IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v19y2016i2p246-269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach

Author

Listed:
  • Liesbeth Claassen
  • Ann Bostrom
  • Danielle R.M. Timmermans

Abstract

Central to the precautionary policy is the provision of information about electromagnetic fields (EMF) technology, exposures, potential health risks and exposure management actions to the public. To meet this need at the broadest level, beyond the specific technology foci of previous research, a research project was commissioned as part of Dutch Electromagnetic Fields and Health Research Programme. This study provides an assessment of Dutch EMF information needs from an ensemble of sources by addressing people’s existing ideas and beliefs, using a mental models approach. A summary expert model of influences on and consequences of exposure derived from search of the relevant literature is informed by interviews with 15 scientists and professionals with diverse expertise. Although the professionals characterize the physical characteristics and psychological aspects of exposure to EMF in daily life similarly, there is no consensus regarding potential health effects. Interviews with 12 lay people followed by a confirmatory survey of the general Dutch public ( n = 403) reveal not only wide variation in beliefs regarding potential health effects of EMF, but also overestimation of the amount of radiation from public sources relative to personal sources of EMF. People do not feel adequately informed by the government about EMF, and knowledge of government policies on EMF is limited. Together, the evidence suggests three focal points for improving EMF risk communications: providing more clarity regarding the uncertainty of evidence for health effects, illuminating personal EMF exposures in daily life and providing more accessible and transparent information on governmental policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Liesbeth Claassen & Ann Bostrom & Danielle R.M. Timmermans, 2016. "Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 246-269, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:2:p:246-269
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.961519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2014.961519
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2014.961519?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. Peter M. Wiedemann & Andrea T. Thalmann & Markus A. Grutsch & Holger Schütz, 2006. "The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 361-372, June.
    2. Daniel Read & M. Granger Morgan, 1998. "The Efficacy of Different Methods for Informing the Public About the Range Dependency of Magnetic Fields from High Voltage Power Lines," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 603-610, October.
    3. Harrie F.G. van Dijk & Eric van Rongen & Gilbert Eggermont & Erik Lebret & Wiebe E. Bijker & Daniëlle R.M. Timmermans, 2011. "The role of scientific advisory bodies in precaution-based risk governance illustrated with the issue of uncertain health effects of electromagnetic fields," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 451-466, April.
    4. Marie-Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Risk perception of mobile communication: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 599-620, July.
    5. Barnett, Julie & Timotijevic, Lada & Shepherd, Richard & Senior, Victoria, 2007. "Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 240-250, July.
    6. Marie-Eve Cousin & Simone Dohle & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "The impact of specific information provision on base station siting preferences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(6), pages 703-715, June.
    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. Loredana Ivan & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017. "Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    3. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.

    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. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    2. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Jonathon Pye & Rodney Croft, 2017. "The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 583-597, March.
    3. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    4. Rojalin Pradhan & Mahim Sagar & Tushar Pandey & Ishwar Prasad, 2019. "Consumer health risk awareness model of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations: An exploratory study," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 16(1), pages 125-145, March.
    5. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Rodney Croft, 2016. "Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Frederik Freudenstein & Luis M. Correia & Carla Oliveira & Daniel Sebastião & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2015. "Exposure Knowledge and Perception of Wireless Communication Technologies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    8. Zhu, Xun & Pasch, Timothy J. & Bergstrom, Aaron, 2020. "Understanding the structure of risk belief systems concerning drone delivery: A network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. Loredana Ivan & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017. "Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Jakob D. Jensen & Manusheela Pokharel & Courtney L. Scherr & Andy J. King & Natasha Brown & Christina Jones, 2017. "Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 40-51, January.
    12. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    13. Craig Trumbo & Michelle Lueck & Holly Marlatt & Lori Peek, 2011. "The Effect of Proximity to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Subsequent Hurricane Outlook and Optimistic Bias," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1907-1918, December.
    14. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    15. Piers Fleming & Ellen Townsend & Joost A. van Hilten & Alexa Spence & Eamonn Ferguson, 2012. "Expert relevance and the use of context-driven heuristic processes in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 857-873, August.
    16. Velmurugan, Manivannan Senthil, 2017. "Sustainable perspectives on energy consumption, EMRF, environment, health and accident risks associated with the use of mobile phones," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 192-206.
    17. Alex G. Stewart & Paolo Luria & John Reid & Mary Lyons & Richard Jarvis, 2010. "Real or Illusory? Case Studies on the Public Perception of Environmental Health Risks in the North West of England," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    19. Vasco Barroso Gonçalves, 2020. "Uncertain Risk Assessment and Management: Case Studies of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in Portugal," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 939-956, May.
    20. David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2017. "Average willingness to pay for disease prevention with personalized health information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 29-39, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:2:p:246-269. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.