전문가와 비전문가의 환경 및 과학기술 위험에 대한 위해도 인식 차이
Differences of Experts and Non-experts in Perceiving Environmental and Technological Risks
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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.
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.
참고문헌 (27)
- Sokolowska, J, "Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: why are poor countries less concerned?", Risk Analysis, 15(6), pp.733~743 (1995)
- Slovic, P., "Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In Slovic P", The perception of risk, pp.32~50 (2000), Earthscan
- Park, D, "Possible health risk over table", Journal of Environmental Health Sciences, 35(3), pp.235~238
- Slovic, P, "The perception of risk" (2000), Earthscan
- Fischhoff, B., "How safe is safe enough? a psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefit", Policy Science, 9, pp.127~152 (1978)
- Slovic, P., "Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. in: Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough?" (1980), Plenum
- Slovic, P, "Perception of risk", Science, 236, pp.280~285 (1987)
- Renn, O., "Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges", Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), pp.49~71 (1998)
- Hinman, G. W., "Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States", Risk Analysis, 13, pp.449~455 (1993)
- Flynn, J., "Gender, race and environmental health risks", Risk Analysis, 14, pp.1101~1108 (1994)
- Karpowicz-Lazerg, C., "Societal risk as seen by the French public", Risk Analysis, 13, pp.253~258 (1993)
- Kleinhesselink, R., "Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), pp.11~28 (1991)
- Nyland, L. G., "Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden", Risk Research Report, 15 (1993)
- Teigen, K. H., "Societal risks as seen by the Norwegian public", Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 1, pp.111~130 (1988)
- Rohrmann, B., "Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparison", Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, pp.150~163 (1994)
- Siegrist, M., "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards", Risk Analysis, 27(1), pp.59~69 (2007)
- Savadori, L., "Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology", Risk Analysis, 24, pp.1289~1299 (2004)
- Cha, Y.-J, "Risk perception in Korea: An application of psychometric paradigm", International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 1(1), pp.42~45 (2000)
- Cha, Y.-J, "Risk perception in Korea: A comparison with Japan and the United States", Journal of Risk Research, 3(4), pp.321~332 (2000)
- Zhai, G., "Risk perception in Northeast Asia. Environ Monit Asssess Epub DOI 10.1007", s10661-008-0524-y, 2008
- Lazo, J. K., "Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk", Risk Analysis, 20(2), pp.179~193 (2000)
- Bronfma n, N. C., "Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile", Risk Analysis, 23(6), pp.1271~1285 (2003)
- Lai, J. C., "Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese", Risk Analysis, 23(4), pp.669~684 (2003)
- Rundmo, T., "Risk perception and demand for risk mitigation in transport: A comparison of lay people, politicians and experts", Journal of Risk Research, 9(6), pp.623~640 (2006)
- Hansen, J., "Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks", Appetite, 41, pp.111~112 (2003)
- Siegrist, M., "A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards", Risk Analysis, 25(1), pp.211~222 (2005)
- Barnett, J., "Risk perception and experience: Hazard personality profiles and individual differences", Risk Analysis, 21(1), pp.171~177 (2001)