Journal of Risk Research

ISSN: 1366-9877 (Print) 1466-4461 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjrr20

Emotions, attitudes, and appraisal in the

management of climate-related risks by fish
farmers in Northern Thailand
Louis Lebel & Phimphakan Lebel
To cite this article: Louis Lebel & Phimphakan Lebel (2016): Emotions, attitudes, and appraisal
in the management of climate-related risks by fish farmers in Northern Thailand, Journal of
Risk Research
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1264450

Published online: 06 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjrr20
Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia]

Date: 07 December 2016, At: 14:16

Journal of Risk Research, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1264450

Emotions, attitudes, and appraisal in the management of

climate-related risks by sh farmers in Northern Thailand
Louis Lebel* and Phimphakan Lebel
Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai
University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
(Received 10 April 2016; nal version received 9 October 2016)
Many previous studies have documented that farmers are risk-averse, while other
studies have shown that farmers analyze and estimate risks. Conventional risk
aversion measures and analytical judgment often do not fully explain decision
behavior. Thus, it may be necessary to consider emotions. The objective of this
study was to enhance understanding of the interactions between attitudes,
analysis, and emotions in making risk decisions. The study used a mixture of
methods, including: a tablet game, risk aversion scales, in-depth interviews, and
focus group discussions with sh cage farmers in Northern Thailand. There was
no signicant difference in risk aversion with respect to gender, age group, or
region. Having sufcient capital made it possible to take more risks. Recently
being impacted by oods or droughts, or being very concerned with climate
change, was not associated with taking fewer risks. Measures of risk aversion
did not predict risk decisions. Feeling worried, concerned, anxious, or stressed
were the most common negative emotions referred to in interviews. Fear was a
reason for not taking risks. Common positive emotions were joy, excitement,
and feeling relaxed or relieved. Men who expressed feeling excited or thrilled
chose riskier, higher stocking densities in games than women. A common belief
was that men were quicker and more condent when making decisions. Another
was that emotions had little impact on decisions, but were a response to success
and failure a claim inconsistent with other ndings that imply emotions are
also important prior to stocking decisions, and while waiting for the harvest.
Fear and anxiety in the period prior to harvest may help motivate risk management practices, such as close monitoring and aeration. In conclusion, emotions
may play a more important role in making decisions about climate-related risks
than was previously recognized.
Keywords: risk attitude; risk aversion; emotions; decisions; aquaculture; climate

1. Introduction
Farmers learn about the likelihood and magnitude of adverse climate events from
experience, observations, and information from others. Individuals differ in their
perceptions of and attitudes toward risks. Risk aversion, or the tendency to avoid
options which are perceived as high risk, is a common attitude ascribed to
smallholder farmers. On the one hand, it may be a sensible strategy for those with
no capital to fall back on. On the other hand, the inability to take risks may
represent a constraint to improving incomes and well-being.
*Corresponding author. Email: louis@sea-user.org
2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

Risk aversion can be a barrier to innovation needed for adaptation. Smallholder

farmers in Kenya, for example, combine food crops for consumption and cash crops
like coffee with risk-averse farmers emphasizing food production, thus resulting
in lower average incomes in that group (Nyikal and Kosura 2005). A study of coffee
farmers in Costa Rica found farmers were risk-averse when presented with a series
of choices to invest in a new adaptation option (Alpizar, Carlsson, and Naranjo
2011). When faced by an unknown or ambiguous risk choice as in, where there is
little information about probabilities they became even more reluctant to change
practices. Other studies in Ethopia have shown high aversion for situations with
ambiguous risks among highland subsistence farming households (Akay et al.
2012); meanwhile, smallholder dairy farms appeared willing to take risks with new
technologies, even in light of uncertain markets and climate (Gebreegziabher and
Tadesse 2014).
Education, culture, and political beliefs may also inuence risk attitudes. In
Turkey, organic hazelnut growers are less risk-averse than those adopting conventional practices, and they also tend to have higher education levels (Demiryrek,
Ceyhan, and Bozolu 2012). Risk aversion in Swedish farmers appear to relate more
to their personalities and how they manage their farms, rather than the sources of
external risk (Hansson and Lagerkvist 2012). A study of French farmers using two
different methods showed that risk preferences are context-dependent, inuenced by
considerations of not just investments but also recreation (Reynaud and Couture
2012). In rural Nevada, USA, political orientation and climate change beliefs inuenced perceptions of drought risks more than measures of physical vulnerability
(Saleh Sa, James Smith, and Liu 2012).
Attitudes toward risk are usually seen as relatively stable even if partly contextspecic. Emotions or feelings around risk, however, include both more stable underlying emotional pre-dispositions, as well as more rapidly changing emotions that
may help guide choices. There is now a signicant body of knowledge from psychological studies that show risk decisions are strongly inuenced by emotions, and are
not just analytical considerations (Breakwell 2010; Loewenstein et al. 2001). The
affect hypothesis suggests that in making decisions, people refer to a set of positive
and negative associations with the event being considered (Macchi 2011). Moreover,
emotional and cognitive evaluations of risks may interact. Feelings like fear or
worry inuence evaluations of risk (Schlsser, Dunning, and Fetchenhauer 2013);
for example, a positive emotional context can reduce risk aversion, and also remove
the effect of framing a decision in terms of losses rather than gains (Cassotti et al.
2012). Feelings of regret which might arise from not taking advantage of an
opportunity can help explain subsequent decision behavior that is less risk-averse
(Krongkaew 2004). Risk evaluations and decisions, on the other hand, can effect
emotions (Sjberg 2007). The effects of specic underlying emotions on judgments
and choices depends on how dimensions like certainty (Kugler, Connolly, and
Ordez 2012), control and responsibility are appraised, and not just the strength of
those emotions (Lerner and Keltner 2000); for example, under time pressure, negative emotions which typically make participants more risk-averse can make them
more risk-prone (Hu et al. 2015).
Empirical evidence on the role of emotions and feelings in farmers responses to
risks and making risk decisions is modest but growing. Farmers in Ceara, Brazil, for
example, do not trust meteorologists forecasts of drought, as they create feelings of
despair in contrast to messages from rain prophets, whose promises of rain bring

