Efficacy,Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks

A growing body of research demonstrates that believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts. Despite this potentially critical role of efficacy beliefs, measures and their use vary wildly in climate change risk perception and communication research, making it hard to compare and learn from efficacy studies. To address this problem and advance our understanding of efficacy beliefs, this article makes three contributions. First, we present a theoretically motivated approach to measuring climate change mitigation efficacy, in light of diverse proposed, perceived, and previously researched strategies. Second, we test this in two national survey samples (Amazon's Mechanical Turk N = 405, GfK Knowledge Panel N = 1,820), demonstrating largely coherent beliefs by level of action and discrimination between types of efficacy. Four additive efficacy scales emerge: personal self‐efficacy, personal response efficacy, government and collective self‐efficacy, and government and collective response efficacy. Third, we employ the resulting efficacy scales in mediation models to test how well efficacy beliefs predict climate change policy support, controlling for specific knowledge, risk perceptions, and ideology, and allowing for mediation by concern. Concern fully mediates the relatively strong effects of perceived risk on policy support, but only partly mediates efficacy beliefs. Stronger government and collective response efficacy beliefs and personal self‐efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.     

Farmers’ Risk‐Based Decision Making Under Pervasive Uncertainty: Cognitive Thresholds and Hazy Hedging

Researchers in judgment and decision making have long debunked the idea that we are economically rational optimizers. However, problematic assumptions of rationality remain common in studies of agricultural economics and climate change adaptation, especially those that involve quantitative models. Recent movement toward more complex agent‐based modeling provides an opportunity to reconsider the empirical basis for farmer decision making. Here, we reconceptualize farmer decision making from the ground up, using an in situ mental models approach to analyze weather and climate risk management. We assess how large‐scale commercial grain farmers in South Africa (n = 90) coordinate decisions about weather, climate variability, and climate change with those around other environmental, agronomic, economic, political, and personal risks that they manage every day. Contrary to common simplifying assumptions, we show that these farmers tend to satisfice rather than optimize as they face intractable and multifaceted uncertainty; they make imperfect use of limited information; they are differently averse to different risks; they make decisions on multiple time horizons; they are cautious in responding to changing conditions; and their diverse risk perceptions contribute to important differences in individual behaviors. We find that they use two important nonoptimizing strategies, which we call cognitive thresholds and hazy hedging, to make practical decisions under pervasive uncertainty. These strategies, evident in farmers' simultaneous use of conservation agriculture and livestock to manage weather risks, are the messy in situ performance of naturalistic decision‐making techniques. These results may inform continued research on such behavioral tendencies in narrower lab‐ and modeling‐based studies.     

A Probabilistic Model of the Economic Risk to Britain's Railway Network from Bridge Scour During Floods

Scour (localized erosion by water) is an important risk to bridges, and hence many infrastructure networks, around the world. In Britain, scour has caused the failure of railway bridges crossing rivers in more than 50 flood events. These events have been investigated in detail, providing a data set with which we develop and test a model to quantify scour risk. The risk analysis is formulated in terms of a generic, transferrable infrastructure network risk model. For some bridge failures, the severity of the causative flood was recorded or can be reconstructed. These data are combined with the background failure rate, and records of bridges that have not failed, to construct fragility curves that quantify the failure probability conditional on the severity of a flood event. The fragility curves generated are to some extent sensitive to the way in which these data are incorporated into the statistical analysis. The new fragility analysis is tested using flood events simulated from a spatial joint probability model for extreme river flows for all river gauging sites in Britain. The combined models appear robust in comparison with historical observations of the expected number of bridge failures in a flood event. The analysis is used to estimate the probability of single or multiple bridge failures in Britain's rail network. Combined with a model for passenger journey disruption in the event of bridge failure, we calculate a system‐wide estimate for the risk of scour failures in terms of passenger journey disruptions and associated economic costs.     

