Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology

  • Volume 29
  • /
  • Pages.13.1-13.11
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 2671-9525(eISSN)
The Korean Society of Environmental Health and Toxicology (환경독성보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Risk and culture: variations in dioxin risk perceptions, behavioral preferences among social groups in South Korea

  • Park, Seohyun (Department of Environmental Engineering, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Jong Guk (Department of Environmental Engineering, Chonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2014.07.23
  • Accepted : 2014.09.11
  • Published : 2014.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives This study examined variations in the perceptions of dioxin risk among social groups defined by geographical living location, environmental education, and occupation. Dioxin risk perceptions were analyzed according to values, risk awareness, knowledge, and behavioral preferences. Methods A quasi-experimental survey was designed and conducted on individuals from seven experimental groups in Jeonju city, South Korea, including: people living near incineration facilities; people living far from incineration facilities; governmental experts; non-governmental organization members; office workers in developmental institutes or banks; students who were enrolled in environmental-related classes; and students who were enrolled in business-related classes. Results The results show variations among groups in values, awareness and behavioral preferences. Particular attention should be given to the result that groups with higher connectedness-to-nature values show higher willingness-to-act (WTA) for risk reduction. Result s can be summarized as follows. First, awareness is associated with one's geographical setting. Second, values and WTA behaviors are related to one's environmental-related education and occupation. Third, values are significantly related to WTA behaviors. Conclusions Different cultures, in terms of values or worldview, among groups influence their perceptions of dioxin risk and choices of risk reduction behaviors. It is important to consider values in communicating complicated long-term risk management involving public participation. Further research should be continuously conducted on the effects of multiple dimensions of values on one's WTA for risk reduction behaviors.

Keywords

References

  1. Sasidharan V, Thapa B. Ethnicity and variations in wildlife concern: exploring the socio-structural and sociopsychological bases of wildlife values; 2004 [cited 2014 Sep 3]. Available from: http://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/snr07043j.pdf.
  2. Renn O, Rohrmann B. Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies. Boston: Kluwer; 2000, p. 105-143.
  3. Hahm, MI, Kwon HJ, Lee HY, Park HG, Lee SG. Differences of experts and non-experts in perceiving environmental and technological risks. J Envrion Health Sci 2009;35(4):269-277 (Korean).
  4. Park CY, Chang EA, Shin DC, Lim YW, Choi WH. Related factors of environmental risk perception among general public and experts. Korean J Environ Toxicol 2001;16(2):85-95 (Korean).
  5. Douglas M, Wildavsky AB. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982, p. 194.
  6. Pidgeon NF, Kasperson RE, Slovic P. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003, p. 5.
  7. Burgman BA. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005, p. 452.
  8. Park S. Social and cultural aspects of dioxin risk: factors influencing variation in perception of risk and responsibility in Jeonju City, Korea [dissertation]. Syracuse: State University of New York; 2008.
  9. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon: IARC Press; 1997, p. 9-27.
  10. Kogevinas M. Human health effects of dioxins: cancer, reproductive and endocrine system effects. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7(3):331-339. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/7.3.331
  11. Kasperson RE. The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social theories of risk. Westport: Praeger; 1992, p. 153-178.
  12. Rohrmann B. Cross-cultural studies on the perception and evaluation of hazards. In: Renn O, Rohrmann B, editors. Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2000, p. 103-143.
  13. Halfmann J. Community and life-chances: risk movements in the United States and Germany. Environ Values 1999;8(2):177-197. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327199129341789
  14. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236(4799):280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  15. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichetenstein S. Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kaspersonin JX, editors. Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology. Boulder: Westview Press; 1985, p. 91-125.
  16. Brenot J, Bonnefous S, Marris C. Testing the cultural theory of risk in France. Risk Anal 1998;18(6):729-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01116.x
  17. Jackson J, Allum N, Gaskell G. Bridging levels of analysis in risk perception research: the case of the fear of crime [cited 2014 Sep 20]. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/15516/.
  18. Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn JO. Current directions in risk research: new developments in psychology and sociology. Risk Anal 2006;26(2): 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00746.x
  19. Park S, Smardon RC. Worldview and social amplification of risk framework: dioxin risk case in Korea. Int J Appl Environ Sci 2011; 6(2):173-191.
  20. Weber EU, Hsee CK. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Manag Sci 1998;44(9):1205-1217. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205
  21. Sjoberg L. Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Human Ecol Rev 1999;6(2):1-9.
  22. Jacobs L, Worthley R. A comparative study of risk appraisal: a new look at risk assessment in different countries. Environ Monit Assess 1999;59:225-247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006163606270
  23. Vaughan E, Nordenstam B. The perception of environmental risks among ethnically diverse groups. J Cross Cult Psychol 1991; 22(1): 29-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221005
  24. Chang EA, Park CY, Lim YW, Shin DC. A comparison of environmental risk perceptions between general public and experts. Korean J Environ Toxicol 2001;16(2):75-84 (Korean).
  25. Cha YJ. An analysis of nuclear risk perception: with focus on developing effective policy alternatives. Int Rev Public Admin 2004; 8(2):33-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2004.10805027
  26. Kemp R. Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom. Environ Plan A 1990;22(9):1239-1258. https://doi.org/10.1068/a221239
  27. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1991;254(5038):1603-1607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603
  28. DiMento JF, Graymer L, editors. Confronting regional challenges: approaches to LULUs, growth, and other vexing governance problems: the Sixth Annual Donald G. Hagman Commemorative Conference. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; 1991.
  29. Freudenburg WR, Pastor SK. NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes. J Soc Issues 1992;48(4):39-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01944.x
  30. Schively C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J Plan Lit 2007;21(3):255-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412206295845
  31. Jeong HS, Lee SW. A study on the development of green movement and its policy impacts in Korea. J Environ Policy Admin 1994;2(1): 85-101 (Korean).
  32. Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated approach. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991, p, 277-303.
  33. Babbie ER. Survey research methods. Belmont: Wadworth Pub.; 1998, p. 97-98.
  34. Mayer FS, Frantz CM. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol 2004;24(4):503-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
  35. Leopold A. A Sand County Almanac: with essays on conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books; 1949.