umu.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Eriksson, Louise
    Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Geography and Economic History.
    The importance of threat, strategy, and resource appraisals for long-term proactive risk management among forest owners in Sweden2017In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 20, no 7, p. 868-886Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In natural hazards management, it is important to understand what motivates people to act when they or their property are threatened by natural hazards. Despite the importance of both threat and coping appraisals for responses to threats, less is known about the relations between threat and coping appraisals when risk management is long term. The present study examined appraisals of threat (cognitive and emotional), personal resources (cost and self-efficacy), and strategies (response-efficacy) as predictors of proactive management responses (past behavior and future intention) among forest owners in Sweden by means of a questionnaire (n = 1482). A path analysis revealed that threat appraisals and response-efficacy were direct predictors of past risk management behavior and the intention to respond in the future. Appraisals of resources, including cost and self-efficacy, were indirectly – via forest susceptibility and threat appraisals – related to threat responses. Although the model displayed reasonable fit for both owners more and those less involved in forestry, the cognitive appraisals variable was not a significant predictor of responses among owners less involved in forestry. In the full sample, the examined model explained approximately 50% of the variance in threat appraisals, and 28 and 17% in future intention and past behavior, respectively. Theoretical implications for how threat and coping appraisals are related during long-term risk management, and practical implications for forest risk management, are discussed.

  • 2.
    Hayenhjelm, Madeleine
    Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Out of the ashes: hope and vulnerability as explanatory factors in individual risk taking2006In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 9, no 3, p. 189-204Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    High individual risk taking, whether in terms of life-style risks or others, has often been explained in terms of acceptance of risks or misperception of the possible negative outcome. This article challenges this view, and points to a kind of risks that does not seem to fit this explanation. These risks are referred to as risks from vulnerability. They are taken because there are no positive alternatives to them, and the choice is perceived as having an element of hope. A new framework is proposed in order to expand these explanatory factors within the risk perception research. This framework analyzes individual risk taking in terms of: poor outset conditions, lack of reasonable options, hope, and liability to disinformation.

  • 3. Hochrainer-Stigler, Stefan
    et al.
    Colon, Celian
    Boza, Gergely
    Brännström, Åke
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics.
    Linnerooth-Bayer, Joanne
    Pflug, Georg
    Poledna, Sebastian
    Rovenskaya, Elena
    Dieckmann, Ulf
    Measuring, modeling, and managing systemic risk: the missing aspect of human agency2019In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    It is problematic to treat systemic risk as a merely technical problem that can be solved by natural-science methods and through biological and ecological analogies. There appears to be a discrepancy between understanding systemic risk from a natural-science perspective and the unresolved challenges that arise when humans with their initiatives and interactions are included in systemic-risk considerations. It is therefore necessary to investigate possible fundamental differences and similarities of systemic risk with and without accounting for human involvement. Focusing on applied and implementation aspects of measuring, modeling, and managing systemic risks, we identify three important and distinct features characterizing such fundamental differences: indetermination, indecision, and responsibility. We contend that, first, including human initiatives and interactions in systemic-risk considerations must emphasize a type of variability that is especially relevant in this context, namely the role of free will as a fundamental source of essential indetermination in human agency. Second, we postulate that collective indecision generated by mutual uncertainty often leads to the suspension or alteration of rules, procedures, scripts, and norms. Consequently, the associated systemic risks cannot be incorporated into explanatory models, as the new causal rules cannot be predicted and accounted for. Third, analogies from biology and ecology, especially the idea of ‘contagion,’ downplay human agency, and therefore human responsibility, promoting the false belief that systemic risk is a merely technical problem. For each of these three features, we provide recommendations for future directions and suggest how measuring, modeling, and managing approaches from the natural-science domain can best be applied in light of human agency.

1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf