IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4510-d789808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Validation of the Haze Risk Perception Scale and Influencing Factor Scale—A Study Based on College Students in Beijing

Author

Listed:
  • Yongbao Zhang

    (School of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Jianwu Chen

    (Institute of Occupational Health, Chinese Academy of Safety Science and Technology, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Xingfei Wei

    (School of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xiang Wu

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Although Beijing’s air quality has improved, there is still a long way to go for haze governance. In order to understand haze risk perception and related influencing factors among college students in Beijing, we developed and verified two scales, with college students as the survey object, and analyzed the theoretical framework and realistic level of haze risk perception and influencing factors through empirical research. We showed that the reliability and validity of the two scales are excellent, and they can be used as a powerful tool to measure college students’ perception of haze. The haze risk perception scale (HRPS) is divided into four dimensions. The degrees of perception ranked from high to low are: direct consequences perception, indirect consequences perception, risk responsibility perception and risk source perception. The haze risk perception influencing factor scale (HRPIFS) is divided into three dimensions. The degrees of influence ranked from high to low are: personal emotion, media communication and government policy; the three influencing factors all have a significant positive correlation to overall haze risk perception, but personal emotions and media communication are only significantly related to the three dimensions of direct consequence perception, indirect consequence perception and risk source perception. Government policy is only significantly related to the three dimensions of direct consequence perception, indirect consequence perception and risk liability perception. This paper proves the important role of media in haze risk perception and puts forward some policy suggestions to guide the public to form a rational risk perception. These findings can help improve theoretical and practical research related to haze risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongbao Zhang & Jianwu Chen & Xingfei Wei & Xiang Wu, 2022. "Development and Validation of the Haze Risk Perception Scale and Influencing Factor Scale—A Study Based on College Students in Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4510-:d:789808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4510/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4510/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peng Cheng & Jiuchang Wei & Yue Ge, 2017. "Who should be blamed? The attribution of responsibility for a city smog event in China," 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. 85(2), pages 669-689, January.
    2. María Jesús Fernández-Torres & Ana Almansa-Martínez & Rocío Chamizo-Sánchez, 2021. "Infodemic and Fake News in Spain during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    4. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    5. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2019. "The Influencing Factors of Haze Tolerance in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-23, January.
    6. Kathuria, Vinish, 2007. "Informal regulation of pollution in a developing country: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 403-417, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Yi Chen & Zhao Zhang & Peijun Shi & Xiao Song & Pin Wang & Xing Wei & Fulu Tao, 2017. "Public perception and responses to environmental pollution and health risks: evaluation and implication from a national survey in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 347-365, March.
    9. Qinghua Zhang & Feifei Huang & Zaoling Liu & Na Zhang & Tanmay Mahapatra & Weiming Tang & Yang Lei & Yali Dai & Songyuan Tang & Jingping Zhang, 2016. "Cross-Cultural Validation of the High Blood Pressure Health Literacy Scale in a Chinese Community," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, April.
    10. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    11. Laura N. Rickard, 2014. "Perception of Risk and the Attribution of Responsibility for Accidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 514-528, March.
    12. Xi Lu & Xiaofei Xie & Ji Xiong, 2015. "Social trust and risk perception of genetically modified food in urban areas of China: the role of salient value similarity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 199-214, February.
    13. Timothy L. McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Nigel S. Cavanagh & Paul Slovic, 1997. "Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 341-352, June.
    14. Carolyn Kousky, 2010. "Learning from Extreme Events: Risk Perceptions after the Flood," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    15. Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao & Yuanlong Li & Chunlin Wu, 2019. "Development of A Safety Climate Scale for Geological Prospecting Projects in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-13, March.
    16. Rauter, Magdalena & Kaufmann, Maria & Thaler, Thomas & Fuchs, Sven, 2020. "Flood risk management in Austria: Analysing the shift in responsibility-sharing between public and private actors from a public stakeholder's perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    4. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    5. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    6. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    7. Jia Xu & Jiuchang Wei & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2019. "Strategic responses of stigmatized Chinese manufacturing firms to formal and informal environmental regulative pressures through enhanced corporate social responsibility effort," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1235-1260, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    10. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    11. Wei Qi & Xiumei Guo & Xia Wu & Dora Marinova & Jin Fan, 2018. "Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2269-2289, September.
    12. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2020. "Does Haze Drive Pro-Environmental and Energy Conservation Behaviors? Evidence from the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Area in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1, November.
    13. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    14. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    15. Delin Liu & Mengjie Li & Yue Li & Hao Chen, 2022. "Assessment of Public Flood Risk Perception and Influencing Factors: An Example of Jiaozuo City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, August.
    16. Sebastian Seebauer & Philipp Babcicky, 2020. "The Sources of Belief in Personal Capability: Antecedents of Self‐Efficacy in Private Adaptation to Flood Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1967-1982, October.
    17. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Elisabeth Maidl & David N. Bresch & Matthias Buchecker, 2021. "Social integration matters: factors influencing natural hazard risk preparedness—a survey of Swiss households," 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. 105(2), pages 1861-1890, January.
    20. 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.

    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:8:p:4510-:d:789808. 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.