Blog
About

31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world : Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change

      ,

      Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

      Wiley-Blackwell

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references 110

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              REDISCOVERY OF TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
                WIREs Clim Change
                Wiley-Blackwell
                17577780
                July 2011
                July 2011
                : 2
                : 4
                : 547-569
                10.1002/wcc.120
                © 2011

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1

                Product
                Self URI (article page): http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.120

                Comments

                Comment on this article