IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v83y2002i1p379-394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Pesticide Use Socially Acceptable? A Comparison between Urban and Rural Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Dawn M. Coppin
  • Brian W. Eisenhauer
  • Richard S. Krannich

Abstract

Objective. This study examines key factors that are identified as theoretically probable influences on levels of public acceptance of pesticide use. Research questions were generated about the relationship between levels of acceptability of pesticide use and measures of trust in information about pesticides from various sources, perceptions of the safety of pesticides, concerns about exposure, personal experiences with pesticides, place of residence (urban/rural), and several other demographic variables. Methods. These factors were examined using data gathered in a random‐sample, self‐completion survey of residents in urban and rural areas in a northern Utah county. Results. Bivariate analysis indicates significant differences between urban and rural respondents that disappear when examined in multivariate analyses. The perception of the safety of pesticides is the variable most strongly associated with levels of acceptability of pesticide use. Conclusions. Personal experience with pesticides is more important than residency in predicting acceptability levels. Trust is a significant predictor for perceptions of safety, but not for acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Dawn M. Coppin & Brian W. Eisenhauer & Richard S. Krannich, 2002. "Is Pesticide Use Socially Acceptable? A Comparison between Urban and Rural Settings," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 379-394, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:1:p:379-394
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.00090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00090
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.00090?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rachel A. Hirsch & Jamie Baxter, 2011. "Context, Cultural Bias, and Health Risk Perception: The “Everyday” Nature of Pesticide Policy Preferences in London, Calgary, and Halifax," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 847-865, May.
    2. Rachel Hirsch & Jamie Baxter, 2009. "The Look of the Lawn: Pesticide Policy Preference and Health-Risk Perception in Context," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(3), pages 468-490, June.

    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:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:1:p:379-394. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.