IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i2p21582440211015712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Environmental News and the Under the Dome Documentary Influence Air-Pollution Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Beijing Residents?

Author

Listed:
  • Yixin Chen
  • Xinchuan Liu

Abstract

To examine Beijing residents’ risk perception of contracting smog-related diseases, we proposed a model in which air-pollution knowledge is a theoretical mechanism accounting for the influence on risk perception of exposure to environmental news and exposure to Under the Dome , an environmental documentary about smog in China, which has been censored. Data ( N = 523) were collected from Beijing residents from February to March in 2017. We analyzed the data using Hayes’ PROCESS macro. Findings revealed that environmental-news exposure is positively associated with both air-pollution knowledge and risk perception. Exposure to environmental news has an indirect effect on risk perception through air-pollution knowledge. Exposure to Under the Dome is positively related to risk perception but is not related to air-pollution knowledge. We contributed to the literature by empirically testing the impact of Under the Dome , which has been largely studied via the critical theory approach. Implications included that Under the Dome is a successful risk communication model and that its impact goes beyond increasing public risk perception of smog.

Suggested Citation

  • Yixin Chen & Xinchuan Liu, 2021. "How Do Environmental News and the Under the Dome Documentary Influence Air-Pollution Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Beijing Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:21582440211015712
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211015712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211015712
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211015712?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2016. "Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(8), pages 759-762, August.
    2. Melissa L. Finucane & Joan L. Holup, 2006. "Risk as Value: Combining Affect and Analysis in Risk Judgments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-164, March.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Vian Bakir, 2010. "Media and risk: old and new research directions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 5-18, January.
    6. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    7. Jialing Huang & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Beyond under the dome: an environmental documentary amplified public risk perception about air pollution in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 227-241, 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. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    2. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    3. Christel W. van Eck & Bob C. Mulder & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    5. Mortoja, Md. Golam & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2022. "Understanding political bias in climate change belief: A public perception study from South East Queensland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    6. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    7. Charles A. Ogunbode & Rouven Doran & Gisela Böhm, 2020. "Exposure to the IPCC special report on 1.5 °C global warming is linked to perceived threat and increased concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 361-375, February.
    8. Natalia Korcz & Jacek Koba & Agata Kobyłka & Emilia Janeczko & Joanna Gmitrowicz-Iwan, 2021. "Climate Change and Informal Education in the Opinion of Forest Users in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    9. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2015. "Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2183-2201, December.
    10. Zachary A. Wendling & Shahzeen Z. Attari & Sanya R. Carley & Rachel M. Krause & David C. Warren & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2013. "On the Importance of Strengthening Moderate Beliefs in Climate Science to Foster Support for Immediate Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    12. Takashi Kusumi & Rumi Hirayama & Yoshihisa Kashima, 2017. "Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2305-2320, December.
    13. Rachel Dryden & M. Granger Morgan & Ann Bostrom & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2018. "Public Perceptions of How Long Air Pollution and Carbon Dioxide Remain in the Atmosphere," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 525-534, March.
    14. Adrian Brügger & Moritz Gubler & Katharine Steentjes & Stuart B. Capstick, 2020. "Social Identity and Risk Perception Explain Participation in the Swiss Youth Climate Strikes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Pistón, Nuria & Silva Filho, Dario S.E. & Dias, André T.C., 2022. "Social inequality deeply affects people’s perception of ecosystem services and disservices provided by street trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    16. Shah Md Atiqul Haq & Khandaker Jafor Ahmed, 2020. "Perceptions about climate change among university students in Bangladesh," 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. 103(3), pages 3683-3713, September.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Jagadish Thaker & Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2020. "Global Warming Risk Perceptions in India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2481-2497, December.
    20. Julie C. Libarkin & Anne U. Gold & Sara E. Harris & Karen S. McNeal & Ryan P. Bowles, 2018. "A new, valid measure of climate change understanding: associations with risk perception," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 403-416, October.

    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:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:21582440211015712. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.