Toward an Application Guide for Safety Integrity Level Allocation in Railway Systems

The work in the article presents the development of an application guide based on feedback and comments stemming from various railway actors on their practices of SIL allocation to railway safety‐related functions. The initial generic methodology for SIL allocation has been updated to be applied to railway rolling stock safety‐related functions in order to solve the SIL concept application issues. Various actors dealing with railway SIL allocation problems are the intended target of the methodology; its principles will be summarized in this article with a focus on modifications and precisions made in order to establish a practical guide for railway safety authorities. The methodology is based on the flowchart formalism used in CSM (common safety method) European regulation. It starts with the use of quantitative safety requirements, particularly tolerable hazard rates (THR). THR apportioning rules are applied. On the one hand, the rules are related to classical logical combinations of safety‐related functions preventing hazard occurrence. On the other hand, to take into account technical conditions (last safety weak link, functional dependencies, technological complexity, etc.), specific rules implicitly used in existing practices are defined for readjusting some THR values. SIL allocation process based on apportioned and validated THR values is finally illustrated through the example of “emergency brake” subsystems. Some specific SIL allocation rules are also defined and illustrated.     

Risk Mapping of Groundwater‐Drawdown‐Induced Land Subsidence in Heterogeneous Soils on Large Areas

Groundwater leakage into subsurface constructions can cause reduction of pore pressure and subsidence in clay deposits, even at large distances from the location of the construction. The potential cost of damage is substantial, particularly in urban areas. The large‐scale process also implies heterogeneous soil conditions that cannot be described in complete detail, which causes a need for estimating uncertainty of subsidence with probabilistic methods. In this study, the risk for subsidence is estimated by coupling two probabilistic models, a geostatistics‐based soil stratification model with a subsidence model. Statistical analyses of stratification and soil properties are inputs into the models. The results include spatially explicit probabilistic estimates of subsidence magnitude and sensitivities of included model parameters. From these, areas with significant risk for subsidence are distinguished from low‐risk areas. The efficiency and usefulness of this modeling approach as a tool for communication to stakeholders, decision support for prioritization of risk‐reducing measures, and identification of the need for further investigations and monitoring are demonstrated with a case study of a planned tunnel in Stockholm.     

Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change

Believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts, according to current risk communication theory. Although the public recognizes the dangers of climate change, and is deluged with lists of possible mitigative actions, little is known about public efficacy beliefs in the context of climate change. Prior efficacy studies rely on conflicting constructs and measures of efficacy, and links between efficacy and risk management actions are muddled. As a result, much remains to learn about how laypersons think about the ease and effectiveness of potential mitigative actions. To bring clarity and inform risk communication and management efforts, we investigate how people think about efficacy in the context of climate change risk management by analyzing unprompted and prompted beliefs from two national surveys (N = 405, N = 1,820). In general, respondents distinguish little between effective and ineffective climate strategies. While many respondents appreciate that reducing fossil fuel use is an effective risk mitigation strategy, overall assessments reflect persistent misconceptions about climate change causes, and uncertainties about the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies. Our findings suggest targeting climate change risk communication and management strategies to (1) address gaps in people's existing mental models of climate action, (2) leverage existing public understanding of both potentially effective mitigation strategies and the collective action dilemma at the heart of climate change action, and (3) take into account ideologically driven reactions to behavior change and government action framed as climate action.     

Risk Ranking of Antimicrobial‐Resistant Hazards Found in Meat in Switzerland

Human exposure to bacteria resistant to antimicrobials and transfer of related genes is a complex issue and occurs, among other pathways, via meat consumption. In a context of limited resources, the prioritization of risk management activities is essential. Since the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) situation differs substantially between countries, prioritization should be country specific. The objective of this study was to develop a systematic and transparent framework to rank combinations of bacteria species resistant to selected antimicrobial classes found in meat, based on the risk they represent for public health in Switzerland. A risk assessment model from slaughter to consumption was developed following the Codex Alimentarius guidelines for risk analysis of foodborne AMR. Using data from the Swiss AMR monitoring program, 208 combinations of animal species/bacteria/antimicrobial classes were identified as relevant hazards. Exposure assessment and hazard characterization scores were developed and combined using multicriteria decision analysis. The effect of changing weights of scores was explored with sensitivity analysis. Attributing equal weights to each score, poultry‐associated combinations represented the highest risk. In particular, contamination with extended‐spectrum β‐lactamase/plasmidic AmpC‐producing Escherichia coli in poultry meat ranked high for both exposure and hazard characterization. Tetracycline‐ or macrolide‐resistant Enterococcus spp., as well as fluoroquinolone‐ or macrolide‐resistant Campylobacter jejuni , ranked among combinations with the highest risk. This study provides a basis for prioritizing future activities to mitigate the risk associated with foodborne AMR in Switzerland. A user‐friendly version of the model was provided to risk managers; it can easily be adjusted to the constantly evolving knowledge on AMR.     

