Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response :

Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with

Emergency Response:

Foundations for Effective Risk Communication

Dr. Amy DelgadoApril 2, 2014

* Any views expressed in this presentation represent the views of the author and not the views of USDA.

2

Presentation Outline• Risk Perception –

Theory and drivers

• Risk Perception and Producer Cooperation

• Risk Perception and Texas Cattle Producers

3

THEORY AND DRIVERSRisk Perception

Risk Perception• Risk as analysis, and

risk as feelings (Slovic et al., 2004)

• Two fundamental ways in which people comprehend risk– Analytic system– Experiential system

Garry Trudeau

5

Risk Perception – The Risk Game

• Risk assessment – Risk = likelihood and consequence– Based on theoretical models whose structure

is subjective and assumption-laden, whose inputs depend on judgements

• Lay people have their own models, assumptions, and subjective assessment techniques

• All risk is inherently subjective

Risk Perception• People use a variety of

psychological mechanisms to judge risks (such as “mental short-cuts” called heuristics and risk images)– Constantly modified by media

reports and peer influences

• Knowledge, experience, values, attitudes, and emotions - influence judgment about the seriousness and acceptability of risks

Knowledge

Experience

Values

Construction of Risk

Dobbie and Brown, Risk AnalysisVolume 34, Issue 2, pages 294-308, 5 AUG 2013 DOI: 10.1111/risa.12100http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12100/full#risa12100-fig-0001

“There is no such thing as real risk, as attributed to experts, only real danger.”- Slovic

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.2014.34.issue-2/issuetoc

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12100/full#risa12100-fig-0001

Dobbie and Brown, Risk AnalysisVolume 34, Issue 2, pages 294-308, 5 AUG 2013 DOI: 10.1111/risa.12100http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12100/full#risa12100-fig-0001

Social IdentityValues

Group Membership

Cultural IdentitySubj Norms

FMD

Livelihood, animal health, profitability, reputation

Knowledge, Attitudes,Trust, Fairness, Perceived Control

INFORMATION PROCESSING

Risk Perception

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.2014.34.issue-2/issuetoc

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12100/full#risa12100-fig-0001

From Perception to Action

• Connection between risk perception, willingness to act, and risk preparedness is still unclear – Intervening factors:

• Risk factors: likelihood and magnitude of a disaster are of little importance

• Informational factors: most important in the absence of direct experience, trust in informational sources is important

• Personal factors: no consistent understanding of importance

• Direct Experience: strong but mixed effect on risk perception

• Trust: trust in authorities and confidence in protective measures

Wachinger et al., 2013.

The Effect of Trust

• Second most important factor affecting risk perception

• Trust: “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.”

• Trust vs confidence (calculative trust)– Trust is resilient– Confidence is fragile

Wachinger et al., 2013.

11

PRODUCER COOPERATIONRisk Perception

How much does it matter?

• CSF reporting in the Netherlands: – farmers´ negative opinions of disease control

measures, negative emotions associated with going through the reporting process such as guilt or shame, and a lack of trust in government bodies (Elbers et al., 2010)

13


• Australian sheep farmers:– found that farmers´ decisions regarding

reporting and biosecurity measures were often based on the perceived risk to their operation, and that trust in others contributed significantly to perceived risk (Palmer et al., 2009)

14


• UK cattle and sheep farmers´ attitudes and beliefs regarding biosecurity and current/proposed disease prevention and control legislation: – <50% of the farmers indicated that the recommended

biosecurity measures were desirable (Heffernan et al., 2008)

• the distrust of government bodies led farmers to perceive government-derived messages as untrustworthy or lacking in credibility

• dismissive of biosecurity measures, in part because they felt the blame for foreign diseases was largely related to ineffective regulations and inadequate border control, rather than to farm management practices they could actually influence

15

TEXAS CATTLE PRODUCERSRisk Perception

Predicting Producer Behavior• The Social Context of FMD control in Texas

– Qualitative phase: Delgado, et al., 2012.

