한국방재안전학회논문집 (Journal of Korean Society of Disaster and Security)

  • 제13권4호
  • /
  • Pages.47-63
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2466-1147(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2508-285X(eISSN)
한국방재안전학회 (Korean Society of Disaster & Security)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

재난에 대한 인식이 정부신뢰에 미치는 영향

Impact of Disaster Awareness on Government Trust

  • 이영진 (충북대학교 방재공학과)
  • Lee, Youngjin (Disaster Prevention Engineering, Chungbuk National University)
  • 투고 : 2020.10.05
  • 심사 : 2020.12.01
  • 발행 : 2020.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 한국인의 사회재난에 대한 위험인식 수준이 정부에 대한 신뢰에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 사회재난 유형에 따른 재난위험 인식 수준 차이와 사회재난 위험인식 수준이 정부신뢰에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 예비조사에서 위험성 정도가 높은 3개 사회재난 유형(조류독감, 미세먼지, 핵발전소)을 추출하였으며, 본 조사는 20세 이상 한국인 성인 남녀 1,109명을 대상으로 실시하였다. 분석결과, 첫째, 사회재난 인식 수준은 사회재난 유형에 따라 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 사회재난에 대한 자발성, 개인적 지식, 친숙도, 심각성, 두려움, 회복가능성 위험은 정부신뢰에 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 사회재난에 대한 지연성 위험 인식은 정부신뢰에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 사회재난에 대한 과학적 지식, 통제가능성, 치명성, 발현시기 위험 인식은 정부신뢰에 부정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 결론에서는 본 연구의 시사점 및 한계점을 서술하였다.

