IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p1532-d494438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Chemical Exposure: European Citizens’ Perspectives, Trust, and Concerns on Human Biomonitoring Initiatives, Information Needs, and Scientific Results

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Uhl

    (Environment Agency Austria, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

  • Ricardo R. Santos

    (Environmental Health Behaviour Lab, Instituto de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Joana Costa

    (Environmental Health Behaviour Lab, Instituto de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Osvaldo Santos

    (Environmental Health Behaviour Lab, Instituto de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal
    Unbreakable Idea Research, 2550-426 Painho, Portugal)

  • Ana Virgolino

    (Environmental Health Behaviour Lab, Instituto de Saúde Ambiental, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • David S. Evans

    (Health Service Executive, Department of Public Health, Merlin Park Regional Hospital, H91N973 Galway, Ireland)

  • Cora Murray

    (Health Service Executive, Environmental Health Service, H91EW40 Galway, Ireland)

  • Maurice Mulcahy

    (Health Service Executive, Environmental Health Service, H91EW40 Galway, Ireland)

  • Dorothy Ubong

    (Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK)

  • Ovnair Sepai

    (Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK)

  • Joana Lobo Vicente

    (European Environment Agency, 1050 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Michaela Leitner

    (Environment Agency Austria, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

  • Silvia Benda-Kahri

    (Environment Agency Austria, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

  • Daniela Zanini-Freitag

    (Environment Agency Austria, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Over the last few decades, citizen awareness and perception of chemical products has been a topic of interest, particularly concerning national and international policy decision makers, expert/scientific platforms, and the European Union itself. To date, few qualitative studies on human biomonitoring have analysed communication materials, made recommendations in terms of biomonitoring surveillance, or asked for feedback in terms of specific biomonitoring methods. This paper provides in-depth insight on citizens’ perceptions of knowledge of biomonitoring, impact of chemical exposure on daily life, and claims on how results of research should be used. Four semi-structured focus groups were held in Austria, Portugal, Ireland, and the United Kingdom (UK). The cross-sectional observational qualitative design of this study allows for better understanding of public concern regarding chemicals, application, and use of human biomonitoring. The main findings of this study include citizens’ clear articulation on pathways of exposure, the demand on stakeholders for transparent decision-making, and sensitivity in communication of results to the public. Validated and trustful communication is perceived as key to empowering citizens to take action. The results can be used to facilitate decision-making and policy development, and feeds into the awareness needs of similar and future projects in human biomonitoring. Furthermore, it also brings to light ideas and concepts of citizens’ in shaping collaborative knowledge between citizens’, experts, scientists, and policy makers on equal terms.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Uhl & Ricardo R. Santos & Joana Costa & Osvaldo Santos & Ana Virgolino & David S. Evans & Cora Murray & Maurice Mulcahy & Dorothy Ubong & Ovnair Sepai & Joana Lobo Vicente & Michaela Leitner & S, 2021. "Chemical Exposure: European Citizens’ Perspectives, Trust, and Concerns on Human Biomonitoring Initiatives, Information Needs, and Scientific Results," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1532-:d:494438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1532/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1532/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brender, J.D. & Maantay, J.A. & Chakraborty, J., 2011. "Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(SUPPL. 1), pages 37-52.
    2. Alesia Ferguson & Courtney Del Donno & Emmanuel Obeng-Gyasi & Kristina Mena & Tanu Kaur Altomare & Rosalía Guerrero & Maribeth Gidley & Larissa Montas & Helena M. Solo-Gabriele, 2019. "Children Exposure-Related Behavior Patterns and Risk Perception Associated with Recreational Beach Use," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Melissa Gonzales & Elanda King & Jeanette Bobelu & Donica M. Ghahate & Teresa Madrid & Sheri Lesansee & Vallabh Shah, 2018. "Perspectives on Biological Monitoring in Environmental Health Research: A Focus Group Study in a Native American Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-8, May.
    5. Dakshina G. De Silva & Rachel A. J. Pownall, 2014. "Going green: does it depend on education, gender or income?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 573-586, February.
    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. Silvia Ruggieri & Sabina Maltese & Gaspare Drago & Simona Panunzi & Fabio Cibella & Fabrizio Bianchi & Fabrizio Minichilli & Liliana Cori, 2021. "Measuring Risk Perception in Pregnant Women in Heavily Polluted Areas: A New Methodological Approach from the NEHO Birth Cohort," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Eleni G. Kleovoulou & Corina Konstantinou & Andria Constantinou & Eelco Kuijpers & Miranda Loh & Karen S. Galea & Rob Stierum & Anjoeka Pronk & Konstantinos C. Makris, 2021. "Stakeholders′ Perceptions of Environmental and Public Health Risks Associated with Hydrocarbon Activities in and around the Vasilikos Energy Center, Cyprus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Linda Matisāne & Lisbeth E. Knudsen & Joana Lobo Vicente & Maria Uhl & Andromachi Katsonouri & Annick D. van den Brand & Tamar Berman & Mirjana Dimovska & Eleni Anastasi & Anthi Thoma & Szilvia Középe, 2022. "Citizens’ Perception and Concerns on Chemical Exposures and Human Biomonitoring—Results from a Harmonized Qualitative Study in Seven European Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-25, May.

