Miljörisker är risker som är relaterade till miljöproblem och hot kopplat till det. Hur människor i Sverige uppfattar det kan skilja sig runt om i landet. Den här studiens syfte är att undersöka uppfattningen och riskperceptionen hos människor i de två orterna Skoghall och Tullinge, samt hur samhällsstrukturer och kulturella världsbilder påverkar uppfattningen och synen på miljörisker relaterat till klimatförändringar och luftföroreningar. Studien använder en komparativ metod där riskperception och uppfattningar hos människor i de två orterna är egenskaperna som jämförs utifrån det teoretiska ramverket Cultural Theory of Risk. Fokusgruppsintervjuer används för datainsamling som genomfördes under två tillfällen i respektive ort, data analyseras med tematisk analys där mönster i intervjusvar beskrivs i form av teman. Studiens resultat visar att skillnader såväl som likheter kan hittas i uppfattning av miljörisker i båda orterna. Den största skillnaden mellan orterna är att det finns mångfald vad gäller synen på miljörisker på en lokal nivå i Skoghall än i Tullinge, där det visar sig råda mer samsyn. Den största likheten mellan orterna är hur nyheter och media med mera påverkar människors uppfattning av miljörisker på ett sätt som gör att de bland annat anser att klimatförändringar och luftföroreningars effekter skulle bli mer allvarliga utanför Sverige. Slutligen visar studien att det generellt finns en påverkan från samhällsstrukturer och kulturella världsbilder i riskperception hos människor som är delvis grunden till skillnaderna och likheterna mellan orterna. / Environmental risks are risks connected to environmental issues and threats that come with them. How people in Sweden perceive them can vary around the country. This study’s purpose is to examine the comprehension and perception of environmental risks linked to climate change and air pollution in the two localities of Skoghall and Tullinge. How social structures and cultural worldviews are affecting them is also examined. The study is using a comparative method where the risk perception and comprehension of the people in the two localities are the characteristics that are compared, based on the theoretical framework of Cultural Theory of Risk. Focus group interviews are used to collect data with two interviews that is made in each locality, the data is analyzed with Thematic analysis where patterns in the interview answers are described through themes. The result of this study shows that there are differences and similarities between the localities when it comes to the comprehension of environmental risks. The greatest difference between the localities is that there is more of a diversity in perception of environmental risks on a local level in Skoghall than in Tullinge, where there is more of a consensus on the matter. The greatest similarity between the localities is regarding how news and media etc. are influencing people’s comprehension of environmental risks in a way that they, among other things, think that the effects of climate change and air pollution would be more serious outside of Sweden. Finally, the study shows that there is a general effect from social structures and cultural worldviews on the risk perception of people in both localities, which is partially the cause of the differences and similarities between them.

The frequency and severity of floods have increased due to climate change and achieving successful disaster risk reduction is deemed crucial to attain preparedness and sustainability. The responsibility for society’s preparedness mainly resides with local public actors. However, several Swedish municipalities have insufficient flood risk management. Research within disaster risk reduction suggests that risk can be understood as socially constructed and produced, highlighting the relevance of exploring risk perceptions. Yet, previous research has mostly been concerned with objective dimensions of risk and largely neglected social dimensions, such as decision-makers’ risk perceptions. Ridolfi and colleagues’ theoretical contribution to Cultural Theory of Risk suggests four types of ideal societies, or perceptions, which ultimately affect flood risk management: risk neglecting, risk monitoring, risk downplaying, and risk controlling perceptions. Yet, the theoretical work has not been applied empirically. This study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of local public actors’ perceptions of flood risk and how this in turn may be connected to different flood risk management strategies. This thesis adopts a comparative case study design and explores the topic by applying Ridolfi and colleagues’ theoretical contribution to the municipalities of Karlstad and Kristinehamn. While Kristinehamn has been criticized for insufficient flood risk management, Karlstad has been put forward as a front runner in disaster risk reduction. Surprisingly, the results show that the municipalities reason in similar ways about flood risk, suggesting that the proposed differences between the two may be overestimated. Both municipalities believe in the capacity of technical hard-adaptive measures manipulating the environment and thus largely correspond to the risk controlling perception. However, the municipalities differ in some respects, as it can be argued that Karlstad shows signs of a risk monitoring perception whereas Kristinehamn shows signs of a risk neglecting or downplaying perception, potentially shedding light on the slightly varying approaches. In essence, the study’s utilization of the theory indicates that decision-makers’ subjective risk perceptions are important to explore in order to understand flood risk management approaches and subsequently important processes to achieve overall preparedness and sustainability. By exploring municipal actors’ perceptions of flood risk, the study not only contributes empirically by applying mentioned theoretical contribution for the first time, but also adds to the wider body of the theoretical knowledge on the significance of decision-makers’ risk perception for risk reduction, and thus contributes to a better understanding of the social dimensions of risk.