Journal of Risk Research

relief and joy (Pennesi 2013). Australian farmers long-term experiences of climate
variability in particular, droughts, oods, and cyclones cause stress and feelings
of defeat (Brumby et al. 2011). This long-term stress may help explain observed
elevated levels of alcohol consumption, obesity, and mental health problems among
farming populations (Fussel 2005). Men and women in drought-affected households
in South Australia showed similar levels of stress, whereas younger farmers were
more stressed than older ones (Kwok et al. 2010). Political and economic changes in
agri-business have interacted with drought to undermine self-worth and pride of the
tough masculine farmer identity (Bryant and Garnham 2015). Wine grape growers
in the Riverland, South Australia, for instance, feel that they are not to blame for the
nancial pressures they nd themselves under, but rather, see themselves as victims
in economic relations; in particular, arising from government policies in the industry
and unethical practices of rms that contracted them to grow grapes (Bryant and
Garnham 2014). In two other Australian rural communities with high engagement in
forestry, the younger generation appeared to be more afraid of climate change than
the older generation, possibly because the latter has had more experience in dealing
with extreme climate events (Anh, Phong, and Mulenga 2014), while another reason
might be because the younger generation are more aware of the global signicance
and local implications of a changing climate. Studies in Thailand have also shown
greater awareness of climate change impacts in younger people (Pratoomchai et al.
2015). Following a drought in 2012 Midwestern US, agricultural advisors became
more concerned with drought and less concerned with oods; their climate change
beliefs, however, were unaffected (Carlton et al. 2016).
Farmers in an impoverished area in peninsular Malaysia that were distressed,
depressed or feeling discouraged had much lower incomes and fewer coping strategies (Abdelhak, Sulaiman, and Mohd 2012). Flood impacts were the most important
source of feeling discouraged, while adherence to religious practices reduced psychological problems and was also associated with higher incomes. A study in central
Lombok, Indonesia, underlined a key driver for taking risk and growing tobacco
was that if successful, then they would have enough funds to go to Mecca (Jakimow
2014). In the event of failure, however, a common option was to temporarily immigrate to Malaysia for work, so to be able to repay loans and invest in the following
season. While having to take risk may cause anxiety, it is seen by many as necessary
to improve a familys circumstances or pursue religious goals.
In summary, perceptions, attitudes, appraisal, and emotions are all potentially
important to making decisions about risk. Situations and individual traits may also
inuence risk decisions.
Our interest in this paper is specically in aquaculture. A few studies have examined risk aversion, but not much detailed work on risk appraisal or emotions has
been done. Salmon farmers in Norway, for instance, are optimistic but risk-averse;
when asked, most say they will opt for safer choices even though it means less prot
(Bergfjord 2009). Farmers in Northern Vietnam engaged in reservoir aquaculture
use a mixture of species that minimize risk, rather than focusing exclusively on
common carp which would maximize prot; implying high risk aversion (Petersen
and Schilizzi 2010). Optimal stocking densities and feeding rates, as well as bounds
on minimum harvest price and maximum feed price for Channel Catsh production
in the USA, depend on individual levels of risk aversion (Dasgupta and Engle
2007). Investment and expected return models for Atlantic Cod suggests that the
scale of open-ocean aquaculture investments will decrease with level of risk,

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

uncertainty in those risks, and level of risk aversion of the investor (Jin,
Kite-Powell, and Hoagland 2005). High risk aversion in women in Kerala, India,
was initially a barrier to uptake of novel mussel farming technologies, which were
eventually overcome through the formation of self-help groups (Kripa and
Surendranathan 2008).
In an earlier paper, we evaluated how river-based sh cage farmers in Northern
Thailand learnt about risks from experience, and how they made decisions on riskier
or safer stocking options based on those experiences (Lebel et al. 2016). There were
several unexpected ndings. First, while farmers reduced their stocking densities
when playing in games with a high likelihood of oods, they did not do so when
ood impacts were larger. Second, farmers found it harder to learn when oods were
common or had large impacts, or when risks were increasing. Third, providing information about likelihoods prior to a game had no impact on average performance or
decisions. These three ndings suggest that factors other than cognitive appraisal,
like attitudes as relatively xed characteristics and emotions which are more
exible and situation-specic could be important to making risk decisions.
This paper extends that work by exploring the role of attitudes and emotions in
risk decisions. In this case, risk decisions relate to whether or not to stock sh in a
particular season, at what density, and how much to invest in risk reduction measures or risk management before stocking, and the period prior to harvest. The primary question addressed in this study is how do attitudes, appraisal, and emotions
inuence risk decisions?
2. Methods
2.1. Study area and population
This study was carried out with farmers who reared sh in open-top mesh cages in
the rivers of Northern Thailand (Figure 1). Farmers stock sh ngerlings aged
23 months at densities of around 20100 sh m3 and rear them for a further
35 months using commercial pellet feeds by which time they reach 0.5 or more
kilograms in size. The climate of Northern Thailand is highly seasonal, with the
drycool season during NovemberApril. Farmers make decisions about stocking
cages with sh knowing that there are risks of both oods and droughts, as well as
water pollution, which can result in major losses. Water ows in the rivers vary not
only seasonally, but also spatially as a consequence of operations of large-scale
water infrastructure (Lebel et al., Risk of Impacts, 2015).
This study used mixed methods (Mason 2006) to improve understanding of the
interactions between attitudes, perceptions, emotions, and decisions around
climate-related risks to investments in sh farms.
2.2. Risk perception survey
This study drew on a subset of records (n = 108) from an earlier large-scale
(n = 662) survey of risk perception and management practices of sh farmers across
Northern Thailand (Lebel et al., Perceptions of Climate, 2015), which could be
individually matched with participants in an attitude survey (Section 2.3) and
role-playing game (Section 2.4).

Journal of Risk Research

Figure 1. Map of river-based cage culture regions in Northern Thailand studied in this
paper.