This study aimed to investigate the effects of social disaster risk perception levels of Koreans on government trust. To this end, differences in disaster risk perception levels based on social disaster types and the effects of social disaster risk perception levels on government trust were analyzed. In the preliminary survey, three types of social disasters with high risk levels (bird flu, fine dust, and nuclear power plants) were selected. The survey was conducted on 1,109 Korean men and women aged 20 years and older. First, the analysis results demonstrated that social disaster perception levels differed based on social disaster types. Second, the results showed that, in terms of social disasters, proactivity, personal knowledge, familiarity, severity, fear, and risk associated with chances of recovery did not affect government trust. Third, the perception of delayed social disaster risk had a positive effect on government trust. Fourth, scientific knowledge about social disasters, control capabilities, lethality, and risk perception at the onset time had a negative effect on government trust. In conclusion, the implications and limitations of this study were discussed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bak, H. J. (2012). Public Perceptions of the Risk of BSE and the Risk-Avoidance Behavior in Korea. The Journal of Rural Society 22(1): 311-341.
  2. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, Arousal, and Stereotypic Judgments: A Heuristic Model of Affect and Stereotyping. In D.M. Mackie & D.L.
  3. Brehm, J. and Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital. American Journal of Political Science. 41(3): 999-1023. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111684
  4. Cha, Y. J. (2012). Risk Perception Model and Nuclear Risk: Test and Application of Psychometric Paradigm. Korean Policy Studies Review. 21(1): 285-312.
  5. Choi, H. J. (2017). Research of Risk Communication Strategy for the Enhancement of Environmental Risk Perception and Eco-friendly Behavioral Intention: Application of Construal-Level Theory on Global Warming and Particulate Matter Risk Message. Doctoral Dissertation. Graduate School of Sungkyunkwan University.
  6. Choi, J. S. (2009). A Study on the Social Amplification Factors Of Risk Perception. Korean Policy Sciences Review. 13(3): 165-188.
  7. Chung, I. J. (2014). A Study on Risk Perception and Policy Implication : A Psychometric Analysis of Korean Perception for Technological Risks. Journal of the Korean Society of Safety. 29(1): 80-85. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2014.29.1.080
  8. Chung, I. J. (2018). A Study on Mass Media and Risk Perception: Application of Facilitated Group Modeling to Social Risks. Journal of the Korean Society of Safety. 33(2): 124-131. https://doi.org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2018.33.2.124
  9. Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in Risk Management: A Model-based Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 30(4): 541-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x
  10. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (Vol. 99). New York, NY: Free press.
  11. Heo, S. Y. and Yoon, S. W. (2013). Analysis of Consumer's Risk Perception about Food Safety through the Analytic Lens of Psychometric Paradigm. Korean Journal of Food Marketing Economics. 30(2): 97-116.
  12. Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The Political Relevance of Political Trust. American Political Science Review. 92(4): 791-808. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586304
  13. Huang, L., Han, Y., Zhou, Y., Gutscher, H., and Bi, J. (2013). How do the Chinese Perceive Ecological Risk in Freshwater Lakes? PLoS ONE, 8(5): e62486. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062486
  14. Jeong, J. Y. and Kim, S. Y. (2014). Exploratory Analysis of the Multidimensionality of Trust and Nuclear Acceptance. Korean Public Administration Review. 48(4): 51-78.
  15. Kim, W. S. (2011). An Analysis of Factors Influencing Trust in Government : A Test of Cultural and Institutional Performance Approach, Social Science Research Review, 27(2): 141-161.
  16. Kim, Y. J. (2017). The Effects of Trust In Government, Disaster Experience, and Social Capital on Disaster Risk Perception : Focusing on Disaster Victims in Local Areas. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Yonsei University.
  17. Knight, A. J. and Warland, R. (2005). Determinants of Food Safety Risks: A Multi-disciplinary Approach. Rural Sociology. 70(2): 253-275. https://doi.org/10.1526/0036011054776389
  18. Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., and Slovic, P. (1990). Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada. Risk analysis. 10(4): 469-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00533.x
  19. Lee, D. K. and Min, Y. K. (2016). An Exploratory Study on Salience of Policy Failure in Large-Scale Disaster : Focused on Analysis on the News of Natural Social Disaster. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies 19(4): 119-142.
  20. Lee, S. Y. (2015). Psychological Approaches and Suggestions about the Risks of Korea : Focusing on the Sewolho Ferry Disaster. The Korean Journal of Psychology: General. 34(3): 709-739. https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2015.09.34.3.709
  21. Lerner, J. S. and Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-specific Influences on Judgment and Choice. Cognition and Emotion. 14 (4): 473-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763
  22. Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P. D., and King, D. C. (1997). Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  23. O'Toole, M. (2002). The Relationship between Employees' Perception of Safety and Organizational Culture. Journal of Safety Research. 33: 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00014-2
  24. Park, H. B. and Lee, H. C. (2007). A Study on the Effects of Family Social Capital to Interpersonal, Civil Society, and Government Trust. Korean Public Administration Quarterly. 19(4): 1171-1198.
  25. Park, J. H. (2008). Government Trust and Policy Support: The Case of National Electronic ID Policy, Korean Journal of Public Administration. 46(1): 93-122.
  26. Park, S.A (2006). The Relationship between Understanding of Government and Trust in Government. Korean Public Administration Review, 40(21): 73-97.
  27. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
  28. Renn, O. (2008). White paper on risk governance: Toward an integrative framework. In Global Risk Governance (pp. 3-73). Dordrecht: Springer.
  29. Scolobig, A., De Marchi, B., and Borga, M. (2012). The Missing Link between Flood Risk Awareness and Preparedness: Findings from Case Studies in an Alpine Region. Natural Hazards. 63(2): 499-520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0161-1
  30. Siegrist, M. and Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Analysis. 20(5): 713-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
  31. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis. 13(6): 675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
  32. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Liechtenstein, S. (1986) The Psychometric Study of Risk Perceptions. In V. Covello, J. Menkes and J.Mumpower (Eds.) Risk evaluation and Management. New York. London: Plenum Press. pp. 3-24.
  33. Son, H. J. and Chai, W. H. (2005). The Analyzing of Factors Influencing Trust in Government. Korean Public Administration Review. 39(3): 87-113.
  34. Statistics KOREA Government Official Work Conference. http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1614 (Accessed 2019. 10. 28.).
  35. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 185(4157): 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  36. Weyman, A. K., and Kelly, C. J. (1999). Risk Perception and Risk Communication: A Review of Literature. Sheield. England: HSE Books.
  37. Yang, G. M. (2007). Empirical Study of Analyzing the Impact of the Authoritarian Power and the Participation in Policy-making Process to the Trust in Government : Doctors's and Pharmacists's Trust in the Ministry of Health & Welfare in Korea. Doctoral Dissertation. Graduate School of Ewha Womans University.

피인용 문헌

  1. Ethical consciousness and decision-making of dental hygiene students for COVID-19 vol.21, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.20210035