– Quantitative phase:• Mail out survey: two separate, disproportionate, stratified

random samples of approximately 2000 cow-calf producers were selected based on herd size and NASS district

• Analysis of survey results using ordinal logistic regression models to determine factors with the greatest influence on behavior

Producer Behaviors Examined• Reporting cattle with

clinical signs consistent with FMD prior to an outbreak

• Reporting cattle with clinical signs consistent with FMD during an outbreak

• Movement ban compliance

• Gather and hold compliance

Risk Perception and Behavior

Intention toBehave

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioral Control

Attitudes

Behavior

Theory of Planned Behavior

Risk Perception and Behavior

Intention toBehave

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioral Control

Attitudes Trust

Risk Perception

Moral Norms

IntentionsProportion of respondents

Behavior SD MD NAD MA SAReporting pre-outbreak 6% 2% 0% 24% 68%Reporting during outbreak

1% 2% 3% 24% 70%Gather and hold 7% 1% 1% 20% 71%Obey movement restrictions

0% 1% 1% 20% 77%

The number of categories was reduced from 7 to 5 by combining somewhat and mostly disagree (shown as mostly disagree) and somewhat to mostly agree (shown as mostly agree.)

Reporting (Absence of outbreak)• It has come to your

attention that many of the cattle in your herd appear depressed and seem reluctant to move. Several of the animals are noticeably lame. Some of the depressed animals appear to be drooling.

Photos courtesy of Nathan Bauer, USDA-FSIS

Reporting (prior to an outbreak)Predictor Level of variable OR (SE) P-value

Factor of Behavioral beliefsa --- 10.34a (6.57) 0.000Subjective norm- other producers like themselves would request vet examination

Strongly disagree 0.10 (0.25)Mostly disagree 0.21 (0.22)Neither agree nor disagree --- ---Mostly agree 2.84 (2.27)Strongly agree 1.22 (1.14) 0.044

Trust – competency of agricultural agencies

< -1 s.d. from mean --- ---Within -1 s.d. from mean 0.09 (0.08)Within 1 s.d. from the mean 0.55 (0.49)> 1 s.d. from mean 1.24 (1.70) 0.038

Risk perception – magnitude of the consequences


Experience with either brucellosis or bovine tuberculosis federal eradication programs

No --- ---Yes 9.11 (6.64) 0.002

Largest number of steers or stockers located on operation during the year

Less than 50 head --- ---

50 head or more 9.09 (7.62) 0.008

Risk Perception Weighted Proportion of Respondents

MeasureStrongly Disagree

Mostly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Mostly Agree

Strongly Agree

The risk of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the USA is very great. 7% 10% 16% 35% 18% 8% 5%

The risk of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in my operation is very

great.29% 27% 14% 20% 5% 2% 3%

An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would be economically devastating for

my operation.1% 5% 1% 10% 10% 16% 57%

An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would be economically devastating for

the US cattle industry.1% 2% 2% 10% 10% 23% 52%

I believe that the United States is likely to experience an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the next five years.

19% 11% 14% 40% 10% 4% 3%

I believe that my operation is likely to experience an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the next five years.

40% 24% 10% 23% 2% 1% 1%

Risk Perception

rp_1 rp_2

rp_3 rp_4

rp_5

rp_6

0.2

.4.6

.8F

act

or

2

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Factor 1

Rotation: orthogonal varimaxMethod: principal factors

Factor loadings

Risk Perception

rp_1 rp_2

rp_3 rp_4

rp_5

rp_6

0.2

.4.6

.8F

act

or

2

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Factor 1


Factor loadings

Economically devastating for my operation.Economically devastating for the US cattle industry.

Risk to the US is greatRisk to my operation is greatUS likely to experience in next 5 yearsMy operation likely to experience in the next 5 years

Trust – Competency to manage role Proportion of respondents

AgenciesExtremely

PoorlyVery Poorly

Somewhat Poorly

Neither Well nor Poorly

Somewhat Well

Very WellExtremely

Well

US Department of Agriculture 1% 3% 9% 14% 30% 23% 19%

Texas Department of Agriculture

1% 1% 5% 13% 26% 29% 25%

Texas Animal Health Commission

1% 1% 5% 13% 26% 26% 27%

US Department of Homeland Security

10% 9% 10% 30% 16% 14% 11%

US Environmental Protection Agency

14% 8% 11% 28% 17% 12% 11%

Federal Emergency Management Agency

17% 10% 16% 26% 13% 10% 8%

Texas Health and Human Services

9% 8% 10% 29% 16% 16% 12%

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

10% 10% 11% 27% 17% 13% 12%

US Department of Health and Human Services

14% 9% 10% 27% 15% 14% 12%

Trust – Competency

competent_1

competent_2competent_3

competent_4competent_5competent_6competent_7


.2.4

.6.8

1F

act

or

2

.2 .4 .6 .8 1Factor 1


Factor loadings

Trust – Competency

competent_1


competent_4competent_5competent_6competent_7


.2.4

.6.8

1F

act

or

2

.2 .4 .6 .8 1Factor 1


Factor loadings

Texas Dept. of AgricultureTAHC

USDA

US Department of Homeland Security US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Texas Health and Human Services Texas Commission on Environmental Quality US Department of Health and Human Services