2.3. Risk aversion measures

To measure risk aversion we provided farmers with a lottery choice task (Holt and
Laury 2002), wherein subjects were given pairs of choices with equal probabilities
(50%) of high and low payout (see Table 1) (Menapace, Colson, and Raffaelli
2013). The values discussed were in thousands, so that option 1 was a guaranteed
income of 20,000 Baht or approximately 3 months at minimum wage level, and
which approximated the expected prot from one sh cage if nothing went wrong.
Farmers had to select one of the 11 options as being the situation they would most
like to be in. This was done by pairwise comparisons, starting at the top of table
and going down, with rechecks to make sure preference was consistent. As a more
qualitative complement to lottery choice task, we also used a general risk aversion
scale (Mandrik and Bao 2005) based on a set of questions (see Table 2), with
responses scored on a ve-point agreement scale.
2.4. Risk decision simulation game
A role-playing simulation game was developed that could be played on a touchscreen hand-held tablet (Lebel et al. 2016). The goal of the sh-farming game was
to maximize cumulative prot (CP). In each round the player had to choose to stock

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

Table 1. Risk aversion measured according to lottery task options.

Situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Outcome
A

Outcome
B

Expected
payoff

Constant relative risks

aversion ranges

% of
Farmers

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60

1.00x
1.05x
1.10x
1.15x
1.20x
1.25x
1.30x
1.35x
1.40x
1.45x
1.50x

r > 4.92
1.64 < r < 4.92
1.00 < r < 1.64
0.72 < r < 1.00
0.56 < r < 0.72
0.45 < r < 0.56
0.38 < r < 0.45
0.30 < r < 0.38
0.24 < r < 0.30
0.16 < r < 0.24
r < 0.16

41.2
10.2
9.3
5.3
12.0
10.3
2.7
3.1
2.2
1.3
2.2

Note: In all situations the probability of two options occurring was equal, that is, 0.5 (modied after:
Menapace, Colson, and Raffaelli 2013).

Table 2. Summary statistics for distributions of scores of sh farmers on the general risk
aversion scale.
Risk aversion question
Before I make a decision, I like to be absolutely sure how things
will turn out
I prefer situations that have foreseeable outcomes
I do not feel comfortable about taking chances
I feel nervous when I have to make decisions in uncertain situations
I avoid situations that have uncertain outcomes
I feel comfortable improvising in new situations
Risk aversion index (combined score of above 6 statements)

Mean
(SD)

Skewness

4.23 (0.72)

1.0

4.15 (0.85)
4.02 (0.89)
3.96 (0.91)
3.77 (0.90)
2.79 (1.28)
3.89 (0.51)

12
1.3
1.0
0.67
0.02
0.10

Notes: All responses were on a 5-point agreement scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) thru 3 (Neutral) to 5
(Strongly Agree). For calculating the combined index score, responses to question 6 in list were
reversed (modied after: Mandrik and Bao 2005).

sh at low, medium, or high density. In any round, if there was no ood then a
higher stocking density meant more prot, but if a ood occurred then a lower
stocking density meant less loss. After selecting an option, the game responded with
a harvest graphic, payoffs, and in the case of ood, a corresponding animation. Each
game lasted 20 rounds. Farmers played 7 games corresponding to different treatments. A total of 224 sh farmers played the game.
Two measures were derived from the simulation game runs to describe different
aspects of decisions made by players, namely: CP; and the level of risky decisions
taken or the mean density level (MDL) chosen, with a higher average density implying a greater risk.
The role-playing game had some limitations. Some players felt that the frequency of oods was too high in some games, or the impacts of oods too large
compared to their own experiences. The most important difference noted was that in
real-life, farmers had other points of intervention after stocking; for example, when
they know a storm is coming, they can make preparations and take precautions that
reduce losses, whereas in the game they could not.

Journal of Risk Research

2.5. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions

Most participants (N = 194) who played the risk decision game were briey interviewed in-depth after they had nished playing the game. Interviews covered strategies used in the game to increase prots; similarities and differences between game
and reality; and what games they liked. There were no direct references made to
emotions or feelings in these interview questions, thus, any references that emerged
did so naturally.
In August and September 2015, four focus group discussions were organized
with sh cage farmers in two locations (Chiang Mai and Uttaradit provinces).
Groups of 6 to 9 women and men met separately. The focus group discussions were
about issues related to gender, risk communication, and emotional responses to risk.
A second set of in-depth interviews with 24 farmers who had not participated in the
group discussions was carried out in January and February 2016. In these interviews, we asked sh farmers about their experiences with various climate-related
impacts or risks, and explicitly probed their thinking and feelings around key decisions and events.
Individual and group interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded using the
NVIVO software. Coded text was used to support analysis through identication of
differences and similarities of informant explanations. Illustrative quotes and basic
information on frequencies of types of responses were also extracted.
3. Results
3.1. Risk attitudes
According to the lottery task or gamble exercise, about two-thirds of sh farmers
were relatively strongly risk-averse, preferring situations 1 thru 4, whereas another
third were relatively more willing to take risks (Table 1). There was no signicant
difference in risk aversion with respect to gender, age group, or region of respondents in the full data-set (n = 224). One farmer explained to us that people think
differently. Some people like risk, some dislike risk.
In interviews, many farmers explained that they chose situation 1 because there
was no risk. If we invest a lot of money and suppose the bad option happens. We
cannot be sure it will be a good or bad option. That is why I choose situation 1.
Farmers considered the smaller income they would receive half the time as too low
an amount, and thus too high a risk to take. If it comes out heads I get twenty thousand, an elderly woman explained,
if tails then I get twenty thousand. Grandma likes the equal choice. I dont want a lot
of risk. Not like 24000 and 18000. If it comes out heads, I would be thrilled to get a
lot; but if it came out tails and get little, I would be very disappointed.

