What Lies Beneath the Surface? A Case Study of Citizens’ Moral Reasoning with Regard to Biodiversity

Abstract

This paper focuses on a Swedish case where a biological insecticide has been used to fight mosquitoes in order to reduce the nuisance to humans. The case concerns conflicting values regarding environmental protection. People's quality of life in the summers is placed in opposition to long-term risks to biodiversity. On the surface, the affected lay-population is one-sidedly positive about the intervention. However, interviews with citizens revealed a more complex picture, where the majority also touched upon value conflicts. At the same time, different psychological mechanisms for handling these dilemmas hindered more critical and doubtful views from being included in societal deliberations concerning the intervention. By way of conclusion, we argue that it is important to create deliberative arrangements that acknowledge the emotional and contradictory side of human nature and that encourage people to dare to voice standpoints that may be seen as uncomfortable or inconsistent.

How Motivated Reasoning and Temporal Frames May Polarize Opinions About Wildlife Disease Risk

“…In a similar vein, messages connecting the prevalence of zoonotic disease risk to a change in biodiversity (e.g., depletion of wildlife habitat, decrease in natural predators) could emphasize the importance of conservation efforts, such as preservation of parks and natural areas, alongside specific actions people can take to reduce their risks of contracting the disease. Thus, the One Health frame would provide information not only about public health implications but also about wildlife and ecosystem health implications (DesJardin, 2005; Ojala & Lidskog, 2011; Stenmark, 2002). In contrast to the frame detailed above, what we refer to as a “blame wildlife” frame would attribute the responsibility of disease risk more narrowly to wildlife behavior or natural variation, essentially absolving humans from any role or responsibility for its prevalence and potentially its mitigation.…”

Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners

“…This collective behaviour -with all the owners planting the same tree species -functioned as a riskreducing strategy; it provided social confirmation that their decisions were reasonable (in contrast to a situation where the forest owners would have made different choices) and meant that should the decision prove to have been a poor one, the individual forest owners would not stand alone (cf. Ojala and Lidskog 2011). This shared risk was thus perceived as a reduced risk.…”

Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review

“…Controllability concerns were often based on unknown negative long‐term consequences or side effects of a behavior or technology that was perceived as tampering with nature (Arentshorst, de Cock Buning, & Broerse, 2016; Asayama et al., 2017; Bredahl, 2001; Gough, O׳Keefe, & Mander, 2014; Hahn et al., 2009; Macer, Okada, Nakagawa, Chen Ng, & Inaba, 2007; McCarthy, Brennan, Ritson, & de Boer, 2006; Miles & Frewer, 2001; Ojala & Lidskog, 2011). Concerns mentioned were often related to health risks (Bredahl, 2001; Macer et al., 2007), environmental risks (Miles & Frewer, 2001; Oltra, Sala, Solà, Di Masso, & Rowe, 2010), and economic inequality (Bredahl, 2001; Hursti & Magnusson, 2003).…”