Reporting during an outbreakPredictor Level of variable OR (SE) P-valueFactor of behavioral beliefs < -1 s.d. from mean ---

Within -1 s.d. from mean 14.81 (13.77)Within 1 s.d. from the mean 13.04 (7.69)

> 1 s.d. from mean 24.91 (20.93) 0.000Risk perception – overall risk and probability


Risk perception – magnitude of the consequences

< -1 s.d. from mean --- ---Within -1 s.d. from mean 0.19 (0.15)

Within 1 s.d. from the mean 1.06 (0.90) 0.012Experience with brucellosis or bovine tuberculosis federal eradication programs

No --- ---Yes 0.15 (0.08) 0.000

AgeLess than 50 years of age --- ---50 years of age or greater

0.07 (0.05) 0.000

Gather and Hold Cattle

• You are contacted by state and federal authorities and asked to gather and hold your cattle for inspection and testing at a date and time designated by the authorities. http://www.flickr.com/photos/7928423@N07/5307146851/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Gather and Hold CattlePredictor Level of variable OR (SE) P-valueFactor of behavioral beliefsa --- 2.46 (0.97) 0.001Factor of control beliefsb --- 2.62 (0.98) 0.002Trust – other producers --- 2.27 (0.58) 0.001Risk perception – magnitude of the consequences

< -1 s.d. from mean --- ---

Within -1 s.d. from mean 3.27 (2.67)

Within 1 s.d. from the mean 0.32 (0.22)

> 1 s.d. from mean 0.25 (0.34) 0.011

a. Behavioral beliefs included: beliefs about reducing the economic impact on the producerand the US cattle industry, stopping the spread of disease among the producer’s cattle andthe US cattle industry, knowing if the producer’s herd is infected, and feeling better abouthow the producer manages his or her cattle.

b. Control beliefs included: facilities, manpower, and financial resources necessary to gather and hold, lived close enough to cattle, cattle were tame enough to gather and hold

Trust in Other Producers

Proportion of respondents

How sure are you that:Extremely

UnsureMostly Unsure

Neither Sure nor Unsure

Mostly Sure

Extremely Sure

your neighbors would… 3% 5% 11% 63% 18%

other producers in your area would… 2% 5% 12% 60% 20%

other producers in Texas would… 1% 5% 26% 60% 8%

your neighbors would take into consideration the consequences to your operation

3% 9% 15% 55% 17%

other producers in your area would take into consideration the consequences to your operation

3% 8% 22% 47% 20%

other producers in Texas would take into consideration the consequences to your operation

2% 10% 24% 46% 17%

The number of categories was reduced from 7 to 5 by combining somewhat and mostly unsure (shown as mostly unsure) and somewhat to mostly sure (shown as mostly sure.)

Risk Perception

rp_1 rp_2

rp_3 rp_4

rp_5

rp_6

0.2

.4.6

.8F

act

or

2

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Factor 1


Factor loadings

Economically devastating for my operation.Economically devastating for the US cattle industry.


Animal Movement Restrictions

• Once foot-and-mouth disease is identified in Texas, producers will be told to restrict the movement of anything that could spread the disease. These movement restrictions may last for many weeks.