In the West African country Ghana, which has a history of poor natural resource management, discovery of offshore petroleum resources in 2007 and subsequent commercial production in 2010 (with British multinational Tullow Oil as lead operator) is a potential source of potential wealth and inequality. Using the Cultural Theory of Risk, Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and the Corporate Sustainability Framework — a proposed model—as theoretical foundations, this dissertation examines corporate sustainability practices, communication, and their implications for local residents’ risk perceptions, corporate reputation, and risk management. The study also assesses how cultural worldviews and informational networks (e.g., an environmental group, opinion leaders, and media) amplify or attenuate residents’ risks perceptions. Data were collected via interviews with key actors including a non-governmental organization (NGO), a survey of a representative sample of Half Assini residents in one of the six coastal districts that adjoin Ghana’s offshore petroleum region, and analyses of Tullow’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and other communication texts. Extant worldview and corporate reputation measures were also developed/adapted and tested. The study finds support for the view that cultural worldview and affect are associated with public risk perceptions. Thus, individuals who (a) do not subscribe to the worldview that government ought to regulate corporate behaviors, (b) show a relatively high sense of attachment to their communities, (c) rate the images associated with Ghana’s offshore oil production favorably, and (d) rate the images associated with Tullow Oil positively are more likely to be worried that Ghana’s offshore oil production poses significant risks for the country and their local communities. Regarding corporate sustainability communication, the study observes that Tullow uses a predominantly technical, expert-driven approach, which seeks to discursively position it as an aspirational, engaged, and responsible organization. While critiquing Tullow’s corporate sustainability and communication approach, the research also argues that corporate sustainability (CSR and risk) communication has the potential to constitute desirable corporate practices and could ultimately culminate in meaningful social change. Theoretical contributions to risk perception, risk management/communication, corporate reputation, and CSR communication are discussed. Practical implications for advocacy, corporate practices, and public participation in environmental decision-making are discussed.

La plupart des Américains ne sont pas préoccupés par les vaccins. Cependant, minorité petite mais vocale l’est, et un nombre croissant de parents américains reçoivent des exemptions de vaccination pour leurs enfants sur la base de la religion ou de «convictions personnelles». Le refus vaccinal peut avoir des conséquences désastreuses: dans certaines communautés, la couverture vaccinale infantile a plongé bien en deçà du seuil requis pour «l'immunité collective», permettant à des maladies comme la rougeole d'opérer un retour en force. L'hésitation vaccinale et le refus vaccinal sont souvent attribués au manque de connaissances ou de compréhension des « faits » scientifiques des anti-vaccins. La plupart des interventions de santé publique qui visent à promouvoir la vaccination reposent sur la simple diffusion de connaissances scientifiques fiables; la communication scientifique est perçue comme un processus à sens unique de diffusion des connaissances scientifiques. La théorie est la suivante : si les anti-vaccins savaient à quel point les vaccins sont sécuritaires, efficaces et nécessaires, ils vaccineraient davantage. Malheureusement, la littérature dans plusieurs disciplines suggère que de telles interventions d'éducation passive à l'échelle de la communauté sont généralement inefficaces pour persuader les anti-vaccins d'adopter des attitudes et des comportements pro-vaccination. Pourquoi? En m'inspirant des principes de transdisciplinarité d'Edgar Morin, de la théorie des révolutions scientifiques de Thomas Kuhn et de la méthodologie de revue méta-narrative de Trisha Greenhalgh, j'examine les publications de différents auteurs phares de différentes disciplines qui fournissent directement ou indirectement une réponse à cette question. Je distingue trois approches principales, qui diffèrent quant à leur explication générale des raisons pour lesquelles les interventions basées sur la simple diffusion de preuves scientifiques échouent. La première explication est que les anti-vaccins n'ont pas les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires pour comprendre les preuves scientifiques qui leur sont présentées. La deuxième est que la résistance des anti-vaccins aux preuves scientifiques peut s’expliquer par de nombreux biais cognitifs qui anènent les individus à faire des erreurs systématiques de jugement et à s'écarter ainsi de l’idéal décisionnel de la théorie du choix rationnel. Le troisième narratif sur les anti-vaccins met l'accent sur les influences socioculturelles. Selon la théorie de la cognition culturelle, la culture influence les perceptions du risque à travers des biais cognitifs. Ces trois narratifs sur l'hésitation et le refus de la vaccination sont examinés en profondeur afin de fournir une synthèse interdisciplinaire des facteurs qui peuvent expliquer l'échec des interventions de santé publique basées sur l'éducation à persuader les anti-vaccins. / Most Americans are not concerned about vaccines. However, a small but vocal minority is, and a growing number of parents are receiving vaccine mandate exemptions for their children on the basis of religion or “personal belief.” Vaccine refusal can have disastrous consequences: in some communities, childhood vaccination coverage has dived well below the threshold required for “herd immunity,” allowing diseases like measles to stage a forceful comeback. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are often attributed to a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of scientific “facts” on the part of antivaxxers. Most public health interventions that aim to promote vaccination rely on disseminating trustworthy scientific knowledge and see science communication as a one-way process of diffusion of scientific evidence. If antivaxxers knew how safe, effective, and necessary vaccines are, the theory goes, they would vaccinate more. Unfortunately, literature across disciplines suggests that such passive, community-wide education interventions are mostly ineffective at persuading antivaxxers to adopt pro-vaccination attitudes and behaviours. Why? Inspired by Edgar Morin’s principles of transdisciplinarity, Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, and Trisha Greenhalgh’s meta-narrative review methodology, I examine the publications of different seminal authors across disciplines that directly or indirectly provide an answer to this question. I distinguish three main approaches, which differ as to their general explanation of why interventions based on simple dissemination of scientific evidence fail. The first explanation is that antivaxxers lack the scientific literacy that is necessary to understand the scientific evidence that is presented to them. The second is that antivaxxers’ resistance to scientific evidence can be explained by the numerous cognitive biases and “rules of thumb” that lead individuals to make systematic errors in judgment and thus deviate from the rational choice theory decision-making ideal. The third narrative stresses sociocultural influences. According to cultural cognition theory, culture influences risk perceptions through the mechanisms of cognitive biases and heuristics. These three narratives about vaccine hesitancy and refusal are thoroughly examined in order to provide a cross-disciplinary synthesis of factors that may explain the failure of education-based public health interventions to persuade antivaxxers.