In the case of risk adverse situations, it is possible to make contradictory preferences when the problem comes in different forms. In other words, choices are made depending on the circumstances. The risk aversion occurs when the positive outcome is smaller, though with greater certainty. The situation is different when the reward is greater with less uncertainty. On the other hand, the risk adverse situation is when the reward is greater with little uncertainty. The preferences and the situations of the outcome determine its desirability. Moreover, the risk adverse situation is where the cost or the failure of obtaining the positive outcome is unacceptable. However, the outcome is influenced by the presentation, circumstances or framing. In other words, a person making decisions would be influenced by the choice of behaviors depending on the circumstances or the framing, even when the outcome is not changed.
The approaches presented in biodiversity presents a situation in adverse risk cases. Majority perceive such risks as known, controllable and not immediate. In most cases, it is easier to determine the outcome of such risks. The risk adverse scenarios present the conservationists with tough decisions when faced with different situations. The risk adverse situations can be modified by the frames as well as the emotional motivations. Therefore, when used to assess the environmental outcomes, the decisions are likely to be different depending on the situation as well as the emotional perception. In other words, the decision outcome depends on the manner in which the observers perceive the situation.
Risk adverse scenario can be applied to assess the consequences of the situations that involve the biodiversity outcomes. Drake, Mercader, Dobson and Mandrak used the risk aversion to predict the risky human behavior patterns concerning the invasive species1. Risk adverse assessments utilize the perceptions or are emotionally driven depending on the situations presented. Therefore, it is easier for researchers to identify behavior patterns depending on the manner in which the environmental issue is presented. In determining the type of aspects that increases probability of risky behaviors, Drake, Mercader, Dobson and Mandrak analyzed the social discernment concerning the insidious genus, the perceptions on the natural resources management, the belief systems as well as the outreach program for live bait anglers in Ontario. The researchers predicted the risky behavior depending on the variation observed in social perceptions. Irrespective of all the circumstances, the responded exhibited the willingness to contribute to the prevention management, despite a reasonable agreement that the invasive species creates negative impact on the natural resources.
Similarly, Hulme utilized the risk adverse to assess the impact of alien species introduced intentionally or unintentionally in new areas round the globe by the human activities2. Hulme described different situations in which alien species could be introduced particularly, through transportation means and globalization. Hulme’s study explored the diverse critical situations reinforcing pathway risk assessment.
Both the studies indicated how risk adverse could be used to assess risk behavioral patterns involving approaches in biodiversity. In both study frames, the decisions by individuals involved depended on their perception of the outcomes and the certainty of the risks. However, the perception may change depending on how it is presented. In both cases, the outcome is presented as greater compared with certainty of the risks involved3. The perception of the individuals has been persuaded by the manner in which the situation is presented. As a result, the decisions are made depending on the circumstances.
In risk tolerance, the sensitivity of the outcomes is linked to its magnitude and consequences. Other factors would depend on the individual perceptions and used as a mitigating factors. In the situations where majority of individuals feel that they are in control of the situation, there is increased risk tolerance4. Besides, there will be increased risk tolerance when many choices are presented. On the other hand, risk intolerance would come about when there is fear of uncertainty. Moreover, when the consequences are uncertain, the intolerability of the risk increases.
The reactions and the attributes of climate change is an example of risk tolerance situation. As indicated, tolerance to the risk will depend on the certainty of the consequences. The problems with climate change present a situation where the future generations are at greater risk5. Besides, the consequences are uncertain. Moreover, the degree of the consequences of the climate change makes it even more intolerable risk. In other words, the outcome of the climate change is even more dreadful. The climate change presents a situation where tolerable risk can be applied to assess the outcome. The approaches to issues associated with environment can be assessed through the application of both risk adverse and risk tolerance.
Risk adverse can be utilized to assess the risk behaviors in biodiversity depending on the goal of the program. In most cases people will react to the situation depending on how it is presented. For instance, in the circumstances of conserving the endangered species, the conservationist can present the situation to create the immediate need and increase concern to the immediate communities. On the other hand, risk tolerance can be applied to assess the risk behaviors in serious issues that involve environment such as climate change.