IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i11p1800-1812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Wouter Poortinga
  • Karin Bronstering
  • Simon Lannon

Abstract

The current study aimed to evaluate the locally directed radon roll‐out program that was conducted between 2001 and 2005 in England and Wales to increase radon awareness and testing rates. A representative sample of 1,578 residents aged 16 and older were interviewed who lived in radon‐affected areas of 15 local authorities in England and Wales that were eligible for participation in the program. The study systematically sampled across participating and nonparticipating local authorities, “actionable” and “nonactionable” radon‐affected areas, and geographic regions with different campaign histories (Wales, Southwest England, and the rest of England). As a multistage sampling strategy was used, the data were analyzed from a multilevel perspective. This study found that participants living in participating local authorities had higher levels of awareness and were more likely to have tested their home for radon than participants living in nonparticipating local authorities. Similar results were found for participants living in “actionable” areas as compared to those living in “nonactionable” radon‐affected areas. The study further found that radon awareness and testing rates were the highest in Southwest England and the lowest in Wales. This study suggests that the radon roll‐out program has been effective in raising awareness and testing rates, and that ongoing domestic radon campaigns in Southwest England may have raised radon awareness and testing in these areas, showing important reinforcement effects of multiple risk communication campaigns.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1800-1812
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01613.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01613.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01613.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. Weinstein, N.D. & Klotz, M.L. & Sandman, P.M., 1988. "Optimistic biases in public perceptions of the risk from radon," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 78(7), pages 796-800.
    2. Dominic Golding & Sheldon Krimsky & Alonzo Plough, 1992. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 27-35, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2015. "The Relative Weights of Direct and Indirect Experiences in the Formation of Environmental Risk Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 318-331, February.
    4. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    5. Sofie Apers & Heidi Vandebosch & Tanja Perko & Nadja Železnik, 2023. "Co-Designing Communication: A Design Thinking Approach Applied to Radon Health Communication," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-23, March.
    6. Ewa Lechowska, 2018. "What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements," 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. 94(3), pages 1341-1366, December.
    7. Liliana Cori & Olivia Curzio & Gabriele Donzelli & Elisa Bustaffa & Fabrizio Bianchi, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-27, 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. Liliana Cori & Olivia Curzio & Gabriele Donzelli & Elisa Bustaffa & Fabrizio Bianchi, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-27, August.
    2. Zhengyan Li & David M. Konisky, 2023. "Personal attributes and (mis)perceptions of local environmental risk," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 119-152, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    5. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    6. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    7. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    8. Kathleen McColl & Marion Debin & Cecile Souty & Caroline Guerrisi & Clement Turbelin & Alessandra Falchi & Isabelle Bonmarin & Daniela Paolotti & Chinelo Obi & Jim Duggan & Yamir Moreno & Ania Wisniak, 2021. "Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    12. Gautam, Narayan Prasad & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Raut, Nirmal Kumar & Tigabu, Mulualem & Raut, Nirjala & Rashid, Muhammad Haroon U. & Ma, Xiangqing & Wu, Pengfei, 2020. "Do earthquakes change the timber and firewood use pattern of the forest dependent households? Evidence from rural hills in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Naira Hakobyan & Anna Khachatryan, 2018. "Structure of Person’s Psychological Resources in Emergency Situations," Proceedings of the 9th International RAIS Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities, April 4-5, 2018 012, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    14. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Abbas El‐Zein & Rola Nasrallah & Iman Nuwayhid & Lea Kai & Jihad Makhoul, 2006. "Why Do Neighbors Have Different Environmental Priorities? Analysis of Environmental Risk Perception in a Beirut Neighborhood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 423-435, April.
    17. John R. Becker–Blease & Jeffrey E. Sohl, 2011. "The Effect of Gender Diversity on Angel Group Investment," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(4), pages 709-733, July.
    18. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    19. Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2013. "Overconfidence, Omens And Emotions: Results From A Field Experiment," Working Papers 201303, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    20. Prati, Gabriele & Fraboni, Federico & De Angelis, Marco & Pietrantoni, Luca & Johnson, Daniel & Shires, Jeremy, 2019. "Gender differences in cycling patterns and attitudes towards cycling in a sample of European regular cyclists," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-7.

    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:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1800-1812. 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.