Photos courtesy of Nathan Bauer, USDA-FSIS

Animal Movement RestrictionsPredictor Level of variable OR (SE) P-valueFactor of attitudes – unpleasant-pleasant, difficult-easy, inconvenient-convenient

< -1 s.d. from mean --- ---Within -1 s.d. of the mean 2.61 (2.21)From the mean to >1 s.d. from the mean

13.55 (13.78) 0.037

Factor of control beliefs – feed, facilities, and disinfection

Less than -1 s.d. from mean --- ----1 s.d. to the mean 14.88 (11.71)From the mean to >1 s.d. from the mean

87.56 (100.78) 0.001

Normative beliefs – other producers like myself would

Somewhat to strongly disagree

---

Neither agree nor disagree 17.26 (19.51)Somewhat to strongly agree 103.60 (110.07) 0.000

Risk perception – overall risk and probability

Less than -1 s.d. from mean --- ----1 s.d. to the mean 17.71 (19.26)0 to 1 s.d. from the mean 1.88 (1.54)>1 s.d. from the mean 0.55 (0.60) 0.011

Risk Perception

rp1 rp2

rp3rp4

rp5rp6

0.2

.4.6

.8F

act

or

2

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Factor 1

Factor loadings

economically devastating for my operation.economically devastating for the US cattle industry.


Conclusions Related to Risk Perception

• Increasing producers’ perception of the risk of FMD may not always lead to enhanced cooperation– Producers who view economic devastation as a

potential outcome of an outbreak of FMD are more likely to report clinically suspect cattle.

– However, if economic devastation is seen as a certainty, producers are less likely to report. Once an outbreak has been identified, increased risk perception related to overall risk, probability, and consequences, leads to increased reporting.

– Increase risk perception results in decreased cooperation with requests to gather and hold cattle as well as movement restrictions.

38

Conclusions Related to Risk Perception

“While fear may be the emotion most conducive to action, hopelessness can lead to inaction.”

– Peter Sandman

References• Slovic et al., 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about

affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis 24:2, 311-322.• Dobbie and Brown, 2014. A framework for understanding risk perception, explored

from the perspective of the water practitioner. Risk Analysis 34:2, 294-308.• Wachinger et al., 2013. The risk perception paradox – Implications for governance

and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis 33:6, 1049-1065.• Elbers et al., 2010. A socio-psychological investigation into limitations and

incentives concerning reporting a clinically suspect situation aimed at improving early detection of classical swine fever outbreaks. Vet Microbiol 142, 108-118.

• Palmer et al., 2009. The Effect of Trust on West Australian Farmers' Responses to Infectious Livestock Diseases. Sociol Ruralis 49, 360-374.

• Heffernan et al., 2008. An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet Med 87, 358-372.

• Delgado et al., 2012. Utilizing qualitative methods in survey design: examining Texas cattle producers’ intent to participate in foot-and-mouth disease control. Prev Vet Med 103:120-135.

Questions?

• Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the USDA - Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service (CSREES). Award number: (2007-55204-17755) •Research Team: Bo Norby, H. Morgan Scott, Alex McIntosh, Wesley Dean, Jenny Davis

• Study Participants

Acknowledgements

Extra slides

Conclusions• Improving Reporting of Suspect Cases of

FMD– Tailor risk communication messages and strategies to the

specific situation.– Address beliefs about the consequences of reporting. – Raise awareness of the community consequences of FMD

and the effects of disease outbreaks on “the average operation” in order to augment perceived pressure from the surrounding community and other producers for reporting of suspect cases of FMD.

– Plan for and communicate plans for business continuity during an outbreak. Make information about compensation for herds widely available in order to reduce the perception that an outbreak is economically devastating for an operation.

Conclusions• Improving gathering and holding of cattle

– Devote time and resources to communicating about the consequences (positive and negative) of gathering and holding cattle during an outbreak of FMD.

– Openly acknowledge and sympathize with the negative consequences of gathering and holding cattle

– Plan for and communicate the availability of resources to help with shortages of manpower, financial resources, and facilities to gather cattle.

– Plan for and communicate plans for business continuity during an outbreak in order to inform producers´ perception of the risk. Make information about compensation widely available in order to reduce the perception that an outbreak is economically devastating for an operation.

– On a local level, ask that high-trust, unbiased partners help to foster and maintain communication among the agricultural community.

Conclusions• Improving movement ban compliance

– Help producers prepare for the consequences of movement restrictions in the early stages of an outbreak.

– On a local level, ask that high-trust, unbiased partners help to foster and maintain communication among the agricultural community.

– Plan for and communicate plans to help distribute feeds, maintain the availability of basic veterinary care, and allow for the movement of animals due to crowding or feed shortages, while avoiding the spread of the disease.

Documents

Risk Perception, Disease Reporting, and Cooperation with Emergency Response :