Comparing perceptions of the important environmental characteristics of the places people engage in consumptive, non-consumptive and spiritual activities

Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner and Taryn Pittfield

Journal of Risk Research, 2011, vol. 14, issue 10, 1219-1236

Abstract: Managers, risk assessors, tribal leaders, public policy makers, and the public are increasingly interested in the characteristics of natural habitats where people like to engage in recreational, subsistence, or spiritual activities. Such data are critical for making decisions about human and ecological risk deriving from contaminants, as well as resource protection and land use. In this study we examined the perceptions of Native Americans and Caucasians about the natural places they prefer to engage in consumptive, non-consumptive, and spiritual activities which might expose them to contamination or other stressors. Subjects were interviewed at Post Falls and Fort Hall in Idaho, Cookeville in Tennessee, and at two sites in Long Island, New York, and northern New Jersey. Our objectives were to determine differences in perceptions as a function of category of activity, type of activity, location, and ethnicity. The data indicate that: (1) the highest rated characteristics were unpolluted water, lack of radionuclides that present a health risk, clean air, and no visible smog in the air; (2) all four were among the top-rated ones for each of the four sites; (3) all four were among the top-rated ones for places to perform consumptive, non-consumptive, and spiritual activities; (4) at each site, mean ratings were lowest for spiritual activities; (5) where there were differences, Native Americans rated all characteristics as more important than did Caucasians; and (6) where there were differences, ratings in New Jersey/New York were lower than those from respondents elsewhere. There are many statistically significant response differences between Native Americans and Caucasians, but overall one is impressed by the similarity in relative rankings. These perceptions will be helpful to risk assessors and risk managers in evaluating risk and potential solutions, to land managers for managing environmental resources, and to public policy managers for evaluating how people view natural environments.

Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2011.587888 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:14:y:2011:i:10:p:1219-1236

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJRR20

DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.587888

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk Research is currently edited by Bryan MacGregor

More articles in Journal of Risk Research from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().