IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i1p235-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Wouter Poortinga
  • Patrick Cox
  • Nick F. Pidgeon

Abstract

Radon and overhead powerlines are two radiation risk cases that have raised varying levels of concern among the general public and experts. Despite both involving radiation—a typically feared and unseen health hazard—individuals' perceptions of the two risk cases may invoke rather different factors. We examined individual and geographic‐contextual factors influencing public perceptions of the health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines in a comparative research design, utilizing a postal questionnaire with 1,528 members of the general public (response rate 28%) and multilevel modeling techniques. This study found that beliefs about the two risk cases mainly differed according to the level of “exposure”—defined here in terms of spatial proximity. We argue that there are two alternative explanations for this pattern of findings: that risk perception itself varies directly with proximity, or that risk is more salient to concerned people in the exposed areas. We also found that while people living in high radon areas are more concerned about the risks of indoor radon gas, they find these risks more acceptable and have more trust in authorities. These results might reflect the positive effects of successive radon campaigns in high radon areas, which may have raised awareness and concern, and at the same time may have helped to increase trust by showing that the government takes the health risks of indoor radon gas seriously, suggesting that genuine risk communication initiatives may have positive impacts on trust in risk management institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:235-248
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01015.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01015.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01015.x?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. Isaac Luginaah & John Eyles & Susan Elliott, 2004. "Informing the development of decision support tools for risk management: the case of electrical and magnetic fields," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 601-621.
    2. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk‐Communication Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 815-828, October.
    3. Valerie November, 2004. "Being close to risk. From proximity to connexity," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(3), pages 273-286.
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    5. Judith Petts, 2005. "Health, Responsibility, and Choice: Contrasting Negotiations of Air Pollution and Immunisation Information," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 791-804, May.
    6. Sarah E. Hampson & Judy A. Andrews & Michael E. Lee & Lyn S. Foster & Russell E. Glasgow & Edward Liechtenstein, 1998. "Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 343-350, June.
    7. Terre A. Satterfield & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 115-129, February.
    8. Kate Burningham & Diana Thrush, 2004. "Pollution concerns in context: a comparison of local perceptions of the risks associated with living close to a road and a chemical factory," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 213-232, March.
    9. Susanne Rippl, 2002. "Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 147-165, April.
    10. M. Granger Morgan & Paul Slovic & Indira Nair & Dan Geisler & Donald MacGregor & Baruch Fischhoff & David Lincoln & Keith Florig, 1985. "Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 139-149, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    13. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    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. Wadley, David A. & Han, Jung Hoon & Elliott, Peter G., 2019. "Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 744-753.
    2. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    3. Dolores J. Severtson & James E. Burt, 2012. "The Influence of Mapped Hazards on Risk Beliefs: A Proximity‐Based Modeling Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 259-280, February.
    4. Carmen Keller, 2011. "Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1043-1054, July.
    5. Jarry T. Porsius & Liesbeth Claassen & Fred Woudenberg & Tjabe Smid & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2017. "“These Power Lines Make Me Ill”: A Typology of Residents’ Health Responses to a New High‐Voltage Power Line," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2276-2288, December.
    6. Wouter Poortinga & Karin Bronstering & Simon Lannon, 2011. "Awareness and Perceptions of the Risks of Exposure to Indoor Radon: A Population‐Based Approach to Evaluate a Radon Awareness and Testing Campaign in England and Wales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1800-1812, November.
    7. David Wadley & Peter Elliott & Jung Hoon Han, 2017. "Modelling homeowners’ reactions to the placement of high voltage overhead transmission lines," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 114-127, April.
    8. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Minerva Catalán‐Vázquez & Astrid Schilmann & Horacio Riojas‐Rodríguez, 2010. "Perceived Health Risks of Manganese in the Molango Mining District, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 619-634, 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. 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.
    2. Myung-Soon Seo & Jae-Wook Choi & Kyung-Hee Kim & Hyung-Do Choi, 2020. "The Relationship between Risk Perception of Cell Phones and Objective Knowledge of EMF in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-10, October.
    3. Ellen Van Kleef & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Moin Khan & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 1002-1015, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Alyssa L. Joyce & Terre A. Satterfield, 2010. "Shellfish aquaculture and First Nations' sovereignty: The quest for sustainable development in contested sea space," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(2), pages 106-123, May.
    6. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Rodney Croft, 2016. "Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," 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(1), pages 889-914, January.
    8. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    11. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    12. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    17. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    18. Guanghua Han & Simin Yan, 2019. "Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public’s Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Dan Venables & Nick Pidgeon & Peter Simmons & Karen Henwood & Karen Parkhill, 2009. "Living with Nuclear Power: A Q‐Method Study of Local Community Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1089-1104, August.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:235-248. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.