DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE publich health concern

Understanding the assumptions implicit in external definitions of dangerous climate

change and their implications for perceptions of danger is important for

developing a holistic understanding of climate risk management. Internal perceptions

of danger have been considerably under-researched in the area of climate

change. Yet the distinction between danger as an ‘objective’ measure and danger as

experienced is well established and well recognised in other public policy areas. In

the analysis of the causes and consequences of famine, for example, both external

and internal definitions are recognised – external definitions are often related to

food availability while internal definitions relate to perceptions of danger which

trigger displacement migration or other extreme coping behaviour (de Waal, 1989;

Devereaux, 1993). Similarly, in identifying poverty as the basis for social welfare

policy, material aspects of poverty are easily quantified to externally define a

poverty line, whereas marginalisation and social exclusion derive from how poverty

is actually experienced (Townsend, 1962; Blackwood and Lynch, 1994). Comparable

distinctions are also made in various areas of public health (Woodward,

2002). In these other areas of societal concern the emphasis on external or internal

definitions of risk and danger leads to widely divergent public policy responses.

Methods that can be applied to elicit individual or societal perceptions of risk and

dangerous climate change include revealed preference and psychometric studies.

The interplay between internal and external definitions can be examined using the

social amplification of risk framework and participatory integrated assessment.