Most farmers who chose situation 2 or higher did so because they recognized that on
average, they would get more, and even if they got the smaller amount it was still
enough. I think [option 3] is not that risky. If bad happens then still okay. It is not that
risky. In interviews it was clear that the value of the gambles was important to their interpretation, reecting differences in perception of what is an acceptable risk (Figure 2).
On individual questions in the general risk aversion scale, farmers emphasized
their preference for making decisions in situations with known outcomes (Table 2).
Responses were more variable among subjects for the only question (number 6) that

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

Figure 2. Reasons related to potential amount might lose given by farmers when explaining
their preference for particular risk situations as shown in Table 1 (n = 195).

framed risk-taking positively. There was no signicant difference in general risk

aversion index with respect to age, gender, or region. The risk aversion index and
Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) were moderately correlated with each
other (r = 0.18, p < 0.01, Spearman).
In interviews, the majority of men described gender differences in risk-taking.
Women are not as willing to take risks in rearing sh as men. This was explained
by some as because men are tougher and they have the courage to take risks;
women dont dare take risks. There was also the issue of safety to consider.
Women are more vulnerable. We rear sh in the river and it can be dangerous.
Some women, it was noted, could not swim, and as a consequence, when ows are
high men dont let women get involved at all. Men go out onto the rafts, women
help from the banks. It can be really dangerous, even if you can swim.
Using the subset of the survey data which could be matched to individuals who
played the risk decision game, a few additional associations between risk aversion and
perception of climate-related risks were explored. No signicant differences were found
for preferred risk level and being impacted by oods or droughts in 2011 or 2012
(ANOVA, all p > 0.1). Likewise, no signicant association was found between being
risk-averse (level 1) and being very concerned with climate change; believing global
warming is occurring; or perceiving that either droughts or oods have worsened
(Fishers Exact all p > 0.3). Average level of concern or importance of 11 climate-related
risks were also not associated with preferred risk level (CRRA) (Spearman, p > 0.1).
Associations with general risk aversion measures were also not statistically signicant.
In short, differences in risk attitudes did not explain differences in risk perceptions.
Risk attitudes did not explain risk decisions either. There was no signicant association between MDL chosen in the role-playing game, and levels of risk aversion
of players on either scale (p > 0.5, n = 224). The two commonly used measures of
risk attitude did not help explain stocking decisions in the role-playing game. Similarly, there was no association between preferred risk level and last crop stocking
density chosen in real life (Spearman r = 0.02, p > 0.5, n = 108).
3.2. Risk appraisal
In post-game interviews, farmers provided a couple of analytical arguments
(Figure 3), as well as a few more emotion-referenced explanations (see next section),

Journal of Risk Research

Figure 3. Proportion of farmers that referred to six different types of reasons for why they
chose a riskier or a safer option (n = 195).

for choosing riskier and safer options. More gave reasons for choosing safer than
riskier options.
A high likelihood of oods was an important reason for choosing the safer
option; a low likelihood of oods was also a relatively important reason for choosing a riskier option. Any period where the risks of oods and losses are high, we
will invest little and go gradually. In recalling the last game played, sh farmers
tended to overestimate probabilities of oods when they were rare, and underestimate them when they were common (Figure 4).
When appraising drought risks, having correct information was really important.
Water quality and water levels were especially low in the last two years, under inuence of El Nino. Not many farmers know this, so they could not understand why the
dam could not release more water. Information from the irrigation and the meteorological departments help me decide whether or not to rear sh. For example, in the
dry season the irrigation department lets us know if there wont be any water
releases. The number of cages stocked is reduced if the forecast is that there will be
little water, and increased if they say this year there will be a lot. In evaluating risks,
farmers needed to look ahead 45 months to decide whether or not there would be
sufcient water in the river for the crop to be completed under reasonable conditions.
Farmers are always evaluating environmental cues to guide or rene stocking
decisions. A farmer in the lower reaches of the river, for example, explained that he

Figure 4. Recall of recently experienced ood risks in a role-playing decision game. Means
and 95% condence intervals (n = 215).

10

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

assessed risks by looking to see how much or how little water there was; how cold
the temperature was; or if the water changed color, for example, turned red. Cues
could be used to justify caution. If we made good prots then should we stock
more or less? We looked at the water conditions and decided to stock less to prevent
losses. The important inuence of stocking densities on future environmental conditions, especially in low ow periods, were also recognized and meant that farmers
set densities taking into account likely future conditions.
Expected gains were an important reason for choosing riskier options, and relatively unimportant in decisions about safer options (Figure 3). Opportunities to sell
sh around holiday times when demand and prices are high often led to higher
risk-taking.
Concerns with losses, on the other hand, were a rationale for selecting safer
options.
We cannot tell when a disaster will occur. So we have to stock at an intermediate level,
a little lower to reduce potential losses and risk. If we invest a lot, stock a lot of sh,
then the risk is high.

Weather and associated water conditions in the river were seen as ambiguous risks,
and a reason to reduce investments or choose safer options.
Consideration of expected payoffs or gains and losses together was also used to
justify risk-taking. Many farmers recognized that without risk-taking there would be
little prot. Farmers also recognized that if invest little then risks are small, but so
are the gains. Some risks must be accepted, whereas others are managed.
Fish farmers argued that if you have sufcient capital then it is possible to take
more risks on a particular crop then if have little. Savings are a reserve which can
be drawn upon in the case of losses. On the other hand, without much funds, strategies must be different. If have little capital then stock little, or if we have little to
invest, then must go steadily; with more capital can take more risks.
Some gender differences were claimed by male sh farmers with respect to
appraisal of risks. Women think more slowly than men. Women analyze situations,
analyze causes, without coming to a denite conclusion. The idea that women hesitate more whereas men are more condent was a common belief among male
respondents; whereas women argued that women pay more attention to details. In
assessing risks sh farmers often consult their spouses.
More broadly, sh farmers also obtain information about risks and the efcacy
of alternative risk management practices from their social networks with other farmers, private company dealers, and sheries extension ofcers. Many sh farmers are
members of mobile messaging networks (Line groups) through which they share
critical information on river conditions. The Royal Irrigation Department and the
Meteorological Department are the most important original sources for weather and
water information. Downstream from large dams, receiving accurate information on
releases is important to managing risks, but the technical style is not always comprehensible. The language of civil servants is very different from that of villagers. If
they would just tell us how much deeper the water will be that would be enough.
For slower-onset events such as likely extreme low water ows toward end of dry
season, the irrigation or sheries department brief farmers on drought conditions
through public meetings. Mainstream media also cover these emerging conditions
and are another source of information about risks.

