IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i2p296-d130927.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Roles of Three Types of Knowledge and Perceived Uncertainty in Explaining Risk Perception, Acceptability, and Self-Protective Response—A Case Study on Endocrine Disrupting Surfactants

Author

Listed:
  • Hien Ho

    (Graduate School of Engineering, Kochi University of Technology, Tosayamada, Kami City, Kochi 782-8502, Japan)

  • Tsunemi Watanabe

    (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology, 2-22 Eikokuji, Kochi City, Kochi 780-8515, Japan)

Abstract

The ubiquitous surfactants nonylphenol (NP) and its ethoxylates (NPEOs), which are known as endocrine disrupters, have appeared in the lists of restricted chemical substances, monitoring programs, and environmental quality standards of many countries due to their adverse effects. Recent studies have reported alarming levels of NP, as the final metabolite of NPEOs, in Vietnamese urban waters, whilst response to this issue is negligible. With the aim of addressing how the public perceives and expects to avoid the risk of endocrine disrupting surfactants (EDSs), the study tested the hypothesized roles of specific knowledge, general knowledge, and perceived uncertainty using structural equation modelling. The findings revealed that different types of knowledge played certain roles in explaining risk perception, risk acceptability, and self-protective response, which are distinguished by experience amongst the public. Evidence of the mediating role that perceived uncertainty may play in the decrease of risk perception and the increase of risk unacceptance has been provided. The insights gained from the study may help answer why the public are in favor of taking non-diet-related self-protective measures rather than changing their dietary habits, which illustrates a comparison with the basis of health belief model. The needs for building cognitive capacity amongst the public, particularly pregnant women and young mothers, and risk communication concerning endocrine disrupting contamination linked to reproductive health are highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Hien Ho & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2018. "The Roles of Three Types of Knowledge and Perceived Uncertainty in Explaining Risk Perception, Acceptability, and Self-Protective Response—A Case Study on Endocrine Disrupting Surfactants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:296-:d:130927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/296/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/296/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judith I. M. De Groot & Linda Steg, 2010. "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1363-1373, September.
    2. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    3. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    4. Botzen, W.J.W. & Aerts, J.C.J.H. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2009. "Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2265-2277, June.
    5. Laura Maxim & Pascale Mansier & Natalia Grabar, 2013. "Public reception of scientific uncertainty in the endocrine disrupter controversy: the case of male fertility," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 677-695, June.
    6. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    9. Vyner, Henry M., 1988. "The psychological dimensions of health care for patients exposed to radiation and the other invisible environmental contaminants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(10), pages 1097-1103, January.
    10. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    11. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 971-979, August.
    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. Juan Pedro Arrebola & Araceli Muñoz & Silvia Ferrero & Cristina Larrea-Killinger, 2020. "Perceptions and Attitudes of Gynecologic and Pediatric Professionals Regarding Dietary Exposure to Chemical Pollutants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Melissa Kelly & Lisa Connolly & Moira Dean, 2020. "Public Awareness and Risk Perceptions of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-17, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Binh, Phung Thanh & Zhu, Xueqin & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2020. "Risk communication, women’s participation and flood mitigation in Vietnam: An experimental study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Dingde Xu & Chen Qing & Xin Deng & Zhuolin Yong & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2020. "Disaster Risk Perception, Sense of Pace, Evacuation Willingness, and Relocation Willingness of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    11. Yilin Zou & Alexia Stock & Rachel Davidson & Linda Nozick & Joseph Trainor & Jamie Kruse, 2020. "Perceived attributes of hurricane-related retrofits and their effect on household adoption," 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. 104(1), pages 201-224, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Dingde Xu & Linmei Zhuang & Xin Deng & Cheng Qing & Zhuolin Yong, 2020. "Media Exposure, Disaster Experience, and Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, May.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Dingde Xu & Yi Liu & Xin Deng & Chen Qing & Linmei Zhuang & Zhuolin Yong & Kai Huang, 2019. "Earthquake Disaster Risk Perception Process Model for Rural Households: A Pilot Study from Southwestern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.

    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:15:y:2018:i:2:p:296-:d:130927. 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.