Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology

환경독성보건학회 (The Korean Society of Environmental Health and Toxicology)
권호 표지

공단 지역주민과 근로자의 환경위해도 인식과 인지된 편익

Environmental Risk Perception and Perceived Benefit Among Residents and Workers in Industrial Area

  • 김명현 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 임영욱 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 박종연 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 신동천 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 양지연 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 부민정 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소)
  • Kim Myounghyun (The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lim Youngwook (The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park Jongyun (The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Shin Dongchun (The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yang Jihyung (The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Boo Minjung (The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University)
  • 발행 : 2005.06.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study is to estimate differences, relationships and related factors of environmental risk perception and perceived benefit among residents and workers. A self-administered questionnaire survey using a structured instrument was carried out to residents and workers in industrial area during April, 2002. Total number of participants were 657 including 329 residents and 328 workers. Participants assessed environmental risk perception, self- assessed knowledge, trust in authorities and perceived benefit associated with 10 products manufactured in industrial area. There were difference in environmental risk perception, knowledge and trust in authorities and perceived benefit among residents and workers. Especially, trust in authorities and perceived benefit were statistically significant difference among residents and workers. Inverse relationships between environmental risk perception and perceived benefit have been observed for different products. In other words, the greater the perceived benefit, the lower the perceived risk, and vice versa. Factors mostly associated with participant's characteristics of environmental risk perception were age. marriage status (workers), education level (workers). There was statistically significant difference. Perceived benefit was statistically significant difference with sex, marriage status, residence duration, education level (workers). Related factors of environmental risk perception among residents and workers were age, trust in authorities. And factors affecting the perceived benefit were sex, age, education level (workers), and trust in authorities (workers). According to the results, people having high trust in the authorities perceived less risks than people having low in the authorities. To improve the communication of risk information, further study focus on assessment of experts, government and stakeholder in industrial area. Methodologies of this study can be used as the basis for investigating the structure of public perception of environmental products risks and benefit, designing a public information and risk communication program, and developing policy actions to improve acceptance.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 국립환경연구원. 시화.반월지역 악취원인물질 규명을 위한 정밀조사, 2001
  2. 신동천, 박종연, 임영욱, 정 용. 수질오염의 건강위해성 인식 관련 요인. 한국수질보전학회지 1996; 12(1): 89-99
  3. 장은아. 전문가와 일반인의 환경위해도 인식 차이 및 관련요인에 관한 연구. 연세대학교 보건대학원 석사학위논문, 2000
  4. Alhakami AS and Siovic P.A. psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 1994; 14: 1085-1096 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
  5. Davidson DJ and Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environmental Behavior 1996; 28: 302-339 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003
  6. Durant J, Bauer MW and Gaskell G. Biotechnology in the public sphere. London: Science Museum, 1998
  7. Earle TC and Cvetkovich GT. Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitian society. Westport, CT: Praeger. 1995
  8. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S et al. 'How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 1978; 9: 127-152 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
  9. Fleming M, Rhona F, Mearns K et al. Risk perceptions of offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms. Risk Analysis 1998; 18(1): 103-110 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00920.x
  10. Flynn J, Siovic P and Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 1994; 14: 1101-1108 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x
  11. Frewer LJ, Howard C and Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research 1998; 1: 221-235 https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377141
  12. Golding D, Krimsky S and Plough A. Evaluating risk communication: narrative vs. technical presentation about radon. Risk Analysis 1992; 12(1): 27-35 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01304.x
  13. Gregory R and Mendelsohn R. Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Analysis 1993; 13: 259-264 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01077.x
  14. O'Connor R, Fisher A et al. Rating threat mitigators: faith in experts, governments, and individuals themselves to create a safer world. Risk Analysis 1998; 18(5): 547-556 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00368.x
  15. Philp G, Richard S and Marco B. Communicating about risks to environment and health in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston. London, 1998
  16. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000a; 20(2): 195-203 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202020
  17. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G and Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 2000b; 20(3): 353-362 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034
  18. Siegrist M and Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 2000e; 20(5): 713-719 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
  19. Sjoberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 2001; 21(1): 189-198 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.211101
  20. Slovic P, Kraus N and Major M. Risk perception of prescription drugs: Report on a survey in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1991; 82: 815-820
  21. Timothy L, Mc Daniels, Lawrences J et al. Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis 1997; 17(3): 341-352 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00872.x