstrating a belief in the controllability of people’s actions around the distribution and use of 1080 poison. The concept of responsibility was displayed when they wrote that humans need to “be careful” and heed warnings. Their interview response reiterated these Nature Tolerant attributes and a hierarchist rationality of responsibility because they described the poster as “informative”.
However, not all students displayed such stability of views and opinions which will be discussed in the next section.
Are risk perceptions context dependent?
Rayner (1992) believed that when an individual discussed risk within a specific context, a particular cultural bias was displayed. He argued that specific contexts created the cultural bias within each individual and that their views could change between each context, exhibiting a fluidity of Cultural Types. Rayner named this idea the “mobility hypothesis” (p.107, italics in original). For example, as shown in Fig. 6, Student U12 displayed Nature Benign attributes when responding to three of the images (helicopter, possum and stoat). However, they displayed Nature Tolerant views when responding to the image of the 1080 poster and Nature Ephemeral views when responding to the image of the dead deer.
When responding to the image of the helicopter, U12 displayed a Nature Benign Cultural Type, an individualistic rationality, and a robust and stable View of nature when they said, “They’re bombing the forest.” During the interview, U12 expanded on their view and said, “I put toxins, like I described it as bombs” when describing how 1080 is distributed over forest areas. This displays a Nature Benign view that nature is a robust and stable system that can withstand “bombing.” During their interview, U12 mentioned that they played video games and that the image of the 1080 poster reminded them of a menu screen. It is possible that this helicopter image reminded them of projectiles in a video game because they did not mention whether distributing 1080 using this method was right or wrong, just the method used.
The second image of the possum provoked a Nature Benign Cultural Type response with two attributes identified. Student U12 wrote “It might be a rodent, looks like one.” Although no identifying words were found within this response, their ideas were clarified during their interview when they explained “So a pest here” displaying a Perception of environmental risk that supported exploitability and eradication of possums because they simply described the possum as a pest. Adding support to this idea during their interview, U12 exclaimed that possums were “not doing anything positive.” U12 then added that possums “might as well be exterminated.” Here U12 displayed their second Nature Benign view towards this animal suggesting that it had little value to them. This implies that U12 believed that Earth’s resources, of which the possum is one, were controllable.
The stoat image inspired a response that was a Nature Benign View of Earth’s resources. While U12 wrongly identified the stoat as a rodent rather than a mustelid, they believed that stoats were an issue. They also believed that killing them by any means or removing them by being “shipped off to another country” to control their numbers, was acceptable. This point was reiterated when they said “I don’t see any downsides” to their removal since they viewed stoats as a problem pest species that was introduced to New Zealand. This explanation was considered as illustrating individualistic characteristics with a weak group and weak grid culture, by frequent use of the words “I,” “them” and “they.” Additionally, the information provided was relayed factually, not emotionally, exhibiting strong support for the elimination of stoats in New Zealand in both their written response and the interview. In both responses U12 used the words “exterminated,” “exterminating” and “can be killed” to describe ways of removing these abundant but controllable pest species. Interestingly, this description was similar to how they had described the possum image. The strong response to exterminate these pests may have resulted from the fact that stoats are common pests in New Zealand.
When they responded to the poster image of the 1080 information, U12 displayed Nature Tolerant views. Although writing “IDK” (I don’t know) as their response to the questionnaire, during their interview, they explained this by saying, “I was tired, so I couldn’t exactly think of a more proper response. It is necessary.” Within their interview, the word “necessary” was identified as exhibiting a Nature Tolerant Perception of environmental risk. This response displayed a feeling of responsibility about use of 1080 and that citizens needed to be informed, regardless of whether they were “frightened” by the information or not. Therefore, it can be said that U12 exhibited a Nature Tolerant Cultural Type which involves using regulations to achieve order and control about the environmental risk of using 1080.
Three Nature Ephemeral attributes were displayed by U12 when responding to the dead deer image. Firstly, they gave an emotional View of nature response. When they focussed on the angle of the neck and explained how they believed that someone or “something” had caused this unusual angle, U12 displayed their View of nature as a precarious and fragile system, which is easily unbalanced. They described how they believed the deer’s life had ended because its neck had been deliberately broken, resulting in the “un-natural” angle of the deer’s neck. Also, U12 displayed a Nature Ephemeral view of Perception of environmental risk about the dead deer when they wrote the words “painful” or “painfully” repeatedly. This repetition emphasised their idea that all living things should have the right to dignity in life and in death and that death should be pain-free. Moreover, they wrote that they believed that the deer “probably felt himself die.” This also displays a Perception of environmental risk that supports an equality of outcomes by anthropomorphising the deer as male (“himself”) and that it could feel the pain of his death. Another Nature Ephemeral attribute was their Risk management strategy. Student U12 displayed their aversion to the risk of using 1080 in forests by writing “1080 is a slow killer.” During the interview, U12 compared the deer’s death to that of a person by again anthropomorphising the deer’s death. Furthermore, they described the use of 1080 to kill as “wrong.” This description of how 1080 kills slowly revealed their distaste about the risk of using this poison and demonstrates a Nature Ephemeral view, supporting a risk management strategy of being risk averse.
Because some students’ Cultural Type remained stable, while others, like U12’s variety of responses were more fluid, we assert that both the stability and the mobility hypotheses were demonstrated by these students and support both Douglas’s and Rayner’s hypotheses. Within the data set eleven students’ risk perceptions were analysed as being only one Cultural Type, while 29 students displayed a combination of two or three Cultural Types. This finding demonstrates that some students’ perceptions of risk can vary both within one context/image as well as between contexts/images. (see Garthwaite, 2019).
Analysis of the data set identified that all four Cultural Types were present. Table 1 shows that 28 students expressed Nature Tolerant, hierarchist rationalities and 23 provided Nature Benign responses that displayed individualistic rationalities.
Table 1.
Total number of student (urban and rural) responses to the five images within each Cultural Type
|
The four Cultural Types
|
|
Nature
Tolerant
(Hierarchical Rationality)
|
Nature
Benign
(Individualistic
Rationality)
|
Nature
Ephemeral
(Egalitarian
Rationality)
|
Nature
Capricious
(Fatalistic
Rationality)
|
Number of responses
to the five images
|
28
(14U, 14R)
|
23
(15U, 8R)
|
16
9U, 7R)
|
4
4U,0R)
|
A smaller number of students gave responses that demonstrated a Nature Ephemeral egalitarian rationality (16 responses). Only four students responses could be categorised as a Nature Capricious rationality. Moreover, there was little difference in the variety or types of responses between the urban and rural students, apart from the Nature Capricious Cultural Type. This may have resulted from the urban students having limited personal experience about 1080.
These examples have demonstrated the versatility and capacity of the risk perceptions analysis framework (Fig. 1) in that it is able to analyse the student responses individually, by image, by rationality and by stability or mobility of view. Furthermore, it is argued that this framework could be used to assist students to unravel both their own as well as other people’s views of risk.