Journal of Risk Research

11

3.3. Risk emotions

The likelihood of referring to particular types of emotions when talking about risk
post-game was similar for women and men except for pride and frustration, which
men expressed signicantly more frequently (Fishers Exact Tests, p < 0.01 and
p < 0.05, Figure 5). Risk emotions were largely similar across all age groups; however, excitement tended to decrease with increasing age. Making a reference to positive or negative emotions (Figure 5) in the post-game interviews was not associated
with either of the risk aversion measures.
Negative and positive emotions can be further sub-divided into two groups:
those felt before an event occurs (or expectations), and those after an event (or reactions). Important groups of negative expectations were anxiety and fear (Figure 5).
3.3.1. Negative expectations
Feelings of stress or anxiety increased when conditions deteriorated and risks
increased. When water levels are low, as is the case now [January], all farmers with
sh in cages feel stressed or anxious about water quality, sh not eating, or low oxygen levels. Anxiety also rose as harvest time approached; because at this part of the
crop cycle sh have been fed for 45 months, and thus potential losses are high.
People dont all behave the same way. Some people are outwardly stressed, others
appear calm, but trust me, they worry too. Being worried is an important emotion
as it encourages risk reduction measures. The more risk, the more uneasy I feel,
and the more care I must take. I check every hour, and I dont dare go anywhere for
the day.
One man argued that men dont worry as much, women worry the most. They
worry that cages will oat away, that the river will be dry. They worry about everything. Quantitative ndings from the post-game interviews (Figure 2) did not indicate a signicant gender difference, suggesting how emotions are displayed and
talked about rather than what is felt, may differ. One male farmer reected,
women and men both become anxious or stressed, but men keep still, whereas women
fret. Sometimes it is important to think things through rst Just because we dont
do anything right away does not mean we are not thinking, not worried.

Most respondents, including those that recognized some differences in risk-taking,

said that men and women had similar feelings towards risk.

Figure 5. Proportion of women and men referring to negative and positive emotions
unprompted when discussing risks in post-game interviews (n = 195).

12

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

Difcult situations amplify the intensity of risk emotions. This was true, for
example, when farmers felt that things depended upon them succeeding. Im afraid
of suffering a loss, that sh will die. Im afraid of everything. I have to take care of
my family, and sh farming is all I have. Another extenuating circumstance was
being in debt, and worried about making a loss, as when you are in debt its really
stressful. Lack of alternative income sources may increase what is considered, in
practice, an acceptable risk. Sometimes were afraid, but dont know what else we
could do to earn a living. Rearing sh is like this.
Fear was a reason for not-taking risks. Another explained they chose intermediate levels in the game because I fear high risks, Im afraid of large losses. In the
real world, oods were a common source of fear. When there is a lot of water I
was scared it would ood as it did in 2005. Drought was another important source
of fear. Im afraid of low ows; we reduce the risks by rearing less sh and being
prepared, while another stopped rearing sh altogether toward end of dry season.
Uncertainty and lack of control were key appraisals for fear, anxiety and related
emotions. We dont know what will happen We cannot see ahead; when it will
rain next, when it will ood. It cannot be predicted. Experience and sharing of
knowledge were observed as ways of overcoming fear of taking risks in the real
world. A good understanding of risks and how they might be managed improves the
sense of being in control, and thus reduces anxiety, making it possible to
plan in advance, so if meet a situation like this then we can assess it correctly; when
enter the wet season, then reduce the stock exposed; when it is end of the wet season,
then can stock more sh again.

Anxiety also lessens with experience, because we know beforehand that things can
happen when you rear sh, and we accept that.
3.3.2. Negative reactions
Most farmers reported feeling disappointed, frustrated, or dissatised when they suffered major losses. Sometimes I feel terrible, because we lost money; we worked
hard for no results. Failing near the end of a crop was particularly frustrating. You
are about to get money, just another 10 days to go until harvest. You lose
money, lose everything. Large losses lead to reconsidering livelihood options.
Sometimes I feel disappointed, like when there is not enough water and sh die.
Sometimes I want to stop sh farming altogether.
Not being able to explain repeated failures was cause for frustration. Fish die
every season. Perhaps it is the water or something? The last 23 years have been
really difcult. It may have something to do with the water, I dont know. A run of
failures led another farmer to observe bitterly that
these have been three unhappy years, now becoming four. Theres been no happiness
in rearing sh at all. It is boring. We have to put up with it. It is stressful, the sh die
without cause. But we have to keep taking risks.

Feelings of anger were not reported. One farmer explained she was not angry, not
resentful, because when we rear sh we know you have to take risks. We dont fool
ourselves. When we stock we know we might suffer a loss. Most farmers agreed
that strong, negative emotions had little role in their sh farming decisions. I use
reasoning. In my older generation, emotions are not so important. You get stressed,

Journal of Risk Research

13

you could get angry, but the problem has already happened. I turn to dhamma
[Buddhist precepts]. The problem is that if get too emotional you could make bad
decisions that result in even bigger losses.
3.3.3. Positive expectations
Common positive emotions were feeling happy, good, content, or even joyful or
fun. Feeling content means not being worried or stressed; in Thai culture it is important to pursue the no worries state.
Many sh farmers had positive emotional responses to taking care of sh. Its a
good feeling to see sh grow a bit each day, and another, I feel happy when watching the sh eat. One women explained fondly, I go down to the raft to talk to the
sh. I ask why they are sick or die, as if they were people or children. I know I
must look like a crazy person. Rearing sh in cages in the river is a source of
contentment, even relaxing, in contrast to rearing other livestock like chickens,
ducks, and pigs that scream for their food when it is time to eat. Farming sh
creates attachments. Now we have no sh, I miss the sh, miss taking care of
them. These positive emotions tend to encourage closer monitoring and care of sh,
and thus may help reduce risks.
Excitement references emphasized wanting to know how things would turn out.
As approach harvest time it is exciting how much will we get? In particular,
farmers get excited when they see sh prices rising, and know that they will have
good yields. On the other hand, several experienced farmers noted that they had
reared sh for a long time and became indifferent to the risks or thrills of a good
harvest. Men who expressed feeling excited or thrilled chose higher densities in
role-playing games (MDL) than women, but among those who had not expressed
such feelings, there was no difference. There was also no evidence from the interviews that feelings of pride or excitement led to taking more risks.
3.3.4. Positive reactions
While the game could be fun, in real-life, emotional intensity usually was more tempered, with many saying that they felt happy or content. Happy when we help each
other harvest and the yield is good, and can have a good laugh together. Successfully completing the harvest of a crop brought strong feelings of relief to many
farmers, as the risk burden was over.
Women who had not expressed feeling relaxed performed better in games (CP)
than men, but there was no difference between sexes for those who had expressed
feeling relaxed. Women who had expressed feeling relaxed chose lower densities in
games (MDL) than men, but among those who had not expressed such feelings the
differences were reversed. On the other hand, men who expressed pride performed
better in games (CP) than those who did not; but for women there was no
difference.
A common source of pride was being able to make a contribution to the familys
wellbeing. Proud that made a prot that helps my children go to school. Good performance also reafrms the livelihood choice. Proud that after harvest of sh we
made a good prot, much better than ever made when growing rice. Proud that we
could do it. Pride and experience were sources of self-condence. At the same time,
condence comes with experience. When we start we have no experience in