基于违约鉴别能力组合赋权的小企业信用评级——基于小型工业企业样本数据的实证分析

信用评级是衡量债务违约的可能性,因此评级体系要有违约风险识别能力,能够将违约客户和非违约客户显著地区分开.通过逼近理想点的思路,构建多目标规划模型求解最优的组合权重,并对中国某区域性商业银行1 814笔小型工业企业贷款进行实证分析.本文的创新与特色一是以非违约企业的数据到正理想点的距离代数和最小为第一个目标函数,以违约企业的数据到负理想点的距离代数和最小为第二个目标函数,构建多目标非线性规划模型进行组合赋权,在满足了“非违约企业的评价得分越高、违约企业的评价得分越低”要求的目标下得到最优的组合赋权的权重系数,使赋权结果保证了评级模型能够将违约企业与非违约企业最大地区分开.改变了现有研究的组合赋权脱离评价目的的弊端,改变了现有研究中违约与非违约企业的评价得分存在大量重叠、对两类企业的区分能力低的弊端.二是通过检验“违约企业的信用得分是否显著小于非违约企业的信用得分”的J-T非参数检验,验证信用评价模型的合理性.改变现有研究忽略对信用评价模型的合理性进行验证的弊端.三是经过实证,发现本研究建立的组合赋权模型的违约鉴别能力(Z=5.546)要高于现有研究的两种常用组合赋权模型、即基于方差最大的组合赋权(Z=4.298)和基于偏差最小的组合赋权(Z=5.182)     

“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals

This mixed‐methods study investigated consumers’ knowledge of chemicals in terms of basic principles of toxicology and then related this knowledge, in addition to other factors, to their fear of chemical substances (i.e., chemophobia). Both qualitative interviews and a large‐scale online survey were conducted in the German‐speaking part of Switzerland. A Mokken scale was developed to measure laypeople's toxicological knowledge. The results indicate that most laypeople are unaware of the similarities between natural and synthetic chemicals in terms of certain toxicological principles. Furthermore, their associations with the term “chemical substances” and the self‐reported affect prompted by these associations are mostly negative. The results also suggest that knowledge of basic principles of toxicology, self‐reported affect evoked by the term “chemical substances,” risk‐benefit perceptions concerning synthetic chemicals, and trust in regulation processes are all negatively associated with chemophobia, while general health concerns are positively related to chemophobia. Thus, to enhance informed consumer decisionmaking, it might be necessary to tackle the stigmatization of the term “chemical substances” as well as address and clarify prevalent misconceptions.     

A Probabilistic Framework for Risk Analysis of Widespread Flood Events: A Proof‐of‐Concept Study

This article presents a flood risk analysis model that considers the spatially heterogeneous nature of flood events. The basic concept of this approach is to generate a large sample of flood events that can be regarded as temporal extrapolation of flood events. These are combined with cumulative flood impact indicators, such as building damages, to finally derive time series of damages for risk estimation. Therefore, a multivariate modeling procedure that is able to take into account the spatial characteristics of flooding, the regionalization method top‐kriging, and three different impact indicators are combined in a model chain. Eventually, the expected annual flood impact (e.g., expected annual damages) and the flood impact associated with a low probability of occurrence are determined for a study area. The risk model has the potential to augment the understanding of flood risk in a region and thereby contribute to enhanced risk management of, for example, risk analysts and policymakers or insurance companies. The modeling framework was successfully applied in a proof‐of‐concept exercise in Vorarlberg (Austria). The results of the case study show that risk analysis has to be based on spatially heterogeneous flood events in order to estimate flood risk adequately.