A Study on the Environmental Professionals′ Risk Perception towards Some Pollution Issues

일부 환경 전문가들의 환경 위해성 인식도에 관한 연구

  • 신동천 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 박종연 (연세대학교 보건대학원) ;
  • 임영욱 (서남대학교 환경보건학과) ;
  • 김진용 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 장은아 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 박성은 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소)
  • Published : 1999.12.01

Abstract

To investigate the risk perception of environmental issues, two consequtive surveys were conducted to environmental professionals using a standardized questionnaire from September to October in 1999. The number of subjects were 72 for the first survey and 68 for the second one. The questionnaire was consisted of items such as the degree of environmental pollution in Korea, risk perception of some issues on human health and ecosystem, and seriousness of the problems in the real situation in Korea. For the degree of environmental pollution in Korea, the average risk rating in the second test (7.4 point) was significantly higher than that in the first test (7.2 point). The risk perception on the general human health and ecosystem, and the seriousness in Korea situation were analyzed in the order of ′air pollution′, ′water pollution′,′soil contamination′,′waste′,′toxic chemical pollutants′,′food contamination′,′ocean contamination′, ′odor pollution′, and ′noise pollution′. Also ′toxic chemical pollutants′ problem was perceived to be the highest risk on general human health or ecosystem, and on present situation in Korea. ′Automotive vehicle exhaust′ problem was perceived to be the most severe environmental problems among specific 30 items. ′Industrial source air pollution′,′toxic air pollutants′, and ′domestic and industrial source pollutants to surface water′ were relatively severe environmental problems comparing to other problems. The pollution issues were classified into four categories by two aspects of perception; risk in general setting and seriousness in Korea situation. If the issues were highly serious in Korea and low risk perception in general setting then it is named "the Korea-specific group". Those that were all high score in two aspects, named "the Common group". Those that were all low in two aspects, named "the Nonsignificant group". And the issues were high risk perception in general setting and low seriousness in Korean situation, named "the Latent group".

Keywords