14

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

rearing, and maybe dont do such a good job. After rearing, we know what to do in
different situations; whether to invest, whether rearing will likely be successful.
4. Discussion
In this study about two-thirds of sh farmers were strongly risk-averse. There was
no evidence of differences with respect to gender, age or region on two standard
scales, but interviews revealed strong beliefs in this population that women were less
willing to take risks than men. Risk aversion measures did not help explain risk
decisions. This is consistent with recent ndings from a test of nine different risk
preference measures with farmers in upland Vietnam (Nielsen, Keil, and Zeller
2013), implying other factors are important for risk preference. Risk attitudes may
be more dynamic and context-dependent then commonly assumed (Figner and
Weber 2011; Mandrik and Bao 2005).
Consideration of emotions associated with risk, however, did provide some additional insights. Open discussions around risk-taking in coin toss lottery gambles, in
the tablet game, and in real-life decisions conrmed that farmers analyze personal
observations and experience in making decisions involving risks. The language used
and reasoning given, however, also suggests that handling climate-related risks
invoke emotional responses in addition to analytical ones. Farmers worry, get frustrated, and fear the risks of major losses. They also experience excitement from taking risks, and feel happy and relieved when they succeed and make a prot. The
task of taking care of sh itself is often a source of contentment, which is likely to
positively reinforce monitoring and other risk management actions.
In the introduction to this paper we noted three unexpected ndings from a previous study on learning about risks (Lebel et al. 2016). The ndings in this present
study offer partial explanations. First, the observation that farmers found it harder to
learn when risks of oods were common or getting more frequent, might be
explained by feelings of frustration arising from unexplained failure, leading to a situation in which rational appraisals of risk are no longer trusted. Alternatively, they
may resort to wishful thinking: in the tablet game farmers tended to increasingly
under-estimate ood risks as they became more common. Second, the observation
that farmers did not adjust stocking behavior in response to higher magnitude
impacts of ood events, as would expect from analysis, suggests that they pay more
quantitative attention to gains and more qualitative emotional reactions to losses.
Farmers were more likely to refer to gains when talking about why they chose riskier options, but more likely to refer to losses when talking about safer options. This
nding appears to be inconsistent with previous experimental work that showed student subjects make more risky decisions when options are framed in terms of losses
rather than gains (Cassotti et al. 2012). Third, the low value of information on the
likelihood of oods to making decisions, may reect the feelings farmers have on
uncertainty with respect to risks as a consequence of the perceived variability and
changes in climate. Many past studies have found that ambiguity in risks leads to
higher risk aversion (Akay et al. 2012; Alpizar, Carlsson, and Naranjo 2011).
Women and men expressed similar emotions when discussing sh farming risks,
with a few exceptions. Men were more likely to record pride and frustration. Interviews suggested a few other differences, for instance, that women worry more and
were less condent in making investment decisions a commonly observed pattern
(Koellinger, Minniti, and Schade 2013). One of the few age-related differences in

Journal of Risk Research

15

emotions related to risks was a decline in excitement with age. Similarly, a study
looking at stress in farmers in South Australia during drought found no signicant
differences in reported stress levels between men and women (Kwok et al. 2010);
however, younger farmers reported being more stressed than older farmers.
Emotions were important in three different time periods of the sh farming decision cycle. First, before making a stocking decision, farmers worried about whether
or not they were making the right choice, whether future conditions would be suitable, and feared the consequences of major losses. Second, after making a stocking
decision, but while still waiting for the outcome, farmers increasingly became anxious as harvest approached, at which time investment risk also increased as sh feed
is a high-cost input. Third, after the outcome was known, farmers were satised and
happy or disappointed and sad, depending on the yields and prots they made. This
emotional reaction may have implications for the next risk decision (i.e. next
harvest).
In reecting on the decisions they make, farmers rarely acknowledge a direct
role of emotions. They emphasize experience and analytical arguments as being
behind their decisions. However, our experimental ndings of behavior in the tablet
game and in the in-depth interviews suggest this is not always the case. Emotions
do not inuence risk decisions alone or independently of all other variables. Some
observations, for example, showed that situations like being in debt or having many
dependents can amplify anxiety and disappointment when they suffered losses. In
other cases, analytical and emotional processes interacted; for example, when fear
reinforces analytical arguments that risks are high, it is important to reduce risks by
stocking less or taking other precautions. Fear and anxiety prior to harvest, for
instance, motivated risk management practices, such as close monitoring and aeration. Evidence in this study suggests that emotions and perceptions may also interact. Thus, perceptions of worsening conditions amplied feelings of anxiety, while
frustration arising from repeated failures reinforced perceptions that risks were
becoming more uncertain.
The ndings of this study have implications for future studies on climate risk
management in aquaculture. First, the ndings imply that emotions are relevant and
help farmers reach decisions on whether or not to stock and at what level. Estimating climate-related risks based on reections upon experiences is difcult (Lebel
et al. 2016), and involves dealing with signicant uncertainties even though climate
is strongly seasonal. Being worried about the health of sh before harvest motivates
farmers to take risk management actions. Fear of mass mortality events and a large
nancial loss motivates farmers to avoid rearing sh in the riskiest parts of the year,
reinforcing thinking based on more analytical reasoning. Second, conventional measures of risk aversion had low explanatory power, suggesting that the idea of a xed
attitude towards risk may not be useful for this particular group of farmers. It seems
to be more important to consider a farmers situation, information available, and the
emotional state. Third, because climate change can seem distant, it is not an issue of
immediate worry or concern, and therefore not something which is acted upon
(Weber 2006). Climate-related risks, on the other hand, are signicant today, a
source of worry for sh farmers, and therefore something they act upon when they
can. A focus on improving the management of climate-related risks may be a practical approach to adaptation. Fourth, in communicating climate-related risks, it may
be worthwhile referring to personal experiences and associated emotional responses
to past extreme events (Vasileiadou and Botzen 2014). Fish farmers value the

