Findings from a National Survey of Attitudes about Terrorism
Article
Article [pdf]
Letters & CommentsThomas Stinson
Thomas F. Stinson is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, teaching courses in macro-economics and public finance. Since 1987 he has served as the Minnesota state economist where his duties include preparation of the state revenue forecast. He received his PhD in economics from the University of Minnesota.
AUTHOR:Jean Kinsey
Jean Kinsey is professor of Applied Economics and co-director of The Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota — a Sloan Industry Studies Center. She teaches courses in the economics of consumer behavior and food marketing economics. Her research includes studies of consumer food behavior, retail food industry development, and food supply chains. She received her PhD from the University of California-Davis.
AUTHOR:Dennis Degeneffe
Dennis Degeneffe is a research fellow at The Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota where he conducts research and does outreach programming on topics related to the food industry. He is also principal consultant and owner of Consumer Centric Solutions LLC of St. Paul, MN, specializing in strategic marketing research and new product innovation.
AUTHOR:Koel Ghosh
Koel Ghosh is a research associate with The Food Industry Center in the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus. She received her PhD in Agricultural, Environmental, and Regional Economics from Pennsylvania State University. Currently a scholar of the food industry, she contributes to the center’s research by leading the statistical and empirical components of the research.
How Would Americans Allocate Anti-Terrorism Spending?
Findings from a National Survey of Attitudes about Terrorism
ABSTRACT:
U.S. residents are very concerned about terrorist attacks and they are willing to commit substantial sums to prevent further terrorist incidents,
according to the results of a large national survey of the public’s thoughts about terrorism.
Protecting against another 9/11-style incident is essential, but American’s are more concerned about protecting the food supply system
and preventing the release of chemical or biologic agents in congested public areas.
The survey finds that, on average, the public would allocate 13.3 percent more to protect the food supply chain and 12.0 percent more
to protect against release of a toxic chemical or biologic agent than to protect against another terrorist attack using hijacked aircraft.
No one would argue that decisions on the size and internal allocation of the nation’s homeland security budget should be made solely on the basis of a public opinion survey,
but measures of consumers’ concerns about alternative terrorism actions should be considered in future budgetary decisions.
Read full article.
Acknowledgments:
This research was supported by the United States Department of Homeland Security through the National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD),
grant number N-00014-04-1-0659.
However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this document
are those of the authors an do not necessarily reflect the policy and positions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The work was also supported by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station projects MIN 14-048 and MIN-14-093 and The Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota.
The Food Industry Center is an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Industry Study Center.
SUGGESTED CITATION:
Stinson, Thomas F. et. al. “How Would Americans Allocate Anti-Terrorism Spending? Findings from a National Survey of Attitudes about Terrorism.” Homeland Security Affairs III, no. 2 (June 2007)http://www.hsaj.org/?article=3.2.3