IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p3817-d777774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Influences Miners’ Safety Risk Perception?

Author

Listed:
  • Shu Zhang

    (School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Xinyu Hua

    (School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Ganghai Huang

    (School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Xiuzhi Shi

    (School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Dandan Li

    (School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

Abstract

The risks faced by the mining industry have always been prominent for every walk of life in China. As the direct cause of accidents, individual unsafe behaviors are closely related to their risk perception. So, it is important to explore the factors affecting miners’ risk perception and analyze the influencing mechanisms between these factors and risk perception. The questionnaire survey method was used to collect the data of risk perception from nearly 400 respondents working in metal mines in China. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to analyze and process collected data. The impact of four factors affecting miners’ risk perception was verified, namely: organizational safety atmosphere, organizational trust, knowledge level, and risk communication. Then, regression analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, and structural equation model analysis were used to examine the effect of the four influencing factors on miners’ risk perception. The four influencing factors all have a positive impact on miners’ risk perception; knowledge level has the largest explained variation of miners’ risk perception, followed by risk communication. Organizational trust and organizational safety atmosphere have an indirect and positive impact on miners’ risk perception intermediated by knowledge level and risk communication. The results offer four important aspects of mine safety management to help miners establish quick and accurate risk perception, thereby reducing unsafe behaviors and avoiding accidents.

Suggested Citation

  • Shu Zhang & Xinyu Hua & Ganghai Huang & Xiuzhi Shi & Dandan Li, 2022. "What Influences Miners’ Safety Risk Perception?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3817-:d:777774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3817/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3817/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian Chuk‐ling Lai & Julia Tao, 2003. "Perception of Environmental Hazards in Hong Kong Chinese," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 669-684, August.
    2. Myoungsoon You & Jeongsub Lim & Minsun Shim & Youngkee Ju, 2019. "Outrage effects on food risk perception as moderated by risk attitude," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(12), pages 1522-1531, December.
    3. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    4. Helle Oltedal & Emma Wadsworth, 2010. "Risk perception in the Norwegian shipping industry and identification of influencing factors," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 601-623, November.
    5. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
    6. 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. Krista M. Milich & Natalie Fisher & Gisela Sobral, 2024. "Effective public health messaging for university students: lessons learned to increase adherence to safety guidelines during a pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Qihui Xie & Yanan Xue, 2022. "The Prediction of Public Risk Perception by Internal Characteristics and External Environment: Machine Learning on Big Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Shu Zhang & Xinyu Hua & Ganghai Huang & Xiuzhi Shi, 2022. "How Does Leadership in Safety Management Affect Employees’ Safety Performance? A Case Study from Mining Enterprises in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Ahmet Tasdelen & Alper M. Özpinar, 2023. "A Dynamic Risk Analysis Model Based on Workplace Ergonomics and Demographic-Cognitive Characteristics of Workers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, March.

    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. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    6. Creed Tumlison & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural Values, Trust, and Benefit‐Risk Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Elites and the General Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, March.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    8. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    9. Sangsomboon Ploywarin & Yan Song & Dian Sun, 2018. "Research on Factors Affecting Public Risk Perception of Thai High-Speed Railway Projects Based on “Belt and Road Initiative”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    10. Shapiro, Jesse M., 2016. "Special interests and the media: Theory and an application to climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 91-108.
    11. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Leonhard K. Lades & Kate Laffan & Till O. Weber, 2020. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Working Papers 202003, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3817-:d:777774. 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.