16

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

sharing of information about risks and knowledge on how to manage those risks
with other farmers (Lebel et al., Climate Risk Management, 2015).
The design of this study had some limitations. First, most of the evidence came
from decisions made by individuals working alone: in the role-playing game, making choices on the risk aversion scale, and answering interview questions. In the real
world, sh farmers consult with each other about risks. Experimental studies suggest
those in groups are less risk-averse, and more ambiguity (or uncertainty) averse
(Brunette, Cabantous, and Couture 2015). Second, our analysis of emotions was largely descriptive. Future work should include experimental methods to test the effects
of emotions on decisions situations as relevant as possible to those in the eld.
Third, our study was based on memory, and as a result, was likely to have been
affected by biases, such as most recent experience or most memorable events.
5. Conclusions
Emotions have been neglected in most previous studies of climate risk management,
while it has been common to measure risk attitudes. Emotions were shown to be
important in making investment or stocking decisions, in managing sh farms prior
to harvest, and in reaction to the success of a harvest. Fear, for example, was a reason for not taking risks, as well as motivating risk management practices such as
close monitoring and aeration once the decision to stock had been taken. Situations like being in debt or having others depend on you amplied emotions, both
positive and negative ones. Overall, the ndings of this study suggest that emotions
may play a more important role in making decisions about climate-related risks than
was previously recognized.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Patcharawalai Sriyasak and Chatta Duangsuwan for helping with data collection,
Chalisa Kallayanamitra for comments on earlier draft, and Boripat Lebel for editorial
assistance.

Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
[grant number 107087] as a contribution to the AQUADAPT project.

References
Abdelhak, S., J. Sulaiman, and S. Mohd. 2012. The Impact of Psychological Factors and
Religious Adherence on Households Dealing with Poverty-driven Vulnerability Situation: A Critical Discourse on Kelantan and Terengganu. Asian Social Science 8 (12):
192200.
Akay, A., P. Martinsson, H. Medhin, and S. T. Trautmann. 2012. Attitudes toward Uncertainty among the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Ethiopia. Theory and Decision 73 (3):
453464.

Journal of Risk Research

17

Alpizar, F., F. Carlsson, and M. A. Naranjo. 2011. The Effect of Ambiguous Risk, and
Coordination on Farmers Adaptation to Climate Change A Framed Field Experiment.
Ecological Economics 70 (12): 23172326. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.004.
Anh, T. T., T. V. G. Phong, and M. Mulenga. 2014. Community Consultation for Climate
Resilient Housing: A Comparative Case Study in Vietnam. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (Part A): 201212. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.09.012.
Bergfjord, O. J. 2009. Risk Perception and Risk Management in Norwegian Aquaculture.
Journal of Risk Research 12 (1): 91104. doi:10.1080/13669870802488941.
Breakwell, G. M. 2010. Models of Risk Construction: Some Applications to Climate
Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (6): 857870. doi:10.1002/
wcc.74.
Brumby, S., A. Chandrasekara, S. Mccoombe, P. Kremer, and P. Lewandowski. 2011. Farming
Fit? Dispelling the Australian Agrarian Myth. BMC Research Notes 4: 89. doi:10.1186/
1756-0500-4-89.
Brunette, M., L. Cabantous, and S. Couture. 2015. Are Individuals More Risk and Ambiguity
Averse in a Group Environment or Alone? Results from an Experimental Study. Theory
and Decision 78 (3): 357376. doi:10.1007/s11238-014-9432-5.
Bryant, L., and B. Garnham. 2014. Economies, Ethics and Emotions: Farmer Distress within
the Moral Economy of Agribusiness. Journal of Rural Studies 34: 304312.
Bryant, L., and B. Garnham. 2015. The Fallen Hero: Masculinity, Shame and Farmer
Suicide in Australia. Gender, Place and Culture 22 (1): 6782.
Carlton, J. S., A. S. Mase, C. L. Knutson, M. C. Lemos, T. Haigh, D. P. Todey, and
L. S. Prokopy. 2016. The Effects of Extreme Drought on Climate Change Beliefs, Risk
Perceptions, and Adaptation Attitudes. Climatic Change 135 (2): 211226. doi:10.1007/
s10584-015-1561-5.
Cassotti, M., M. Habib, N. Poirel, A. Ate, O. Houd, and S. Moutier. 2012. Positive
Emotional Context Eliminates the Framing Effect in Decision-making. Emotion 12 (5):
926931. doi:10.1037/a0026788.
Dasgupta, S., and C. Engle. 2007. Impact of Low Catsh Prices on Economically Efcient
Feeding and Optimal Stocking Densities of Channel Catsh, Ictalurus Punctatus, in
Multi-batch Production in the U.S. South. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 19 (2): 6782.
Demiryrek, K., V. Ceyhan, and M. Bozolu. 2012. Risk Attitudes of Organic and Conventional Hazelnut Producers in Turkey. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 18 (2): 471482.
Figner, B., and E. U. Weber. 2011. Who Takes Risks When and Why?: Determinants of
Risk Taking. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20 (4): 211216. doi:10.1177/
0963721411415790.
Fussel, M. H. 2005. Vulnerability in Climate Change Research: A Comprehensive
Conceptual Framework. In Breslauer Symposium. University of California: eScholarship
Repository.
Gebreegziabher, K., and T. Tadesse. 2014. Risk Perception and Management in Smallholder
Dairy Farming in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Risk Research 17 (3): 367381.
doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.815648.
Hansson, H., and C. J. Lagerkvist. 2012. Measuring Farmers Preferences for Risk: A
Domain-specic Risk Preference Scale. Journal of Risk Research 15 (7): 737753.
Holt, C., and S. Laury. 2002. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic
Review 92 (5): 16441655.
Hu, Y., D. Wang, K. Pang, G. Xu, and J. Guo. 2015. The Effect of Emotion and Time
Pressure on Risk Decision-making. Journal of Risk Research 18 (5): 637650.
doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.910688.
Jakimow, T. 2014. Gambling on Livelihoods. Asian Journal of Social Science 42 (34):
409434.
Jin, D., H. Kite-Powell, and P. Hoagland. 2005. Risk Assessment in Open-ocean Aquaculture:
A Firm-level Investment-production Model. Aquaculture Economics and Management
9 (3): 369387.
Kwok, K. W., S. Chan, C. Heng, S. Kim, B. Neth, and V. Thon. 2010. Scoping Study:
Research Capacities of Cambodias Universities. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development
Resource Institute. 65 p.