    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. Kirsten Burkhardt & Pascal Nguyen & Evelyne Poincelot, 2020. "Agents of change: Women in top management and corporate environmental performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1591-1604, July.
    2. Guo, Yating & Rosland, Anitha & Ishak, Suryati & Muhammad Senan, Mohammad Khair Afham, 2023. "Public spending and natural resources development: A way toward green economic growth in China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(PB).
    3. Zhang, Li & Wu, Jing & Liu, Hongyu, 2018. "Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 225-235.
    4. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    5. Seoyong Kim & Seol A. Kwon & Jae Eun Lee & Byeong-Cheol Ahn & Ju Ho Lee & Chen An & Keiko Kitagawa & Dohyeong Kim & Jaesun Wang, 2020. "Analyzing the Role of Resource Factors in Citizens’ Intention to Pay for and Participate in Disaster Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    7. Javier Cifuentes-Faura & Ursula Faura-Martínez & Matilde Lafuente-Lechuga, 2020. "Assessment of Sustainable Development in Secondary School Economics Students According to Gender," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Aubree Driver & Crystal Mehdizadeh & Samuel Bara-Garcia & Coline Bodenreider & Jessica Lewis & Sacoby Wilson, 2019. "Utilization of the Maryland Environmental Justice Screening Tool: A Bladensburg, Maryland Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Javed, Muzhar & Wang, Fangjun & Usman, Muhammad & Ali Gull, Ammar & Uz Zaman, Qamar, 2023. "Female CEOs and green innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. D. Liliana González-Hernández & Raúl A. Aguirre-Gamboa & Erik W. Meijles, 2023. "The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1853-1875, February.
    11. Ioannis Kostakis & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2022. "Social and economic determinants of materials recycling and circularity in Europe: an empirical investigation," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 68(2), pages 263-281, April.
    12. Alesia Ferguson & Ashok Dwivedi & Foluke Adelabu & Esther Ehindero & Mehdi Lamssali & Emmanuel Obeng-Gyasi & Kristina Mena & Helena Solo-Gabriele, 2021. "Quantified Activity Patterns for Young Children in Beach Environments Relevant for Exposure to Contaminants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Aminjonova, Gulrukhsor & Khasanova, Dilfuzakhon, 2024. "How Perceived CSR Drives Customer Value Co-Creation in E-Commerce: Examining the Moderating Effect of Gender and the Mediating Effect of Satisfaction," SocArXiv 69cdm, Center for Open Science.
    14. Yanmei Tang & Shuangzhou Chen & Zongjin Yuan, 2020. "The effects of hedonic, gain, and normative motives on sustainable consumption: Multiple mediating evidence from China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 741-750, July.
    15. Uttama Barua & Mehedi Ahmed Ansary & Ishrat Islam & Hafiz Suliman Munawar & Mohammad Mojtahedi, 2023. "Multi-Criteria Earthquake Risk Sensitivity Mapping at the Local Level for Sustainable Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning (RSLUP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-24, May.
    16. Alam, Faizan & Tao, Meng & Rastogi, Rashmi & Mendiratta, Aparna & Attri, Rekha, 2024. "Do social media influencers influence the vaccination drive? An application of source credibility theory and uses and gratification theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    17. Jerónimo, Helena Mateus & Henriques, Paulo Lopes & Lacerda, Teresa Correia de & da Silva, Filipa Pires & Vieira, Pedro Rino, 2020. "Going green and sustainable: The influence of green HR practices on the organizational rationale for sustainability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 413-421.
    18. Muhammad Bello & Awudu Abdulai, 2016. "Measuring heterogeneity, survey engagement and response quality in preferences for organic products in Nigeria," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(13), pages 1159-1171, March.
    19. Luyi Qiu & Xiaohua Chen & Timothy J. Lee, 2021. "How Can the Celebrity Endorsement Effect Help Consumer Engagement? A Case of Promoting Tourism Products through Live Streaming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2020. "The Causal Effect of Education on Climate Literacy and Pro-Environmental Behaviours: Evidence from a Nationwide Natural Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 13210, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1532-:d:494438. 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.