IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i2p263-d90204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception on the Risk of the Sonora River Pollution

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Ignacio Aragonés

    (Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28223 Madrid, Spain)

  • César Tapia-Fonllem

    (Departamento de Psicología y Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico)

  • Lucía Poggio

    (Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28223 Madrid, Spain)

  • Blanca Fraijo-Sing

    (Departamento de Psicología y Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico)

Abstract

This study applies the “psychometric paradigm” of risk perception to the heavy mineral spill in the Sonora River (Mexico). A total of 241 inhabitants of the polluted area with a mean age of 46.3 years participated in the study, completing an interview questionnaire at the onset of the disaster. The results allow us to establish a profile of the 18 characteristics comprising the model and a multiple regression analysis shows that some characteristics of the dimensions of dread risk and unknown risk explain a percentage of the magnitude of the perceived risk. In addition, the behaviors recommended by the authorities were classified by the participants according to their estimated usefulness. Significant differences were observed. Avoiding contact with the water was considered the most effective, followed by recommendations on the use of the water, with actions related to the environment and how to avoid pollution being considered the least effective. In sum, the strategy deployed allows us to observe how the victims perceive the disaster and organize the behaviors proposed by the authorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Ignacio Aragonés & César Tapia-Fonllem & Lucía Poggio & Blanca Fraijo-Sing, 2017. "Perception on the Risk of the Sonora River Pollution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:263-:d:90204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/2/263/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/2/263/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroko Ohtsubo & Yukiko Yamada, 2007. "Japanese Public Perceptions of Food-Related Hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 805-819, September.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    4. Julian Chuk‐ling Lai & Julia Tao, 2003. "Perception of Environmental Hazards in Hong Kong Chinese," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 669-684, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chakraborti, Lopamudra & Shimshack, Jay P., 2022. "Environmental disparities in urban Mexico: Evidence from toxic water pollution," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Sundus Alyatama & Ibrahim A. Elshaer & Mohammed Amin Almaiah, 2022. "Perception of Occupational and Environmental Risks and Hazards among Mineworkers: A Psychometric Paradigm Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Francesca Condino, 2019. "Social Perception of Geo-Hydrological Risk in the Context of Urban Disaster Risk Reduction: A Comparison between Experts and Population in an Area of Southern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, April.

    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. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    2. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    4. Markus R. Schmidt & Wei Wei, 2006. "Loss of Agro‐Biodiversity, Uncertainty, and Perceived Control: A Comparative Risk Perception Study in Austria and China," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 455-470, April.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    7. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    9. Lei Huang & Yuting Han & Ying Zhou & Heinz Gutscher & Jun Bi, 2013. "How Do the Chinese Perceive Ecological Risk in Freshwater Lakes?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, May.
    10. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    11. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    12. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    13. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    14. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    15. Julie Olivero & Pierre Batteau, 2013. "L'entreprise face aux risques environnementaux : Enquête sur la gestion de 196 établissements industriels dans cinq agglomérations littorales en France," Post-Print hal-02274469, HAL.
    16. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    17. Sandra Cortés & Soledad Burgos & Héctor Adaros & Boris Lucero & Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, 2021. "Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    18. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    19. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    20. Toledo, Arcelia & Hernández, José de la Paz & Griffin, Denis, 2010. "Incentives and the growth of Oaxacan subsistence businesses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 630-638, 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:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:263-:d:90204. 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.