IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8600-d614509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Cortés

    (Departamento de Salud Pública, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile
    Advanced Center for Chronic Diseases (ACCDiS), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile
    Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable (CEDEUS), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile)

  • Soledad Burgos

    (School of Public Health, University of Chile, Santiago, 7500011, Chile)

  • Héctor Adaros

    (Hospital Jerónimo Méndez Arancibia, Chañaral 1490000, Chile)

  • Boris Lucero

    (The Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neurosciences Research Center (CINPSI Neurocog), Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca 3466076, Chile)

  • Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Environmental risk assessments and interventions to mitigate environmental risks are essential to protect public health. While the objective measurement of environmental hazards is important, it is also critical to address the subjective perception of health risks. A population’s perception of environmental health hazards is a powerful driving force for action and engagement in safety and health behaviors and can also inform the development of effective and more sustainable environmental health policies. To date, no instruments are available to assess risk perception of environmental health hazards in South America even though there are many concerning issues in the region, including mining. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to adapt and validate an environmental health risk perception questionnaire in a Chilean population affected by mining activity among other risks frequently reported in Latin American countries and included the collection of information on trust on public information sources. METHODS: We adapted an Australian risk perception questionnaire for validation in an adult population from a Chilean mining community. This adaptation included two blinded translations (direct, inverse), a pre-test study (n = 20) and a review by environmental health experts. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) was used to identify factors within major domains of interest. The Bartlett test of sphericity, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and the Cronbach α test were used to assess the instrument’s validity and reliability. The instrument was pilot tested in 205 adults from a mining community in Chañaral. RESULTS: The final adapted questionnaire proved to be a good instrument to measure risk perception in a community chronically exposed to mining waste. For community risks, four factors explained 59.4% of the variance. “Global Issues” (30.2%) included air pollution, contamination of mining, ozone layer depletion and vector diseases. For personal risks, the first two components explained 59.5% of the variance, the main factor (36.7%) was “unhealthy behaviors within the household”. For trust in information, the first factor (36.2%) included as main sources “Media and authorities”. The Cronbach α ranged between 0.68 and 0.75; and the KMO test between 0.7 to 0.79 for community and personal risks and trust. CONCLUSIONS: The final questionnaire is a simple, reliable and useful instrument that can assist in evaluating environmental health risk perceptions in Latin American countries.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8600-:d:614509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8600/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8600/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    2. Rodolfo Sapiains & Ana María Ugarte & Paulina Aldunce & Germant Marchant & Javier Alberto Romero & Mauro E. González & Valentina Inostroza-Lazo, 2020. "Local Perceptions of Fires Risk and Policy Implications in the Hills of Valparaíso, Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    5. Sandra Cortés & Liliana Zúñiga-Venegas & Floria Pancetti & Alejandra Covarrubias & Muriel Ramírez-Santana & Héctor Adaros & Luis Muñoz, 2021. "A Positive Relationship between Exposure to Heavy Metals and Development of Chronic Diseases: A Case Study from Chile," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-11, February.
    6. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Piyapong Janmaimool & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2014. "Evaluating Determinants of Environmental Risk Perception for Risk Management in Contaminated Sites," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Nicolás C. Bronfman, 2015. "Factors Influencing Compensation Demanded for Environmental Impacts Generated by Different Economic Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, July.
    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. Konkor, Irenius & Kuuire, Vincent & Bisung, Elijah, 2023. "Understanding perceptions of neighborhood health and non-communicable disease risk in urban contexts in Ghana," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    2. Kamel Mouloudj & Anuli Njoku & Dachel Martínez Asanza & Ahmed Chemseddine Bouarar & Marian A. Evans & Smail Mouloudj & Achouak Bouarar, 2023. "Modeling Predictors of Medication Waste Reduction Intention in Algeria: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(16), pages 1-18, August.

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    5. Seol-A Kwon & Hyun-Jung Yoo & Eugene Song, 2020. "Korean Consumers’ Recognition of Risks Depending on the Provision of Safety Information for Chemical Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Eline Moens & Louis Lippens & Philippe Sterkens & Johannes Weytjens & Stijn Baert, 2022. "The COVID-19 crisis and telework: a research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(4), pages 729-753, June.
    9. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    10. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2022. "Baromètre de la confiance des consommateurs québécois à l’égard des aliments -1 re édition," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-39, CIRANO.
    11. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Shi-jie Jiang & Feiyun Xiang & Iris Yang, 2023. "Effect of Prevention Focus on the Relationships Among Driving Accident History, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Automobile Insurance Coverage Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    14. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. Stylos, Nikolaos & Vassiliadis, Chris A. & Bellou, Victoria & Andronikidis, Andreas, 2016. "Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 40-60.
    16. Elke Cabooter & Bert Weijters & Alain Beuckelaer & Eldad Davidov, 2017. "Is extreme response style domain specific? Findings from two studies in four countries," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2605-2622, November.
    17. Yingyu Zhang & Hui Luan & Wei Shao & Yingjun Xu, 2016. "Managerial risk preference and its influencing factors: analysis of large state-owned enterprises management personnel in China," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 135-158, August.
    18. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    19. Peter de Jesús & Pablo Olivos-Jara & Oscar Navarro, 2022. "Place Identity and Traumatic Experiences in the Context of Wildfires," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.

    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:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8600-:d:614509. 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.