IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i12p2250-d242898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Marion de Vries

    (Centre of Environmental Safety and Security, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Liesbeth Claassen

    (Centre of Environmental Safety and Security, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Marcel Mennen

    (Centre of Environmental Safety and Security, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Aura Timen

    (Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Athena Institute for Innovative and Transdisciplinary Research in Health Sciences VU University Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Margreet J. M. te Wierik

    (Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Danielle R. M. Timmermans

    (Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This paper reports on the perceptions of risk related to practicing sports on fields containing rubber granulate infill, and preferences for mitigation measures, among people with and without offspring exposed to rubber granulate. Two repeated surveys were conducted among members of the general population and parents of children aged under 18, in the middle of a dynamic public discussion about the potential health risks of exposure to rubber granulate. The first survey (N = 1033) was administered in December 2016 at a time characterized by considerable public uncertainty and contrasting opinions in the public risk debate. The second survey (N = 782) was conducted in January 2017 after the publication of a risk assessment report, which concluded that practicing sport on fields containing rubber granulate is safe. Multilevel analyses were performed to study changes in perceptions of risk and mitigation preferences in the time between the two surveys, the influence of being familiar with new information following the risk assessment report, and the differences in the perceptions of risk and mitigation preferences between groups with and without offspring exposed to rubber granulate. The results of this study show that, initially, a substantial proportion of the Dutch public perceived practicing sports on fields containing rubber granulate as a potential health threat to children. Over time, after publication of a new risk assessment study stating that practicing sports on fields containing rubber granulate is safe, perceived risk and preferences for mitigation of this risk decreased, especially among those who were familiar with the new information. Parents of children under the age of 18, in particular those with children who were exposed to rubber granulate, were more likely to perceive the risk as higher and to prefer a stricter mitigation policy. These insights may be important to inform public health communication strategies with respect to the timing and tailoring of risk messages to various groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:12:p:2250-:d:242898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/12/2250/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/12/2250/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    2. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    3. Julie Barnett & Glynis M. Breakwell, 2001. "Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 171-178, February.
    4. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    5. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    6. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    7. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    9. Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R. & Johnson, Erica H., 2010. "The effect of children on adult demands for health-risk reductions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 364-376, May.
    10. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    11. Susan Miles & Lynn J. Frewer, 2003. "Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 267-283, July.
    12. Guido Signorino, 2012. "Proximity and risk perception. Comparing risk perception 'profiles' in two petrochemical areas of Sicily (Augusta and Milazzo)," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(10), pages 1223-1243, November.
    13. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    14. Melissa Zaksek & Joseph L. Arvai, 2004. "Toward Improved Communication about Wildland Fire: Mental Models Research to Identify Information Needs for Natural Resource Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1503-1514, December.
    15. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Torbjorn Malmfors, 1999. "“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 649-659, August.
    16. Leonie Huddy & Stanley Feldman & Charles Taber & Gallya Lahav, 2005. "Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 593-608, July.
    17. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    18. Ortwin Renn, 2004. "Perception of Risks," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 29(1), pages 102-114, January.
    19. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    20. Liesbeth Claassen & Ann Bostrom & Danielle R.M. Timmermans, 2016. "Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 246-269, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    2. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    3. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    4. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.
    5. Ewa Lechowska, 2018. "What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1341-1366, December.
    6. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    8. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    10. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    11. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    12. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    13. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    15. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    16. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    17. James R. Meldrum & Patricia A. Champ & Hannah Brenkert‐Smith & Travis Warziniack & Christopher M. Barth & Lilia C. Falk, 2015. "Understanding Gaps Between the Risk Perceptions of Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) Residents and Wildfire Professionals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1746-1761, September.
    18. Liliana Cori & Gabriele Donzelli & Francesca Gorini & Fabrizio Bianchi & Olivia Curzio, 2020. "Risk Perception of Air Pollution: A Systematic Review Focused on Particulate Matter Exposure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-27, September.
    19. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Sharon Garyn-Tal & Shosh Shahrabani, 2020. "Relations between type of army service, incidental emotions and risk perceptions," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 61-76, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:12:p:2250-:d:242898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.