IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i21p7778-d434008.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Awareness and Risk Perceptions of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Melissa Kelly

    (Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, BT9 5DL Belfast, Northern Ireland)

  • Lisa Connolly

    (Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, BT9 5DL Belfast, Northern Ireland)

  • Moira Dean

    (Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, BT9 5DL Belfast, Northern Ireland)

Abstract

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous chemicals found in food, consumer products, and the environment. EDCs are ubiquitous in modern life and exposure is associated with many negative health effects, such as reproductive disorders, metabolic disorders, and cancer. Scientists have deemed EDCs as a serious public health risk, yet the public’s perceptions of these chemicals is poorly understood. This study aimed to qualitatively explore how aware the public is of EDCs and their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of EDC risk. Thirty-four participants (aged 19–65 years) took part in the six focus groups. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and Nvivo 11 was used for thematic analysis. Our results indicated that awareness of EDCs was low. Themes of EDC risk perception included perceived control, perceived severity, and similarity heuristics. Risk alleviation strategies were also discussed. Future research should use quantitative methodology and a larger sample size to validate the findings from this study. Findings from this study may aid the development of effective risk communication strategies and public health interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7778-:d:434008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7778/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7778/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steeve Rouillon & Houria El Ouazzani & Sylvie Rabouan & Virginie Migeot & Marion Albouy-Llaty, 2018. "Determinants of Risk Perception Related to Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors during Pregnancy: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study on French Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Steeve Rouillon & Chloé Deshayes-Morgand & Line Enjalbert & Sylvie Rabouan & Jean-Benoit Hardouin & Group DisProSE & Virginie Migeot & Marion Albouy-Llaty, 2017. "Endocrine Disruptors and Pregnancy: Knowledge, Attitudes and Prevention Behaviors of French Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
    5. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sigurdsson, Valdimar & Folwarczny, Michał & Larsen, Nils Magne & Menon, R.G. Vishnu & Sigurdardottir, Freyja Thoroddsen & Perkovic, Sonja, 2024. "Utilizing consumer-based label equity to signal consumer products free from endocrine-disrupting chemicals," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    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. Steeve Rouillon & Houria El Ouazzani & Jean-Benoit Hardouin & Line Enjalbert & Sylvie Rabouan & Virginie Migeot & Marion Albouy-Llaty, 2020. "How to Educate Pregnant Women about Endocrine Disruptors?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Houria El Ouazzani & Simon Fortin & Nicolas Venisse & Antoine Dupuis & Steeve Rouillon & Guillaume Cambien & Anne-Sophie Gourgues & Pascale Pierre-Eugène & Sylvie Rabouan & Virginie Migeot & Marion Al, 2021. "Perinatal Environmental Health Education Intervention to Reduce Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors: The PREVED Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-28, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Delin Liu & Xiaole Chang & Siyu Wu & Yongling Zhang & Nana Kong & Xiaobing Zhang, 2024. "Influencing Factors of Urban Public Flood Emergency Evacuation Decision Behavior Based on Protection Motivation Theory: An Example from Jiaozuo City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Hashida, Yukiko & Dundas, Steven J., 2023. "The effects of a voluntary property buyout and acquisition program on coastal housing markets: Evidence from New York," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Masahiro Shoji & Yoko Takafuji & Tetsuya Harada, 2020. "Formal education and disaster response of children: evidence from coastal villages in Indonesia," 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. 103(2), pages 2183-2205, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Zahra Asgarizadeh & Robert Gifford, 2022. "Community and psychological barriers to tsunami preparation," 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. 112(2), pages 1321-1336, June.
    12. Dingde Xu & Zhuolin Yong & Xin Deng & Yi Liu & Kai Huang & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2019. "Financial Preparation, Disaster Experience, and Disaster Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence From the Wenchuan and Lushan Earthquakes in China’s Sichuan Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Jing Yan & Jing Ji & Lan Gao, 2022. "From Health Campaign to Interpersonal Communication: Does Traditional Diet Culture Hinder the Communication of the Chinese Gongkuai Campaign?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Jia He & Linmei Zhuang & Xin Deng & Dingde Xu, 2023. "Peer effects in disaster preparedness: whether opinion leaders make a difference," 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(1), pages 187-213, January.
    16. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," 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(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    19. Khalid Oubennaceur & Karem Chokmani & Florence Lessard & Yves Gauthier & Catherine Baltazar & Jean-Patrick Toussaint, 2022. "Understanding Flood Risk Perception: A Case Study from Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-24, March.
    20. Ti-Ching Peng, 2021. "The effect of hazard shock and disclosure information on property and land prices: a machine-learning assessment in the case of Japan," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 41(1), pages 1-32, 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:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7778-:d:434008. 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.