IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/syspar/v35y2022i5d10.1007_s11213-022-09590-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception and Risk Communication from a Systems Perspective: a Study on Safety Behavioural Intervention Frameworks and Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Dimitrios Chionis

    (Bolton University–New York College)

  • Nektarios Karanikas

    (Queensland University of Technology)

Abstract

The constant developments in the industry influence organisational practices. The latter often require personnel to adapt their behaviours and comply with policies and rules to realise business objectives while ensuring safety. Although risk perception and risk communication are significant contributors to safe behaviours, there is a lack of a comprehensive approach to behavioural safety which encompasses those two essential aspects while accounting for interactions within systems. This research identified and assessed eleven behavioural intervention frameworks and eight intervention functions for inclusivity of risk perception and communication factors through a scoping review. The results, which were discussed against studies and practice in the aviation industry as a representative safety-critical and high-reliability sector, showed notable fluctuations of inclusivity parameters across intervention frameworks and functions. The combination of “enablement”, “education”, and “environmental restructuring” emerged as the most promising functions, and the “Recognition Primed Decision Making” framework was found as the most inclusive relatively to the rest intervention frameworks reviewed. Nonetheless, as even the functions and framework assessed as relatively more inclusive still miss several aspects of system agent interactions and risk perception and communication factors, considering all those parameters in future research is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Dimitrios Chionis & Nektarios Karanikas, 2022. "Risk Perception and Risk Communication from a Systems Perspective: a Study on Safety Behavioural Intervention Frameworks and Functions," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 711-746, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:35:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11213-022-09590-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11213-022-09590-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11213-022-09590-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11213-022-09590-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margherita Brondino & Margherita Pasini & Silvia Silva, 2013. "Development and validation of an Integrated Organizational Safety Climate Questionnaire with multilevel confirmatory factor analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2191-2223, June.
    2. John Hulland & Mark Houston, 2021. "The importance of behavioral outcomes," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 437-440, May.
    3. Sullivan-Wiley, Kira A. & Short Gianotti, Anne G., 2017. "Risk Perception in a Multi-Hazard Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 138-152.
    4. Patrick Amadasun, 2014. "Application of organisational homeostasis as an emerging paradigm for knowledge management," International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 32-49.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    6. Mary E. Thomson & Dilek Önkal & Ali Avcioğlu & Paul Goodwin, 2004. "Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1585-1595, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, María Noel, 2021. "Accounting for risk factors on health outcomes: The case of Luxembourg," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(3), pages 1180-1197.
    4. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    5. Salter, Mark B., 2007. "SeMS and sensibility: Security management systems and the management of risk in the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 389-398.
    6. Paulus, David & Meesters, Kenny & Vries, Gerdien de & Walle, Bartel Van de, 2019. "The reciprocity of data integration in disaster risk analysis," Other publications TiSEM 5e5a778f-bda8-4612-b780-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    9. Dr Jason Mwanza & Nothando Tshuma, 2023. "Mitigating Business Risk in Manufacturing SMEs: A nexus between informal and formal business risk management: A case of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(1), pages 1107-1138, January.
    10. Li, Weijun & Sun, Qiqi & Zhang, Jiwang & Zhang, Laibin, 2024. "Quantitative risk assessment of industrial hot work using Adaptive Bow Tie and Petri Nets," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    11. Don Pagach & Monika Wieczorek-Kosmala, 2020. "The Challenges and Opportunities for ERM Post-COVID-19: Agendas for Future Research," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, December.
    12. KeumJi Kim & SeongHwan Yoon, 2018. "Assessment of Building Damage Risk by Natural Disasters in South Korea Using Decision Tree Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    13. Tatiana Yu. Kudryavtseva & Angi E. Skhvediani & Maiia S. Leukhina & Alexandra O. Schneider, 2023. "A Fuzzy Model for Personnel Risk Analysis: Case of Russian-Finnish Export-Import Operations of Small and Medium Enterprises," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(3), pages 683-709.
    14. Marcin Nowak & Rafał Mierzwiak & Marcin Butlewski, 2020. "Occupational risk assessment with grey system theory," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 717-732, June.
    15. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    16. Anne Hamby & Cristel Russell, 2022. "How does ambivalence affect young consumers’ response to risky products?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 841-863, July.
    17. Simon Ashby & Trevor Buck & Stephanie Nöth-Zahn & Thomas Peisl, 2018. "Emerging IT Risks: Insights from German Banking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 180-207, April.
    18. Gianluca Pescaroli & David Alexander, 2018. "Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting, and Cascading Risks: A Holistic Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2245-2257, November.
    19. Ruikun Peng & Yinyin Zhao & Ehsan Elahi & Benhong Peng, 2021. "Does disaster shocks affect farmers’ willingness for insurance? Mediating effect of risk perception and survey data from risk-prone areas in East 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. 106(3), pages 2883-2899, April.
    20. Eling, Martin & Wirfs, Jan, 2019. "What are the actual costs of cyber risk events?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1109-1119.
    21. Blancke, Olivier & Tahan, Antoine & Komljenovic, Dragan & Amyot, Normand & Lévesque, Mélanie & Hudon, Claude, 2018. "A holistic multi-failure mode prognosis approach for complex equipment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 136-151.

    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:spr:syspar:v:35:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11213-022-09590-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.