4.6 Article

Loss of agro-biodiversity, uncertainty, and perceived control: A comparative risk perception study in Austria and China

Journal

RISK ANALYSIS
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 455-470

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00744.x

Keywords

Austria; China; genetic erosion; GMOs; risk perception

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The biogeographical centers of origin of important food crops-called Vavilov centers-are considered to be crucial sources of genetic diversity for present and future crop-breeding programs and thus for human food safety worldwide. Global environmental change and more intensified modes of crop production may cause genetic erosion (loss of traditional crop varieties and loss of crop wild relatives), especially in Vavilov centers. The present study focused on how the risk of genetic erosion (or loss of agro-biodiversity) is perceived in comparison to 16 other risk topics by experts and lay people in Austria and China. The most striking result was that genetic erosion was perceived to be an exceptionally unknown and uncertain risk topic, given that only genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were perceived as being even more uncertain. As a consequence of the high uncertainty, the idea of applying the precautionary principle to further prevent genetic erosion is discussed. An unprecedented finding-one that differs from Austrian participants-is that the Chinese have a higher perceived control over all risk topics. The increased perception of controllability in China is discussed in light of the theory of reflexive modernization. This theory strives to explain the increased critical attitude in Western countries such as Austria toward scientific innovations and toward the idea that everything can be calculated and mastered at will. By revealing different notions of risk perception, this research also provides additional scientific input to risk communication efforts for public education.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available