Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differences of Experts and Non-experts in Perceiving Environmental and Technological Risks

전문가와 비전문가의 환경 및 과학기술 위험에 대한 위해도 인식 차이

  • Hahm, Myung-Il (Department of U-Healthcare management, College of Medical Science, Soonchunhyaning University) ;
  • Kwon, Ho-Jang (Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Hoo-Yeon (National Cancer Control Research Institute, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Park, Hwa-Gyoo (Department of U-Healthcare management, College of Medical Science, Soonchunhyaning University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Gyu (Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University)
  • 함명일 (순천향대학교 의료과학대학 보건행정경영학과) ;
  • 권호장 (단국대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 이후연 (국립암센터 국가암관리사업단) ;
  • 박화규 (순천향대학교 의료과학대학 보건행정경영학과) ;
  • 이상규 (단국대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실)
  • Received : 2009.06.09
  • Accepted : 2009.07.20
  • Published : 2009.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The objective of this study was to examine how experts and the public perceived various environmental and technological hazards based on psychometric paradigm. Methods : We conducted a survey that included 30 hazards and 10 risk attributes. Subjects of this study were 214 people with three groups; (1) experts (55 people), (2) graduates( 78 people), (3) under graduates (81 people). Factor analysis was used to confirm the common risk attribute from 8 risk attributes. Also, multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors influencing on perceived risk and benefit of hazards. Results : This study revealed that experts tend to be more tolerant than graduates and under graduate students for the 30 hazards. Using factor analysis, two main factors were identified: factor 1, commonly called "Dread Risk", and factors 2, commonly called, "Unknown Risk" in the literature. We identified that environmental hormone concentration and global warming ranked high in both dread risk and unknown risk. Multiple regression models were used to test the association of perceived social risk and perceived social benefit with two main factors. Dread risk had significant explanatory power on perceived social risk and benefit. We identified that the experts were less likely to perceived dread risk and know more information about the hazards. Conclusions : There were differences of risk perception between experts and lay people. Especially, experts' perception of risk was commonly lower than other people's perception.

Keywords

References

  1. Sokolowska, J., Tyszka, T. : Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analysis, 15(6), 733-743, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01345.x
  2. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S : Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In Slovic P. The perception of risk. Earthscan, 32-50, 2000
  3. Park, D. : Possible health risk over table. Journal of Environmental Health Sciences, 35(3), 235-238
  4. Slovic, P. : The perception of risk. Earthscan, 2000
  5. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B. : How safe is safe enough? a psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefit. Policy Science, 9, 127-152, 1978 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
  6. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. : Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In Schwing RC and Albers WA Jr. (ed) Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? New York, Plenum, 1980
  7. Slovic, P. : Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285, 1987 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  8. Renn, O. : Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 49-71, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377321
  9. Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R. R., Lowinger, T. C. : Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis, 13, 449-455, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00745.x
  10. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B. : Gender, race and environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x
  11. Karpowicz-Lazerg, C., Mullet, E. : Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253-258, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01076.x
  12. Kleinhesselink, R., Rosa, E. : Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 11-28, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221004
  13. Nyland, L. G. : Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. Risk Research Report, 15, 1993
  14. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., Slovic, P. : Societal risks as seen by the Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 1, 111-130, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960010205
  15. Rohrmann, B. : Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparison. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 150-163, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1080/00049539408259490
  16. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., Wiek, A. : Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59-69, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x
  17. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., Slovic, P. : Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289-1299, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x
  18. Cha, Y.-J. : Risk perception in Korea: An application of psychometric paradigm. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 1(1/2), 42-45, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2000.001487
  19. Cha, Y.-J. : Risk perception in Korea: A comparison with Japan and the United States. Journal of Risk Research, 3(4), 321-332, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870050132540
  20. Zhai, G., Suzuki, T. : Risk perception in Northeast Asia. Environ Monit Asssess Epub DOI 10.1007/s10661-008-0524-y, 2008
  21. Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C., Fisher, A. : Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 179-193, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202019
  22. Bronfma n, N. C., Cifuentes, L . A. : Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1271-1285, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00400.x
  23. Lai, J. C., Tao, J. : Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 669-684, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00346
  24. Rundmo, T., Moen, B. E. : Risk perception and demand for risk mitigation in transport: A comparison of lay people, politicians and experts. Journal of Risk Research, 9(6), 623-640, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870600813811
  25. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., Sandoe, P. : Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41, 111-112, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5
  26. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kiers, H. A. L. : A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25(1), 211-222, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x
  27. Barnett, J., Breakwell, G. M. : Risk perception and experience: Hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 171-177, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.211099

Cited by

  1. A Study of the Risk Communication on Management Policy of Asbestos Related Stakeholders vol.24, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2014.24.1.079
  2. Risk and culture: variations in dioxin risk perceptions, behavioral preferences among social groups in South Korea vol.29, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2014013
  3. Survey on Awareness for Environmental Health Risk of Fetus and Infant in Reproductive-aged Women vol.41, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2018.41.2.35