From risk to vulnerability: the role of perceived adaptive capacity for the acceptance of contested infrastructure

Abstract

Infrastructure projects such as repositories for nuclear waste or hazardous waste sites impose risks (in the form of potential burdens or losses) over extensive timescales. These risks change dynamically over time and so, potentially, does their management. Societies and key actors go through learning processes and subsequently may be better able to deal with related challenges. However, social scientific research on the acceptance of such projects is mainly concerned with (static) risk perception issues and does not include dynamic aspects. Adaptive capacity, which is part of the concept of vulnerability, therefore represents a promising complementing facet for this line of research. The aim of this paper is to examine the role of perceived adaptive capacity (PAC) for the acceptance of contested long-term infrastructure for the two issues of nuclear and hazardous waste. In an online experimental survey (N = 300) examining either the acceptance of a nuclear waste repository or of a hazardous waste site, we demonstrate that (i) PAC can be separated empirically as a psychological construct from risk and benefit perception, and (ii) PAC explains a significant additional share of variance in the acceptance of both waste types beyond risk and benefit perception. Furthermore, we report what adaptation mechanisms of PAC participants expect to occur in the future. We conclude that such a dynamic perspective yields important insights in understanding individual decision-making regarding long-term infrastructure projects. IntroductionIn the siting of large infrastructure projects such as nuclear power plants, nuclear waste repositories, dams, wind power plants, deep geothermal, or carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementers often face enormous difficulties. Such projects, also referred to as contested infrastructure (Boholm 2004), share some common characteristics: they are often large-scale projects in which burdens and benefits are unequally distributed over time and space, and they include a broad range of actors with differing interests and values. Moreover, these infrastructures often pose risks over very long timescales due to uncertainties in physical processes and knowledge (ignorance). In a nutshell, they 'combine technical factors and social factors in

Digital Threat and Vulnerability Management: The SVIDT Method

“…Given the character of digital threats (in particular, their complexity, the incompleteness of information, and the potential costs of failing to act), we suggest extending the risk concept by the property of adaptive capacity (see Section 2.1, [2]), which assesses a system's capability to cope with threats from a posterior perspective if they have become real. Experimental research has shown that adaptive capacity is cognized as a specific component of technological threats [35]. Finally, we want to mention that the proposed method, SVIDT, utilizes a specific form of evaluation, i.e., it integrates ideas from potential bio-ecological potential assessment (BEPA; [30]) into multicriteria evaluation [36,37].…”

“…A critical question is whether they possess sufficient adaptive capacity [2,35,50]. In order to better differentiate forms or depths of adaptation, we introduced (see above) Piaget's [73] distinction between assimilation and accommodation.…”

Spatially Representing Vulnerability to Extreme Rain Events Using Midwestern Farmers’ Objective and Perceived Attributes of Adaptive Capacity

“…These studies often frame the likelihood that people and communities will adapt to climate change as a function of access to financial and technical resources and suitable institutional arrangements . However, other scholarship on human behavior has noted that in addition to the objective attributes of adaptive capacity, sociocultural and cognitive factors, such as risk perceptions and perceived capacity, are consequential for modulating people's actual vulnerability . For example, perceived adaptive capacity (PAC)—defined as the “extent to which [people] feel prepared to endure changes and take necessary steps to cope with them” (Ref.…”

“…For example, perceived adaptive capacity (PAC)—defined as the “extent to which [people] feel prepared to endure changes and take necessary steps to cope with them” (Ref. , p. 50)—has been found to influence people's decisions about both the significance of climatic risks and the willingness to take actions to cope with, adapt to, or ignore such risks . A better understanding of the relationships between objective and subjective measures of adaptive capacity in agriculture has implications for climate change policy and programs, especially if farmers are systematically under‐ or overestimating their own ability to adapt to weather and climatic impacts.…”

“…(13,14) However, other scholarship on human behavior has noted that in addition to the objective attributes of adaptive capacity, sociocultural and cognitive factors, such as risk perceptions and perceived capacity, are consequential for modulating people's actual vulnerability. (15,16) For example, perceived adaptive capacity (PAC)-defined as the "ex-tent to which [people] feel prepared to endure changes and take necessary steps to cope with them" (Ref. 17, p. 50)-has been found to influence people's decisions about both the significance of climatic risks and the willingness to take actions to cope with, adapt to, or ignore such risks.…”