18

L. Lebel and P. Lebel

Koellinger, P., M. Minniti, and C. Schade. 2013. Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial

Propensity*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 75 (2): 213234. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-0084.2011.00689.x.
Kripa, V., and V. Surendranathan. 2008. Social Impact and Women Empowerment through
Mussel Farming in Kerala, India. Development 51: 199204.
Krongkaew, M. 2004. The Development of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS): Real
Promise or False Hope? Journal of Asian Economics 15 (5): 977998. doi:10.1016/
j.asieco.2004.09.006.
Kugler, T., T. Connolly, and L. D. Ordez. 2012. Emotion, Decision, and Risk: Betting
on Gambles versus Betting on People. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25 (2):
123134. doi:10.1002/bdm.724.
Lebel, P., P. Sriyasak, C. Kallayanamitra, C. Duangsuwan, and L. Lebel. 2016. Learning
about Climate-related Risks: Decisions of Northern Thailand Fish Farmers in a Roleplaying Simulation Game. Regional Environmental Change 16 (5): 14811494.
doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0880-4.
Lebel, P., N. Whangchai, C. Chitmanat, and L. Lebel. 2015. Climate Risk Management in
River-based Tilapia Cage Culture in Northern Thailand. International Journal of
Climate Change Strategies and Management 7 (4): 476498.
Lebel, P., N. Whangchai, C. Chitmanat, and L. Lebel. 2015. Risk of Impacts from Extreme
Weather and Climate in River-based Tilapia Cage Culture in Northern Thailand. International Journal of Global Warming 8 (4): 534554.
Lebel, P., N. Whangchai, C. Chitmanat, J. Promya, and L. Lebel. 2015. Perceptions of
Climate-related Risks and Awareness of Climate Change of Fish Cage Farmers in Northern
Thailand. Risk Management 17: 122. doi:10.1057/rm.2015.4.
Lerner, J. S., and D. Keltner. 2000. Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-specic
Inuences on Judgement and Choice. Cognition and Emotion 14 (4): 473493.
Loewenstein, G., E. U. Weber, C. Hsee, and N. Welch. 2001. Risk as Feelings. Psychological
Bulletin 127 (2): 267286.
Macchi, M. 2011. Framework for Community-based Climate Vulnerability and Capacity
Assessment in Mountain Areas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Mandrik, C., and Y. Bao. 2005. Exploring the Concept and Measurement of General Risk
Aversion. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 531539.
Mason, J. 2006. Mixing Methods in a Qualitatively Driven Way. Qualitative Research
6 (1): 925.
Menapace, L., G. Colson, and R. Raffaelli. 2013. Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and
Farmer Risk Management Strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
95 (2): 384389. doi:10.1093/ajae/aas107.
Nielsen, T., A. Keil, and M. Zeller. 2013. Assessing Farmers Risk Preferences and their
Determinants in a Marginal Upland Area of Vietnam: A Comparison of Multiple Elicitation Techniques. Agricultural Economics 44 (3): 255273.
Nyikal, R. A., and W. O. Kosura. 2005. Risk Preference and Optimal Enterprise Combinations in Kahuro Division of Muranga District, Kenya. Agricultural Economics 32 (2):
131140.
Pennesi, K. 2013. Predictions as Lies in Cear, Brazil: The Intersection of Two Cultural
Models. Anthropological Quarterly 86 (3): 759789. doi:10.1353/anq.2013.0038.
Petersen, E., and S. Schilizzi. 2010. The Impact of Price and Yield Risk on the Bioeconomics of Reservoir Aquaculture in Northern Vietnam. Aquaculture Economics and
Management 14 (3): 185201.
Pratoomchai, W., S. Kazama, S. Manandhar, C. Ekkawatpanit, S. Saphaokham, D. Komori,
and J. Thongduang. 2015. Sharing of Peoples Perceptions of past and Future Hydrometeorological Changes in the Groundwater Use Area. Water Resources Management
29 (10): 38073821. doi:10.1007/s11269-015-1030-y.
Reynaud, A., and S. Couture. 2012. Stability of Risk Preference Measures: Results from a
Field Experiment on French Farmers. Theory and Decision 73 (2): 203221.
Saleh Sa, A., W. James Smith, and Z. Liu. 2012. Rural Nevada and Climate Change:
Vulnerability, Beliefs, and Risk Perception. Risk Analysis 32 (6): 10411059.

Journal of Risk Research

19

Schlsser, T., D. Dunning, and D. Fetchenhauer. 2013. What a Feeling: The Role of Immediate and Anticipated Emotions in Risky Decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making 26 (1): 1330. doi:10.1002/bdm.757.
Sjberg, L. 2007. Emotions and Risk Perception. Risk Management 9: 223237.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250038.
Vasileiadou, E., and W. J. W. Botzen. 2014. Communicating Adaptation with Emotions:
The Role of Intense Experiences in Raising Concern about Extreme Weather. Ecology
and Society 19 (2): 36. doi:10.5751/ES-06474-190236.
Weber, E. U. 2006. Experience-based and Description-based Perceptions of Long-term Risk:
Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (Yet). Climatic Change 77 (12): 103120.
doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.