IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i13p7709-d846042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens’ Communication Needs and Attitudes to Risk in a Nuclear Accident Scenario: A Mixed Methods Study

Author

Listed:
  • Joel Rasmussen

    (Crisis Communication Centre, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Mats Eriksson

    (Crisis Communication Centre, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Johan Martinsson

    (Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, 205 02 Malmö, Sweden)

Abstract

The potential devastation that a nuclear accident can cause to public health and the surrounding environment demands robust emergency preparedness. This includes gaining a greater knowledge of citizens’ needs in situations involving radiation risk. The present study examines citizens’ attitudes to a remediation scenario and their information and communication needs, using focus group data (n = 39) and survey data (n = 2291) from Sweden. The focus groups uniquely showed that adults of all ages express health concerns regarding young children, and many also do so regarding domestic animals. Said protective sentiments stem from a worry that even low-dose radiation is a transboundary, lingering health risk. It leads to doubts about living in a decontaminated area, and high demands on fast, continuous communication that in key phases of decontamination affords dialogue. Additionally, the survey results show that less favorable attitudes to the remediation scenario—worry over risk, doubt about decontamination effectiveness, and preferences to move away from a remediation area—are associated with the need for in-person meetings and dialogue. Risk managers should thus prepare for the need for both in-person meetings and frequent information provision tasks, but also that in-person, citizen meetings are likely to feature an over-representation of critical voices, forming very challenging communication tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Joel Rasmussen & Mats Eriksson & Johan Martinsson, 2022. "Citizens’ Communication Needs and Attitudes to Risk in a Nuclear Accident Scenario: A Mixed Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:7709-:d:846042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/7709/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/7709/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    2. Joel Rasmussen & Petter B. Wikström, 2022. "Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Shingo Nagamatsu & Adam Rose & Jonathan Eyer, 2020. "Return Migration and Decontamination After the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 800-817, April.
    4. Anna Olofsson & Saman Rashid, 2011. "The White (Male) Effect and Risk Perception: Can Equality Make a Difference?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 1016-1032, June.
    5. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, March.
    6. Yoshitake Takebayashi & Yuliya Lyamzina & Yuriko Suzuki & Michio Murakami, 2017. "Risk Perception and Anxiety Regarding Radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Systematic Qualitative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.
    8. Yuriko Suzuki & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Seiji Yasumura & Michio Murakami & Mayumi Harigane & Hirooki Yabe & Tetsuya Ohira & Akira Ohtsuru & Satomi Nakajima & Masaharu Maeda, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of the Health Effects of Radiation and Mental Health Status: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.
    9. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    10. Dubois, Anna & Gadde, Lars-Erik, 2002. "Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 553-560, 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. Joel Rasmussen & Jens Ewald, 2022. "The Relation Between Socioeconomic Status and Risk Attitudes: A Nuclear Accident Scenario in Sweden," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 541-555, November.

    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. Joel Rasmussen & Petter B. Wikström, 2022. "Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Joel Rasmussen & Jens Ewald, 2022. "The Relation Between Socioeconomic Status and Risk Attitudes: A Nuclear Accident Scenario in Sweden," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 541-555, November.
    3. Masatsugu Orui & Maiko Fukasawa & Naoko Horikoshi & Yuriko Suzuki & Norito Kawakami, 2020. "Development and Evaluation of a Gatekeeper Training Program Regarding Anxiety about Radiation Health Effects Following a Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Single-Arm Intervention Pilot Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    8. Yibin Ao & Hongying Zhang & Linchuan Yang & Yan Wang & Igor Martek & Gang Wang, 2021. "Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents," 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. 107(2), pages 1287-1310, June.
    9. Ihnji Jon & Michael K. Lindell & Carla S. Prater & Shih-Kai Huang & Hao-Che Wu & David M. Johnston & Julia S. Becker & Hideyuki Shiroshita & Emma E.H. Doyle & Sally H. Potter & John McClure & Emily La, 2016. "Behavioral Response in the Immediate Aftermath of Shaking: Earthquakes in Christchurch and Wellington, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    10. Masatsugu Orui & Satomi Nakajima & Yui Takebayashi & Akiko Ito & Maho Momoi & Masaharu Maeda & Seiji Yasumura & Hitoshi Ohto, 2018. "Mental Health Recovery of Evacuees and Residents from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident after Seven Years—Contribution of Social Network and a Desirable Lifestyle," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Shuhei Nomura & Michio Murakami, 2018. "Public Health Preparedness for and Response to Nuclear Disasters: An Editorial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-4, November.
    12. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    13. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    14. Pascal Dey & Chris Steyaert, 2016. "Rethinking the Space of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship: Power, Subjectivity, and Practices of Freedom," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 627-641, February.
    15. Saarijärvi, Hannu & Mitronen, Lasse & Yrjölä, Mika, 2014. "From selling to supporting – Leveraging mobile services in the context of food retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 26-36.
    16. Annabelle Workman & Penelope J. Jones & Amanda J. Wheeler & Sharon L. Campbell & Grant J. Williamson & Chris Lucani & David M.J.S. Bowman & Nick Cooling & Fay H. Johnston, 2021. "Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Zhang, Hongjuan & Young, Michael N. & Tan, Justin & Sun, Weizheng, 2018. "How Chinese companies deal with a legitimacy imbalance when acquiring firms from developed economies," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 752-767.
    18. Anna Adamik & Michał Nowicki, 2019. "Pathologies and Paradoxes of Co-Creation: A Contribution to the Discussion about Corporate Social Responsibility in Building a Competitive Advantage in the Age of Industry 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-38, September.
    19. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    20. Caroline Ardelet & Nathalie Veg-Sala & Alain Goudey & Marie Haikel-Elsabeh, 2017. "Between fear and desire for smart products: toward an understanding of consumers ambivalence [Entre crainte et désir pour les objets connectés : comprendre l'ambivalence des consommateurs]," Post-Print hal-01570286, HAL.

    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:19:y:2022:i:13:p:7709-:d:846042. 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.